"Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul" - Rabelais

Most of you are aware of the controversy of the new rules emanating from Health and Human Services. For those who are not aware, they require all employers to include in their health insurance plans full coverage for contraception, sterilization and the drug RU-486 (alternately called the "morning after" or "abortion" pill). RU-486 is taken after unprotected sex to cause a spontaneous expulsion of a fertilized egg, or embryo, in effect aborting the pregnancy.

RU-486 was heavily lobbied against by the Roman Catholic church, other Evangelical churches, and the pro-life movement. All of these groups hold as a core belief that life begins at conception. As a condition of allowing FDA approval, then-President George W Bush instituted a rule exempting health care providers who could not offer this drug without violating their personal convictions. The rule did not deal with insurance coverage.

President Obama, in the rule announced by HHS Secretary Sebelius, has required all employers to offer this coverage. The Roman Catholic church, and the other groups cited above have said that they will not comply, on the grounds that it violates their beliefs and their teachings. The line has been drawn in the sand.

Talk radio listeners know that this has been the major issue over the last few days. It has been framed as a war against the Catholics, and a religious liberty, or freedom of religion issue. We don't think that is a wise strategy, for a number of reasons.

Framing the argument as an "assault on Christianity" makes for lively radio, and gives Fox News a bump in ratings, but going down that path is setting us up for a sucker punch. "This violates our beliefs" only sets us up as another victimized group looking to benevolent DC for an exemption. Even when couched in terms of war, and civil disobedience, using that argument has us dealing from a defensive position. As Rush has been fond of saying, you don't win anything on defense.

First - it legitimizes the rule, and HHS authority to issue it. In the technical sense, Sebelius was granted the authority under the Obamacare bill passed in questionable circumstances. In reality that authority is being questioned as Obamacare goes up the judicial food chain to the Supreme Court. The entire question could be moot, should the court throw out Obamacare over the mandate. Without the mandate, Obamacare does not work, and it will collapse in on itself.

Second - what happens when other groups have their beliefs violated? What happens when a Muslim group decides that a part of the plan violates sharia? Or a Jewish group claims that it violates their beliefs? What do we wind up with? A hodgepodge of exceptions, or the crushing of all faith sponsored charities, schools and hospitals? 25% of all of the hospitals in the United States are affiliated with the Roman Catholic church. Right now the Catholic church is being threatened with a $150 million fine. How many will need to close to pay the fine?

Third - It is not an argument that resonates on the secular world. People of devout faith will be moved by this argument. People with a secular mindset, or where a relationship with God is 5th or 10th or way down on the list of priorities will not relate. They will just hear more whining. It makes us look crazy.

Here is the argument that all can relate to. Employment is a private transaction between an employer and the employee (or the employee's union in the case of collective bargaining). Terms are settled on between the parties. They are either agreed on, and employment occurs, or they are not.

Everyone working at a Catholic sponsored institution is working there willingly. No one is holding a gun to their head and demanding that they work there. The employee, at least at the time of hire, thought it was a good deal. If they ever decide it is not a good deal, they can negotiate better terms, or work elsewhere (except in Obama's economy).

The federal government has no business in this transaction. No law was passed in Congress to address this issue, except in the vaguery of the Obamacare wording. This is merely one bureaucrat's opinion, endorsed by the President, and so ordered. We are finding out that if we accept the principle that the government can give us the right of "healthcare", than they can determine how that "right" will be bestowed. This is not a matter of one group's faith being violated. This is a matter of all of our rights being abridged, one group at a time.

The problem is not Catholic employment practices. It is Obamacare. First they mandate that we purchase insurance or be fined (headed to the Supreme Court as we speak). Now a bureaucrat has injected herself into the mix by deciding that the Catholic church must provide funding so that it's employees, who have not complained about it, will be provided with a benefit that is anathema to their teachings.

There is no compelling reason for this act. No one's rights are being violated by not providing this coverage. No one is stopping any woman from obtaining contraception. You can go into any drugstore and purchase it, including the abortion pill. If that provides a financial burden, Planned Parenthood gives it away for free. Rights are being violated by enforcing this rule.

The current compromise offered is actually more draconian in it's reach. The compromise puts the church in a far worse situation. Instead of the church paying for practices against its beliefs, it makes it impossible for it to not violate those tenets of faith. Insurance companies will no longer be given the option to offer policies that do not include "contraception services". With healthcare so intimately tied to employment, the choices that the church faces under this arrangement are to surrender their core principles, to no longer offer healthcare insurance (which would be of benefit to Obamacare) or to self insure.

In our Colonial past, King William III sought to restrict the religious liberties of Catholics, those who did not believe in the trinity, and those of non-Christian faiths. He ordered the shut down of all of these churches in the American colonies. One man refused - William Penn, who developed Pennsylvania as a haven for personal religious belief - a radical idea at the time. He said that he would not comply, and Pennsylvania did not. We see how that has worked out over time.

The argument of strength, in the words of a letter issued last week by the Bishops of the United States was the same - "We will not comply". We will not do it. We will pay no fine. We will continue to operate as we have. We will teach this from the pulpit. Consistently. We are glad to see the Bishops standing firm against even the back-handed compromise.

Obama graciously deemed it fair to allow the church one year to adjust their insurance coverage. Wait him out. He's either gone in November and the issue goes away, or he can explain how this is helping his constituency of poor - in the closing of charities, hospitals and schools all designed to help the less fortunate among us, in order to pay a fine to the federal government. It is time for all of good conscience to stand in opposition to this lessening of all of our liberties. As Ben Franklin said - "We must all hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately". We stand with liberty. Common Sense dictates so.

RLB