‘ObamaCare Catch-22′: Crushing Fines for Religious Entities in Mandate
The introduction of the bill during ObamaCare repeal week was “not that coincidental,” Sensenbrenner said. When asked if the goal of the fine was to put religious employers out of business, he said, “I don’t know if the goal is, but that’s what the effect is.”
The congressman notes that he’s not Catholic, but even in his home state there are Lutheran institutions that would fall under the penalty if they chose not to provide certain services.
“Any religious institution that does any outreach whatsoever is going to fall under this tax unless they knuckle under to the Sebelius mandate,” he said.
“The wall between church and state ought to go both ways,” he added.
Sensenbrenner said he hasn’t gotten any reaction from the administration to his bill, and hopes that if it emerges from committee and clears the House it could eke out a majority in the Senate.
Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) all voted for the Blunt amendment. Retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has also talked about the value of religion in life, and could conceivably vote against the fines even if he didn’t vote against striking down the mandate.
Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said before the ObamaCare repeal vote that he wanted to get members on the record about the law; in the name of religious freedom, Sensenbrenner would like to do the same.
“If somebody votes against this bill I don’t know how they go home and campaign. That isn’t going to win very many votes,” he said. “It’s the principle of religious liberty.”
While there is solid conservative backing in Congress to end these harsh penalties against religious institutions, Sensenbrenner said a groundswell is going to be needed in the form of “very vocal support of the religious community” to get a bill such as his to Obama’s desk or otherwise force a repeal of the fines.
“They are the people who are hurt the most as the religious community, and they’re going to have to step up to the plate and say this is not fair,” Sensenbrenner said.
It’s like, he said, when Southern Baptist preacher and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, outraged over the mandate, got in front of CPAC and said, “Thanks to President Obama, we are all Catholics now.”
Sensenbrenner said his bill protects employers from “Obamacare’s Catch-22.”
“Our religious liberties are not bartering chips,” he said. “Let’s not treat them that way.”
“He added that though he hears some criticism from conservative Catholics who want to stop at nothing less than full repeal, “Well, we can’t do that now.””
Then get a new job.
Rep Senesnbrenner is in the House, which did pass the repeal act. It is the Senate, under Harry Reid that will not allow a vote on the House bill, which would only need 51 votes to pass. Also, President Obama would veto it if it got through the Senate, and there are not enough votes in the Senate to then override a veto.
I want to see how each US Representative and US Senator votes on each of these measures. We have an election coming up. Those who vote for tyranny can, and should, be punished at the polls.
Putting the Catholic religious affliated institutions out of business seems to be the point of the fines. Its like Caesar saying: either submit or die. For in the end, their can only be one god with big government and Jesus isn’t one of them.
PattyMor,
While their end point is more or less what you have posited, they have to have a definite and immediate way to turn the tide.
Therefore, I implore the readers to take seriously a link I posted yesterday, and I am re-posting it to make sure it is front and center.
The thing is, I have worked directly with Lee Kaplan (see the ‘About’ tab too at my blog)and can attest to his incredible investigative skills, as well as access at Northeast Intelligence Center. Here is the link – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/15/red-alert-issued-via-lee-kaplans-northeast-intelligence-network-little-commentary-required-speaks-for-itself-16/.
Spread it wide and far!!
This mandate is another attack against civil society, the mediating institutions between the people and the government. Another example of our flight from liberty I’m afraid.
The term “moral objection” is way too broad.
Religious objections should certainly be allowed. The practice of one’s religion is protected by the First Amendment. And there are objective ways to tell if an objection is indeed religious: A Catholic could cite Scripture, the statements from the Vatican, etc.
But if we allow anyone to opt out of a government law on “moral objections,” we’re basically creating a loophole that anyone can use for any purpose. If I just don’t want to pay taxes for something, I can just claim I’m “morally opposed” to that thing–how is anyone going to prove I’m lying about that? (As it is, there are a whole lot of uses of my tax money that I’m opposed to; but I still have to pay my taxes.)
We’ve recognized that distinction in other areas: Religious conscientious objectors versus someone who was just afraid of going off to war; someone whose pacifism is based on their religion (Quaker, Amish, etc.) versus someone who’s just a hard-core leftist; etc.
“Morally opposed” will end up being equivalent to “It’s icky” or “I’m *politically* opposed to it.”
It has worked 100% for muslims in thsi country. They are exempt from everything tht are crippling the rest of us. There is no equal protection under the law in this country any longer. Both muslims and illegals get “special” treatment.
Communist countries did away with religion and confiscated their wealth. Atheism was the state religion and all other religions were banned. The obama admin is doing the same thing here. We have a man that was arrested and jailed for running a bible study group out of his home. How soon before the SWAT teams start storming the pulpit of our churches?
Perhaps you can clarify for us the documentation that supports your statement that “they (Muslims) are exempt from everything?” As to the gentleman running a bible study group out of his home; I assume you mean the guy in Phoenix?
He got into trouble with the law due to complaints from neighbors that he was violating zoning ordinances. In other words, his activity was potentially affecting the property rights and property values of others. There was nothing at all that prevented him from renting a storefront in a nearby strip mall for his bible group. A lot of churches have started in this manner.
SteveB,
Since when is inviting people to your home to read the bible a violation of neighbors rights?
When you have so many people that they are parking up and down the block, it really becomes more than a private gathering. Yes, you could have a supper for 13 occasionally. But if you do it every week, you annoy the neighbors.
The real issue here, is that the whole Obama-care Law is not only morally wrong, but unconstitutional! Just because the Administration and Congress took Romney’s health care law and expanded upon it does not make it right, or legal. Our government does illegal things on a daily basis, and we just accept that they have the authority to do it. We the people are supposed to be the ones who distribute and delegate authority to the State and the Federal Government, through a contract called the US Constitution. The Constitution strictly limits all Government Authority, but in order for that limitation to work, we have to understand the Constitution, and it’s original intent, then we have to start standing up and standing together as citizens for the Constitution, and draw the lines in the sand strictly limiting government authority. Our liberties come from God and Nature, and cannot be taken away except by us giving them up, and that is what we have been doing.
What do you want to bet that Muslim organizations are exempt.
muslims will take over religious hand outs to the poor.. in exchange for reciting the shahada.
being exempt from obamacare has it’s advantages
TSA Fails to Comply With Year-Old ‘Nude’ Body-Scanner Court Order By David Kravets July 16, 2012
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/tsa-scanner-court-order/
“What do you want to bet that Muslim organizations are exempt.”
they’ll get a waiver from hhs i’m sure
I guess this will affect all those muslim hospitals that accept patients regardles of religious affilliation, and continue to do charitible work benefitting the non-mulsim community. In other words – none.
Hey wait a minute Mr. Roberts isn’t this constitutional because these fines are not needlessly punitive and therefore a tax?
According to the Constitution the Federal Government cannot levey a tax unless it is applied equally across the board to everyone.
I think you are right Mr. G. If the “tax” is large enough to compel a person to buy the insurance, then it is no longer a tax but is a penalty. And if it is a penalty it is unconstitutional. At least that is the explanation I heard on the news.
So a noncompliance tax of $36,500 annually per employee would appear to be large enough to be unconstitutional.
What do you Lawyers out there think?
Absolutely. According to the terms of Roberts’ ACA decision, there is no question that this is a penalty. Roberts will vote to strike the HHS mandate, and probably some if not all of the liberals as well. Given that the administration was slapped down 9-0 on the Hosanna Tabor case, I would not be surprised at the same outcome here.
Minor note: what most people don’t appreciate about the situation with the Catholic agencies, as well as the Lutherans and many other church groups, is that (like many large companies) they’re self insured. It’s not a matter of simply passing the responsibility for compliance off to “the insurance company” since they are the insurance company! (Companies like Cigna simply manage the insurance claims, they don’t underwrite the policies).
ObamaCare gives the federal government the tools to tax religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence,”… that is precisely the point of the legislation
I’m sure Barry’s favored muslim terrorist cults are exempted tho – like they are for everything else!
Yet more deceit? Arguments that the ACA infringes religious liberty have gone from wrong to ridiculous.
First, notwithstanding all the arm waving about religious liberty, the ACA does not force any employer to act contrary to his or her conscience. The law does not compel any employer to provide health insurance to its employees. Any employer may choose not to provide such insurance. Moral dilemma avoided.
Second, contrary to Congressman Sensenbrennner’s assertion, an employer choosing not to provide such health insurance pays a tax of only $2,000 per employee–far less than the typical cost of health insurance. Employers with fewer than 50 employees don’t even pay that tax.
Sensenbrennner misleads by mentioning a different tax that applies only when a health insurance plan is offered and it fails to meet statutory requirements. Unmentioned by Sensenbrenner are the many exceptions and other ways to avoid or substantially reduce that tax.