9:24 am in bureaucrats, catholic institutions, constitutional law, contempt, exclamation point, Featured, gowdy, institute of medicine, Kathleen Sebelious, nuances, preventive health services, religious beliefs, Separation of Church and State, spotlight, state rep, teachable moment, united states constitution, workforce committee by mrcurmudgeon
“I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests,” admitted Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelious to Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) in testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee, “I’m not going to wade into constitutional law, I’m talking about the fact that we are implementing the law (ObamaCare) that was passed by the Congress, signed by the president, which directed our department to develop a package of preventive health services for women. We have done just that with the advice of the Institute of Medicine and promulgated that rule.”
The Sebelius “rule” gives Catholic institutions one year to decide how to become complicit in killing the unborn, which has become a secular blood offering to the Progressive gods.
This led to a rare constitutional “teachable moment.”
Rep. Gowdy: “Do you agree with me that government cannot force certain religious beliefs on its citizens? Why can they not do that?”
Sebelius: “Why can government not force religious beliefs?”
Rep. Gowdy: “What’s the basis of that?”
Sebelius: “The separation of church and state.”
Rep. Gowdy: “Can government decide which religious beliefs are acceptable and not acceptable?”
Sebelius: “Ah, no sir.”
Rep. Gowdy: “And why can they not do that?”
Sebelius: “It’s part of our … (gulp) … Constitution.”
Gowdy added an exclamation point to the exercise, “It’s a legal analysis. For me, this is not a political analysis, this is a legal analysis.”
A man is running for president who has shown nothing but contempt for the United States Constitution. And that contempt drips from every pore of every Obama administration functionary.
Sebelius says she is not a lawyer schooled in the fine points of constitutional law. So, she defers to the wisdom of the Institute of Medicine for advice on the matter. It’s difficult to say medical bureaucrats who receive much of their research funding from government – not to mention the harvested embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses – are disinterested constitutionalists. That’s why we have courts.
This June, the Supreme Court will further the constitutional instruction for Sebelius and Progressives in both parties that we are a nation of laws and not overreaching men … or women.