Politics
Steve Precourt: Obama 'Playing Another Shell Game' with Contraception-Abortion Mandate
Around the State

Photo illustration
“The Obama administration is playing another shell game; it's par for their course, their standard MO,” Florida House Majority Leader Steve Precourt, R-Orlando, tells Sunshine State News. “They just make it up as they go along, with no respect for the U.S. Constitution or the law of the land.”

House Majority Leader Steve Precourt
The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, implemented pursuant to certain provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), had required that employers obligated to provide health insurance under the new health care law include provision of all FDA-approved contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs in their plans.
The mandate contained a narrow religious exemption that only applied to houses of worship or to charitable institutions that primarily employed and served members of one particular sect.
The new proposal broadens the exemption to cover all institutions designated "religious" by the IRS, which would include schools and charities affiliated with a religious denomination but that employ and serve people of other faiths. The exemptions still do not apply to "secular" nonprofits or to for-profit employers who have conscientious objections to subsidizing contraception and abortions for their employees.
Precourt tells the News he seconds the reaction offered by the Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life.
“[W]e at Priests for Life remind the administration that religious liberty does not just belong to religious groups and individuals; it belongs to all Americans,” Pavone said in a statement following the administration’s announcement. “Objections to contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs aren't based just on dogmas and Bibles, but on adverse health consequences and the fact that human beings, no matter how small, should not be killed.
“We see only one acceptable change regarding the mandate: rescind it completely.”
Bill Bunkley, who represents the Florida Baptist Convention on the newly-formed Florida Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (of which he is also president), offers a more nuanced response.
“Any microstep to the full accommodation of a person or a business in this country having the availability to have protection under the First Amendment – in this particular case, the Free Exercise Clause – is a step in the right direction,” he tells the News. “This [mandate] is really causing some serious difficulties not only for some of our ministries, but also for some businesses who legitimately have a very long and very public track record of their faith persuasion carrying over into business practice.
“I am far from thinking that this is anywhere near a solution to the problem, especially among faith-based social conservatives.”
Dr. Mike McCarron, executive director of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, is still more cautious.
“This may remedy the situation the Church finds herself in, but the civil rights of individuals who are having their own religious liberties violated remains an issue of concern to us,” he tells the News. “From the very beginning, the bishops have expressed concern over the religious liberties of individuals whose constitutional rights are being violated by this.
"We’ll have to wait and see, but we’re grateful that at least things appear to be moving in the direction that we would like.”
Attorney Carrie Eisnaugle, president of Florida Right to Life, tells the News her organization is still analyzing the revisions.
"The [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] mandate and the burden on faith-based organizations are highly important for Florida Right to Life,” she says. “Our staff is still reviewing the compromise language and we will be happy to issue a statement when we have specific details on how it will impact our state."
The Catholic Archdiocese of Miami is one of at least 130 religious organizations and other conscientious objectors challenging the constitutionality of the contraception-abortifacient mandate in federal court. Attorneys representing the Archdiocese tell Sunshine State News they are reviewing the proposed rules, and are not willing to offer comment at this time.
The case, Archdiocese of Miami v. Kathleen Sebelius, is before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Reach Eric Ginta at egiunta@sunshinestatenews.com or at (954) 235-9116.

Comments (16)
STAND YOUR GROUND AND DO NOT BE SWAYED BY THE DEVIL!!!! THE DEVIL IS LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE and you are being tested by God. Where does the "FATHERS RIGHTS COME INTO PLAY HERE"?
Sexual Intercourse was given to a married couple by God for confirmation of the marriage not to be used for any other purpose!!!
CUTS HAVE TO MADE SOMEWHERE AND THIS SHOULD BE ONE OF THEM: NO SEX - NO BABY - NO COVERAGE - NO PROBLEMS
Abstinence is what the Bible teaches and what this country was founded on. If you do not obey the word of God, then you give the baby up for adoption or raise the child. This is life at conception because there is cellular growth within the wound. This life deserves a chance to live just as you or I did. If you want to have sex outside a marriage or prevent a pregnancy then it is your obligation to obtain your own supplies. Sex is not a health issue nor is it a disease issue but can become so when you contract many STD's.......then you will want the government to pay for that....Oh they have called AIDS (DISEASE OF THE GAY MAN)
Registered Nurse for 35 year.
Christians - I call for you to stand up for God on this issue ...
Well if you're going to stand with God then make sure Christians won't have to cover any extra doctor visits and the prescriptions that keeps the obese from having a stroke or dropping from a heart attack.
You see, God tells us eating for pleasure is more sinful than having sex for pleasure.
You know how? Look at the consequences. God's consequences for having sex for pleasure is the possibility of a baby. (And you get 3 weeks a month in which to have it with no consequence.)
God's consequence for eating for pleasure is untimely death or disability.
Pathetic . . .
That will be great for the Catholic Church because after all, gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins and I'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for people to mitigate the consequences of their sins.
Oh, and make sure we can also deny coverage for prenatal care and delivery. Because if we shouldn't have to pay a few hundred dollars a year to prevent pregnancy for the lifestyle choice of sex, then we shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars when that lifestyle choice ends in pregnancy.
Or at least let them deny coverage for out of wedlock babies. Oh, and no treatment for AID's or HIV unless it can be determined it was not contracted through a lifestyle choice.
Hmmm. If we allow all those exclusions to apply to any employer, or health insurance company then health insurance just might be affordable again making Obamacare unnecessary....
No one should ever, under any circumstance, be forced to subsidize what they do not freely consent to. That's really the underlying point in this debate.
There really is only one human right: freedom. Forcing any man to subsidize what he does not wish to is a violation of that human right. It's immoral, and is not made moral just because this human-rights violation is achieved through a "democratic" process.
However, many have been around for a long time and yet I never heard any protests before. Using this one now just seems discriminatory and very hypocritical.
Still, I can see where a non-totalitarian statist would justify state intervention in the voluntary sector, while also insisting that religious freedom (i.e., "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," as Anthony Kennedy once so eloquently put it) is so sacrosanct a human right that it should not be interfered with at all so long as it remains nonviolent.
Again, I as a libertarian don't believe in "religious freedom"; I'm for the whole package deal. But I can see where a conservative or liberal statist would see things otherwise.
Pathetic . . . . .
Of course I believe statism -- especially statism that also claims to value some modicum of liberty/freedom -- to be illogical; if I didn't think it was illogical, I would be a statist, right?
By what logic, Frank, do *you* believe it is morally justified for one man to force another, against that other's free will, to subsidize his healthcare?
Can you reply without name-calling?
Pathetic . . .
Duh. Who doesn't?
Now, are you going to challenge the substance of what I've written, or are you just going to keep name-calling?
Also, I'm not a first-time commenter I write under various pseudonyms, presumably for much the same reason you don't publish your last name, "Frank."
Pathetic . . .
Leave a Comment on This Story