Obama versus the Constitution

February 7, 2012

By Matt Maddox

I heard a clip of Jay Carney explaining the administration’s position on the new rule, under Obamacare, that mandates contraception be provided by private insurers, such as the Catholic Church. He said that the new guidelines, which President Obama had carefully considered, were meant to force private insurers to cover “preventative services”, including contraceptives, on their insurance plan.  Jay Carney hasn’t been the only one explaining the decision. 
Guests have appeared all over the media h explaining why this is a compassionate decision, a necessary decision, why the Catholic church is backwards and needs to come into the 21st Century, how it really isn’t a big deal since most Catholics don’t abide by the Church’s guidelines, and so on. Conservative and liberal Catholics, on the other hand, have banded together to oppose this new rule, claiming that it violates their 1st Amendment rights.
Does it really matter?
While I was listening to Jay Carney’s explanation it occurred to me that there were three fundamental flaws with the rationale for the rule: there is no such thing as a right to insurance, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to mandate companies to provide insurance, and it strips the insurance providers of their rights to the free exercise of religion and conscience.  These flaws make the Obama administration...

Read the rest of the article at our new website: http://mattisright.com/obama-v-constitution/

http://Mattisright.com is now the new home of The Conservative Opinion