Huh?
Sotomayer issued her decision in favor of a sisterhood of nuns.
How disappointing. You’d think they were priests, the callous and amoral way they’re behaving.
Yeah, I mean, it’s like Jews running a soup kitchen and not serving pork!
You’ll have to give me a bit, adaher. We weren’t all gifted with your lack of capacity for thought and the vodka takes some time.
My statement was as clear as yours. Seriously now, you’re labelling a non-profit run by nuns refusing to pay for contraception immoral? I responded with the seriousness which such a statement deserved by using a ridiculous analogy, Jews being required to serve pork.
Both situations are examples of the government expecting religious folks to submit to an administration’s policy preferences, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Now if it’s a matter of life and death, fine, the government has a compelling interest. But since there is no access to contraception problem that the government needed to solve, it is not actually necessary for all employers to provide it free of charge. It was a simple policy preference, more of a political preference actually, and no, that does not override the 1st amendment.
Bullshit. The nuns are not just refusing to pay for birth control. They have that option already. They are refusing to sign a form that states they will not pay for birth control on the grounds that it would allow their employees to get free birth control from someone else. In your analogy she is not just refusing to serve pork, she is trying to prevent her employees from getting pork some where else. Or perhaps trying to block public aid from providing pork to her employees (if pork were actually medicine instead of just one type of meat.)
Nuns and Hobby Lobby ain’t exactly the same thing (though maybe the OP would also have pitted the nuns.)
To be perfectly honest, yes, I do regard organizations that refuse to include contraception in their employee healthcare plans as immoral. But as Strassia has already pointed out, they’re doing something that I should think even staunch catholics should find beyond the pale.
Does anyone know exactly what the wording is on the form in question? Because if the form says (and I doubt it does) " Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged authorizes The Insurance Company to provide contraceptive coverage for Little Sister’s employees", I can see their point , although I don’t see how that would be a self-certification as described by their lawyer.
If ,however, the form in question says something like “Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged hereby certifies that it is exempt ( or claiming exemption) from the portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requiring that contraceptive coverage be provided to employees”, I can see how it can be described as a self-certification, but not how it violates someone’s religious freedom to certify that they meet the requirements for or are claiming a desired exemption.
It’s a bit more complicated than that (warning, long .pdf). They don’t just have to fill out a form. They also have to contract with a third party administrator to provide the contraceptive services*. Normally, their own insurer could do that, but the nuns participate in a sort of mutual cooperative insurance fund called Christian Brothers Trust which also “shares their religious beliefs”.
I don’t understand why the nuns don’t qualify for the religious objector exemption. Either they aren’t a “church” under HHS’s definition, or they are running their old folks’ homes for profit.
*the administrator would be reimbursed from federal exchange user fees, which according to the complaint is not a permissible use of such fees under PPACA. The nuns presumably don’t have standing to challenge that, though.
Incidentally, after a lot of sleuthing I managed to find the actual form promulgated by DOL and HHS. Really, the things I do for you people. It says:
I’m really not seeing anything objectionable about that language.
Good thing the President doesn’t have you on the short list for the next federal bench vacancy, then.
I’ll bite: what possible objection could you have to that certification? Not its effect, but the language of the form itself?
None.
But – as do the nuns – I object to the effect. If signing a form indicating that I approved of hugs and puppies somehow caused the procural of an abortion, I’d object to that too.
Good thing the form doesn’t do that, then.
It does in that catholic brain says that birth control pills are abortifacients.
Even so, all the form does it allow the employee to procure coverage which may ultimately result in dispensation of a potential abortifacient. Since the employee could buy such products herself, this smacks of a SLIPPERY SLOPE TO HELL argument.
At most, signing of the form might someday lead to someone procuring a prescription that the nuns would see as an abortion. So might a paycheck, but there doesn’t seem to be any issue with that
And according to government, there’s not even a possibility of an abortion being procured in this case, as the insurer is a religious organization which is not required to provide contraceptive coverage and has said it will not.
If you direct someone to do something that’s immoral, in general that itself is immoral. The effect of the nuns’ declaration would be to direct a third party to pay for the contraception requirement.
This is distinct from handing someone a paycheck, and allowing them to do with it whatever they please.