A manufactured, political, red-herring

There is a bipartisan bill currently in the U.S. Senate that Scott Brown and I both support which provides a conscience exemption from the federal government’s health care mandate in the news and discussed on RMG lately. This mandate requires that religious institutions, within their private health care plans, must offer products or services that go against their moral teachings or religious doctrine.

The proposed bill would restore sections of the laws on conscience protection that existed before Obamacare was implemented and took them out.  

Liberal talking points are falling absolutely flat:

Special Interest Groups would have voters believe we would be turning back to the Middle Ages where sinister D.C. politicians, along with the People’s Senator, could somehow deny contraception for women.  In fact, what we are witnessing is nothing more than a manufactured, political, red-herring that appeals to the worse in public discourse: calculated fear mongering geared towards women voters.  

In fact, if the bill removing Pres. Obama’s health care mandate passes, the nation would simply be returning to the way things were in 2010.

As my Mother’s son and a product of that single family upbringing (along with my two adopted sisters), I believe that health insurance companies should have to cover services that women want and rely on. But I also recognize that there are some people and organizations who, based on their moral and religious convictions, don’t agree with the President or some groups regarding those services.  

Under the First Amendment, don’t we need to respect their rights too?

This latest mandate in question, under government-controlled health care, is one reason why I do not support Obamacare, nor do I believe Massachusetts should somehow convert to a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all system like my 2012 opponent, Jamie Eldridge wants to do.

That disaster of a proposal (MA S 509) includes 5 NEW state taxes on payroll, capital gains, employers, and employees. (It makes the President’s plan look conservative and incremental).

Either one of these health care models, operate by regulatory fiat from Washington D.C. or Beacon Hill, showing little flexibility for the judgment, needs or consumer choice of individual Americans.

I agree with U.S. Sen Scott Brown recently when he said: “Republicans and Democrats don’t come together nearly enough these days, and when we do it’s usually because of something we all recognize as clearly out of line. It takes a really bad idea to reveal our shared convictions on issues bigger than politics.”

This is one of those instances.

Sen. Brown is accurate when he asserts that it is possible to provide women with access to the health care they want, while at the same time protecting the rights of citizens to follow their religious beliefs, just as we did before a one-size, fits all ObamaPlan.

As a former MA social studies teacher, I hope SCOTUS sends it to the ash heap of history.

The bill(s) and concept Brown and both the late JFK AND Sen. Kennedy supported is a matter of fundamental fairness – and a right to be protected for all religious faiths.

Dean Cavaretta

Candidate for State Senate


Middlesex and Worcester District

www.DeanCavaretta.com

Follow @DeanCav or

www.facebook.com/thecavarettacommittee

 

About DeanCavaretta