February 10, 2012
Posted by on
I saw a piece regarding President Obama and the uproar caused by saying church-sponsored institutions have to provide contraception to employees. Today, he reversed course and said that insurance companies would be forced to provide it for free to the employees of such institutions. What’s funny is, it still means the institutions will pay for it, because typically a company will pay for part of the benefits package provided to their employees. So, they will still pay. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch!
While reading said piece, I found something in the comments section that I found to be very interesting, and spot-on:
There is a deep and very troubling issue being missed in not only this debate, but permeating the entire Obama administration. See today and also recall yesterday just how often the word “exception” is now used in edicts from Obama and his administration. In manufacturing, banking, education, health care by-passed senate confirmations and now religion, we get word from Obama that “we have granted an exception”. Granting exceptions requires one be in absolute authority over those seeking relief from an onerous government imposed obligation. We are no longer being governed with our consent, but are in fact ruled by edict through Obama’s consent. Obama has not yet superseded that authority which the Declaration of Independence plainly says our individual rights come from and Obama must be told that in plain and simple words.
It makes me wonder if folks realize that–if you have to grant exceptions to a rule, then maybe, your rule should be changed?
I also wondered about “free” contraception. Why should contraception be free? Or Viagra? Why should the government be involved in it? Maybe there is a good reason, but its not coming to me right now.