On Fox News Sunday, Ilyse Hogue, President, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Mark Rienzi, Counsel for the Becket Fund For Religious Liberty, are on to discuss the contraception controversy swirling around Obamacare and the Little Sisters of the Poor. Host Chris Wallace reads a question that was submitted via Facebook, and both guests have the opportunity to respond.
The question reads: “How can this administration enforce mandates that violate established religious convictions and moral principles with majority opposition to Obamacare.”
Hogue immediately begins to dance by addressing the characterization of majority opposition rather than the substance of the question. She then repeats the same talking point she was using throughout the show leading up to this question. She deprioritizes the religious question by first campaign speeching her answer that Obamacare is so wonderful because of how it ends the rampant and unaddressed medieval oppression of women’s health care that everyone was fine with until Obama brought unto us the light of equality. Not in so many words but … let’s call it implied. Eventually, however, she accidentally and at last wanders to the actual question that she is on the show to discuss: religious freedom.
Hogue claims that people’s religious beliefs are not violated because organizations have the option not to pay for contraception in violation of their religious mandate and convictions. The entire reason for the Supreme Court case, for Sotomayor’s injunction, and indeed, for this segment even being aired on Fox, is that there is a question and debate about whether or not the Sisters being forced to sign paperwork explicitly deigned to ensure that contraception and abortifacients for their employees will be paid for violates their religious beliefs. Hogue’s subtle and nuanced reply amounts to “but nuh-uh”. For NARAL, wishing makes it so. Or maybe it’s just that not giving an actual flip about religious conviction makes it so. Hard to say.
The form the government says is inconsequential but which they are willing to spend millions shoving down the Sisters’ throats specifically inserts the nuns into the process of ensuring those services to which they object are provided. To that, Hogue has no answer that doesn’t boil down to “oh well.”
Rienzi responds perfectly.
No one is imposing their religious beliefs on anybody. Your statistics shows contraception is widely and cheaply available. People can get it lots of ways without dragging the nuns into the process. And if the government thinks more people need access to contraception, the government can do it. They can do it on their exchanges and through title ten. Ilyse said this law is all about increasing access to healthcare. If that’s the point, forcing the Little Sisters to pay massive fines or shut down their ministries hurts that goal. Right. Fewer elderly, poor people would get the health care they need in those beautiful nursing homes that the sisters run and those employees who used to have jobs at the Little Sisters of the Poor might end up not having a place to work if the government succeeds in crushing these nursing homes. They shouldn’t do it.
He is, of course, correct. If it were about increasing access to health care, then the government would act in a way that increased access to health care. In reality, this is a front in the culture war. It’s the left going by their standard playbook. Its about imposing the left’s ideals on the rest of America. As usual.