“In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.” Matthew 2:18 (KJV)
What does it mean when government takes control of our health care system? It means bureaucrats, courts, and government-directed health care providers possess the power to decide life or death for the most vulnerable people in our society: children (especially the unborn), seniors, and individuals with disabilities—especially those who have been medically compromised.
In ruling on Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects against “indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.” On June 26, 2017, in a vote of 7-2, they held that “the express discrimination against religious exercise here is not the denial of a grant, but rather the refusal to allow the Church—solely because it is a church—to compete with secular organizations for a grant.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is apparently drafting regulations to implement President Trump’s executive order on religious liberty, which will be a welcome relief for Americans who embrace the free exercise of religion.
In an astounding development, The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy has published an article by Harvard law student Joshua Craddock that makes an incredibly strong case for what we already know: an unborn child is a living person that deserves to be treated as such under the law.