Barack Obama’s Hostility to Freedom of Religion and Traditional American Values
Examples of President Barack Obama’s hostility to religious freedom in America abound. Perhaps the most prominent example of his assault on religious freedom is the Department of Health and Human Services anti-conscience mandate in Obamacare, which requires employers to provide health insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilizations. But the list goes on, and we’ve compiled just a few examples below.
Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will take up two cases challenging the Obamacare anti-conscience mandate. The anti-conscience mandate is a violation of employers’ First Amendment right of free exercise of religion, which is also guaranteed by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA).
In addition to this, as Heritage notes:
Over 80 lawsuits with more than 200 plaintiffs have been filed by religious organizations and other private employers to block the mandate from going into effect. The challengers argue that it violates their free exercise of religion—guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA).
Heritage also explains:
Americans don’t forfeit their freedoms by going into business, and the anti-conscience mandate is inconsistent with the protection of religious freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights and in laws such as RFRA.
Obama Omits the Words “Under God” from Gettysburg Address
Diminishing The Value of Traditional Marriage
Under Barack Obama’s leadership, the Obama Administration has implemented policies that directly undermined the states’ authority over marriage. In August, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services put out press releases announcing they would be recognizing same-sex marriage even in states that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Though he gave lip service to traditional marriage while running for office, he later “evolved” to support so-called same-sex marriage. Obama applauded Hawaii on November 12, 2013, when it passed legislation in support of so-called “gay marriage”:
I want to congratulate the Hawaii State Legislature on passing legislation in support of marriage equality. With today’s vote, Hawaii joins a growing number of states that recognize that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be treated fairly and equally under the law. Whenever freedom and equality are affirmed, our country becomes stronger. By giving loving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry if they choose, Hawaii exemplifies the values we hold dear as a nation. I’ve always been proud to have been born in Hawaii, and today’s vote makes me even prouder.
Giving lesbian and gay individuals equal protection under the law does not require legislation redefining marriage. Consenting adults are free in all 50 states to live and to love as they choose — there is no need for the government to affirm their love lives:
Equality demands that we treat in the same ways things that are the same. But a same-sex relationship is fundamentally different from a marriage. No same-sex union can produce a child. And no same-sex relationship can provide a child with a mother and a father.
While respecting everyone’s civil rights, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and child-rearing. Recognizing that we are all created equal doesn’t challenge this historical understanding.
The Administration’s Refusal to Defend the Defense of Marriage Act
In 2011, Mr. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Administration would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and clarified that no state has to recognize a homosexual marriage from another state. The Heritage Foundation explained at the time:
There are reasonable legal arguments to be made in defense of DOMA. The Justice Department’s failure to make them to date, and the President’s abandonment of the case, appear to be judgments made not based on a determination of the availability of reasonable legal arguments, but based upon the policy preferences of the President. That has never been the standard used by the Justice Department or any prior administration.
Taxpayer Funding of Abortion
The list here is quite long, and LifeNews compiled many of his statements and actions promoting abortion. Among many, in January of 2009, Obama forced taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions abroad by overturning the “Mexico City Policy,” a Bush-era executive order prohibiting U.S. tax dollars from being transferred to non-government agencies that perform abortions abroad.
In 2012, he praised the abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, which killed roughly 333,964 pre-born American babies during that year alone:
Taxpayer funding streams from Obamacare and mandates on insurers could provide increased funding and coverage for abortion providers. Through grants awarded for promotional efforts and new coverage requirements on insurers providing qualified plans, the health care law could benefit Planned Parenthood and other providers of elective abortion.
The Little Sisters of the Poor
Even a religious order of sisters was deemed “not religious enough” to receive a religious exemption under Obamacare:
The Little Sisters of the Poor have filed the first class-action lawsuit against the federal contraception mandate, saying that it would require them to violate the teachings of their Catholic faith.
“Like all of the Little Sisters, I have vowed to God and the Roman Catholic Church that I will treat all life as valuable, and I have dedicated my life to that work,” said Mother Loraine Marie Clare Maguire, superior of the congregation’s Baltimore province, Sept. 24.
“We cannot violate our vows by participating in the government’s program to provide access to abortion-inducing drugs,” she said.
The Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged in Denver and the Little Sisters of the Poor Baltimore Inc., both nonprofit corporations, are plaintiffs in the suit, as well as “all others similarly situated.”
What the Future Holds
This is not an exhaustive list, and it will surely continue to grow throughout the rest of Barack Obama’s presidency. As for the HHS Mandate, whether or not employers’ free exercise of religion is protected has yet to be determined:
The Greens and Hahns, along with more than 200 other plaintiffs challenging this coercive mandate, remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that all Americans should be free to live and work in accordance with their faith.