By Dave Andrusko
As NRL News Today readers know, back in October the Department of Justice reached a long overdue settlement so “that plaintiffs would not be forced to provide health insurance coverage for ‘morally unacceptable’ products and procedures.” That was a reference to the infamous Obama mandate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services under a provision of ObamaCare that required employers — even those with deeply held religious objections — to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they had moral or religious objections.
Among those who had joined a lawsuit of more than a dozen religious nonprofits including charities or universities, were the Little Sisters of the Poor. Naturally pro-abortion state attorneys general were not going to take this defeat lying down. Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra is suing HHS to take away the Little Sisters’ religious exemption from the HHS rule. [State of California v. Hargan].
I thought of this determination to squelch religious freedom when I re-read pro-abortion Pastor Donna Schaper’s Huffington Post diatribe. Half-way through the first sentence of her attack on the usual suspects (that would be us) she talked about “another anti-abortion niggle.” Of course I had to look up “niggle” and in this context it means a trifling. Okay, to Schaper rights of conscience and freedom of religion which are at issue in the ongoing battle against the Obama mandate are minutiae.
Which is rather ironic coming from Senior Minister, Judson Memorial Church, wouldn’t you say? Anyway, writing with “great weariness,” she believes employers should be compelled to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections, and it annoys her to no end that she has to repeat the “positive moral argument in favor of what the Court has already decided” (aka the “right” to abortion).
As so often is the case with abortion advocates, Schaper begins with a faux concern (“it’s painful”) “for one Christian to have to argue with another one about the freedom of the human to make choices.” But she quickly gets past the pain and lambasts everyone, Christian or otherwise, who is not persuaded that the “freedom of the human to make choices” ends the debate, now and forever more.
Pretending that the “positive moral argument” for abortion has somehow swept the nation may assure Rev. Schaper that she has the high moral ground. However if, like me, you find her litany of half-baked, question-begging “arguments” unpersuasive, you’ll probably conclude she needs to get out more.
Try not to grow weary by her use of hoary, 1960s-esque language (“mandatory motherhood,” women as “second class citizens,” and other such drivel). Look at what she is arguing. It’s really quite amazing in its simplicity and irrelevance. For example
“Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. Therefore, current legislation restricting women’s reproductive choice also restricts moral choice. To restrict a woman’s choice is to refuse her soul freedom.”
Syllogisms, anyone? Just plug in something other than abortion and see how it works:
“Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. Therefore, current legislation restricting a boyfriend’s right to beat his girlfriend to a pulp also restricts moral choice. To restrict a man’s choice to treat his girlfriend like a punching bag is to refuse his soul freedom.”
Oh, but that’s different, the Rev. Schaper would respond. Sure, if you agree that the unborn is not one of us; is not deserving of the community’s protection; and is a just value-less obstacle to a woman exercising “soul freedom.”
Rev. Schaper also tells us, “Our faith tradition teaches freedom for religion and freedom from religion.” What exactly does that mean in this context (aside from attempting to wrap herself in the Constitution)?
What if in the 19th Century, respect for the inherent equality of African-Americans was a core principle of your religious faith. If you were motivated to end slavery because of that principle and were successful in winning legal protection for our fellow Americans, should that victory have been disallowed because we must have “freedom from religion”? Please.
Back to abortion: If I am secular or an atheist, is it okay to fight for the rights of unborn children? What if (regardless of my faith background, or lack thereof), I make the case for the equality of unborn children solely on a non-religious basis? Does anyone think for 30 seconds Rev. Schaper would be any the less “weary”?
Schaper drags in other illustrations which have nothing to do with anything. But that’s the way pro-abortionists argue.
Which really is wearisome.