But there is one facet of this dispute that has been largely overlooked. This is not just a religious liberty issue for groups, but also for individuals. How many Christian business owners are there in the United States who have a conscientious objection to using their company’s revenues to fund abortions? I would imagine there are many. But a broader exemption for religious hospitals and universities wouldn’t help Christian business owners at all. They would still be forced to violate their consciences or face steep fines that could destroy their businesses. Why should a Christian who owns a car dealership, for instance, be forced to purchase something that is abhorrent to his most deeply held religious beliefs?

The rumors are that the President will soon back down from his draconian policy and offer some kind of compromise with broader exemptions. Everyone needs to realize, however, that the exemptions won’t be extensive enough until they cover every American with a conscientious objection to paying for contraceptives, surgical sterilization, and abortions. I have not seen or heard any party to this dispute contemplating an exemption of that scope. Why not?

If the President’s proposed compromise falls short of an exemption for all religious groups and individuals, then this dispute will be far from over.

President Obama said in his campaign that he wanted to unite America. In the last week, he has done just that. Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, liberals, conservatives, and almost every other ideological subgroup have united in their opposition to President Obama’s new healthcare regulation. In some ways, the country is looking more united than ever.

Compared with all the hard issues at the heart of this political year, nothing has come close in terms of the vigor and anger generated by matters relating to the reproductive health of women.

That’s where the long-simmering culture wars have come to rest: atop the female body.

Fleming believes recent dust-up is surrounding the new health care law is about people who want to deny women their sexual freedom by limiting their access to abortions. It is the standard logic of feminism and the sexual revolution. It’s all about a woman’s freedom to do whatever she pleases with her own body.

And therein is the question-begging that is at the heart of pro-choice ideology. Their view assumes without argument that the unborn are not persons but unwanted appendages on the female anatomy. To pro-choicers, the unborn have no more value than a hangnail that needs to be removed. On that logic, there is very little difference between abortion and liposuction. Both procedures achieve a trimming away of some excess tissue.

Thoughtless articles like this one do not change the fact that the focus of the divide between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is precisely about the humanity of the unborn. Pro-lifers offer moral and legal arguments for the humanity of the unborn, but pro-choicers don’t offer any such thing. When was the last time you heard a pro-choicer make a public argument against the humanity of the unborn? It almost never happens. All they have to offer is their self-evident assumptions and their disdain for anyone who dares to jeopardize the sexual freedom of women. That freedom trumps all—even the right to life of a baby growing in his mother’s womb.

The pro-choice side is ideologically bankrupt, but they hardly even know it.

Instead of encouraging the different faith communities to continue their vital work for the good of all, the Obama administration is forcing them to make a choice: serving God and their neighbors according to the dictates of their respective faiths—or bending the knee to the dictates of the state…

At this critical moment, Americans of every faith, as guardians of their own freedom, must, in the words of the First Amendment, “petition the government for the redress of grievances.” That’s why over the past two years more than 500,000 people have signed the “Manhattan Declaration” in defense of religious liberty. They believe, as do we, that under no circumstances should people of faith violate their consciences and discard their most cherished religious beliefs in order to comply with a gravely unjust law.

That’s something that this Catholic, this Protestant and this Jew are in perfect agreement about.

Read the rest here.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wasted no time in blocking Republicans’ first attempt at offering legislation in the Senate to repeal the Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that would require employers to provide health insurance that includes contraceptives even if they are morally opposed to it…

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), however, accompanied the amendment to the floor and decried the “odious” outcome of the president’s decision…

“Republicans are trying to reaffirm that basic right [of freedom of religion],” said McConnell…

“Frankly, I never thought I’d see the day,” concluded McConnell. “[I] never thought I’d see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it.”

We do not exaggerate when we say that this is the greatest threat to religious freedom in our lifetime. We cannot help but think of the words attributed to German pastor Martin Niemoeller, reflecting on the Nazi terror:

First they came for the Socialists, and I
did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did
not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was
no one left to speak for me.

I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure [...]

I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a government mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29.

By the way, anyone who thinks that this is just a Catholic issue is sadly mistaken. Protestants have universities and hospitals that will be required by law to pay for abortions for their employees. Thus, evangelical Protestants are facing the same threat to religious freedom that the Catholics are.

(HT: Jim Smith)

The media bought Planned Parenthood’s public relations campaign hook, line and sinker. Planned Parenthood argued that Komen’s decision to stop funding was “political.” This was the way most media outlets framed the entire story. But logic dictates that it’s not more political to stop funding Planned Parenthood than it is to keep funding it.

We’re talking about the country’s largest abortion provider, an organization that performs 330,000 abortions a year. According to Gallup polls from recent years, about half the American population identifies as pro-life while half identify as pro-choice. If you don’t have a sense for how controversial abortion is, you simply shouldn’t be in journalism.

Planned Parenthood receives nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds, including from Medicaid payments. Along with its political arm, it spent at least $1.7 million on lobbying at the federal level last year. Its political expenditures for the 2012 cycle have swung 100% for Democrats and against Republicans. Its political web site ranks a series of Republicans as “chumps.”

The notion that such a huge partisan player could be characterized as apolitical is laughable.

Read the rest here.

Chuck Colson rightly calls on Evangelicals to stand with Roman Catholics in civil disobedience to this law for as long as it stands. That’s right. He’s calling on Christians to risk fines, prison, or other penalties in faithfulness to our convictions about protecting the unborn. In Colson’s own words:

We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government. That would break my heart as a former Marine Captain loving my country, but I love my God more… I’ve made up my mind—sober as that decision would have to be—that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me.

You can view Colson’s full statement in the video below.

(HT: Jim Smith)

I don’t think he realizes it, but this statement reveals as much about Rosen as it does about Komen. For pro-choicers, perhaps, the Komen foundation was not viewed as a political organization before they defunded Planned Parenthood. But that is not the point of view of pro-lifers. Planned Parenthood is the main engine for abortion in the United States. For prolifers, Komen became political when it began its affiliation with Planned Parenthood, not when it attempted to end it. Prolifers have been protesting Komen for years. Prolifers, however, do not have allies in the national media, so their outrage has passed by unnoticed in the national media.

So when did Komen become “political”? Any rational observer would have to conclude that Komen began its involvement with abortion politics the moment it decided to issue grants to Planned Parenthood. Yet Americans have by and large been ignorant of this. That says as much about the media’s own politics as it does about Komen’s.

By the way, if you’re not signed up for Mohler’s daily podcast “The Briefing,” you need to be.