Thursday, June 28, 2012

I agree

Just want to post my agreement with Pat Archbold when he writes:
I have been thinking about this. As a result of today's decision that the individual mandate is a tax, the HHS contraceptive/abortifacient mandate is more likely to survive SCOTUS review.

Why, you say?

Because now that SCOTUS has turned the law on its head and declared it a tax, it undercuts objections to the HHS mandate.

Now the Obama administration can make the argument that you don't have to buy a healthcare policy, if you object on religious or any other grounds, fine. Just pay the tax. Not a penalty, a tax. As we all know, there are no recognized religious objections to paying your taxes. If this merely a tax now, there is no reason to object to it.
Read the rest.

I fear he's right. Catholic businesses wouldn't be "fined" or "penalized" for being Catholic, just "taxed." The amount of the tax would put most Catholic charitable organizations out of business, but that wouldn't matter.

But so long as we're willing to buy the idea that Congress has the right to tax individuals and groups for failing to purchase something, we're going to be stuck with this assault on our freedom.

5 comments:

Michael Maedoc said...

What do you think of this interesting quote from Ginsberg:
"A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, inter­fered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause."

From First Thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. If its a tax, then wouldn't a tax-exempt group like a catholic charity automatically be exempt from it?

Anonymous said...

Huh? It was my impression that President Obama said it was NOT a tax, and that Roman Catholic Chief Justice John Roberts interpreted the mandate as a tax penalty for not having it (much in the same vein as states mandating those that drive automobiles purchase car insurance to drive on tax-payer provided roads). Anyway one looks at it, it was a better deal than what we have had so far, and enough of a capitalistic venture to make citizens believe that they have some choice in the matter of how they will pay for their healthcare, when everything about 'health' care has spiraled out of any one entities grasp of understanding (and price control).

Zircon

Anne H said...

Great post! Personally, I'm really impressed! I love the way you write your blog!

c matt said...

Well, there is precedent for taxes being illegal/unconstitutional. Calling a fee charged in order to vote a "poll tax" did not save it.