That's not the point

For the last three days, President Obama's signature legislation has been argued in front of the nine Supreme Court justices as to the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate. The mandate essentially requires every American that can fog a mirror to either purchase health insurance or be forced to pay a penalty to the federal government if they don't purchase a policy. Congress has stated that 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Not all 40 million are incapable of purchasing insurance, mind you; some number just choose not to participate and the reasons for not buying it are varied. Some of that number are young, healthy people that are likely not incurring much, if any, medical cost now or in the foreseeable future so...why would they pay for insurance they don't need yet? Because Congress needs more folks to buy insurance who are going to pay in far more than they will consume in the near future.

Congress also expanded the coverage people are afforded. People with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy insurance. Young people under age 26 can now remain on their parent's policies (it used to be a lower age in most states.) Someone has to pay for this expanded coverage. So let's make healthy people pay for something they don't want or need now.

We also have laws that state that people cannot be turned away from receiving emergency medical care even if they have no insurance or are otherwise unable to pay the bill. We don't let people just die at the doors of emergency rooms. But, because people can receive "free" medical care, there is a cost shifting that takes place and has to be borne by somebody. Forcing every American to buy health insurance was Congress' solution to this problem.

So for the first time in the country's history, citizens will be forced to buy something just because they are alive. The logic is that just because a person is not a healthcare consumer now, they eventually will be so they need to pay into the system now.

OK, I get it. I understand the logic in the whole insurance/risk/cost sharing, scheme. I can see the financial justification here.

But that's not the point.

Congress decided that every American must be given access to medical treatments, even if they have no way to pay for it.  Congress says that people with pre-existing conditions must not be turned away because of the known financial exposure involved in covering them. Congress has decided to expand coverage people must be afforded. Congress has mandated that young people be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until they are 26. These are all, for the most part, good things. But Congress can't create a  new financial exposure then decide to trample the Constitution in order to pay for it. Either quit writing checks your body can't cash or find another way to get these changes paid.

Liberty is more important than this healthcare funding scheme. Fundamental freedoms are at risk here. Once Congress is allowed to force Americans to participate in something just because they breathe with the reasoning that "but we need the money to pay for this program we decided to start" then there is no limit on the federal government's power. Justice Kennedy said "And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a fundamental way." He is exactly correct. This power grab is unprecedented...at least not since the New Deal initiatives of the 1930s which saw major changes in the Federal Government's authority over the economy and people's lives. Some programs that were attempted to be implemented by Franklin Roosevelt's administration were deemed unconstitutional. This one should be as well.

Some people try to draw analogies here. There is no analogy of an existing precedent that applies. One of the justices equated medical costs to burial costs. Everyone is going to utilize this service at some point. And if you die without the means to pay for your burial and you don't have burial insurance, the taxpayers are going to foot the bill. So why not make all adults pay for burial insurance regardless of their age?

Some have used Social Security as an example of how everyone participates and pays into the system. That is actually not true. Unless you have wages and salary, you don't pay Social Security taxes. And if you do not earn enough credits over your working career, you are ineligible to receive benefits. So this isn't an accurate analogy.

I am all for Congress solving problems. That's not the point. I have no problem with a state imposing an individual mandate. I believe that states have that right. I see nothing in the Constitution, however, that gives the Federal Government that kind of authority.

Let's hope and pray that the Supreme Court comes to the correct conclusion.

kon-truh-sep-shuhn

If I was smart, I would probably avoid this topic. I guess that answers that question.

Who would have ever thought that the subject of contraception would ever dominate the airwaves? Nothing really surprises me anymore, however, when it comes to things to argue about. And this topic has become a great source of argument lately (and here I am writing about it....) Here's the current situation as best I understand it.

1. The Catholic Church embraces the position that contraception is wrong and it is against their teachings. Prior to 1930, nearly all Protestant religions agreed with the Catholic Church's longstanding position on this subject. The primary Biblical justification for this is Genesis 38: 8-10. The Anglican Church at its 1930 Lambeth Conference announced that contraception would be allowed under certain circumstances. Over time they and all other Protestant religions changed their position to "allow" contraception across the board. In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the landmark encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae (Latin- "Human Life") reaffirming the Catholic Church's historic position that contraception is wrong. And the Catholic Church's position on abortion is well known.

2. In 1965, the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The Court, by a 7-2 margin, ruled that a Connecticut law, prohibiting the use of contraceptives, to be invalid on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy." 

3. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 requires that insurance plans cover female contraceptives and contraceptive counseling without cost-sharing. Churches and houses of worship could choose to opt out of offering this coverage on religious grounds. The Obama administration decided that Catholic hospitals and universities, however, were not exempt from this mandate. After a significant backlash from the Catholic Church and others who posit that this is a violation of religious liberty, the administration offered a compromise position that the insurance companies themselves (not the Catholic institution employer) be required to cover the cost of this coverage to allow the Catholic Church to "not have to pay" for something they held as being against their teachings. The controversy remains active, especially since the presidential primary season is in full swing. I'm sure the insurance companies may have something to say about this new cost but, we'll leave that alone for now.

So, just what is meant by "contraception?" ...contra (meaning against) and [con]ception (meaning fertilization) Contraception is used to prevent sperm from fertilizing the female egg. This can be accomplished by the physical barrier method including the condom, cervical cap, and diaphragm. Hormonal barriers inhibit ovulation and fertilization and include injectable and oral contraceptives. "The Pill" is the most common form of hormonal contraceptive. The methods listed are not intended to be exhaustive.

Then there is contragestion. Contra (against) and gestation (generally meaning the implantation of the fertilized egg) This method of preventing a fertilized egg from normally implanting into the uterus includes intrauterine devices (IUD) as well as some "emergency" hormonal treatments. Certain methods and devices can be either contraceptive or contragestive depending on when they are used. Again, the ones mentioned are not intended to be an exhaustive list. I assume these are also included in the administration's mandate since they are typically referred to as contraceptives.

Then there are abortifacients. These are substances intended to end gestation by terminating the pregnancy. RU-486 (aka the abortion pill) is one of the pharmaceuticals used. It's ingredient is mifepristone which, when administered in a 600 mg dose up to 49 days gestation, (without getting overly graphic) causes the embryo to shed. If "successful" it is followed two days later by a dose of misoprostol which causes contractions. No need to elaborate.

Mifespristone in a 10 mg dose is also used as an emergency contraceptive. It is believed that it prevents ovulation (the production of the egg) rather than preventing implantation. So, this drug, in differing doses, can both prevent pregnancy as well as end pregnancy. Is this drug also covered? In what dose?

My simple conclusion is:

Contraceptives are intended to prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg (or preventing the egg production itself)
Contragestives are intended to prevent or interrupt a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus
Abortifacients are intended to terminate an implanted embryo/fetus

Most people (including the majority of Catholics) don't have issues concerning the use of contraceptives. People might disagree on who should pay for it, though. Despite the position of the Catholic Church, the majority of Americans approve of the common methods used to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

But what is pregnancy? Is it when the sperm penetrates the egg, when the fertilized egg implants or some time after that?

Not to deliver a biology lesson (since I am not qualified) ...here is my understanding of the process:

1. Sperm penetrates the outer layer of the egg and egg releases cortical granules preventing any other sperm from penetrating
2. Sperm and egg nuclei fuse and a single cell zygote is formed
3. Day 1- cell splits into 2 cells
4. Day 2- 2 cells split into 4 cells
5. Day 3- now at the 6-12 cell stage
6. Day 4- now at the 16-32 cell stage
7. Day 6-7- "blastocyst" attaches to the endometrium and burrows in (implants) and it begins secreting HGC (hello morning sickness)
8. Day 7-10- major cellular reorganization into ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm
9. Day 10-14- fluid amniotic cavity starts to form, yolk sack starts to form, embryo starts to form from embryonic disc, placenta starts to form
10. Day 15-21- emergence of vertebrate body plan
11. Week 3 to week 8- development of all organ systems (day 22 - heart begins to beat)

Is one of the issues central to both the contraception issue and the abortion issue the question of when life begins? Is it at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg? Is it when the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall? Is it after 3 weeks? Is it when a fetus is viable outside the womb? I think many of us just want to put our hands over our ears and make that loud humming sound...we just don't want to have to hear the question and certainly don't want to answer it. In addition to the concern of the Catholic Church, many people have concerns that the federal government is trying to blur the line between contraception and abortion.

I think part of what gets people confused and upset about all this is the polarizing jargon. Is it birth control or pregnancy control? Is it pro-choice and anti-choice or pro-abortion and anti-abortion or pro-life and ....what? Is it contraception or contragestion or does it even matter? Is it "access to contraception" or is it "contraception paid for by someone else"? Is it women's rights or protection of the unborn? Is pregnancy a woman's health issue or the beginning of a new life, created by God? Is it providing affordable preventive care or infringing on religious liberty? Can the answer be yes to all of them? Probably not.

I met a young lady many years ago who came to a small, high school discussion group I was leading at church. We were discussing the topic of abortion (their chosen topic, not mine.) The discussion was lively and heated. Arguments for and against, justification because of medical necessity, rape, and incest were tossed into the mix. In the middle of all the shouting, this young lady, who was an out-of-town guest of one of our members, raised her hand and asked if she could say something. All eyes turned to this stranger. My paraphrase of what she said is this: "When my mother was a teenager, she was raped and she decided the best thing to do was to have an abortion. The drug they gave her didn't do what it was supposed to do and, for whatever reason, it didn't end the pregnancy. When the doctor told her what had happened (or didn't happen) she got scared and asked if she could still go through with the pregnancy. The doctor warned her of the possible medical issues for her and the baby but, said it was her decision. Nine months later she ended up giving birth to a healthy little girl. That little girl is me."

You could  have heard a pin drop. To this day I don't know if that story she told was true. I have never seen her again. I have no reason to believe her story wasn't true. It had a profound impact on those dozen or so teenagers. And it had a profound impact on me. Here was a beautiful young lady sitting in front of us who came very close to never being born. What a tragedy that would have been.

People are passionate about many things. When our passions conflict, like they do on topics like this, society fractures more and more. What is the right answer? Who says so?

It's for your own good

We've all watched the Cold War era movies showing  armed guards approaching ordinary citizens and demanding to see their "papers." The "security forces" were there checking paperwork to make sure everything was in order. In the US, American (legal) citizens scoff at the thought of that sort of thing happening here since we don't have to answer to government authorities as we move about and enjoy our day-to-day life. Oh, sure we have our driver's licenses, other forms of identification and that Social Security card we have locked away back home but, we rarely have to show them to anybody. Our government respects our freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to move about and freedom to live the way we like so long as we do not harm others in the process. Of course, that would never change, right?

There are at least three areas where we seem more and more willing to cede our freedoms for "the greater good":

Our health
Our "safety"
Our environment

At least three major efforts have been underway for some time now by the government limiting our freedoms in the name of saving us from ourselves, saving us from terrorists/ other general bad guys and saving the environment. They all sound altruistic..after all, the government is providing salvation and that must always be a good thing. We hear phrases like "it is for your own good" as if we really don't need any say in the matter. We're told, "we are doing this to protect you." And finally, "we are doing this to keep you from harming the planet" (or harming some little obscure amphibian that isn't winning the survival-of-the-fittest-contest.) Our government feels obligated to provide us more and more protection and security...

The Dept of Health and Human Services...FDA...Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)
The Department of Homeland Security...Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
The Environmental Protection Agency

Sure, we need reasonable regulations and government oversight to prevent abuses and unnecessary dangers. It is not unreasonable to ask people when voting to show that they are registered voters. Certainly there are times when showing an ID is reasonable. But what is happening to our freedoms? TSA agents rifle through our belongings and grope our children and senior citizens to make absolutely sure that no terrorist gets on an airplane. There must be lots of dastardly 80 year-old Lutheran women from Wisconsin that have been hijacking airplanes in recent years so we better X-ray them or pat them down in case one is wearing an explosive girdle. We are prodded along like mindless goats in the gate area line and, admit it, you feel like you are under suspicion simply because you purchased an airline ticket. I keep waiting to hear "show me ze papers."

I also can't be trusted to not buy / eat food that meets some government expert's opinion of what is "unhealthy for me." I used to eat eggs because my grandmother said they were good for me but then the experts said that eggs were bad for me so I stopped eating them as much but then the experts changed their minds and said it was OK for me to eat eggs again but just don't eat 12 at a time. Darn, I love eating that 12-egg cheese omelet four times a week. I wait on pins and needles for the next food alert that will keep me from dying before I can collect my Social Security check. If the government can't convince me to change my eating habits, they just turn around and pound the food providers into submission and make them remove all those nasty ingredients that will do me harm. Hey McDonalds, you want to put those toys in the Happy meal bags? Well, you better change your recipes to conform with what McGovernment says. When bacon makes it onto the banned list, I'm personally marching on Washington. You'll see what a million man march looks like for sure. And Obamacare? Since when did you think you had a choice about your health insurance?

The big government groupies gush and clap and say, "Oh, look how the government (Republican or Democrat government...doesn't really matter) is watching out for us!"

If we could only find that guy that invented the internal combustion engine we could drag him into a Senate oversight hearing and ask him where did he get the crazy notion that he could invent something that was going to use up all that dead dinosaur goop that is buried beneath the ocean floor and under those Polar bears up in the frozen Palin land. Didn't he also know that all the exhaust gas from those engines was going to cause more problems for the ozone layer than even those volcanic eruptions and methane filled cow farts? If the government could just figure out how to eliminate all that bovine flatulence then we could go back to using our Homelite weed whackers. But no...those cows are sacred and deserve to be treated without prejudice. They have as much right to pass gas as you do. And don't even get me started on the environmental and social impact of "BS", while we are on the topic of the southbound output of a northbound boy cow.

Hey, I've got an idea... let's just take the corn crop...you know the stuff we used to grow to feed animals, make grits and to make Orville Redenbacher's 300 flavors of popcorn and now use it to put in our automobile fuel tanks. We can just feed the additional starving people all that crude oil we are no longer turning into gasoline. Sure, food prices will skyrocket but we will feel good about how ethanol is going to keep the ice caps from melting and changing that movie "The Day After Tomorrow" from a riveting action film into a real life prophetic documentary. Whew, saving the planet is hard work. But we sleep well at night knowing that the government has it under control. Oh, and these are the people that brought you the US Postal Service, Freddie and Fannie and dozens of other government success stories.

Our Declaration of Independence (oh, by the way those old guys in bad wigs were trying to break free from an overbearing government that trampled on freedoms) says that I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights that, among them, are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My Constitution spells out all the ways that my federal government has NO SAY over my life and liberties.

Do you feel safer, healthier, more secure and more protected? What liberties are you willing to give up for that? Whatever the government decides? If we stay on this course, the storm troopers at the checkpoints will be asking to see your papers. After all, you might be one of those weed-whacking, bacon eating, SUV driving troublemakers. You wanna see my papers? They are on display at the Library of Congress.