Obama's mandate?

In response to Oregonian columnist Susan Nielsen's latest column, "Contraception and religion: Birth-control mandate full of unpleasant side effects."

I have more thoughts on this issue, as it is a nonsensical one in many ways.  Obama's actions here are purely unconstitutional.  Whether one believes as the Catholic Church does, is another issue entirely.

I sent the following to the Editors of The Oregonian after reading the aforementioned tripe this afternoon.  I welcome any comments, yet note that the debate is not about Church doctrine, but rather the Constitutionality of the latest brand of socialism to be foisted upon the as-of-late passive American public.

Pardon me if I object to Susan Nielsen's spurious claim that “Obama had logic and morality on his side” in the president's latest decree.  He had neither.

Furthermore, the insane political environment she alludes to has nothing to do with “women's health,” but has everything to do with religious liberty—a core principle of this republic.

It is neither logical, moral, or legal for a president of the United States to foist such personal beliefs upon the country.  In short, it is the Congress that makes laws, the president is to enforce them.

At hand is a president whose actions appear to be that of an ancient king rather than the Constitutionally-defined and limited duties he is bound to as the office-holder.

Simply, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Where does the president or Ms. Nielsen get the idea that it is any concern of the Executive Branch to interfere with the religious liberty of a voluntary organization—in this case the Catholic Church, of which no one is compelled to belong or follow its rules unless one chooses?

Nevertheless, if people do choose to join the Church or follow its teaching, why now is it the federal government's place to compromise teachings and a message that have existed for 2,000 years and shaped Western Civilization as we know it for a yet ever-dynamic social program—I shudder to think it is moral in any way—handed down to a passive public by commissars within the Washington Beltway establishment?

Frankly, one is not legally required to receive the care of specifically-Catholic hospitals, nor is one compelled to be employed by or educated by any other Church institution.  This is the matter of choice that should be discussed, not the take-it-or-perish approach considered wise by the sociopaths in government and their surrogates in the media.

In this case, Mr. Obama's arrogance and Ms. Nielsen's ignorance are both affronts to logic and morality.