Obama's Assault on the U.S. Constitution

Obama's battle with the Catholic church is not about birth control.

I think President Barack Obama has shown what he thinks of the United States Constitution with his fight with the Catholic Church. It does not matter what you think about abortion or birth control for this issue. This is about the First Amendment, and do we still have religious freedom if the government thinks their agenda is more important?

Obama polled and found the vast majority of Catholics in the U.S. do not follow the teachings on birth control, so he thought he could push his agenda without a price for limiting religious liberty. It does not matter if the members are following the church teachings, it is still the right of churches to set their own doctrine. Clearly they should not be forced to provide or pay for something that they feel is immoral. This would include paying for birth control for anyone including people they employ in any of their operations.

The solution Obama proposed is ridiculous. He states he will just make the insurance company provide it for free. Insurance companies will just pass that cost on to the church. His argument that it will save the insurance company money is faulty. First off all, if insurance companies believed that, they would already provide it for free. Also, I have never heard of a person with a job, who had a baby because they did not want to pay for birth control. Even if Obama is right, the church should still have the freedom to get quotes for insurance without that coverage and choose what they want to do.

Obama and the Democrats, like Tammy Baldwin, that are supporting this assault on freedom are now making it clear they do not respect the constitution or our rights. It is our patriotic duty to defend our rights by voting every one of them out of office.

The issue is far more important with a president since they appoint people to the Supreme Court. Many pro-choice people have been so concerned about abortion that they have fought to get people on the court that are willing to ignore what the constitution says. Progressives that hate the constitution stoke fears about abortion to get support to appoint justices who will help them achieve their agenda despite what the constitution says. Do you really want to trade all the guarantees the constitution gives, for abortion on demand?

You may not care about this issue, but if government can take your rights away, what rights will they take next? We will be at the mercy of the majority to decide what freedom we can have. With people like Supreme court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who told people in Egypt to not look to our constitution, and two Obama appointees on the Supreme Court, the constitution is hanging by a thread right now. As Ronald Reagan said:

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” ~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Craig February 16, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Lyle: I think a good part of the problem with posts are they are wriiten word. Open to interpretation as to the tone of the comment. Reading (banter) posts often has me picturing shouting back and forth, which is likely not the way they were intended to be. Snarky comments may be intended to add a little humor to the conversation, but can also be perceived as hateful. Just as a point of reference: A few days ago you replied to a comment of mine that I was uninformed. That same statement could mean you were calling me an uneducated, stupid, simpleton. If we had not had a history of disagreement with mutual respect, I may have replied with my own snarky comment fanning the flame wars further.
Lyle Ruble February 16, 2012 at 09:29 PM
@Craig...Point well taken. For those of us who know one another on the forum, I think we understand each others style and intent. Usually, I can tell the difference between sarcasm and hateful intent. Bob McBride comes to mind. He has a razor sharp wit and can be quite cutting, but he also is quite humorous. That's why I tried to clue Noelle in, that he was a supporter.
Bren February 17, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Mr. Hoffa--I was so frustrated when we had to cancel our trip to Portmeirion, "the" village from The Prisoner when we were in Wales back in '09. That is one of the most surreal shows I have ever seen, and one of the best! Red Dwarf and Rumpole are also favorites, but I must put in a word for Cadfael as well!
Michael Woogh February 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Before speaking for or against the Constitution, you should at least read it! It is time to know your Constitution! Go and download a new app “The Constitution of the USA” for Free for Android http://bit.ly/wbakR1 & Nook http://bit.ly/yq18H0 right now!
Brian Carlson March 16, 2013 at 06:57 PM
I am sorry...I cant believe you quote Ronald Reagan on the fragility of freedom. His pal, the Guatemalan dictator, Rios Montt, is about to stand trial for genocide. He was heavily supported by Ronald Reagan. Two hundred thousand Guatemalans were slaughtered. Reagan on freedom? What about the freedom of the victims of state terrorism in Latin America?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »