Democrats illustrate disregard for US Constitution

During my morning reading of various news sources I came across an article on Yahoo! titled Dems Strike Back on Hobby Lobby Case With 'Not My Boss's Business Act' (http://news.yahoo.com/dems-strike-back-hobby-lobby-case-not-bosss-182210871--abc-news-politics.html) In the article, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray is quoted, "We are here to ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to healthcare. I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Ameircans to make their own decision about their own health care and their own bodies."

Sen. Murray, healthcare is not a right afforded Americans under the United States Constitution. The decision by the Supreme Court to uphold  the owners of Hobby Lobby's US Constitutional Right to be able to exercise their religious views is a Right guaranteed all Americans. While I understand the attempt of this legislation is to score political points; rather than to observe the restrictions our Constitution places on Congress, the President and the Judicial branch.

Nothing in the Hobby Lobby cases is preventing any American to ability to make their own decisions on their own health care or bodies. Ironically, the Affordable Care Act does as it mandates all Americans to have health care coverage or face additional taxation for not. Thus taking away the option for any American to self-insure.

Another point getting lost in the conversation is healthcare, at least until the ACA, is a benefit offered by an employer to attract and retain employees. Benefits offered to employees by employers are not a right of employment thus can be changed at anytime. No one denies people the right to pursue their own happiness and success; rather people need to understand that when you trade your services for money and benefits you give up some of your rights afforded you under the US Constitution while performing the duties of said job. Prime example is the three paragraphs every computer displays when one has to sign into a work station that essentially states that by hitting ok you, as the employee, are giving up your right to illegal search and seizure protection is so far as the use of the computer.

Sen. Boxer (D-CA) quips in the article, "The court's majority has decided that corporations are entitled to more rights than individual Americans." Again a chirp to score quick political points rather than actually reading the application of the decision. Why does Sen. Boxer think it is okay for Congress to pass a law and the President of the United States to sign said law that curtails one ability to practice their religious beliefs without fear of retribution from the Government?

Yes, Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation. A reason people will incorporate their business is to limit their liability and protect their personal assets. By doing that, does an American give up their Rights afforded to them by the US Constitution?

Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women's Law Center, is quoted at the end of the article, "Bosses should stick to what they know best: the boardroom and the bottom line. Stay out of the bedroom and the exam room." Now, I did read the opinions rendered in the Hobby Lobby decision, all sides, and I don't recall a single sentence that  authorized a boss to dictate to employee what they are to or not to do in the bedroom or the exam room. I wonder too if Marcia Greenberger understands that when, at least prior to the ACA, employer offered healthcare as a benefit of employment it never translated to a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Now, if real change wants to occur the Senators need to look to the US Constitution to make that change otherwise they can waste taxpayer money debating a law that is already Unconstitutional. The only reason why ACA is allowed to remain in effect is that Congress has the power to tax.

Religious Dilemna

In the event you missed this week, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the controversial bill passed by the Arizona legislature that would have given businesses, and citizens, of Arizona the ability to run their businesses based on their religious beliefs. The bill was dubbed the "Anti-Gay" Bill by Progressives and backed up by "Moderate" Republicans as an affront to Civil Liberties of same-sex couples in Arizona. What I am curious is if anyone read the bill as I doubt those with the largest megaphones did.

Here is the Bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

While the originals of the bill stem from recent business owners being sued over not photographing same-sex marriages, baking cakes for same-sex weddings and providing flowers for same-sex ceremonies. I am a small business owner. As a small business owner I wouldn't turn away anyone as long as the payment method for the services I render is done with legally obtain dollars.

Then again its my business and my choice as an owner to make that decision. If another business owner wants to alienate a segment of the population because of a moral, religious or any objection then so be it. If their business fails, its on that business owner. The florist that was sued in Washington over not providing flowers for a same-sex marriage because she didn't feel Jesus would approve then so be it. AGAIN it is her business.

SB 1062 in Arizona wasn't giving religious freedom to just Catholics, Lutherans, Methodist, or any other Christian sect. It was giving religious freedom to ALL religions. 86 large companies, along with the NFL, placed pressure on Gov. Brewer to veto the bill - ironic isn't that the Progressives can't stand Big Business contributing to political campaigns but have no problem when Big Business is backing their cause!

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker was reported to have written a letter to Gov. Brewer saying(http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/25/news/economy/arizona-anti-gay-bill/),"I can assure you that this proposed legislation is causing tremendous concerns for our employees, particularly those who live and work in Arizona." Really? Expanding religious freedom and protecting that religious freedom from lawsuits is creating a concern for employees? The Bill doesn't allow business or institutions from violating the religious freedom of the employee.

Progressives are there for religious freedom for the employee but don't want to give the Mom and Pop business owner the same religious freedom. By not allowing a business owner the ability to run their business aligned with their religious belief but imposes upon that business owner the religious beliefs of their employees and patrons is not equitable in a free society. We all have the Right to exercise our religion without fear of retribution by the government. The fact, as in the case on the above example from Washington, it was the Attorney General that brought suit. Combine that with the Affordable Care Act, religious freedoms of the business owner is being trampled upon.

I know I said this above but it needs repeating - Being a small business owner, I don't understand why anyone would turn away patrons/clients in so far as the money used to pay for services is obtained legally. Yet in a free society, that business owner has that choice just as everyone has the choice of not patronizing that business.

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York


The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but that is exactly what President Obama did when he signed into law the Health Care Act. As Rep. Pelosi so eloquently stated during the passage of the bill,"we need to pass it to understand whats in it". Perhaps people should have demanded more from our elected officials when debating this bill; makes one wonder what else is in the bill that restricts our freedoms. But I digress.

The Health Care Act is going to require all religious institutions to provide health insurance that includes provisions to pay for birth control pills, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization. Catholics and Imam's are up in arms over this intrusion into their free exercise of their religions. "The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,” National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said. Sorry Andrea the Catholic hierarchy is not playing chicken; rather they are protecting their rights. If employees of these groups want to obtain insurance with these provisions then they can either find other employment or buy supplements on the secondary market.

Troubling part of this conversation is that far to many will get bogged down into abortion issue and ignore the blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. It is time that we demand more of our government by restricting their powers to the powers explicitly stated in the Constitution and regulate all other powers to the States to decide. Today it's health care tomorrow it will be something else. Since the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause we have steadily seen State rights and Rights of citizens eroded and Obamacare is just another step in that direction.