contraception

Frank R. O'Brien, owner of O'Brien Industrial Holdings, has filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Health and Human Services because the recent contraception mandate violates his right to freedom of religious belief.

CBS News reports:

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate. ...

[American Center for Law and Justice representative Francis J. Manion says] "The HHS mandate tells people like Frank O'Brien that they have to choose between conducting their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, or conducting their business in a manner consistent with the government's values. The constitution does not allow the government to impose such a choice."

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. And no, HHS, making insurance companies pay for the contraceptives instead of the small business itself is not different; you're still violating conscience rights, and for what?

If you can, please show support (either through prayer or direct contact) for Mr. O'Brien and those who oppose this ridiculous mandate.

More Information: Direct link to the lawsuit documents (PDF)

I've been thinking about this lately—especially after the uproar having to do with the Georgetown student and Rush Limbaugh—but why haven't more people questioned the fact that the HHS mandate only provides free birth control, and not a hundred and one other drugs that are, in fact, much more helpful to the saving of lives? The Crescat, in fact, is also thinking about this (why free birth control...).

Birth control, let's face it, can be helpful for one of two goals:

1. Sexual relationships without 'consequences' (or, to put not too fine a point on it, women being able to have sex without pregnancy as a result).
2. Limiting the expansion of the human population (eugenics).

Either one of these two goals is not something I want my tax dollars supporting. Besides the fact that I'm morally opposed to all forms of artificial birth control, I'm also opposed to paying for other people's sexual gratification, and I'm extremely opposed to population control.

Why, if we're going to take millions or billions of dollars of people's money and use it for free drugs, does this money not go to insulin, to healthy diet programs, to subsidization of healthy foods (veggies, fruits, etc.), or to cancer treatments? Actual lives would be saved through these kinds of measures. If we're going to become a socialist society (at least in terms of healthcare), we should start funding more essential drugs, and not drugs that encourage promiscuity and population control...

What do you think?

See also: Obama's HHS 'Concession' No Concession at All