It’s hard to recall a political cause as dependent on dishonesty as the support for Kathleen Sebelius’s ObamaCare contraception mandate. Mandate proponents attack opponents for wanting to ban contraception, or at least for “politicizing” contraception.
Above is a fine example of the mendacity of the pro-mandate position, specifically, the attack on the legislative responses that would protect employers' conscience rights in some cases. Published by President Obama's reelection campaign, it's a mockup of a "permission slip" for contraception that the Blunt amendment supposedly would create.
"I have discussed the employee's contraceptive options with her, and I verify that her use of these methods (IS / IS NOT) in agreement with my personal beliefs. The employee (DOES / DOES NOT) have my permission to access birth control pills, intrauterine devices, or any other type of contraception."
This, of course, is complete and utter dishonesty from the Obama campaign. (Notably, HillaryCare included the same conscience protections as the Blunt Amendment, as the Weekly Standard's John McCormack reports.)
Michael Brendan Dougherty at the Business Insider walks through some of the ways in which the President, through his campaign, is completely full of it:
Lie #1 The idea employers have creepy discussions with individual employees about their sex lives when discussing their health compensation. This does not happen. New hires usually get a packet with their insurance information just like everywhere else.
Lie #2 That employers currently (or under any law) would be granting or revoking permission to even use birth control. This is just not true. Currently many schools and hospitals just refuse to pay for it because they believe it directly implicates them in a sinful act. But employees are absolutely free to follow their own conscience and do what they want with their wages.
Lie #3 That there will be more ongoing creepy discussions and that a person's health insurance will be constantly changed and reviewed according to changeable moral standards. This is not the experience of anyone working at a religious hospital or school, nor would it be.
Lie #4 That these decisions even get this personal. These institutions typically write up an agreement with a health insurer–or they self-insure. It's an impersonal contract, not an inquisition.
Lie #5 Implicitly this makes it seem like it is also about women and their most common birth-control choices. It doesn't mention sterilization or "morning-after" drugs that are part of the mandate. And it doesn't mention most health-policies that don't cover birth control also don't cover elective-vasectomies for men.
That's a lot for one tiny slip of paper.
The big lie behind all this is that somehow allowing some employers not to pay for this kind of coverage amounts to a "contraception ban."
And we recognize this principle everywhere else. My employer, Henry Blodget, doesn't pay me in prayer books or altars. But that is not an infringement on my free exercise of religion. He isn't banning my faith.