Saturday, 7 October 2017

501(c) or because i was not a trade-unionist

Failing to pass any meaningful or positive legislation, the nihilistic regime of Dear Dotard has advanced a tranche of legislation that privileges religious conviction (or at least the claim, pretense thereof as the expanded language no longer requires that an employer or service-provider have a stated religious purpose) as promised—this is the nightmare that we choose—over not just laws offering protections to employees aimed at reducing discrimination and increasing equal employment rights but woefully also over women’s health and reproductive choices, education, marriage equality to include miscegenation laws, economic opportunities and community health—as it’s surely designed to allow parents to opt out of vaccinating their children too.
This false dichotomy of pitting lifestyle choices, identity and, yes—this is what we’ve returned to, women’s health against religious adiaphora (no central article of faith is based on hate and fear) and is of course the same sort of culture war that propelled these miseries to high office and will make it impossible to dislodge the criminal syndicate any time soon. How far backward could we go?  Previously, it was possible for objectors of certain provisions provided in health care coverage to argue their case to the government and secure the right to be exempted from the requirement but the process was public with due controls—but under the relaxed rules, corporations can distance themselves from the controversial, bothersome or potential costly just by asserting its stance to its insured staff with no requirement to notify state or federal authorities.  It’s easy to tease out trepidation and hatred and no force of law is required but the one manoeuvre underlying both the attack and roll-back of gay and women’s rights is what’s known as the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 addition to the US tax code that prohibits non-profit organisations—like churches and charities—from endorsing or opposing political candidates at the peril of losing their tax exempt status. This key component in the separation of church and state was recommended and adopted without controversy by then Texas senator Lyndon Baines Johnson and remained as something sacrosanct until it all of a sudden wasn’t and came under assault after a Rose Garden speech back in May, pandering to religious conservatives. Using the same argument that restricting their religious expression to vote as a congregational bloc infringes on their fundamental freedoms, the White House has essentially eviscerated the intent of the regulation by directing agencies of the executive to not enforce it any differently than it would against a secular (profane) entity in so far as taking sides.