"... lost Tuesday in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled it must allow employees to have contraception coverage,"
the Denver Post reports.
The federal government adopted a regulation that exempts religious employers, such as churches, hospitals, universities, charities and other service providers such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, from covering contraceptives they oppose on religious grounds. However, these groups must actively seek an exemption. A third party then steps in to cover contraceptives for employees.
That is, the Sisters had an exemption, but argued they were burdened by having to go through the government's procedure set up to identify them as falling within the exemption.
They argued that being forced to file for the exemption made them part of "the scheme" to provide their employees access to contraceptives....
The court rejected the claim that complying with the law makes them "complicit" in delivery of contraception.
Here's the
PDF of the opinion. Excerpt:
Although Plaintiffs allege the administrative tasks required to opt out of the Mandate make them complicit in the overall delivery scheme, opting out instead relieves them from complicity.
But who decides what "complicity" is? That, itself, is a matter of religious belief. Why does control over the meaning of complicity belong to the government and not to the individual?
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
SCOTUS, here we come.
Following your conscience requires filling out the appropriate Government forms: everybody knows that.
I am Laslo.
The question as to whether judges or the religious objector determines whether it is a substantial burden on their religious belief is an issue worthy of the Supreme Court. This opinion is not convincing on the question and it is unseemly for judges to determine whether or not something substantially burdens someone's religious beliefs or practices.
The court ignored economics in that products and services aren't free and would get bundled into the policy anyhow. It also ignored the constitution that by insisting on a one-page form, it wasn't a burden on their first amendment rights. I wonder where, in terms of size of the document required, does the court find it to be a burden and thus a infringe on their first amendment rights? Clearly at some point it isn't but then by adding just one page it is a burden too great. This proves the point that it is just one single page that constitutes an unconstitutional burden and it doesn't matter whether it is the last page or the first page.
I loved the url from wapo.
Obama beats the nuns.
I'm sure all democrats rejoice
Religion person: "My religion tells me that doing X is wrong."
Government: "Oh shut up! Your religion says no such thing. And even if it does, then it is a stupid and irrational religion."
Soon they will be forced into psychiatric care for their inexplicable opposition to abortion. Like D'souza.
I am an odd supporter of abortion rights. I view it as the lesser evil, but evil nonetheless, and I view those who oppose it as murder and who don't wish to be involved in it in any way and wish it were outlawed as having a valid point.
Obama and the Democrats in general view people who have sincere and intense opposition to the murder of human beings as troglodytes to be crushed.
"where, in terms of size of the document required, does the court find it to be a burden"
It's a burden if the court says it's a burden, otherwise, not.
Progs rule. Screw the nuns. Deal with it.
So, if I forced a gay employer to purchase services from somebody who opposed gay rights --- it'd be cool, right? No problem there, right?
The single biggest mistake Christianity made in the West was not slaughtering people en masse randomly. Killing people randomly will lead to Western progressives to worry that, should you kill a bunch of people, there might be a backlash against you and that'd be worrisome.
So, Christian brethren ---- find some heathens and kill them. Then kill more. Keep doing it and you'll win this new culture war.
Also, shouldn't we no longer allow consicentious objectors to not serve militarily?
I am an odd supporter of abortion rights.
I support targeted abortion rights. Progressives? Hell, let's SUBSIDIZE abortions for Progressives. Fewer of them, the better.
Interesting. Can that concentration camp guard on trial in Germany right now use that argument?
The sisters sign the exemption, the insurer provides coverage the sisters object to on moral grounds and the sisters are still forced to pay for it. As has been described by several observers, the exemption is a distinction without a difference, and the administration boils another frog. I still hold out some hope that like Hobby Lobby, the Little Sisters of the Poor will win this in the Supreme Court. But the difference between them and Hobby Lobby is that they're Catholic, and this issue has nothing to do with health insurance, but everything to do with challenging the moral and social standing of the catholic Church.
"...opting out instead relieves them from complicity."
I thought being removed from complicity was the point.
I am Laslo.
These sisters need to lean in and have a conversation. They need to wise up. Their day is done. Over.
Before we take another step with these "sisters" we want the conversation, we want the lean-in, we want their opinion on LGBT and we want it right the fuck now.
The Government does not dispute the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious belief that they may not provide, pay for, or facilitate contraceptive coverage.
...
The Government responds that completing the Form or notification does not
involve Plaintiffs in the delivery of contraceptive coverage. The accommodation relieves
Plaintiffs of their obligations under the Mandate, and when that occurs, federal law
authorizes and obligates a health insurance issuer or TPA to provide or arrange for the
delivery of contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries who are entitled
to that coverage under the ACA.
So, if the Little Sisters pay for health insurance for their employees, and they complete the form, then the health insurance that they pay for will cover the contraceptives that their religious beliefs prohibit them from providing.
I don't see how this stands under Hobby Lobby
A few years ago I was a wayward Catholic. Not anymore. I'm back on the team. I'm devout. I'm a defender of the Faith. No need to explain why.
Eventually you have to take a stand and stand for something or you might just as well pack it all in. This is how I take my stand. This is where I'm planting my flag.
Why does control over the meaning of complicity belong to the government and not to the individual?
Because, as somebody said somewhere, the Wall of Separation between Church and State has been pushed over on top of the Church, and the State is jumping up and down on the rubble.
"Why does control over the meaning of complicity belong to the government and not to the individual?"
Because John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and the forthrightly lockstep-liberal faction of SCOTUS will say so, that's why, Prof Althouse.
It's an entertaining shell game.
Pay Insurance rate that includes cost of conscience breaking drugs/procedures. Sign magic form that pretends this portion of the cost is not being used to fund the use of conscience breaking drugs/procedures. Instead, the insurance company now provides these drugs/procedures for "Free" as if by magic.
And that's the GOVERNMENT'S position. Not the "kooky religionists" nuns. The government now believes in transsubstantiation.
I think a workable compromise would be this:
1. Insurance Company certifies rate that would include conscience breaking drugs/procedures.
2. Insurance Company provides alternate rate to Sisters of poor based on actuary tables which exclude said drugs/procedures.
3. Government mandates plans available on exchange which cover only sexual/reproductive health.
This works with other forms of insurance - having multiple policies to fill "gaps" in coverage.
Why we won't do it? Because it would VERY easily break the illusion that using "insurance" to cover expected/regular care costs like birth control provides no cost savings. The more workers you have involved - the more money must be involved (as these workers have to be paid). So injecting more workers into a transaction MUST incur higher costs UNLESS doing so adds efficiency. There is no efficiency to be added to routine, expected costs.
One thing that WOULD reduce costs would be to take most forms of hormonal birth control out of the prescription model and sell them over the counter. This removes workers from the process, and thus reduces the number of people drawing wages from the transaction - thus reducing cost.
If it were up to me to determine what "complicity" means, and my decision would be binding on the government, then perhaps I should be able to decline the filing of tax returns and certainly of responding to demands for payment of taxes by the government because I will not be complicit in its ongoing killing of human beings. The government kills people. I have a religious objection to killing.
Gah, stupid conservatives, it's not difficult!
You are allowed to believe whatever you want. For now. As long as it is impossible by your actions (forced or voluntary) that you do, in fact, believe wrongthink.
Turns out there's always going to be some belief that has to exist only in the privacy of one's own home. Whether that view is the right to sodomy or the right to life is one each society has to make.
Go America! USA! USA! USA!
In other news, Merkel is now taking the Republican Position on gay marriage, circa mid-naughts. Whether this means the American Left can now pop out the champagne as it's now officially more progressive than the Queen of Europe, or whether it's just a case of Merkel being annoyed by anything that hints of Greek... too soon to say.
Remember when a rugged few high-tailed it out of old-timey England for some reason?
I forget what that reason was.
Bullying nuns.
Who's next?
The Government responds that completing the Form or notification does not
involve Plaintiffs in the delivery of contraceptive coverage
By signing the form you admit that the government regulation takes precident over your religion.
I thought we covered this before?
Why does control over the meaning of complicity belong to the government and not to the individual?
A profound question! Sounds like the social compact revisited, with all it's attendant tail-chasing.
This account makes it sound as if the Little Sisters are griping about having to fill out a form. But as I understand it, the issue is that even when the employer opts out through the religious objection exception, it is still actually paying for the abortifacient contraceptives, as its premiums provide the money that the insurer then uses to do so. That's a considerably greater burden than filling out a form, isn't it? Why describe it so misleadingly?
Well, I know why. But why is Althouse assisting in that effort by failing to point out what the Denver Post has done here?
"Why does control over the meaning of complicity belong to the government and not to the individual?"
Because what's a whip had without a whip?
The Obama regime's manic insistence on provision of abortifacients is kinda creepy.
I support targeted abortion rights. Progressives? Hell, let's SUBSIDIZE abortions for Progressives. Fewer of them, the better
They are doing it to themselves. In a hundred years they will have been outbred like the Neanderthals in Europe.
Reading the opinion, they keep referring to preliminary injunctions. Was this ruling on the overall case, or just a ruling on the preliminary injunction?
I do think the fact that whether or not the Little Sisters of the Poor complete the exemption forms their employees will still have access to contraceptives makes their sense of complicity somewhat abstract. It is akin to the complicity one assumes by voting, even by voting your conscience. By voting you are complicit in the system in which things, even egregiously immoral things, are decided by voting. Revolutionary anarchists would say to hell with all that.
It's true the Little Sisters of the Poor will be forced to toe the line. On the other hand, the Obama Administration will graciously allow the Big Brothers of Iran to opt out of those burdensome "anytime anywhere" nuclear inspections .....so there's that.
Serendipity. Next story in the Denver Post: Four counts of child sex assault against Joshua Dolezal have been dismissed
Don't the nuns have anything better to do than complain about a simple form that doesn't require they make any affirmative representations contrary to their religious beliefs? Like saving souls.
Henry said...
I do think the fact that whether or not the Little Sisters of the Poor complete the exemption forms their employees will still have access to contraceptives makes their sense of complicity somewhat abstract. It is akin to the complicity one assumes by voting, even by voting your conscience.
I think the court is obfuscating a very concrete case of complicity. The accommodation does not reduce complicity, it merely changes where in the process the complicity takes place. Now, purchasing any insurance for your employees provides them with contraceptive coverage, whether or not you later sign the form. Thus, providing any insurance is now a substantial burden.
Obama: "I won" translation: "You Lose" In order to be free you must surrender your rights. It's only fair.
Ignorance is Bliss said, Now, purchasing any insurance for your employees provides them with contraceptive coverage, whether or not you later sign the form.
I can see how this is a non-trivial issue, but I do think it is a step removed from a direct purchase of that specific coverage. If the Little Sisters of the Poor don't purchase insurance for their employees, that too will provide those employees with contraceptive coverage, since not purchasing insurance makes them eligible for a private policy that will.
"... lost Tuesday in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled it must allow employees to have contraception coverage"
... lost Tuesday in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled it must pay for employees to have contraception coverage
We used to be able to practice our religious beliefs. Progressives have changed all that.
Actually, Steve Uhr, saving souls is exactly what the Little Sisters are trying to do here.
"Why does control over the meaning of complicity belong to the government and not to the individual?" Because individual conscience -- particularly individual conscience informed by religious faith -- stands in the way of total control by an authoritarian government, it has to be crushed. Witness Henry VIII's execution of Thomas More.
Henry said...
If the Little Sisters of the Poor don't purchase insurance for their employees, that too will provide those employees with contraceptive coverage, since not purchasing insurance makes them eligible for a private policy that will.
But the Little Sisters would not be paying for that private policy, so the Little Sisters would be no more complicit than if the employee went out an purchased the contraceptive on their own.
Who decides what religious belief is? The gummint.
Remember when a rugged few high-tailed it out of old-timey England for some reason?
I do, and if there was a "new world" left for me to leave for, I'd be gone.
If the Republican nominee for president has any balls, he'd point out the government's case against the LSotP and say to the camera "The government is now going after the Little Sisters of the Poor. If they're going after the damn Little Sisters of the Poor, do you honestly think they're going to leave you alone?"
Your response, Mrs Clinton?
Our Federal Courts are shameless when it comes to decisions involving religion and the Establishment Clause. In Aronow v. United States, the court had the nerve to declare:
"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. ...It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted 'In God We Trust' or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet Congress has directed such uses. While 'ceremonial' and 'patriotic' may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has 'spiritual and psychological value' and 'inspirational quality.'"
Your response, Mrs Clinton?
Well, those nuns, between them, sure have a lot of internal organs that could be better used for medical research.
I am an odd supporter of abortion rights.
I support targeted abortion rights. Progressives? Hell, let's SUBSIDIZE abortions for Progressives. Fewer of them, the better.
I've always said I support the right of liberals to get abortions on the off chance there's a genetic predisposition to liberalism.
Let's be clear about a couple of things here --
The so-called "accomodation" means that employers need to accomodate the government, not the other way around.
If you are required to do X, then that is not opting out. That is government demanding that you do something you otherwise would not do.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Henry said...
If the Little Sisters of the Poor don't purchase insurance for their employees, that too will provide those employees with contraceptive coverage, since not purchasing insurance makes them eligible for a private policy that will.
But the Little Sisters would not be paying for that private policy, so the Little Sisters would be no more complicit than if the employee went out an purchased the contraceptive on their own.
No they wouldn't. But by not paying they are forcing someone to commit a sin. Which, in their eyes, is just as bad as if they committed the sin. Their first responsibility is to ALL souls. Not just the ones who made it out into the light.
SOJO said...
I don't see the problem. It's a decent compromise. They don't have to contribute as an organization.
Between the ACA and the accommodation, here are their options:
1) Do not provide any insurance coverage at all, and pay a fine that will bankrupt them.
2) Pay for insurance coverage that is priced to include the cost of contraceptives and that obligates their insurance company to pay for those contraceptives.
3) Fill out a form saying that option 2 substantially burdens their freedom of religion, then pay for insurance coverage that is priced to include the cost of contraceptives and that obligates their insurance company to pay for those contraceptives.
Do you see the problem yet?
Rusty said...
No they wouldn't. But by not paying they are forcing someone to commit a sin.
Who would they be forcing to commit a sin? Who would they be forcing to pay for insurance or contraception?
Remember, Obama is a Christian. Like for realz. And Democrats respect other people's rights. Seriously, you guys. They're not like evil conservatives forcing their theology on you or anything.
Who would they be forcing to commit a sin? Who would they be forcing to pay for insurance or contraception?
They either go bankrupt and stop helping people (a move Christian churches should consider. Imagine having every single Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc hospital shutting down with no warning and the havoc that would cause) or they have to pay for insurance that is priced to include something that violates their religious beliefs.
God is infinitely more important than a fucking government form.
Also, a lot of religious orders actually use Catholic insurance companies. So forcing insurance to pay DOES force someone (the Catholic Insurer) to sin.
They're not talking Anthem here. By filling out the forms, they just push the burden on to someone else. Which also violates their religious beliefs.
I can't understand how this system doesn't make them complicit.
When they file the paperwork, that triggers a requirement for the company to extend this free coverage to their employees. The combination of two acts (buying insurance coverage for their employees and giving the notice) triggers free payment for some services that they consider murder.
I think that you have targeted the real issue, Ann - the judge seems to have made a ruling on what their religious doctrine on this should be, not on whether their religious doctrine could be legally exercised under US law.
The next round of this one will be interesting.
Don't get fooled by the Holier-than-Thou act of the LSotP.
Everybody in Denver knows that their heroin & protection rackets are second to none. Who do you think taught those Latinos gangs their trade? That's right, you guessed it.
Especially terrifying is how they take out their victims. First a sign of the cross in the air, and then the hit-squad starts singing Absolve, Domine, and then it's all over. I've seen hardened thugs piss their pants just hearing about it, I tell ya'.
I mean, you don't think our government would go after a bunch of sweet, old, ladies who just run hospitals, do ya?
Little Sisters lose to Big Brother. -CP
Henry - I think you are missing the doctrinal point. Completely and insanely missing it.
Suppose I live under a regime that legislates that all insurance policies provided to adults also must cover their parents. However this is costly, so whenever the elderly use their free insurance, their use is recorded and when the total cost gets "too high", they are automatically entered in a lottery pool each year, the prizes being free termination - euthanasia. Five percent in the lottery pool are guaranteed to win each year. This does greatly reduce costs.
Well, some retrograde religious fanatics make objections, babbling some inane nonsense, so the government offers a new deal. Just fill out a form when you buy the insurance and you won't have to pay for it - but your insurance carrier will.
Not only is it obvious that you are still paying for people's parents to be offed if they get sick, it is also obvious that nothing has changed. The act of buying the insurance for your employees is the act of subjecting the elderly with costly illnesses to risk of death.
If you do, of COURSE you are complicit in their deaths. And yes, you are more complicit because you took a positive step - you participated in that system.
May I point out that religious groups such as the Mennonites and Christian (evangelical, usually) ministry health care networks got EXPLICIT exemptions from this law?
Not only is this constitutional gobbledygook, it's also discrimination against some religious people compared to others, and thus a due process problem.
Note that nothing constricts the government's ability to do this in another way, such as taxation. If the government wants to provide free birth control to all women, it may constitutionally do so through providing a public benefit, paid for by taxes.
They also set up the law so that groups with 'sharing ministries' had to be grandfathered in.
So, for instance, the LSOP don't have the option of shutting down their 'insurance' and starting a 'ministry' that can avoid paying for certain things. Only ministries above a certain age 'counted' and none of the Catholic ones were old enough to survive.
You are arguing about complicity, in the religious sense.
And Nancy Pelosi could not provide any constitutional authority (other than blather about General Welfare, which authorizes exactly zero government actions) for the ACA.
And a tax is a penalty except when it must be a tax, and state exchanges can be federal exchanges. And the tax man is now in charge of the US health care system.
Words have meanings, and misuse of words leads to mistakes. IYKWIMAITYD.
@MaxedOutMama -- I think my voting analogy makes clear the broader point. If the system is corrupt, any civil participation in that system makes you complicit. The question still resolves to the level of complicity, not the fact of it.
There is one thing I am not clear on, though it has been asserted in this thread. Are the religious organizations that fill out the exemption paying the same insurance rate they would otherwise? Or, is the cost of contraception coverage literally paid for by a third party?
You will be MADE TO CARE.
There is one thing I am not clear on, though it has been asserted in this thread. Are the religious organizations that fill out the exemption paying the same insurance rate they would otherwise? Or, is the cost of contraception coverage literally paid for by a third party?
It makes no difference to them. As long as they are paying into a system that allows it they are complicit in the eyes of god.
Henry said...
There is one thing I am not clear on, though it has been asserted in this thread. Are the religious organizations that fill out the exemption paying the same insurance rate they would otherwise? Or, is the cost of contraception coverage literally paid for by a third party?
It is paid for by your insurance provider, or if you self-insure than by the company that administers your plan. They may not explicitly charge you for the contraceptive coverage if you opt out, and if you are self-insured they many not take it out of your self-insurance payment fund. So it comes out of their overhead.
Of course, buying insurance for your employees is not like buying an item off the shelf at Walmart. The price is not posted on the shelf, so everyone sees what everyone is paying. It is more like buying a car under the traditional car-buying experience. You don't know what other people are paying, nor what exactly is going into the price you are quoted. You can negotiate, and seek competitive offers from other dealers ( who are also including who-knows-what in their pricing )
The ACA accommodation does not set up any mechanism to audit the insurance company to make sure that they do not raise their price to cover the insurance.
The ACA accommodation does not set up any mechanism to audit the insurance company to make sure that they do not raise their price to cover the insurance.
I would assume then the cost is covered by the policies they sell to everyone else. Community rating.
It makes no difference to them. As long as they are paying into a system that allows it they are complicit in the eyes of god.
Then if they pay taxes they are complicit.
Henry said...
I would assume then the cost is covered by the policies they sell to everyone else. Community rating.
Community rating does not apply to self-insured or large employers. So that may fix the payment part of the problem for the little sisters, but not at least one of their plaintiffs. Also, I'm not sure if the community rating covers administrative costs.
The difference from a Catholic perspective is in the degree of remote material cooperation with evil.
To some people the signing of a little sheet of paper may seem like a trivial exercise. It is not.
John McCain, Bud Day, James Stockdale and many others endured months and years of savage torture for the sake of their refusal to sign what their inquisitors said were mere formalities. Just little slips of paper.
Furthermore, noone who was a sanctity-of-life purist would sign a death warrant simply on the argument that since he's not firing the lethal bullet himself, he's not responsible for signing the document that puts the project in place.
In the novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the main protagonist, Tomas, was a doctor who had written an essay critical of the Communist leaders in late 60s Czechoslovakia. He was a doctor. The agents of communism told him they wanted him to remain a doctor. Simply sign this retraction, and all will be well. You may keep practicing medicine. All we ask is that you sign this little scrap of paper, and nobody even needs to know about it.
Tomas refused, and is made a window washer, washing the windows of the hospital where he works, so that the communists can make an example of him.
By forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to sign this document, they are essentially forcing them to say there are five lights, when there are only four.
Then if they pay taxes they are complicit.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"
Christian abolitionists still had to pay their taxes even though the Feds enforced slavery.
Why is it so fucking vital to go after NUNS?
Henry - but this is not remote. The act of covering their employees (which has been considered a basic justice issue for Catholics) forces them to directly pay for what they believe to be the taking of life - murder.
Of course the insurance companies charge for the BC. They just factor it into the price - it is not separated out. If they have to pay for it, they include it as a cost when quoting rates. And they do have to pay for it under the regs - not only do they have to pay for it, it is first-dollar coverage not subject to deductibles and copays. It is one of the more expensive parts of the mandate, especially since women are choosing more expensive methods at times now that it is fully covered.
Group insurance doesn't have community ratings - it works differently.
The bottom line is that the regulations issued under the law and left in place by this decision force this group of nuns to do something morally wrong by their religious doctrine, which is pay for medical treatments that are murderous BY THEIR DEFINITION.
Why a group of nuns would have less protections than Hobby Lobby I cannot imagine, so I really think this is an attack on Catholic organizations.
And why the old-order Mennonites, most Amish groups and the evangelical medical payment pools should get a religious exemption (it is written into the law) when the Catholic sisters here do not is bizarre, and almost certainly unconstitutional in and of itself. This is a regulatory exercise which defies the purpose and meaning of the law itself. The First Amendment and the related lines of cases should preclude such a result.
Look, even the Amish will pay taxes when they have to, although some groups don't participate in SS. But they aren't supposed to enroll in the military and go shoot people. It is not the same thing, there is just about no religious group with firm doctrine that has ever held it to be the same thing, and to say that it is the same thing ignores the obvious issue of personal acts.
What is under your personal control is under your personal control. Buying a pooled service mandated by law to include certain things your morality holds to be criminal acts is NOT REMOTE. It is a direct result of your act. The ending of life (what you believe to be the ending of life) is being funded by your payments.
Why a group of nuns would have less protections than Hobby Lobby I cannot imagine
Agreed, although IANAL. Maybe there's some aspect of this case that differs. But surely the Nuns hold their beliefs more closely than Hobby Lobby does!
The crazy thing is that insurance that covers abortion in addition to perinatal costs is more profitable, first, because an abortion is about $30,000 cheaper than a live birth and, second, insurance that doesn't offer abortion attracts breeders, who are more expensive to insure. In a free market, this all gets sorted out. In a command market like Obamacare, it's hard to tell how much you're getting screwed.
I'm no expert on this issue, but I thought that the courts weren't supposed to decide whether the defendant's religious claim was correct under the teachings of his/her sect, only whether it was sincere. So if a reactionary Catholic were to refuse to eat meat on Friday because to do so would be a sin, the court couldn't rule that the claim is invalid because the official position of the Church has changed on that issue.
If the claim by the Little Sisters is sincere that the Obamacare scheme would require them to sin, then the question becomes whether the Government can accomplish its legitimate objectives while still honoring the defendant's objection. If the Government's legitimate objective is to assure that everyone can obtain free contraceptives, surely that objective can be accomplished by the Government buying and distributing the contraceptives to the Little Sisters' employees who want them (I wonder how many of them really do). The Little Sisters wouldn't like it, of course, but the Government would be achieving its goal of maximum contraception without requiring any action by the Little Sisters.
Isn't this really about slapping down the Little Sisters for lese majeste? I suspect they see it the same way the ancient Jews saw the Abomination of Desolation in their Temple. The Jews fought a war over it. I suspect the Little Sisters, in their own way, are also at war. I'd be proud to fly their flag.
This is a high quality comment thread with actual points worth debating. I'm glad I read rather than commented. You exercise your mind and learn so much more that way.
Nonetheless, the discussion has been decidedly intramural. This post is over 9 hours old. Where are the trolls and health care warriors (HCW's, trademark pending) like Freder Frederson?
MaxedOutMama said...
Why a group of nuns would have less protections than Hobby Lobby I cannot imagine.
The difference might be that the Little Sisters have been offered an accommodation that was never offered to Hobby Lobby.
I'm not saying that accommodation is sufficient, only that it might be the distinction on which the ruling is based.
Henry said...
The ACA accommodation does not set up any mechanism to audit the insurance company to make sure that they do not raise their price to cover the insurance.
I would assume then the cost is covered by the policies they sell to everyone else. Community rating.
It makes no difference to them. As long as they are paying into a system that allows it they are complicit in the eyes of god.
Then if they pay taxes they are complicit.
which they don't
When Obama revokes the Ocare exemption for Islam, then he can harrass a bunch of elderly nuns.
We are moving rapidly with inexorable logic to ridding the culture of Christians.
Mark Steyn:
"The logic of the 1933 Civil Service Restoration Act is that the German public service will be judenrein. The logic of the 2015 Supreme Court decision is that much of the American public service will be christenrein - at least for those who take their Scripture seriously. That doesn't strike me as a small thing - even if one thought it were likely to stop there."
Read the whole thing; it's a response to a professor at the University of South Carolina who ridiculed the parallel between the 1930s Germany and America 2015. How the unthinkable - believed only by "lunatics" - becomes reality.
http://www.steynonline.com/7036/the-stupidity-of-sophisticates
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा