Christian and pro-family groups are blasting President Obama’s “compromise” on his contraception mandate for religious groups as a meaningless distinction without a difference. On February 10, the White House announced that under a revision to the objectionable decree, religious institutions would not be required to offer free contraceptives to women employees as previously mandated. Instead, the requirement would be totally shifted to their insurance providers.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has lately been arguing strenuously against the Obama administration’s decision to force all employers, regardless of their religious convictions, to provide insurance coverage for contraception, including contraceptives that can cause abortions. The government's decision has been widely denounced by officials of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches because they are opposed to both birth control (except in certain limited circumstances) and abortion.
The press release issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which operates under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on July 19, 2011, signaled the beginning of its regulatory process, this time concerning “mobile medical apps.” The announcement made it plain that such regulation certainly fell under its jurisdiction, as if declaring it made it so: “The use of mobile medical apps on smart phones and tablets is revolutionizing health care delivery,” according to Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Our draft approach calls for oversight of only those mobile medical apps that present the greatest risk to patients when they don’t work as intended.”
Former U.S. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper of Erie, Pennsylvania, was one of six pro-life Democrats in Congress who caved in to pressure from President Barack Obama to vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) against their best judgment.
Americans in favor of food sovereignty have been clashing with the federal government for years over raw — or unpasteurized — milk, which has been targeted by the federal government and severely regulated through the Food and Drug Administration. Annual legislative sessions have been an opportunity for major changes to be made to the way raw milk is regulated in this country, but more Americans are taking up the issue in their states, where they are asserting their individual rights to purchase and distribute it.