The old saying ‘you reap what you sow’ has awakened churches across the country to the reality that their backing of Obamacare now threatens their very foundation.  Mandates in the healthcare legislation will force churches to fund that which they view as a grave sin and brings to light yet more violations of the Constitution by the initiative.

Within the overreaching and highly unpopular healthcare mandate is the requirement that all employers pay for preventative care.  Falling under that umbrella is contraceptives, sterilization and even abortifacient drugs like RU-486.

Offering such services is entirely contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and many other religions.  Life and the sanctity of it in all ways form the foundation of the Church.

Obamacare provided a way for churches themselves to escape having to pay for services that are contrary to their beliefs.  However, religious charities, hospitals and schools, even if funded by churches, are granted no such immunity.

The end result is a government mandate that forces churches to pay for that which violates their strongest held beliefs.  Clearly this is unacceptable and a violation of the First Amendment.

Last year Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley all warned the president of the coming storm.  Even they realized that the annointed one couldn’t force religious institutions to fund that which they consider a grave sin.

With the Catholic Church leading the way and supported by Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish groups, the church put the pressure on President Barack Obama this past week.  All groups recognize that it is not the government’s place to force churches to ignore their moral conscience.

A firestorm quickly erupted over what some are calling the administration’s war on religion.

On Friday, Obama appeared with Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to announce ‘accommodations’ meant to ease the fears of churches.  It has failed miserably to do so.

The changes allow these institutions to ‘opt out’ of providing the coverage directly however their insurance companies still must provide it at no cost to the employees.

Therein lies the problem – there is a cost.  Doctors cost. Drugs cost.  Who is going to pay for this if not the employee?  The insurance company isn’t going to bear the cost.  In the end, the employer will still pay for the coverage in the form of higher premiums.

Whatever yahoos in the Obama administration thought these accommodations would fly clearly doesn’t have a clue.  Sebelius, who claims to be Catholic but willfully ignores the church’s teachings, should have known better.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday, “The faithful for whom birth control is a matter of religious conviction haven’t been accommodated at all. They’ll merely have to keep two sets of accounting books.”

Reaction from the church was quick as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying the mandate remains a “grave moral concern.”

“We note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions….The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is… to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services,” the Bishops said.

Ironically, many elements of the church backed Obamacare but would do well in the future to remember the lessons taught in Galatians.

Some of the leftist elements will view this ‘accommodation’ as satisfactory when in reality it changes nothing.  An unconstitutional mandate, intrusion of the state into religion, dependence on government and an erosion of personal responsibility remain firmly entrenched.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.
~ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

On the net:

• Denver Post, Vincent Carroll: Obama’s contraception compromise rings hollow