[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 59°F  
High: 83°F ~ Low: 52°F
Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Mandate limits consumer choice

Friday, August 10, 2012

The controversial Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring employers to cover the full cost of contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs took effect on August 1, 2012. The requirement, a result of the President's health care law, has caused strong opposition because it forces some religious organizations to violate their beliefs, infringing on their constitutional right to religious freedom. Furthermore, it limits consumer choice by mandating what services must be covered by insurance plans.

No one should be forced to do something they find objectionable. This idea is the basis for what is known as conscience rights, protected in the in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This issue also highlights the problems of one-size fits all government mandated health care, and the need for greater consumer choice in the health care market. Employers and individuals should have the ability to shape health care plans based on their needs. Allowing consumers, whether an individual purchasing for themselves or an employer choosing to provide a benefit, the ability to pick the plan right for them would prevent Americans from being forced to pay for coverage they do not need, or have an objection to.

To reduce costs and increase consumer choice, Congress must repeal the President's health care law. While the House has passed legislation to repeal the entire law, our efforts have not been able to pass the Democratic-led Senate.

The Obama administration granted some faith-based employers such as hospitals and schools a one year extension to comply with the regulation, but this is only a short-term solution. The one year exemption also was partly used to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the state of Nebraska and several other states against the mandate, because the plaintiffs no longer were able to demonstrate they faced an "immediate" threat of offering the coverage. I am disappointed in this outcome, but it is important to point out the case was dismissed for technical reasons, not based on the constitutionality of the mandate.

Many hoped this controversy could be resolved if the health care law was repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court. In light of the Court's decision to not overturn the law, several legal cases have been brought to challenge the constitutionality of this particular mandate.

I recently joined nearly eighty of my House colleagues from both parties in signing a soon-to-be filed amicus brief in support of forty-three Catholic institutions challenging the contraceptive and abortifacient mandate in court.

I also am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179). This bill would repeal the HHS mandate and has garnered broad, bipartisan support with more than 220 cosponsors in the House.

As the legal and legislative process moves forward, I will continue to work to repeal this onerous and unconstitutional mandate. I will also continue to advocate for more consumer choice in the health care market to provide consumers coverage consistent with their needs and beliefs. America was founded on the idea of religious liberty, and we must preserve this freedom for all Americans.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Representative Smith,

If you spent as much time working on job creation as you do on faith based initiatives our country would have a greater chance of climbing out of the fiscal abyss created by policies and practices initiated during the last Republican Administration.

Do you really believe that one persons religious beliefs should outweigh another persons right to what they consider individual health care choices? No where in the Affordable Care Act does it state that any individual has to use contraceptives - they only need be available if they so wish to use them to address their individual healthcare needs.

Recent studies have confirmed that a majority of women across the religious spectrum utilize contraceptives - not only for birth control but also for effective treatment of other ailments and the prevention of disease. This is probably why the Pope recently endorsed the use of condoms in an effort to stop the transmission of sexually transmitted disease.

It is time for you to quit spending tax payer money trying to legislate what you consider to be moral issues based on your religious beliefs. A majority of women and men in our country have already made the decision to embrace contraceptives - they have already exercised their religious liberties by making this choice.

During the past year or so you were a big promoter of extending the research and development tax credits touting how many private sector jobs it would immediately create. Several times I have requested you to provide us with the number of jobs created since the extension of the tax credits but you have yet to provide any information to substantiate your claims. When can we expect you to provide this information showing how many jobs this tax break created?

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Aug 12, 2012, at 9:03 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith
Washington Report