Government intrusion on church practices violates the Constitutional

I make it a practice to read the Vindicator each day, listen to various spin doctors on TV, (including both MSNBC and Fox), vote in all of the elections, and now feel foolish in finding out that the First Amendment to our Constitution has been repealed. As I remember learning in grade school, the First Amendment said: Congress shall make no law on establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The rights granted under this amendment enable me to write this letter without fear, the editor to express his opinions openly, and our March on Wall Street folks to do their thing. It seems as though the only part deleted when I wasn’t looking was the part about prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The recent ruling by the Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sibelius, supported by our president, which, within the next year, will force Catholic Institutions to provide abortion and contraception services, in direct violation of their beliefs, appears to be a ruling contrary to our First Amendment privileges.

Contraception and abortion are contentious issues and this note is not intended to defend a position on either of them. Catholic Church teaching, established in 1968 by Pope Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae clearly sets forth the church’s views.

Listening to the president offer his unacceptable compromise, with the alarming statistics of Catholics using birth control he included, and listening to other commentators, it seems clear that a vast number of Catholics are not adhering to those teachings. It is probably true, but does that invalidate the encyclical? Does driving 59 mph in a 55 mph zone without being apprehended invalidate the posted speed limit? Certainly not.

The president’s health care plan is voluminous and it delegates tremendous power to administrators without congressional oversight, and it contains some provisions regarding the removal of health care for elderly patients which continue to concern me. Since I am over 70, I do not relish the thought of the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” informing me that my condition does not meet the criteria for coverage. Spin it as you wish, but that’s a death panel.

The overall objective of providing health care for over 30 million people who do not currently have it is admirable. The fine print, such as the issues noted above, and the overbearing effort to cram it down the throats of people who have strong religious convictions, it not only illegal under the first amendment but is an egregious violation not only for Catholics, but it bears upon all of us.

Art See, Canfield