EDITORIALS
INSURANCE RULE VIOLATES RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
Dec. 2, 2011 - The President is considering granting a broader exemption to religious organizations from rules that
require health insurance issuers to provide women with free contraceptives including abortifacients, sterilizations, and
related education and counseling, all of which are prohibited by the Catholic Church. Catholic Belmont Abbey College is
suing the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule, and more than 18 Catholic
colleges and groups are protesting the rule.
The current rule, implementing President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, exempts religious organizations whose purpose is
the inculcation of religious values and that employ and serve primarily persons who share those religious beliefs. The
organization must also be non-profit as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.
Religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges do
not meet these criteria.
The penalty for non-compliance – heavy yearly fines and a prohibition on offering health plans altogether – would put these
organizations at a competitive disadvantage, because they would be unable to offer health plans to attract sufficient staff
and students. This could force many of them to close, depriving many of the poor and needy of crucial services.
The rule violates religious groups’ First Amendment freedom of speech rights by forcing them to pay for education and
counseling that would directly conflict with their religious beliefs and teachings against pre-marital sex, contraception,
sterilization and abortion.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty commented, “There is something quite unsettling about the government mandating
that – while a pastor may preach to his student congregants on Sunday that pre-marital sexual intercourse, contraception,
and abortion are all immoral – on Monday, he has to pay for them to be educated, counseled, and provided with those
very same drugs, devices and procedures in direct violation of the church’s teachings.”
The present rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says that Congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The President should respect the First Amendment of the Constitution by
exempting all groups and individuals with a religious or moral objection to contraceptives, including abortifacients, and
related counseling.
The New York Times reports that Democrats in Congress object to broadening the exemption, saying it would keep
contraception out of reach for millions of women. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan has said,
“Birth control is essential for women’s health,” according to the Washington Times.
Even if free contraceptives are essential to women’s health, obtaining them does not depend on forcing religious groups to
provide them against their sincerely held moral convictions. Those who truly cannot afford contraceptives can either
obtain them at family planning clinics funded by Title X of the Public Health Service Act or move to a non-objecting
employer or college.
All employers, whether operating for profit or not, and whether or not they serve or employ people who share their
religious beliefs, have a Constitutional right to the exercise of their religion unburdened by the government. Insurance
companies have a right not to offer such coverage, and individuals have the right not to enroll in such coverage.
CORPORATE INCOME TAX UNFAIR, IMPRACTICAL
Sept. 14, 2011 -- As Congress takes up the President’s plan to revive the economy, it would be an opportune time to
review an inequitable and impractical feature of our Federal tax system - the corporate income tax. Currently, an income
tax is levied on money earned by the corporation. That money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's
owners -- the shaeholders -- in the form of dividends w hich are regarded as personal income. It is comparable to a
worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on
payday.
Some politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual taxpayers.
But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not taxpayers, out of corporations. The corporation
s tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and
lower dividends for its stockholders.
The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly
doing all it can to reduce unemployment. Billions have been appropriated to create rnakework jobs which merely shift
work from the private to the public sector. It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so
that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services. A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax
would help achieve this. Its abolition would be even better.
While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just
isn't so and we need politicians with the wit and courage to say so. Congress should take this opportunity to encourage
capital formation and make it easier for business to expand and hire workers.
Dec. 2, 2011 - The President is considering granting a broader exemption to religious organizations from rules that
require health insurance issuers to provide women with free contraceptives including abortifacients, sterilizations, and
related education and counseling, all of which are prohibited by the Catholic Church. Catholic Belmont Abbey College is
suing the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule, and more than 18 Catholic
colleges and groups are protesting the rule.
The current rule, implementing President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, exempts religious organizations whose purpose is
the inculcation of religious values and that employ and serve primarily persons who share those religious beliefs. The
organization must also be non-profit as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.
Religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges do
not meet these criteria.
The penalty for non-compliance – heavy yearly fines and a prohibition on offering health plans altogether – would put these
organizations at a competitive disadvantage, because they would be unable to offer health plans to attract sufficient staff
and students. This could force many of them to close, depriving many of the poor and needy of crucial services.
The rule violates religious groups’ First Amendment freedom of speech rights by forcing them to pay for education and
counseling that would directly conflict with their religious beliefs and teachings against pre-marital sex, contraception,
sterilization and abortion.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty commented, “There is something quite unsettling about the government mandating
that – while a pastor may preach to his student congregants on Sunday that pre-marital sexual intercourse, contraception,
and abortion are all immoral – on Monday, he has to pay for them to be educated, counseled, and provided with those
very same drugs, devices and procedures in direct violation of the church’s teachings.”
The present rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says that Congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The President should respect the First Amendment of the Constitution by
exempting all groups and individuals with a religious or moral objection to contraceptives, including abortifacients, and
related counseling.
The New York Times reports that Democrats in Congress object to broadening the exemption, saying it would keep
contraception out of reach for millions of women. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan has said,
“Birth control is essential for women’s health,” according to the Washington Times.
Even if free contraceptives are essential to women’s health, obtaining them does not depend on forcing religious groups to
provide them against their sincerely held moral convictions. Those who truly cannot afford contraceptives can either
obtain them at family planning clinics funded by Title X of the Public Health Service Act or move to a non-objecting
employer or college.
All employers, whether operating for profit or not, and whether or not they serve or employ people who share their
religious beliefs, have a Constitutional right to the exercise of their religion unburdened by the government. Insurance
companies have a right not to offer such coverage, and individuals have the right not to enroll in such coverage.
CORPORATE INCOME TAX UNFAIR, IMPRACTICAL
Sept. 14, 2011 -- As Congress takes up the President’s plan to revive the economy, it would be an opportune time to
review an inequitable and impractical feature of our Federal tax system - the corporate income tax. Currently, an income
tax is levied on money earned by the corporation. That money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's
owners -- the shaeholders -- in the form of dividends w hich are regarded as personal income. It is comparable to a
worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on
payday.
Some politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual taxpayers.
But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not taxpayers, out of corporations. The corporation
s tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and
lower dividends for its stockholders.
The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly
doing all it can to reduce unemployment. Billions have been appropriated to create rnakework jobs which merely shift
work from the private to the public sector. It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so
that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services. A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax
would help achieve this. Its abolition would be even better.
While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just
isn't so and we need politicians with the wit and courage to say so. Congress should take this opportunity to encourage
capital formation and make it easier for business to expand and hire workers.
 |  |  |  |  |  |
