One of my peeves with the President is his tendency to make concessions where no concessions are called for. These can be trivial, such as “proving” that he has in fact shot skeet, or possibly quite damaging, such as violating the First Amendment by conceding a non-existent right of religion to be exempt from laws they don’t like.
The issue is 11,078 homicides by firearm in 2010 (from CDC). My question is whether or not it should at least as difficult to buy a gun as it is to buy Sudafed. I couldn’t care less whether or not the President is a gun enthusiast. Now we’re back in the “birther” rut where people are raising their voices over total bullshit instead of focusing that energy on the real problem. Thank you for that, Mr. President. For future reference, the appropriate response to that type of challenge is not engagement but a simple “Fuck you.”
A N.Y. Times editorial characterizes the President’s concession to religious groups on health care coverage as “A Good Compromise” despite noting that:
Neither the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedents give religiously affiliated institutions the right to be exempted from a neutral law of general applicability.
The Affordable Healthcare Act presently does not violate the First Amendment in any way, shape, or form; however, carving out exemptions to accommodate religious objections would.
I’m a little sensitive to the issue of health care vis-à-vis reproductive rights because I worked for a Catholic healthcare organization for a number of years through 2009, and tip-toeing around terminations of pregnancy and in-vitro fertilizations was a pain in the neck. Then there was the whole exception process (not unlike nullification of marriages) where one must prove that the contraceptive is for acne or (even more difficult) that the Cialis is necessary for recovery from prostate surgery. Setting all of that aside, they were an employer of Americans of all ethnicities and cultures and what-have-you, and they had to deal with it. They still should.