Since when does "freedom" require theft from others?
By Scott Tibbs, April 24, 2020
Nancy Pelosi has a strange definition of "rights." To the Speaker, "freedom" involves the "right" to force others to pay for things you want, even if they have profound disagreements with your lifestyle choices. Of course, Pelosi is not concerned about the rights of the person being forced to hand over money at gunpoint. She is all about having the government pick winners and losers, with no room for individual choice unless she personally approves of that choice. This is the definition of a tyrant, folks.
Birth control is legal. It is relatively inexpensive. There are options to get it at a reduced cost or even free. Many secular employers are more than happy to cover birth control, because children are expensive and they require employees to take time off work. So given its widespread availability, why can't women who do not have contraceptive coverage just pay for it themselves? Why force a Roman Catholic charity to pay for something not allowed by Catholic doctrine?
The reason is simple: When it comes to "sexual liberation," the endgame is not and has never been "tolerance." It is about mandatory acceptance and forced endorsements of behavior. That is why it is unacceptable to tyrants like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi that a Roman Catholic charity would not cover abortifacient birth control. Tolerance is not permitted, because tolerance implies disagreement. Acceptance is mandatory.
(As an aside, I would point out that many pro-life Protestants also oppose abortifacient birth control and would not want to be forced to fund it. This is not only about the Roman Catholic Church.)
Pelosi, if course, lied in her press release
when she spoke of ObamaCare's so-called "requirement" to cover contraceptives. No such requirement exists. It was a regulation implemented by the bureaucracy during the Obama presidency. As President, Donald Trump has the authority to reverse the executive actions of previous administrations. If Trump does not have this authority, then Obama did not have the authority to issue the regulation in the first place.
Of course, we knew from the very beginning this would be required. It was a shell game by Democrats: Allow "pro-life" Democrats to vote for ObamaCare while pretending it did not cover abortifacients, and then use the bureaucracy to sneak in the coverage mandate through the back door.
Finally, this issue (and many others) underlines a much deeper problem with our federal government: There is way too much
law-making authority in the bureaucracy. Congress writes vague legislation and then the bureaucrats issue "regulations" with the power of law. That is not the way this is supposed to be. These things should be written by Congress, not unelected federal bureaucrats.
About the Author