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.

For an organization that frequently goads government into advancing an atheistic viewpoint on everyone within reach, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) talks a good game about how wrong it is for some people to “impose their beliefs on others.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June in favor of Hobby Lobby and another Christian-owned company that refused to comply with Obamacare’s abortifacient mandate has sent the leftwing legal group into ongoing apoplexy:

“While religious freedom gives us all the right to make personal decisions about how to practice religion,” the ACLU states, “it doesn’t give institutions or individuals the right to impose their beliefs on others.”

Really? Doesn’t requiring the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Products to cut their conscience to fit the ACLU’s atheism constitute a situation where the ACLU itself is trying to use the law to “impose their beliefs on others?”

According to the ACLU’s reading of the First Amendment, it’s okay to have “freedom of worship,” which means keeping religious stuff strictly in your head or behind church doors. But God help you if you try to live it out in the real world, where the ACLU prowls for “victims.”

On the bright side, the ACLU is doing us all a favor by keeping track of its many religious freedom challenges to the oppressive Obamacare contraceptive mandate across the nation.

“To date, 101 cases have been filed challenging the rule as an infringement on religious liberty,” the ACLU states on its website. “Eighty-nine of these cases are currently pending: 41 cases brought by nonprofit organizations, 45 cases brought by for-profit companies, and 3 cases brought by both nonprofit and for-profit plaintiffs.”

The devil’s law firm and other atheistic groups are also actively attacking religious freedom by contending that religiously-affiliated schools cannot require employees to live by religious standards.

In 2012, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the government cannot interfere with religious groups’ faith-based employment qualifications. But the lawsuits keep coming.

In 2013, San Diego Christian College dismissed an employee, Teri James, who had become pregnant out of wedlock. She retained feminist camera hog attorney Gloria Allred and sued the university, even though Ms. James had signed a covenant as a condition of employment agreeing not to engage in certain behaviors, including premarital sex. But what’s a promise or a contract worth?

“Women out there should not have to worry about losing their income and independence just because they are carrying a child,” Ms. James said in a statement.

Independence? She means that the school has a duty to support her in the manner in which she is accustomed even if she breaks their rules. The ACLU summed up the situation this way:

“There are cases … of religious schools firing employees who are unmarried and pregnant, for example, in the name of religion.”

Well, yes. A Christian school should have the right to employ people who abide by Christian values, such as keeping sex within marriage. What’s the point of having an expressly Christian organization if the people within it openly defy its values?

Would the ACLU be comfortable hiring someone who opposes abortion on demand or same-sex “marriage?” How about an anti-porn advocate?

In Missouri, the American Humanist Association is threatening to sue because one recruit was made uncomfortable when he spotted some donated Gideon Bibles on a shelf at a National Guard intake center in St. Louis. Maybe the recruit would benefit from a stint in a country not yet influenced by Christianity’s unique respect for individual rights.

The ACLU is the point of the spear, legally speaking, of a larger Leftist campaign to fundamentally transform America into a place where fornication of any kind under the sun trumps all other human rights. It’s the only freedom we’ll have left after they establish government-enforced diversity re-education to stamp out anything resembling traditional religious values.

Achieving diversity used to mean ending discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or other immutable characteristics. Now it means dividing people into groups based on grievances and then constantly inflaming those sore points. Google the “war on women” for more details.

For good measure, anyone resisting this onslaught is said to be “obsessed” with it, as if the activists demanding a wholesale moral meltdown are, by contrast, only casually involved.

In his classic, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis’s professorial devil instructs his demon nephew that in order to make it easier to steal souls, “All extremes except extreme devotion to [God] are to be encouraged. Not always, of course, but at this period.

“Some ages are lukewarm and complacent, and then it is our business to soothe them yet faster asleep. Other ages, of which the present is one, are unbalanced and prone to faction, and it is our business to inflame them.”

For decades, the ACLU has been reading the devil’s mail and acting accordingly.

They’ve learned only too well how to “impose their beliefs on others.”

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

In the late summer of 1944, the Allied armies liberated Northern France and began to push deeper into Europe. No one was more effective in his advance than General George S. Patton and the Third Army. After serving his “time-out” for slapping a couple of soldiers who were taking it easy in a med tent, Patton hit the ground running in France and seemed ready to cut his way through to Berlin, rusty bayonet clenched in his teeth.  Unfortunately, that never happened. On August 31^st, Patton and the Third Army ran out of fuel near Metz, France. He had burned through his supply, keeping the German forces on their heels, and replenishment was not coming.

There are a number of theories as to why Patton’s army was left high and dry, languishing without the fuel to continue. The official rationale was that Eisenhower wanted to present a unified, measured front and was wary of any units which might overextend themselves and compromise the front line. It is clear he prioritized Montgomery’s Market Garden operation over Patton’s demands. Providentially for Ike, the Zone of Communications happened to pick that time to move their HQ back to Paris, tucked safely behind the Allied lines, and that required a lot of trucks; trucks which could have been refueling the Third Army.

Unofficially, it’s said that Eisenhower wanted to avoid embarrassing our military allies. Patton was making everyone else look like weak sisters and so the most effective weapon in the Allied arsenal (General Patton’s mind) was deliberately shuttered. He was forced to fight in place and suffered heavy casualties in subsequent engagements near Metz. After blitzing through 60 miles of German-occupied France in 2 weeks during the month of August, the Third Army covered only 40 miles total in the months November and December that same year.

It seems nearly inconceivable that Eisenhower would do such a thing, yet the deliberate crippling of a beneficial advantage is precisely what has been done to free-market capitalism in America and in the economies of her Western allies. No one with any intellectual honesty can deny the effectiveness of Patton or of the free market. Patton won battles and earned the respect of his enemies. Capitalism is the much-maligned champion of freedom around the globe and is directly responsible for the prosperity and privilege we enjoy as a part of Western civilization. There has never been a more effective engine of wealth creation and economic mobility than free-market capitalism. Yet, like Patton, the free market economy is forcibly stalled, chained down by those who should be its staunchest guardians.

In America, this is accomplished in a few ways. Legislative support is diverted to efforts on the periphery, which are usually outside the purview of a federal government. For example, Congress passes Obamacare under the guise of offering a “fundamental human right” to all Americans, oblivious to the fact that bureaucratic edicts increase the price of a commodity and will inflict more economic pain on Americans than relief provided. When government agencies command private businesses to provide services, those businesses pass the expense of compliance onto their customers who are likewise commanded to purchase the now-pricier product. If allowed to operate freely, market forces would increase the quality of product while lowering the price. Those forces are seen every day in products like cellular phones, which have increased in quality and decreased in price over the past 30 years, going from $4,000 for the Motorola Dynatac 8000x in 1973 to $0 for the Motorola Droid X in 2014. In economics, a “rising tide lifts all boats” but the pencil-pushers in Washington prefer (or force) winners and losers by diverting support to pet projects and ideological cronies.

Just as Ike prioritized the pride of our allies over the success of our troops, we seek to assuage the feelings of those who have benefitted from the success of our greatest achievers while denigrating said achievers. Instead of worrying about the pride of our British and French allies, both of whom were saved by the intervention of the U.S. Military, Ike should have thrown full support behind Patton who had the German generals soiling their lederhosen. We spend so much time and effort agonizing over the feelings of the misfortunate in this country instead of throwing our full support behind those who are creating wealth, jobs, and prosperity for all Americans; all of which ultimately benefit the misfortunate. A rising tide will never lift all boats if our nanny-state government continues to erect levees to keep the tide out! Prosperity is not a bad word in a truly capitalist economy. When the prosperous become targets and success is deemed worth punishment, your economy has been infected by corporatists and socialists. Redistribution of wealth is sure to follow.

If legislation and shame don’t effectively smother the flames of capitalist achievement in this country, the Executive Branch seems more than happy to step in. The checks and balance built into our tri-partite system by the Founders are broken. The checks have bounced and the balance has drastically shifted to the Executive branch, leaving an emasculated Legislature and a timorous Judiciary. Time and again, the Obama administration has acted unilaterally, outside the bounds of law, to achieve their will via regulation and selective enforcement of law. As egregious as the offenses of this President have been, he is not alone. His predecessors set the table for this environment. Obama simply ate the food, shredded the table cloth, and is in the process of breaking off the table legs for a bonfire.

Progressives in both parties are determined to restrain the successful among us. If shame and ridicule don’t work, they will simply cut off the fuel via government regulation and legislation. As our Founding Fathers knew, it is only by forcibly restraining the power a centralized government can wield that the soil of liberty can remain fertile. 

This article was originally published at the ClashDaily.com blog.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a brief Wednesday that responds to the Obama administration’s defense of its abortion pill mandate in one of two major legal challenges the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on March 25. Alliance Defending Freedom and allied attorneys represent the Hahns, a Pennsylvania Mennonite Christian family, and their woodworking business in one of those cases, Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.

The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy financial penalties if the mandate’s requirements aren’t met.

“In America, we tolerate a diversity of opinions and beliefs; we don’t try to separate what people do from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman. “The Constitution guarantees the highest form of respect to the Hahns’ freedom. The government must prove why disregarding that freedom is somehow justified.”

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom reply brief, “the government contends that [the Hahns] harm the ‘freedom’ of third parties simply by not buying them abortifacients…. But that turns ordinary notions of liberty upside down. Citizens are already free to buy birth control for themselves and the government often subsidizes those purchases. Yet in the government’s view that is not enough. For the government, coercion is the new ‘freedom.’”

“Americans must be free to exercise their constitutionally protected liberties without punishment,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “That at least includes freedom from government attempts to force them to pay for other people’s abortion pills.”

In January, numerous third parties filed briefs in both Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and The Becket Fund’s Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius case, which also challenges the mandate. The briefs filed in support of Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby outnumbered the briefs filed in favor of the Obama administration by nearly three to one.

The Hahns asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 against them. The decision conflicts with most other circuits and with the vast majority of rulings on the mandate so far. According to a dissent that Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote in that case, the mandate could cost the Hahns $95,000 per day if they don’t agree to live contrary to their Christian convictions.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are lead counsel in the case together with co-counsel Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center and Charles Proctor III of the Pennsylvania firm Proctor, Lindsay & Dixon. They are two of nearly 2,300 attorneys allied with Alliance Defending Freedom.

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.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the Obama administration on behalf of Dr. James Dobson and his “Family Talk” radio show and ministry, a Christian non-profit organization that is currently subject to Obamacare’s abortion pill mandate.

The lawsuit challenges the legality and constitutionality of the mandate, which requires religious employers to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception to employees regardless of religious or moral objections. Dobson and Family Talk object specifically to providing coverage for abortion drugs and devices.

“The government shouldn’t be able to punish Americans for exercising their fundamental freedoms,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Any government willing to force a family-run Christian ministry to participate in immoral acts under the threat of crippling fines is a government everyone should fear.”

“Our ministry believes in living out the religious convictions we hold to and talk about on the air,” added Dobson, Family Talk’s founder and president. “As Americans, we should all be free to live according to our faith and to honor God in our work. The Constitution protects that freedom so that the government cannot force anyone to act against his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. But the mandate ignores that and leaves us with a choice no American should have to make: comply and abandon your religious freedom, or resist and be fined for your faith.”

The lawsuit, Dobson v. Sebelius, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and allied attorneys are also litigating numerous other lawsuits against the mandate. The lawsuits represent a large cross-section of Protestants and Catholics who object to the mandate.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

“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.

U.S. Representative Tom Graves (R-Georgia) has authored a Continuing Resolution, the Security, Stability, and Fairness Resolution (H.J.RES. 62), that will defund ObamaCare in its entirety for the coming fiscal year. His bill will fund the rest of government with the sole exception of ObamaCare.

This means that if there is a shutdown of government, it will be done by those who want to continue to fund ObamaCare.

Congress must pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) by September 30 to avoid a government shutdown. The House may vote AS SOON AS TOMORROW on whether to continue funding for ObamaCare or cut it off.

This law is so bad that congressional staff have exempted themselves from it.

This is the best chance we may ever have to defund the gargantuan and hopelessly misguided piece of legislation that is ObamaCare.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative him/her to support the effort to defund Obamacare.  You can also call the U.S. Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your congressman by name. Urge him/her to co-sponsor H.J.RES. 62, a CR that does not contain a single penny of funding for ObamaCare.

Remember that according to the Constitution all appropriations bills must start in the U.S. House. This means that the House can stop ObamaCare in its tracks this week. No money, no ObamaCare.

ObamaCare:

• Is so bad that congressional staff have exempted themselves from it
• Violates freedom of religion and conscience by requiring Christian businesses to pay for abortifacients
• Will send your tax dollars to health care providers who perform abortions
• Is the leading job-killer in America, as companies lay off workers because of its mandates and its costs
• Forces companies to shift workers from fulltime to part-time positions
• Drives up the cost of health care premiums
• Reduces the availability and affordability of health care

It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.

Read more HERE.

From the Liberty Council

Washington, DC—Two federal courts of appeal have dealt a setback to the ObamaCare Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate. Yesterday a federal appeals court in Denver, sitting en banc, sided with the preliminary injunction request of Hobby Lobby, a Christian, family-owned arts and crafts chain with 500 stores in 41 states.

Hobby Lobby Founder and CEO David Green drew a line in the sand and said, “We believe people are more important than the bottom line and honoring God is more important than turning a profit.” The court of appeals sent the case back to the lower district court to review the request for the injunction, but based on how the opinion is written, the lower court will almost certainly issue the preliminary injunction.

Last week a federal district court in Pennsylvania granted a preliminary injunction for Geneva College, the first relief granted to a nonprofit college. Federal Judge Joy Flowers Conti ruled: “Three Supreme Court decisions support Geneva’s argument that there is a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to its assertion that it will suffer a substantial burden under the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] RFRA.”

Based on its religious beliefs, Geneva College refused to provide the so-called contraceptive mandate, which includes abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as sterilization.

Liberty Counsel’s case, on behalf of Liberty University and two individuals in Liberty University v. Geithner, is still pending at the Forth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, presented oral argument in that case on May 17, 2013.

The Liberty University case presents the nation’s broadest challenge to ObamaCare, challenging (1) the entire employer mandate, (2) the HHS abortion mandate for employers, (3) the abortion funding forced upon individuals, and (4) the failure of ObamaCare to comply with the Origination Clause.

“The ObamaCare contraception and abortion mandate is the most serious violation of religious liberty,” said Staver. “ObamaCare is a train wreck with the natural right to the free exercise of religion. ObamaCare forces Christians and people of faith to either violate their deeply held religious beliefs to comply with the law or violate the law to comply with their faith. The government has lost its way when it forces this kind of choice upon its citizens,” concluded Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

As you know by now, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled today to uphold the core provisions of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC). By their decision, we now face an egregious threat to American liberty.

This federal legislation contains a highly controversial and unpopular Individual Mandate, which, if not repealed, will force Americans to “buy” federally approved or sponsored healthcare plans or pay a penalty for non-compliance. Contrary to their promises to Congress as well as to the general public, proponents of the PPAC have succeeded in arguing to the Supreme Court that the Individual Mandate will function as a federal tax. We are very concerned that this will set a dangerous precedent for federal mandates.

We believe this law is a threat to personal liberty, religious freedom and family choices. It gives government bureaucrats alarming power over individual citizen’s healthcare decisions and will lead to future conflicts of conscience. Americans will be forced to choose either to comply and abandon their religious beliefs or resist and be fined for exercising their deeply held beliefs.

The PPAC includes provisions for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilizations, and tax dollars will subsidize many types of abortions. By advancing taxpayer funding of abortion, the PPAC is an attack on religious freedom and individual liberty.

We urge our national lawmakers to repeal the PPAC, and rather than rushing through an expansive overhaul, Congress needs to take a reasonable approach to reforming what’s wrong with healthcare. The federal reach into the lives of each and every American citizen is of grave concern. And the accompanying threats to freedom of conscience challenge the very concept of liberty.

We hope and pray that this monumental decision will be the catalyst to awaken and unite American voters – especially people of faith – this November.  It should also serve to remind believers that we should be praying for true revival and the spread of the Gospel.   As my friend Pastor James McDonald of Morton, Illinois pointed out on his Facebook page, “Do we understand that the One who orchestrates the end, orchestrates the means, and the means He uses is our faithful witness? Rise up, O Church of God!”

And here’s what others are saying:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision will do serious harm to American families. Not only is the individual mandate a profound attack on our liberties, but it is only one section among hundreds of provisions in the law that will force taxpayers to fund abortions, violate their conscience rights, and impose a massive tax and debt burden on American families.

“The Obama administration has created, for the first time in American history, new federal regulations that toss aside the constitutional right to religious freedom by forcing religious institutions and employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations. 

“It’s now time to replace those leaders who disregarded the constitutional limitations of their authority and the deeply held religious beliefs of their constituents, voting for the government takeover of healthcare. We must repeal this abortion-funding health care law and restore the Constitution to its rightful place.”  ~ Tony Perkins. President of the Family Research Council

---

 ”We are outraged to see the Supreme Court ignoring the constitutional limits the Founders put in place to constrain the federal government’s power over us. Shame on them!

With this decision they have given a blank check to the federal government, forever altering the constitutional concept of checks and balances that has been so crucial throughout our history.

We wholeheartedly believe we must strive to make health care more affordable for all Americans. But it is inconceivable to believe we must infringe on our constitutional rights in order to achieve that.

Women will be especially hurt by today’s decision. As we have seen with the contraception mandate, the politicization of so-called women issues by the left leaves the majority of women extremely vulnerable to the exploitation of a few radical groups that exert much political influence in Congress and the White House.  ~ Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America

---

 “This is a stunning decision to uphold ObamaCare as a tax. Congress relied upon the Commerce Clause, not the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court ignored the intent of Congress, which did not intend the mandate to be a tax but rather a penalty. Rulings like this on ObamaCare undermine the confidence of the people in the competency of the Supreme Court to follow the rule of law. Today’s decision damages the image of the Supreme Court and is bad for America.”  ~ Mat Staver, Founder and President of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law

---

“The ‘individual mandate’ was just one problem with the law. Our tax dollars are still being used to subsidize abortion and our Catholic institutions are still being forced to violate our beliefs.

“Congress must act immediately to fix the critical flaws in the health care law and begin to replace them with measured, sensible reforms. At the very least, they should not allow any tax dollars to be used to implement the law while remedies are decided. We encourage them to focus their energy on improving our nation’s health care system in a way that respects all stages of life, protects our consciences, and avoids negatively impacting the economic conditions of Americans.”  ~ Matt Smith, President of Catholic Advocate

---

 “It is astonishing that the majority of the justices did not see the bill for what it really is: a blatant violation of the personal freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and perhaps a mortal blow to the concept of federalism…  “When a government begins forcing citizens to purchase what it thinks is important or necessary, that government takes a dangerous step away from the freedom-embracing, democratic model.”  ~ Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

---

 “The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire.  Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety.  What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.  Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.”  ~ U.S. House Speaker John Boehner

---

“President Obama’s health care law stands as one of the largest tax increases in American history, it will be paid for by young Americans, whose dreams and plans for the future have already been derailed by failed policies that have denied their access to full-time, meaningful jobs in their chosen career paths. Young adults know they will pay the true costs of President Obama’s legislation — over a trillion dollars more in federal spending, more waste and fraud, increased American debt, and the inability to keep or choose healthcare plans that best suit their needs as individuals. Elections have consequences, and young adults will be organizing themselves far more actively than some might assume — they will not settle for leadership that ignores their concerns, limits their freedoms, and continues to bankrupt their futures.”  ~Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity, Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor   

---

” Today’s Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision upholding the individual mandate in ObamaCare was surprising. The court rejected the Obama Administration’s main argument that the individual mandate was constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. It rejected the administration’s second argument that the mandate was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

“However, five justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, concluded that the mandate was constitutional under Congress’ power to tax. As Roberts wrote in his opinion, “Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.”

“That’s the problem in Washington, isn’t it? There’s already way too much spending, and ObamaCare won’t help that. And it is a huge tax increase — $500 billion over the next ten years.”  ~Gary Bauer, American Values

---

The Obama Administration has announced that it is implementing a mandate that all health insurance plans must include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. The mandate requires that all health insurance plans must provide coverage for any and all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which includes abortifacient drugs such as Ella and Plan B.

The health insurance edict, announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will take effect on August 1st. Sebelius was given authority to issue the mandate under the terms of President Obama’s health care legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That bill empowered Sebelius to determine what “preventative health care services” must be incorporated in all health insurance plans sold and offered in the United States.

The only exceptions to the mandate will be churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship. Religiously-based hospitals, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations will be required to comply with the law effective August 1, 2013.

This means that Christian organizations who offer health insurance benefits for their employees will be compelled to violate their religious convictions by covering the costs of abortion-inducing drugs. This also means that Catholic hospitals and other Catholic agencies will be required to underwrite contraceptive coverage and the costs of sterilizations that violate their religious beliefs.

The expectation is that many Christian employers will cease providing health insurance to their employees rather than pay for drugs that violate their religious conscience.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has sharply denounced the new mandate. “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. The Obama Administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand. This is a challenge and compromise of our religious liberty.”

Archbishop Dolan also derided the one-year grace period given to religious entities to comply with the law. Sebelius said the one-year delay was offered to accomodate religious liberty concerns. Dolan strongly disagrees. “In effect, the President is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Anna Franzonello, staff attorney for Americans United for Life, echoes the Archbishop’s perspective. “The Obama Administration has added insult to injury by providing religious non-profits a year to ‘adapt’ to this coercive mandate. There should be no expiration date for individual freedom of conscience.”

“Essentially, Secretary Sebelius is giving Christian employers a year to get their priorities straight and align their consciences with the anti-life agenda of the Obama Administration,” Franzonello adds.

Under the new health care edict, all health insurance plans issued must provide coverage for FDA-approved contraceptives without co-pay or deductible charges. Drugs like Ella and Plan B, marketed as so-called “emergency contraceptives,” have been endorsed by the FDA.

While these drugs function as contraceptives, they also operate as abortifacients. They are designed to break down the lining of the uterus so that the uterine wall cannot support the implantation, nidation, and continuing growth of a developing embryo. In the eyes of Christians who subscribe to the religious belief and biological fact that human life begins at conception, these drugs can cause a chemical abortion.

The Cardinal Newman Society, a group that advocates for Catholic principles in Catholic universities, blasted the new contraceptive mandate. “It is the greatest irony, that by worshiping the cult of ‘choice,’ the Obama Administration has determined that religious organizations lack the freedom to act in fidelity to their beliefs. The White House has sold the First Amendment for a few pennies of political support from the abortion lobby.”

Two universities have already filed suit in federal court arguing that the abortion drug mandate violates federal conscience law protections. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing Colorado Christian University and Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina in those lawsuits.

Become a Sustaining Partner of our Work

You can become a Sustaining Partner with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form. Your gift will go even further than ever because:

• Our paperwork will be reduced.
• Our income will be more predictable, leading to improved cash management.
• Our administrative costs will be reduced, putting your gift to work immediately.
• It is simpler and saves time for you!

The U.S. House of Representatives will begin voting this week on HR 3, “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”

HR 3 will prevent the use of federal taxpayer funds to pay for elective abortion. If HR 3 does not become law, we as taxpayers may soon be paying for 675,000 abortions a year.

A 2011 CNN opinion research poll says that 61 percent of Americans oppose the use of taxpayer funding for abortions even when a woman can’t afford it. A 2010 Zogby poll found that 77 percent of Americans do not believe that federal funds should ever pay for abortions or should pay only to save the life of the mother.

HR 3 is needed to override the abortion funding provisions in ObamaCare. President Obama’s executive order prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions in ObamaCare is meaningless, because an executive order does not trump the actual text of legislation enacted by Congress.

Take ACTION: Please send a messge to your U.S. Representative and your two U.S. Senators to support HR 3. The message will also go to President Obama and Vice President Biden.

You can also call the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Co-sponsors of this legislation are: Jerry Costello (D-Belleville), Randy Hultgren (R-Dixon), Timothy Johnson (R-Champaign), Adam Kinzinger(R-Joliet), Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago), Donald Manzullo (R-Rockford), Robert Schilling (R-Galesburg), Aaron Shock (R-Peoria) and John Shimkus (R-Centralia).

Thank you for taking action.