Monday, January 28, 2013

Pharaoh and the Babies, Redux

Yesterday I preached from Exodus 1:15-2:10 where, in ancient history, a Pharaoh rose to power who believed it was permissible, not only to kill babies, but to force others to kill babies.

In his pursuit of this end, he enlisted the help of the medical profession, and then of the population at large.

Today, it seems that Pharaoh has risen again, this time in the guise of “health care” that not only finds it permissible to kill babies, but also to force others to participate in this killing.

The mandate for contraception coverage in healthcare plans does exactly that—it forces employers to pay for the killing of babies if the mother so chooses.Companies who refuse face fines of one million dollars a day.

This is an egregious act, a subjugation of basic human rights and human decency that should be immediately rejected by all humanity. It should provoke a national outcry.

But it doesn’t.

Now multiple cases are wending their way through the legal system of the United States, in hopes of overturning this mandate.

Already circuit courts have given conflicting rulings, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown which probably wouldn’t take place until at least the 2013-14 court docket.

Whatever the outcome of these court cases, let us make no mistake about what has occurred: Pharaoh has risen again.

Let us be midwives who fear God more than the king.


Chip Van Emmerik said...


I think I know what you mean, and I think I agree with you. But I don't think you actually said what you meant to say. You wrote, "The mandate for ,contraception coverage in healthcare plans does exactly that—it forces employers to pay for the killing of babies if the mother so chooses." Did you really mean contraception - i. e. the prevention of fertilization - or did you mean specifically abortion - the termination of a baby already conceived (which is murder)?

Chip Van Emmerik said...

Oops - got my Larry and Rogier mixed up. Sorry

Larry said...

Chip, it's the "contraception coverage" mandate which requires coverage including abortion inducing drugs. So the coverage required under the rubric of "contraception" is broader than simply contraception.

Chip Van Emmerik said...

I wondered if that might be your approach. However, for most people it is specifically the abortion aspect that is objectionable, and they would not have a problem with the required contraception coverage without the abortion aspect (I know not everyone falls under this umbrella). I just think it is imprecise and possibly misleading the way it is presented. You might have called for all the "midwives" to rise up against Obamacare since it is the law that contains the contraception provision which includes the abortion provision.