Last week many news story headlines made it sound as if the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. In reality, this moderate court again avoided taking a strong stand on a politically charged issue, and simply ruled that the Plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case. You could call this a dodge on a technicality, and it was, but even Justice Clarence Thomas, a critic of Obamacare, who criticized the court for not following through logically with past decisions, particularly on the individual mandate, agreed with the lack of standing.

President Joe Biden used the opportunity to mischaracterize the ruling as a sweeping affirmation of the terrible program and called for its expansion. “Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision is a major victory for all Americans benefitting from this groundbreaking and life-changing law,” Biden’s handlers wrote in a statement for him.

Are Americans really benefiting from the Affordable Care Act? Not according to a new state-by-state study. Many Americans are paying a lot more, with fewer choices, than they were before the politicians “fixed” health care for us.  (Democrat leaders, specifically own this failure, as no Republican voted for the ACA – 34 Democrats also voted against it.)

The horrifically misnamed “Affordable Care Act” is one of the biggest frauds ever committed against the American people. In Indiana, Hoosiers, are now paying twice the amount for individual health insurance than they paid before Obamacare was passed.  As the Heritage Foundation notes, “Hoosiers paid an average $484 a month for coverage in 2019. That is $243 more than what they paid in 2013, the last year before Obamacare took effect. Additionally, Indiana has 8 fewer health insurers offering Obamacare exchange plans in 2021 than offered individual market plans in 2013.”

Hoosiers have fewer choices and higher costs, (and probably less coverage with higher deductibles) but in a weird way, it could be even worse.  Nationally, the average monthly premium paid by consumers in 2019 was 129 percent higher than before Obamacare took effect. Indiana has seen only a 101 percent increase in insurance costs.

Citizens in five states (Alabama, Nebraska, Missouri, West Virginia, and Wyoming) have seen their average monthly premiums triple in price. Only one state, Massachusetts, saw insurance premiums decline since Obamacare became law. Nationally, there are now 142 fewer insurance providers than there were before Obamacare. Less competition means higher prices and fewer choices.

On at least 15 different occasions, President Barak Obama claimed that premiums would go down. He specifically said that the average savings would be $2500 a year for a family. Rather than decreasing $200 a month as promised, Hoosiers have paid that much more each month.

This reminds me of what economist Milton Friedman who once said, “The government’s solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

U.S. District Judge William Conley has ruled that Wisconsin cannot exclude gender-reassignment treatments from coverage under the Medicaid program. Judge Conley struck down a 1997 Department of Health Services directive that excluded “transsexual surgery” and hormonal treatment, ruling that denying the treatments constituted sex discrimination under the federal Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The Judge misleadingly concluded that “there is now a consensus within the medical profession that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition, which if left untreated or inadequately treated can cause adverse symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, serious mental distress, self-harm and suicidal ideation.” He added that insurance companies now “acknowledge that gender-confirming hormone and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria can be medically necessary.”

Wisconsin estimates that as many as 5,000 enrollees in its Medicaid program may have some form of gender confusion and that treating them could cost as much $2.1 million. The state contends that, contrary to the Judge’s ruling, there is no proven benefit to “transsexual surgery,” and that the scientific literature indicates that supporting gender confusion causes significant emotional harm in patients, up to and including attempted suicide.

A study published by the National Institutes of Health entitled “Transsexual attractions and sexual reassignment surgery: Risks and Potential Risks” states that “Physicians and mental-health professionals have a professional responsibility to know and communicate the serious risks, in particular risk of suicide, that are associated with SRS (sexual reassignment surgery).” The study notes that transsexual attractions in youth often resolve themselves on their own, and/or may be successfully treated through counseling.

The study warns that the idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter of choice has taken on “cult-like” status:

“It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.” 

The study also notes,

“despite the “lack of contravening evidence that SRS conveyed any benefits compared with any unoperated-upon control groups, the practice of SRS has continued and has been extended into younger age groups.”

Sadly, there is a growing movement of former transsexuals who have learned the hard way that one’s sex is immutable. They have experienced “sex change regret” and have “de-transitioned” back to their true sex. One former transsexual relates the painful surgical process of repairing the damage done to his body: “I still have scars on my chest, reminders of the gender detour that cost me 13 years of my life. I am on a hormone regimen to try to regulate a system that is permanently altered.” Providentially, this man was able to experience love and marriage as God intended: “Eventually, I met a wonderful woman who didn’t care about the changes to my body, and we’ve been married for 21 years.”

Unfortunately, in his ruling, Judge Conley chose to ignore the existence of regretful former transsexuals as well as evidence demonstrating the dangers of attempting to change one’s sex.  By so doing, he is causing great harm to young people and others who are suffering from temporary and treatable gender confusion.

As we stand on the threshold of a new year, a phrase from Simon and Garfunkel’s song “The Boxer” sums up why America’s division into two warring worldviews seems to be widening.

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”  That’s true for most folks, thanks to human nature.

However, we’re not on an equal playing field.  The whole thing is tilted to the left.  Progressive news and entertainment are everywhere, including airport lounges where thousands of travelers each day are afflicted with CNN’s non-stop propaganda.

If you don’t go out of your way to get some balance, you might think, for instance, that the tax cut bill signed by President Donald Trump does one thing only:  It kicks the middle class and the poor into the gutter, where they’re splashed with dirty, icy water as rich people guzzling Dom Perignon speed by in limos to celebrate at four-star restaurants.

Every day, led by the Washington Post and the New York Times, the media relentlessly portray the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a sop to the rich and an attack on the poor and middle class, even though the poor pay no federal taxes and an estimated 80 percent of taxpayers will see immediate cuts in 2018.

The long overdue reform to reduce one of the world’s highest corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent will free up capital to expand industries, create more jobs and to compete internationally.   And eliminating the Obamacare penalty tax as of January 1, 2019, is a major step toward repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act in piecemeal fashion.

Here are some other highlights of the new law from the Tax Foundation:

—Although it eliminates the personal exemption, it increases the standard deduction to $12,000 for single filers, $18,000 for heads of household, and $24,000 for joint filers in 2018 (compared to $6,500, $9,550, and $13,000 respectively under current law).

—Retains the charitable contribution deduction, and limits the mortgage interest deduction to the first $750,000 in principal value.

—Limits the state and local tax deduction to a combined $10,000 for income, sales, and property taxes. (This will affect people the most in high-tax states run by Democrats.  More on that later).  Taxes paid or accrued in carrying on a trade or business are not limited.

—Expands the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, while increasing the phase-out from $110,000 in current law to $400,000 for married couples. The first $1,400 would be refundable.

—Raises the exemption on the alternative minimum tax from $86,200 to $109,400 for married filers, and increases the phase-out threshold to $1 million.

You don’t hear much about these provisions because they don’t fit the media narrative.  Instead, we get a steady diet of class warfare.

USA Today, for instance, analyzed “5 household situations” as to how the tax bill would affect them. One of them, as related by the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel, “included a childless single renter earning $1 million a year, paying $50,000 in state and local taxes, and claiming $40,000 in charitable deductions.” As Ms. Strassel notes, “this downtrodden soul would pay $1,887 more in taxes.” Oh, the horror.

Some media outlets are floating the theory that the new tax law is so unfair that Democrats now have a good chance to take back the U.S House and perhaps even the U.S. Senate this November despite the roaring economy.

Before they book too many dance floors, though, Democrats might be reminded that Alabama’s recent election of a Democratic senator was a unique case, and that they’re defending 25 U.S. Senate seats, including several in “red” states — Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri and Montana – that Mr. Trump carried by 19 percent or more. Republicans have to defend only eight U.S. Senate seats.

Perhaps the Dems’ hope lies in a mass migration from high-tax, “blue” states whose residents will no longer be able to deduct all state and local taxes on their federal returns. Formerly rock-solid conservative New Hampshire recently went purple, as thousands of liberals from Massachusetts moved north to escape the consequences of their own party’s policies.  One would have hoped that they would think twice about fouling their new nest, but, no.  They’re trying their darndest to turn the Granite State into a replica of their former state or socialist Vermont.

Up in that neck of the woods, the Boston Globe and its former owner, the New York Times, are liberals’ version of the Bible.  Plus National Public Radio and PBS.  So it’s not surprising that even the many folks there who will benefit from the new tax law consider themselves victims.

A little retooling of the first referenced phrase might be in order:  “The media tell you what they want you to hear, and disregard the rest.”

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Yesterday a Washington Times headline read “GOP wins first Obamacare fight in Senate budget vote.” Katie Pavlich reported this at Townhall.com:

Republicans eager to show quick action against Obama’s health care law took an initial procedural step Tuesday, introducing a budget bill that would have to be considered under a parliamentary procedure that would prevent Democrats from using a Senate filibuster to protect the health care law.

Pavlich also reported that Vice President-elect Mike Pence told Congressional Republicans that President-elect Donald Trump wants Obamacare (i.e., the Affordable Care Act) repealed and sent to his desk by February 20.

With Republicans in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue after January 20, the Republican Congress will be able to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with the help of the new president.

Candidate Trump made clear his intentions, and President-elect Trump began to make good on his commitment to repeal and replace the ACA with his choice of U.S. Representative Tom Price (R-GA) to serve as his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Rep. Price is considered one of the most knowledgeable Republicans on healthcare policy.

Since the election, a lot has been written about the challenges in repealing the ACA. The bill ran thousands of (mostly unread) pages when it was signed into law in March, 2010, and tens of thousands of pages of regulations dealing with the ACA have been added since then.

What will replace Obamacare is a work in progress as conservative health care expert Lanhee Chen explained:

It’s not that we don’t have enough ideas as conservatives, it’s that we actually have too many. A lot of thinking and research has gone on the last several years around how you create a health care system that is more consumer friendly, that pays attention to costs first, that recognizes the importance of health care in people’s lives but doesn’t believe that the federal government is necessarily well-suited to make all of those important decisions.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, and your local U.S. Representative asking them to support the repeal of Obamacare.

Obamacare has caused many to lose their existing coverage, insurance rates to soar, policy options to be restricted, and increased the national deficit. The law has negatively affected the economy in several ways, especially by discouraging companies from hiring.

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Written by Richard Wiley

Freedom of conscience is at risk, and the attack upon it has officially enveloped the field of medicine.

Remember the 11,588,500 word bill passed by Congress in 2010, accompanied by the hopeful promise of easy-access healthcare? The bill that continues to cause the closure of small businesses and price hikes in the insurance market? That’s right, the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) strikes again. Pointing back to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is now using Obamacare to target the right to liberty of conscience.

Reminiscent of the rainbow colors projected on the White House after Obergefell v. Hodges, the HHS is doing everything it can to solidify its celebration and special treatment for those struggling with their sexuality. Pursuant to a final rule to become effective July 18th entitled “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” every medical practice treating any patient who participates in HHS administered or funded health programs or in the health insurance marketplaces will be required to comply with Obamacare’s new “nondiscrimination protections”.

According to HHS, unlawful “discrimination” based on “sex” is not limited to choosing to operate on a female instead of a male simply because she’s a female and he’s a male; the new definition includes refusing to provide sex-reassignment surgery because you disagree with it as a matter of medical or moral judgment. The rule thus mandates that medical institutions provide sex reassignment surgeries to patients regardless of the religious interests of the institution or physician. Possible penalties for violating the rule include civil suits, fines, and criminal investigations.

It doesn’t stop with transgender conundrums, however; the new rule also includes those requesting abortions to the list of protected classes. Although the HHS declares that the rule (section 1557) does not replace the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or other provisions pertaining to religion, it fails to articulate any means of seeking relief under religious exemptions and is silent as to which provisions would be lifted and which would be stayed, should any relief be requested. The rule simply states, “[i]nsofar as the application of any requirement under this part would violate applicable Federal statutory protections for religious freedom and conscience, such application shall not be required.” No other mention of religious exemption is provided, leaving further procedural steps in limbo to be determined on a case-by-case basis with no uniform application.

Regulations will typically lay out a section detailing which providers are exempt under which circumstances because not doing so produces nebulous interpretations of the law. The practice is more than a courtesy, and omitting such a provision is a telling action indeed.

In addition to breaking down the freedom of conscience and religion, the rule erodes doctors’ professional judgment regarding which procedures are necessary, effective, and plausible for their patients. It’s another case of micromanagement that will have additional economic and moral ramifications for the medical field.

In the end, it’s clear that the rule is a ruse. While the federal government brandishes the colorful flag of the downtrodden class of sexual revolutionaries in its hand, it tramples on the ashes of truth, proudly proclaiming its fidelity to the cause of the deceived. Ironically and tragically, the very thing that can cause healing, that can provide some long overdue stability to struggling families, is the very thing the government continues to deride: the truth.

This article was originally posted at the FamilyFoundation.org blog.

Written by Dr. Frank Newport

The two major decisions recently handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court have very direct relationships to public opinion. One of the decisions fits well with majority public opinion. The other, in a broad sense, does not. The first corresponds to public opinion that has shifted significantly over the past several years, while the second relates to public opinion that has been more fixed. One of these is an issue that has very much been tethered to or anchored by Americans’ underlying religious beliefs; the other is a purely secular issue unrelated to the usual concerns based on religion. But it is the religiously tethered attitude that has seen the biggest change and that ends up more in line with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, while the secular attitude has remained unchanged and is more out of sync with the court’s ruling.

The first of these two major SCOTUS decisions, of course, is the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that in essence legalized same-sex marriage across the country. The second — albeit basically a ruling on a technicality — is the King v. Burwell decision that validated the continuation of the Affordable Care Act.

Obergefell falls in line with majority public opinion in the U.S. Americans’ attitudes toward legalizing same-sex marriage have shifted dramatically in recent years, as has been well-documented, with six in 10 in our latest Gallup reading (before the decision) in favor.

This dramatic change in attitudes has occurred despite the fact that the issue of same-sex marriage is one of a cluster of family and reproduction issues that traditionally are strongly connected to religious doctrine, and highly correlated with an individual’s religiosity. Given that religious beliefs are tethered to fundamental beliefs in a Supreme Being and in overall worldviews, one would thus hypothesize that religiously connected attitudes have a very fundamental anchor that would be resistant to change.

But that hasn’t been the case. In fact, attitudes concerning a list of moral behaviors and values traditionally linked to religious doctrines — including same-sex marriage — have shifted quite substantially in recent years, all toward acceptance of what may previously have been more negatively sanctioned behaviors. There are still marked religious differences in tolerance for these types of behaviors, but the shifts have occurred among segments that are both highly religious and not so religious. In short, attitudes connected to the type of family and reproduction issues most highly related to most religions’ normative structures have been the most labile.

We’ve seen relatively little change in terms of attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act, albeit over its fairly short existence and the brief period in which we have measured it. Less than half of Americans said that they approved of the Affordable Care Act in our latest measure, before the SCOTUS decision (we are updating this measure now). And there has been no rapid or significant change in those attitudes in recent years as the provisions of the healthcare law have become operational.

These attitudes about Obamacare are thus the ones that appear to be connected to an underlying anchor or foundation, certainly more so than is the case with same-sex marriage. (While attitudes about the Affordable Care Act are correlated with religiosity, I think that’s more of an artifact of the relationship between religion and politics than it is a representation of religiously driven attitudes.)

If it’s not religion, what is that anchor? One answer to that question is Americans’ fundamental attitudes toward government. It’s quite likely that the healthcare law has become symbolic of the role of government in people’s lives, and that in turn appears to be a very strong and apparently stable base issue in Americans’ minds.

Check out this trend on a core Gallup question asking Americans about their views of the role of government in Americans’ lives:

This trend graph does not show the same type of progressive change seen in moral attitudes since the mid-1990s. The one strong shift in the period immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks quickly dissipated, as attitudes fell back into the accustomed pattern shortly thereafter. If Obamacare is bound up with these fundamental underlying attitudes that are relatively stable and fixed, even though secular in nature, that could help explain why views toward Obamacare are not moving a lot. Government and its role in society, in other words, may be the type of bedrock or fundamental underlying attitude we traditionally associate with religion, while moral issues appear much more likely to be built on “shifting sand.”

There has been a good deal of discussion as to how the presidential candidates — particularly Republican candidates — will handle a changing environment in which their positions on moral issues and values are less mainstream than they were even just a few years ago. Many of the candidates will no doubt back off from a heavy focus on these issues, taking account of public opinion, unless they assume that the quickness with which attitudes changed in one direction means they could change back in the other just as fast — an unlikely possibility.

But a campaign focus on the Affordable Care Act is another matter. Unlike same-sex marriage, the healthcare law does not enjoy majority public opinion (unless that changes in new, post-decision measures). And the lack of a major shift in attitudes toward Obamacare or toward the underlying issue of the role of government in Americans’ lives suggests that these attitudes are strongly held.

Some commentators have assumed that expansion of the role of government is the simple and logical next step in the evolution of American society. Others still view government expansion as a strong evil. But if conservatives have the equivalent of a religious underpinning to their opposition to big government — and if liberals have just as strong an underpinning to their support for big government — then the debate has the potential to become a powerfully important fulcrum on which the election could turn.

If candidates on the left are going to focus on their conviction that the role of government needs to be expanded — say, in terms of intervening in the economic system to reduce inequality or create jobs by increased focus on infrastructure — they are going to have to try to understand why this provokes such a strong reaction from those who are more in the center or on the right. Similarly, if Republican candidates are going to focus on a call for reducing the role of government in Americans’ lives, they are going to have to try to understand why this is so strongly unacceptable to those more in the center or on the left.

I’ve pointed out before how these attitudes about government are two-pronged, involving both philosophic and practical concerns. Candidates are going to have to deal with both. The role of government — along with the usual suspects of the economy and international relations — could be the major playing field on which the coming election is played out. Moral issues and values may be less so.

Frank Newport, Ph.D., is Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief. He is the author of Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People and God Is Alive and Well.

This article was originally posted at the Gallup.com website.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a report revealing that 1,036 plans in Obamacare (also known as the Affordable Care Act) health insurance exchanges are paying for elective abortions.  In other words, U.S. taxpayers are paying for surgical and chemical abortions under Obamacare.

The audit found that in five states all health insurance exchange plans included elective abortion coverage.  In another eight states, 95 to 100 percent of the plans paid for elective abortions.

President Barack Obama had  promised that no federal dollars would be used to underwrite abortion coverage.  He even issued an executive order to that effect to mollify opposition from within his own political party.

Yet the GAO report verifies what knowledgeable observers knew at the time.  The President’s executive order had no legal effect, because it conflicted with the law’s own provisions, which clearly authorized federal subsidies (called “affordability credits”) for abortion coverage.

The GAO audit also revealed that insurers are uniformly failing to collect an abortion surcharge that was required in every health insurance plan that included abortion coverage.  Under that provision, individuals were to be assessed a separate fee of $1 per month for abortion “services,” regardless of the age, gender, or ability to conceive of the insured.

U.S. Representative Randy Hultgren, a pro-life Republican from Illinois, reacted to this report by urging full transparency from the President and for the U.S. Senate to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7) which ensures the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal tax dollars from paying for abortions, is implemented across the federal government.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed this legislation, which was introduced by U.S. Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ).

H.R. 7 is co-sponsored by Illinois U.S. Representatives Rodney Davis (R-Champaign), Randy Hultgren (R-Geneva), Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago), John Shimkus (R-Danville), Aaron Schock (R-Peoria), Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton), and Adam Kinzinger (R-Rockford).

This bill is currently before the U.S. Senate, where U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is unlikely to take it up for debate.

U.S. Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) says that Americans should be outraged.  “Many of us argued at the time Obamacare passed that it would funnel taxpayer dollars to elective abortions.  This independent report validates our claims and proves that yet another Obamacare promise has been broken.”

Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), charges that the architects of Obamacare built a “purposely deceptive accounting scheme” into the Affordable Care Act.

“We were told we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.  Now we know what exactly is in it:  corporate welfare for the Administration’s abortion industry cronies.”

Read more:  GAO Report Confirms Obamacare Subsidizes Abortion

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you. 

Please consider supporting our work and ministry in the public square.

Written by Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council

Kim Dae Jin recalls the day when, as a prisoner in a North Korean labor camp, an informant betrayed a small group of prisoners who were Christian, which to be was forbidden.

“I watched as they (prison officials) grabbed hold of my friend’s arm so tightly that it died and had to be amputated,” he said. “After that, he and the other Christians were sent to an even stricter camp. You do not get out of a camp like that alive.”

Sadly, Kim’s tale is all too common in North Korea’s brutal regime. In its newly released annual report on Christian persecution, Open Doors notes that up to 70,000 Christians are being held in horrific conditions in the North Korean prison “gulag.” In them, everyone, from small children to the elderly, is subject to sub-human treatment, often for simply believing in Jesus.

One of the great tragedies of our time is that the situation in North Korea is by no means unique. Open Doors “works in the world’s most oppressive countries, strengthening Christians to stand strong in the face of persecution and equipping them to shine Christ’s light in these dark places.” Such places are far too common in the 21st Century.

In its annual “World Watch List,” Open Doors lists no less than 27 countries where persecution of Christians can be considered “extreme or severe.” These include such “mainstream” nations as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as long-time religious liberty violators like Iran and Somalia.

Ministries like Open Doors, Voice of the Martyrs, China Aid and Christian Solidarity Worldwide do brave and vital work in helping persecuted believers, reminding us in free countries of the pain they face, and motivating international action on their behalf. Family Research Council (FRC) has worked and will continue to work with these organizations to educate and equip Christians in America to stand with the persecuted church and advocate on their behalf. 

Our persecuted brothers and sisters should continually be in our prayers. But praying is not enough. We need to be financially supporting these vital ministries that are helping persecuted and imprisoned Christians around the globe. We must also call upon our governmental leaders to advocate for those who are being persecuted for their faith.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s record on defending Christians persecuted for their faith has been embarrassingly weak. Under Mr. Obama’s watch, the State Department’s international religious freedom department has “missed some of the biggest crises of our day,” according to leading advocate for the persecuted Nina Shea.

Dr. Tom Farr was the first State Department international religious freedom director. Now at Georgetown University, Dr. Farr has spoken several times at FRC about the current administration’s ineptitude and indifference regarding those persecuted for their faith. His tentative judgment after nearly five years of the Obama administration? In his words, “The administration does not see international religious freedom as a priority.”

This international indifference to religious freedom should not surprise us when here at home we see hostility toward religious freedom from the Obama administration. As FRC has documented extensively, erosion of religious liberty in American public life and in our military are increasing.

This hostility to religious freedom has been evident in the president’s hallmark legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under a provision of the ACA, Christian colleges and hospitals and Christian-run businesses would be required to provide their employees with health insurance plans that cover potential abortion-inducing drugs. This is a massive violation of their right to live out their faith in the marketplace, in the health care system, and in the academic world.

These policies flow from a truncated view of religious liberty. In his own words, President Obama has repeatedly expressed his support for the freedom of worship, not the freedom of religion. The freedom of worship is the ability to choose the church, if any; you want to attend on Sunday morning. The freedom of religion is the ability to live your life according to the religious teachings of your choice.

To be sure, American Christians experience nothing like the gruesome punishment Christians undergo daily around the globe. Yet the precursor to persecution is always repression, the forcing-down of Christian faith into quiet corners where its visibility is limited and its impact is weakened.

We are witnessing that kind of growing repression in the U.S. today and it is fostering or at least giving rise to the spread of the persecution of Christians and religious minorities around the world. Even as we stand with believers like Kim Dae Jin, we have to be vigilant in defending religious liberty where it’s always been most sacred – our own country.

On January 16, we will commemorate our annual “Religious Freedom Day.” Let’s hope, work, and pray that our “first freedom,” religious liberty, will not only remain our first freedom, but also become a freedom that people around the world will experience.

This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com.

“Disaster,” “embarrassment,” “humiliating” and “train wreck” are just a few of the colorful terms being used to describe it. The Obama administration’s incompetent half-billion-dollar rollout of its incompetent multi-trillion-dollar signature achievement is but a tragic metaphor for this man’s entire presidency. (It’s not hyperbole when it’s true.)

Nearly three weeks in and the utopian promise of “affordable care” for all has yielded but a handful of folks who’ve even been able to sign up for this clinic in socialism.

That Obamacare – something billed as a health-care panacea for the collective – is something that the collective neither asked for, nor wanted, is now the back story. That it has failed so fantastically in every respect, has taken center stage.

Reuters reports: “In its third week of operations, the [Obamacare] website continues to experience problems, which government officials say they are working day and night to repair. Even allies of the Obama administration have been highly critical, with former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs calling it ‘excruciatingly embarrassing’ and calling for ‘some people’ to be fired.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT.), was both a sponsor of – and cheerleader for – Obamacare. He saw this coming. Once he read this 2,400-page regulatory monstrosity, he came to the same conclusion as did anyone else with two synapses to rub together. He called the implementation of Obamacare “a huge train wreck” and announced that, rather than resulting in his re-election, Obama’s pet government health-care albatross would sink him into retirement.

Still, the few who have somehow managed to enroll in Obamacare are discovering, to their dismay, what many of us have warned all along: There is nothing “affordable” about the paradoxically named “Affordable Care Act.” Though government geeks may be “working day and night” to fix the website, no amount of work will fix Obamacare itself. It’s unfixable. The only solution is to total-out this jalopy.

Even the Obamanistas are waking up. Just days before its launch, Politico lamented, “The Obamacare that consumers will finally be able to sign up for next week (they weren’t) is a long way from the health plan President Barack Obama first pitched to the nation.

“Millions of low-income Americans won’t receive coverage. Many workers at small businesses won’t get a choice of insurance plans right away. Large employers won’t need to provide insurance for another year. Far more states than expected won’t run their own insurance marketplaces. And a growing number of workers won’t get to keep their employer-provided coverage.”

The president’s like-minded base – the hardcore left – has also become restless. In a recent “End of Day” report, Gary Bauer, founder of Campaign for Working Families, gives one example from the left-wing Daily Kos.

Bauer writes: “Obamacare’s continued horrendous rollout (See next item) will likely cause the scales to fall from many eyes. Even some liberals are questioning Obamacare. [Warning: Graphic language.] We need to make sure that friends and family members who bought into the hype about hope and change know that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can do better.”

The good news – if you can call it that – is that Obamacare is non-discriminating. It’s putting the screws to every American – rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative.

In the above-referenced Daily Kos piece, headlined “Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser),” liberal blogger “Tirge Caps” captures the shock experienced by most Americans – even “progressive” Americans – over the promise of Obamacare vs. the reality of Obamacare:

My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don’t go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.

Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife’s rate is going to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.

I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any f***ing penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

Oh, OK, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don’t qualify, anyway, so what’s the point?

I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.

I don’t know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.

What am I missing?

I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can’t imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.

Not only will you get screamed at, Mr. Caps, but you may want to prepare for an unexpected IRS audit. America feels your pain, my friend.

The proof is in the Obamacare pudding.

And Obamacare is poison pudding indeed.