If 99% use contraception now, why mandate it?

In announcing his decision to continue his plans for contraception coercion, President Obama smugly asserted, 'Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives.' 
While that figure strains credibility, if it were true, where's the huge problem of access to contraception that he says justifies the government's draconian actions? 
If President Obama is intent on government-mandated health care, instead of mandating cheap pills that don't treat a disease and 99 percent of patients can already obtain, wouldn't it make more sense to mandate the provision of lifesaving medicines that patients can't afford or obtain?

President's contraception decision fits pattern of contempt for conscience

Christian Medical Association: President's contraception decision fits pattern of contempt for conscience

Dr. David Stevens: "The President's so-called religious accommodation today shows that he either has no comprehension of what conscience convictions mean or that he cynically chooses to disregard conscience and play a political game."

Washington, DC--February 10, 2012--The nation's largest faith-based doctors' association, the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (www.cmda.org), issued a statement today protesting President Obama's decision to continue to require all insurance plans nationwide to pay for sterilizations and contraceptive pills that can end the life of a developing human being.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens asserted, "The President's so-called 'religious accommodation' today shows that he either has no comprehension of what conscience convictions mean or that he cynically chooses to disregard conscience and play a political game. We learned from his executive order on abortion in health care reform that verbal engineering cannot cover up a contempt for conscience.

"Those of us who have a conscientious conviction that contraceptive pills that can end the life of a developing human being are morally impermissible not only deplore paying for them directly; we also deplore the government forcing insurance companies or anyone else to pay for them. And we in faith-based organizations certainly have no intention of instructing employees how to obtain morally objectionable pills, as is required by Hawaii's policy--after which the President's 'accommodation' is reportedly patterned.

"No one--whether an individual citizen, a faith-based organization or an insurance company--should be forced by the federal government to participate in any way in the provision of pills that can end the life of a developing human being. That is simply contrary to American principles of freedom of conscience, and it shows the contempt for conscience inherent in radical abortion ideology.

"As Dr. Martin Luther King reminds us, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'

"As physicians who uphold life-honoring standards such as the Hippocratic oath, we recognize that it is morally or ethically wrong to risk ending the life of a developing human being by using pills such as ella and the morning-after pill. These pills are falsely promoted as ordinary contraceptives despite clear FDA label warnings that 'ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus' and that the morning-after pill (Plan B) "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.'"

"In his speech at Notre Dame, President Obama promised a 'sensible' respect for conscience, but in practice the President has demonstrated a pattern of contempt for conscience. The President has gutted the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care, denied of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion, lobbied the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations' hiring rights and issued a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government's abortion ideology on every American.

Action

"Every American, regardless of political persuasion, should be protesting these assaults on our freedoms and contacting legislators to enact conscience-protecting legislation such as Amendment #1520 to S. 1813, the Surface Transportation bill. This amendment includes the text of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced in the House by Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb. 1st) and in the Senate by Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)."

Contraceptives mandate fits administration's pattern of disregard for religious freedoms

You'd have to be living in a groundhog hole the past few days to have missed the controversy over the administration's decision to mandate contraception coverage nationwide virtually regardless of religious or ethical objections.
Clearly the issue goes well beyond the controversy over contraception coverage to more fundamental principles of American civil rights. That's why even normally supportive media are assailing the President's assault on the First Amendment. Left-leaning  Washington Post commentator E.J. Dionne wrote of "Obama's breach of faith;" the Chicago Tribune ran a critical editorial, "A matter of faith" and USA Today editors opined that the "Contraception mandate violates religious freedom."
What's not getting quite as much coverage is the broader, extremely dangerous pattern of civil liberties violations into which the contraception coercion fits.
In the past three years, people of faith and conscience have witnessed:

1. the gutting of the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care; 
2. the denial of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion; 
3. the administration's lobbying of the Supreme Court to restrict faith-basedorganizations' hiring rights; and 
4. a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government's ideology on the faith-based and pro-life communities.

History shows that wholesale abridgement of civil liberties happens gradually rather than overnight. History also shows that taking away the rights of one group of citizens leads to the loss of rights for any group of citizens.
If you recognize this dangerous trend and want the U.S. to avoid repeating the mistakes of history, contact your legislators today and tell them to support pending legislation to protect conscience rights and civil liberties, such as the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.

Check your charities' rankings and efficiency with Charity Navigator

As you consider putting your values into action by donating to a nonprofit ministry, consider also checking the ratings of ministries by objective charity reviewers.

One of those reviewers is the Charity Navigator. From its web site: 

Charity Navigator is considered by many to be the leading evaluator of non-profit effectiveness. Charity Navigator, America's leading independent charity evaluator, works to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace by evaluating the Financial Health and Accountability and Transparency of America's largest charities. Charity Navigator selected as Best Charity Review Site in Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine’s “The Best List 2011.” 

The Christian Medical Association, for example, just received the highest (four-star) rating by Charity Navigator.  Just 1,410 of the 1,600,000 charities in America receive this designation. Charity Navigator objectively reviews the financial statements and tax filings of non-profits, determining those that have the lowest overhead and spend the highest percentage of resources on program beneficiaries.

Contraception mandate threat: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

Michael Gerson's excellent commentary in the Washington Post, "Obama plays hisCatholic allies for fools," highlights just two of the Obama administration's assaults on First Amendment freedoms in the faith community--mandating the subsidy of potentially life-ending contraceptives and lobbying the Supreme Court to restrict religious hiring rights.

President Obama has also gutted the only federal regulation protecting conscience rights in health care, and his administration has also pursued more covert means of pushing people of faith out of the public square. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) deliberately diverted grant funding away from a faith-based organization that had been providing by all accounts excellent aid to victims of human trafficking. Despite an objective review score 20 points higher than the group ultimately awarded the money, the faith-based group lost the competition because of its moral objections to participating in abortion--a senseless new stipulation for grants to aid trafficked victims. Faith-based groups also have been quietly pushed out of partnerships with the federal government by grant stipulations under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

If we allow this administration's assault on people of faith, no one's First Amendment rights remain safe. As Dr. King proclaimed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

---