Blunting the Facts' | www.iwf.org
Friday, March 02, 2012
March 2, 2012
By only a three vote margin, largely on party lines, the Blunt amendment was defeated in the Senate yesterday. The Wall Street Journal editorializes: "The amendment had nothing to do with a 'ban' on contraception, or any of the other delusions and distortions of the left. The real issue is that the ObamaCare mandate requires employers, including religious schools and hospitals, to buy coverage that may violate their moral beliefs. The Blunt amendment would merely have let those religious-affiliated institutions provide coverage without paying for care that violates their religious conscience. The real offense against freedom and women is the mandate."
In commentary on Forbes, Merrill Matthews discusses some of the nuances with the upcoming Supreme Court cases challenging ObamaCare's constitutionality. "Arguing that the Democrats’ health care reform law has so mangled health insurance markets and skewed normal economic incentives that the plan will create even worse problems without forcing everyone to participate isn’t exactly what you’d call a principled constitutional argument. But none of this is really about the Constitution anyway; it’s about control. The White House wants to control health insurance because it believes it has both the right and the wisdom to micromanage the economy—and you. And that’s the issue going before the Supreme Court."
The Heritage Foundation offers a guide that refutes ObamaCare point-by-point. "Employer Mandate: ObamaCare includes a requirement that employers with 50 or more employees provide government-approved health insurance or face a fine. This mandate will hit workers through lower wages and fewer jobs, shareholders through lower profits, and consumers through higher prices."
source Independent Womens Forum http://www.iwf.org/
