Governments are instituted to secure the blessings of liberty for the people.

In the recent discussion about the health care law, there are several important principles that may be in conflict.  As it stands the health care law appears to violate; the constitutional mandate of the free exercise of religion; and the constitutional mandate about making no law about an establishment of religion.

But, the health care law appears to directly support a woman’s (governmentally declared) right to birth control and abortion – a blessing of liberty for those who choose to exercise it.

The Administration has modified its position from requiring religious organizations to provide insurance services that are against their moral foundations to requiring their insurance providers to pay for the morally objectionable services at no cost to the religious organization.  This is a difference without a distinction and will never be morally acceptable to those who believe in the sanctity of life and their religions moral teachings.

There already exists at least one federally funded organization that provides abortion services.  It is purely secular.  This same organization provides contraceptive services, again on a purely secular basis.  The Administration argues that abortion and contraception are part of a woman’s overall health care.

Since the mechanism for contraceptive and abortion services already exists (Planned Parenthood) and is funded from secular sources (the federal government), it seems that there is no need to expand the availability of these services to religious organizations or their insurance providers.

However, the Administration, insists that providing these (governmentally declared) rights must be available through religious organizations which are frequently operated by people who have strong moral objections to providing these services.  To force one of these people to provide morally objectionable services is a violation of their free exercise of religion and their first amendment rights to freedom of expression (speech).

The difference without a distinction is that the religious organization and some or many of its employees are placed by Administration mandate into a position of transferring the cost from itself to a contractor that provides the same morally objectionable service.  Morally, people in the hiring organization are still responsible.

To avoid the whole conflict of religious freedom versus personal liberty there are two options: 1) those needing abortion or contraceptive services can use the existing federally funded organization(s).  2) The government can provide a voluntary individual insurance plan specifically for those who believe they may need these services.  This plan operate in a manner similar to the flood insurance program.

There is no need for a conflict to exist between individual liberty and freedom of religion.

The Administration has chosen to create a conflict and intends to use its rather considerable power to force religious organizations to accept their mandates.  Since I have already pointed out that the conflict is avoidable, it appears that the Administration is interested in punishing those who cling to their guns and Bibles.

What say YOU?