Your Eroding Freedoms

[standish]

Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If none of you is worried about the legislature’s efforts to force Catholic hospitals to provide chemical abortions for rape victims, you are misreading the prohibition clause and misunderstanding the cause of freedom. That abortion extremists have done this damage surreptitiously, by sneaking buried language into the budget bill, is even worse.

If we fail to contact our legislators regarding this matter, we break the social contract with our forebears, many of whom died to guarantee us the right to worship freely. We, by our silence, also sanction and accelerate the intrusion of government into every area of our lives. This is not a referendum on Catholicism or any other denomination, it is a fight for freedom from oppression.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

www.archives.gov
April 5, 2006

The Bill of Rights:
A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

- - - - - - -

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

- - - - - - -

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- - - - - - -

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

- - - - - - -

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- - - - - - -

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- - - - - - -

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

- - - - - - -

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

- - - - - - -

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

- - - - - - -

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

- - - - - - -

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

- - - - - - -

Amendments 11-27

- - - - - - -

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

This page's URL

U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, MD, 20740-6001
1-86-NARA-NARA ( 1-866-272-6272 )

[Jubashero]

If a woman is raped in Wethersfield and brought to the nearest hospital, Hartford Hospital, she is given a choice of the morning-after pill. A woman is raped in Hartford, she is brought to Saint Francis Hospital and doesn’t have the choice of a morning-after pill. Tell me, whose rights have been trampled?

[standish]

If the rape victim at St. Francis is not ovulating, she will be administered the "morning after" pill. If she is ovulating, that same medication induces a chemical abortion and she would be referred to a hospital that administers such, if she so desires. However, if she's conscious and aware, she has the initial option as to which hospital she attends. Furthermore, in your scenario, who is doing the "bringing"? If it's emergency personnel or authorities, they know the game, as do rape counselors.Thus, it is her right to seek the help she wants in the appropriate venue, just as she would not go to "Birthright" for an abortion. Or, is that the next group that will be forced to perform abortions by the State? Whose rights? The faith institution that might well opt against providing care if they are forced to do harm. NOT TO MENTION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION... DOES THIS MEAN NOTHING? IT IS THE FIRST PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT! WE TAKE A BROADLY CONSTRUED, INFERRED, DISTORTED "RIGHT TO PRIVACY" IN THE SENSE OF PURPORTED ABORTION "RIGHTS" AND ABROGATE A CLEARLY SPELLED OUT, EXPLICIT, SPECIFIC, FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RELIGION? WHAT, IN GOD'S NAME, HAVE WE COME TO?

[Jubashero]

The sirens are wailing giving you a headache
or maybe it’s the flashing red lights;
you are cold and just want to go home
The event you dreaded your entire life just happened;
You clench at your torn clothing and keep asking “why me”
You dream of the hot shower you will take as the EMT comes over and asks
“Pepsi or Coca Cola?”
Which is just as relevant a question as to which hospital to go.

Are you arguing for your right to worship your faith:
(1) on secular reasons, i.e., separation of church and state just as the right to bear arms is spelled out in the constitution;
(2) because any abortion is a form of contraception and bible passages allude to use of contraceptives as being a mortal sin; or
(3) from a deep-seated belief that life is precious and promoting an end to life as you perceive it is contrary to your fundamental beliefs?

Because if it is (1), in this case, the hospital is providing a service to the community which clearly supersedes the question of faith.

[standish]

jubashero said:

The sirens are wailing giving you a headache
or maybe it’s the flashing red lights;
you are cold and just want to go home
The event you dreaded your entire life just happened;
You clench at your torn clothing and keep asking “why me”
You dream of the hot shower you will take as the EMT comes over and asks
“Pepsi or Coca Cola?”
Which is just as relevant a question as to which hospital to go.

How about: "Do you want a chemical abortion if you're ovulating?" Does that sound a little more "relevant"?

Are you arguing for your right to worship your faith:
(1) on secular reasons, i.e., separation of church and state just as the right to bear arms is spelled out in the constitution;
Please read the 1st Amendment again. Where does it speak about the separation of church and state? Do you mean the establishment clause? Doesn't it speak, instead, about the State intruding on the free exercise of religion?
(2) because any abortion is a form of contraception and bible passages allude to use of contraceptives as being a mortal sin; or
Because chemical abortion is different from preventing pregnancy, which is strictly contraception and currently offered by Catholic hospitals to rape victims who aren't ovulating... however, even if they didn't offer birth control, they are constitutionally guaranteed the right to exercise their religious beliefs. If you don't like that guarantee, hold a constitutional convention or get the States to ratify a change.
(3) from a deep-seated belief that life is precious and promoting an end to life as you perceive it is contrary to your fundamental beliefs?
Yes.
Because if it is (1), in this case, the hospital is providing a service to the community which clearly supersedes the question of faith.
...(which is) a voluntary, private service deeply subsidized by the church's charitable role. By the way, you are wrong about public service superseding constitutionally guaranteed rights. It's that kind of thinking that provided the impetus for the Bill of Rights. Thank God for their prescience.

[ThinkingMama]

It appears to be your position, Jubashero, that Catholic hospitals are providing a public service of health care and receiving some taxpayer-funded reimbursements so, therefore, they are required to provide health care services that may violate the moral and ethical teachings of their faith. I do not believe that is the case, nor should it be the case.

Consider the example of parochial schools. Catholic and other religious schools educate probably over 10 percent of our citizenry. That is certainly a public service of great value. Did you realize that certain of their funding, for textbooks, transportation, and school nursing service, among other categories, is paid for by the town and state? Yet Supreme Court cases have held that this funding is allowed and does not impermissibly entangle church and state. Although recipients of some public funds, parochial schools are free to teach according to their values. Catholic schools do not teach sex education classes, among other topics, with the same approach as a public school. I am not aware of any organized outrage or protests about this settled state of affairs, which appears quite analogous to the morning after pill controversy.

Religious schools and hospitals should not be required to deny their own values just because they perform a public good and receive incidental taxpayer-funded benefits.

[standish]

Thanks for living up to your pseudonym, ThinkingMama. The establishment clause was included in the First Amendment to prevent the imposition of a State religion by the Federal Government. In fact, Congregationalism remained the Connecticut State religion, and the CT State Legislature was effectively an ecclesiastical body, until the 1830's. Thus, the establishment clause was a prohibition on Federal Government that did not even apply to States. Disestablishment was a later political movement. Nor did the clause create a "wall between church and state", as it is so often misinterpreted and misrepresented. This phrase was only contained in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Baptists, not in the Bill of Rights.

If the intent of the clause was the protection of all religions from an official, Federal religion, then, as long as there is impartiality regarding equal energy funding of all faith based hospitals (especially if the funding is relatively incidental, such as energy funding, vs. foundational, wherein the State has a controlling interest), the State should not be allowed to discriminate.

The other religion clause in the First Amendment prevents prohibition of the free exercise of religion. Back-handed manipulation through budgeting would constitute such a prohibition in regard to a hospital's faith position on the right to life. Thus, this position is constitutionally protected and the State should not be allowed to discriminate. Furthermore, we just know it's wrong!

[morganika]

Well, I dearly hope I am never in this situation. And I would certainly never think of offending anyone by trying to get medical treatment I feel I deserve. I hope I would be in the right frame of mind so I can insist on getting to a hospital who will help me without crushing me with their belief system. Gee, come to think of it, I hope the officer is a Protestant or something.

[standish]

I hope (and pray) you're not, too.

That's the beauty of the multi-cultural, salad bowl civilization in which we live... you can almost always find what you're looking for. Gee, come to think of it, I'm a Protestant and I think ThinkingMama may be, too! Shows you how diverse we are. In fact, it was protestants who wrote the protections for all religions into the Constitution.

Deserve? Now, it's another "right"? From whence does it derive?

[ThinkingMama]

Morganika, you probably won't offend any personnel at a Catholic hospital by insisting on your right to a morning after pill. Everything I have read indicates that they would promptly refer you to an accomodating medical establishment. Unfortunately, in emergency situations of all kinds, whether involved with car accidents, childbirth, or any other dire medical situation, the patient is under great stress in making life-altering decisions.

Hospitals should inform patients of medical alternatives. I hope Catholic hospitals explain the morning after alternative and how it can be obtained. Then, the patient must make a choice to obtain the medical treatment best for herself, even under challenging circumstances. What is the alternative? Assuming every victim wants the morning after pill might even go against the belief system of the victim herself. All patients have to decide and then advocate for themselves.

No hospital offers all medical services. It is just a medical reality that vulnerable patients are often transferred to appropriate medical venues. This is just one example of this reality.

[standish]

ThinkingMama-
Thanks for your kind and gentle response. Sometimes I get a little too keyed up over ideas, issues and freedoms, for which people were willing to die. Sorry for any sarcasm in my responses, Morganika.

[morganika]

Apology absolutely accepted! I think people, including myself, get a little keyed up about these issues.

My fear is, what if a person didn't know about the morning after pill? Just because we are "up" on all these issues doesn't mean everyone is. If you didn't know what to ask for, would you be told so you could make whatever decision you were comfortable with?

My big, big fear of course, is our eroding freedoms.

[SyZyGy]

www.courant.com
April 8, 2006
Letters to the Editor
Page A7

WHY USE RELIGION AS WEAPON?

I just don't get it. Why do we make such a big deal about the differences in religion or whether someone has a religious belief system? Why does it matter?

Why does Susan Campbell have to write a column defending herself from the charge, brought by some readers, that she's the antichrist [April 2, "Antichrist Doesn't Work Here"]?

Why does a survey conducted by the University of Minnesota find that Americans trust atheists less than they trust other groups? Why does such a study have to be conducted in the first place?

We have different groups of Huhammad's followers killing one another in Irag. We have Christians killing Muslims in the same country. We've had crusades, inquisitions, holocausts, genecides and church burnings, and recently in Afghanistan, a man faced a death sentence for converting to Christianity.

Robert Jensen, in a recent AlterNet.org essay, wrote about joining a church although he's a self-described atheist. His reasons were grounded in his desire to understand and practice the universal love at the heart of Christian principles. He also wanted to become a responsible member of the church and the larger community -- perhaps the bare-bones reasons many people join churches, or at least the reasons of people of goodwill. Fellow atheists and Christians took issue with him and with the pastor of the church that accepted him into its membership.

People take their religion seriously, of course, and well they might -- it engages them in a way perhaps nothing else does. But when they use it as a rationale for doing anything other than sharing their goodness with the world, it becomes a weapon. Sometimes it's a virtual weapon: You've broken our laws, so we must excommunicate you. Sometimes it's a real weapon such as the fire that burned Joan of Arc or the fatwa that threatened Salman Rushdie.

The very best parts of religion enrich people's lives and provide help, spiritual and material, where it's needed. The very worst parts seek to control others, to put them in their place, to bring them into line or make them toe ours.

So much wasted energy that could be much better used.

Susan Forbes Hansen
West Hartford

[standish]

I have never been a rape victim. Statistically, I am the wrong sex for it to be a likely occurrence in my life (though it can happen). Nor is my physical appearance likely to induce an incident (though rape is a crime of violence and not passion). Furthermore, the consequences are different for a male victim.

However, I cannot help but think that, even now, emergency, police & fire personnel, rape counselors, ambulance drivers and others likely to initially interact with rape victims, will gently provide information regarding the choices before such a victim. To do otherwise would be unthinkable. Thus, I would hope, Morganika, that your fears would be appropriately addressed.

Syzygy, you phrase the question in the wrong context (compassion or control), as does the letter-writer, a well-known liberal commentator for NPR, who seems to identify and sympathize most with the atheist. If you are saying that people of faith have no place in the public square and should shut up unless they are offering help, then, perhaps you should view their concern for life as that very compassion you deride. If a government cannot first guarantee the right to life, even before liberty and happiness, it fails to fulfill its first purpose.

Nor is the issue about a voice for those who act on their faith beliefs, except as it relates to the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That, my friend, is the topic at hand. Your annotated letter clouds, not clarifies, the issue.