Last night on Twitter, someone by the name of Unalienable Rights claimed that they would be forced to chose between God and the Federal Government is healthcare reform passed. Moreover, their bio on Twitter reads:
My God said abortion is murder. The gov'mnt plans 2 force me 2 fund abortion, thus making me complicit, it violates my 1st amendment rights!
Not only is this a preposterous statement to make, but it leads one to ask why they think their 1st amendment right has been violated. Are they exercising that very right with their Twitter account? Also, if they have health insurance through a private company and that company has abortion coverage as an option - as many insurance companies do - do they feel this same complicity by giving that company profit? And what of the Stupak, Hyde, and Nelson language in healthcare reform that assures no public funds will be used to pay for abortions? Are they forgetting this as well?
But back to this notion that they will not be able to practice their religion is healthcare reform passes. It's a rather unique and interesting concept within the context of the anti-reform movement. So why do they think this way? Religion is based on faith, not fact. So is this person claiming that their faith that they have clung to for years and years will suddenly evaporate once Barack Obama signs his name to the bill? Or is it that they believe that they will be barred from attending religious services?
To read their Twitter timeline is to not get a real sense that they understand what they are attempting to espouse.
Is there this hidden language in healthcare reform that says "by accepting insurance through this reform you are hereby from this day forward denying God"? Absolutely not. Religion, and the practice thereof, is a choice, a free choice. Freedom of choice, of speech, of religion, is still here and will always be here no matter what reforms are put forward.