Search  |  Login  |  Register

Obama Admin's HHS Plan

By Matthew Clark1388784729000

Buried deep in the Obama DOJ’s response to Justice Sotomayor’s eleventh hour emergency stay of the abortion-pill mandate for a group of Catholic nuns, is a glimpse into the Obama Administration’s plan for the HHS Mandate.

The Mandate, which forces all employers to pay for abortion pills regardless of their religious objections, has been challenged by numerous religious organizations and Christian owned businesses alike.

Each facing steep fines that would send most any entity (regardless of whether they are a charity or business) into bankruptcy.

We have long detailed how it is far more expensive for a business that chooses to provide insurance that covers everything except abortion-pills to pay the HHS Mandate penalty than for a business to refuse to provide insurance for it’s employees at all and be subject to ObamaCare’s “employer responsibly tax.”

As I have previously explained, in a given year, a company with 100 employees “would be fined $3.65 million for providing insurance but refusing to violate its faith by paying for abortion pills, but would only be fined $140,000 for providing no insurance at all.”

The disparity is mindboggling.  But now we know why.  The Obama Administration wants religious employers to drop their insurance coverage.  Don’t believe me, read for yourself straight from the Obama Administration’s memo to the Supreme Court.

The preventive-services coverage provision in general, and the contraceptive-coverage provision in particular, apply only if an employer offers a group health plan. Employers, however, are not required to offer group health plans in the first place. Large employers (those with more than 50 fulltime-equivalent employees) face a potential tax if they do not provide coverage, but that gives them a “choice” between two legal options: provide a group health plan or risk payment of the tax.

That’s right, the Obama Administration is saying that religious employers who don’t wish to have their faith violated can make the “choice” to refuse to provide any insurance for their employees and pay the smaller tax.

After forcing millions of Americans off “plans they liked,” the Obama Administration is now hoping to force employees of religiously based organizations and business to lose their insurance as well?

It’s just one more confirmation that ObamaCare isn’t about providing insurance, it’s about government expansion and abortion.  The extent to which President Obama will go to defend his extreme agenda is astounding.

This article is crossposted on Red State.

Latest in
ObamaCare

Helping Little Sisters of the Poor

By Geoffrey Surtees1440436960697

Just over one year ago, the Supreme Court held in the Hobby Lobby decision that the HHS Mandate, a federal regulation requiring non-exempt employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs and services to its employees, violated the religious rights of closely held corporations and their owners. It was...

read more

Though Flawed, ObamaCare Stands

By Michelle Terry1435602214218

About a month ago, we discussed five critical failures of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Unfortunately, we now know that the highest Court in the land has determined – again – that this law will stand, despite its many flaws. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United...

read more

Supreme Court Again Rewrites ObamaCare

By Jay Sekulow1435247432884

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court. Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority...

read more

Will SCOTUS Topple ObamaCare?

By Edward White1434376800000

According to Jonathan Gruber, an architect of ObamaCare who helped the Obama Administration deceive the American people about it, the law has three key interrelated components: (1) rules dictating what health insurance plans must include, (2) the individual and employer mandates, and (3) subsidies...

read more