To you who would so eagerly defend Obama’s statement that insurance companies MUST pay for birth control, I would like to present some facts and questions to you.
Before Obama no state had laws denying access to birth control. (There were a few laws that said that a pharmacist had the right to not issues them, but most of these were equally uncapitalistic because they said the employing pharmacy could not fire them for not performing their job.) And beside Rick Santorum I don’t think anyone even thinks that we should (granted Santorum is an idiot, but it’s the mainstream media that is not vetting this guy and making his asinine statements the top story every hour, so is it the right that bears the full blame here?).
What Obama is doing is demanding a private company offer a service whether it wants to or not and that every business buy such service whether they want to or not.
Before this women could get birth control by paying for it out of pocket (I am told by women that the generics are about $20 a month, and $240 a year seems a small price to pay to not have to pay thousands a month to raise a child) and if need be could go to organizations like Planned Parenthood and get them for free. So as far as I can tell was there were not any women denied access to birth control.
But since you don’t want to deal with that reality, let’s not deal with it.
Instead let me ask you a question. What happens when a president you don’t agree with gets into the office? If Obama has the right to demand that private insurance companies and private businesses provide a particular medical service or product, then every president has that power. Ignoring the unconstitutional nature of a president ruling by dictatorial fiat, let’s ask what happens when another president gets into office. As you seem to think the presidency has this absolute right without consulting Congress or even getting a law passed (even though I don’t think Congress has the right to do this either) what would happen, if, god forbid, the nation takes a complete leave of its senses (which it’s been known to do) and elects Rick Santorum or someone like him?
You’ve already granted the president the power to say what insurance companies must provide. So what happens if a small minded lunatic gets into power and says that, say, all insurance companies must cover the costs for psychological therapy to help gay people learn to not be gay. Certainly insane, but you’ve already argued that a president has the right to declare what insurance companies must cover without even having to consult Congress. If you give Obama the power to do this now, what is to stop someone you don’t like from requiring something you don’t like. Isn’t it better to let private companies decide, and if you don’t like what that company does, get another job.
I like birth control and would be exceedingly happy if more people the world over used it, but I love liberty more and would never demand a company provide it if they didn’t want to. Liberty and choice is what makes a life or a nation great, not imposing my will and preference on others.
Just because you’re getting something you want doesn’t justify expanding government power. You should never give the government more power. More power always leads to abuse of that power. And a reasonable person should realize that the White House will at time be inhabited by someone with whom you disagree with on every single issue. Are you willing to give them more power?
So let me ask, are there any crazy or stupid so-called medical practices you don’t support and are you willing to say that there will NEVER be a president in office who would believe in them? Or do you think limited government might be a safer choice?
It’s not about birth control. It’s about an unconstitutional expansion of government power.