Dear ProLife Colleague, AAPLOG consists of both Catholic and Protestant members, as well as prolife members of other faiths. We obviously oppose medications that have been demonstrated to have abortifacient action. On matters such as birth control pills and voluntary tubal ligations, we leave the standard to the individual physicians, their conscience, and their faith position. If a patient wants a service that her doctor does not provide, she is absolutely free to find a doctor that agrees with her demand. This is, after all, America, with freedom of religious, or other lawful decisions, up to the individual. Not so, the current US Government. If the organization must provide the insurance, the doctor involved, if he takes government insurance (if he/she is to be paid), is to be merely a neutral “provider” whose job it is to provide what the patient demands. (See ACOG Ethics Committee Opinion #385, Nov 2007—it is still on their books) Ah, the power of the proposed single payer system. See note below from Family Research Council. Sebelius Stands by Her Man(date) Thanks to President Obama, the tens and thousands of pro-lifers who streamed into D.C. for today’s March have another cause to fight: the future of religious liberty. Late Friday, the Obama administration marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by cementing one of the biggest attacks on conscience rights the country has ever seen. Starting next year, any organization that offers health insurance to employees will be forced to cover birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacients–no matter what their objections. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the rule after her agency fielded more than 200,000 public comments–many objecting to the administration’s policies that flow from an anti-child ideology. FRC has been fighting alongside dozens of evangelical and Catholic groups, who see this decision for what it is: naked aggression against America ‘s most fundamental freedom. “Never,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, “has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience.” Sebelius is waving off the controversy by pointing to the mandate’s “religious exemption,” which is nothing but a narrow protection for churches. Other religiously affiliated groups like faith-based schools, hospitals, and charities are ordered to comply. The decision was such a slap in the face of the First Amendment that even newspapers like the Washington Post shook their heads. “Requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles,” the Post editorial board wrote, “does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views.” Others, like the New York Daily News, were not so reserved. “Wrong, wrong, high-handedly, obtusely wrong.” The U.S. Supreme Court just finished rebuking the President for meddling in church business, and now his agencies are using policies as a weapon to blunt the church’s community involvement. As the White House well knows, most of these charities would rather close their doors than meet these requirements. That would suit this administration just fine, since it wants to eliminate the government’s competition for services and drive the church out of the public square. “What war and disease could not do to the congregation,” wrote one church, “the government of the United States will. It will shut them down.” To help organizations “transition,” Sebelius is waiting until August 2013 to implement the mandate. “In effect, the President is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Dolan fumed. The Left can also avoid the political pain of staking out such an unpopular position before Election Day.