You use words, uh, interestingly.
This is not an analysis remarkable for its cogency.
Says the guy who thinks a form stating you refuse to provide contraceptive services is somehow directing people to then go procure contraceptive services.
No, the effect would be to allow a third party to pay. There is no requirement that any eligible employee actually sign up for contraception coverage. The government is directing a third party to pay.
“Somehow?”
What do you contend the law requires once they sign the form?
It’s not 'somehow." It’s not a mysterious event that might or might not happen. It’s a direct, foreseeable, inevitable result.
Not “allow.”
The law would then REQUIRE that the third party pay.
Yes?
It does require the third party to pay. Unless you mean the third party administrator, which “pays” in the sense that it acts as an intermediary.
So we agree.
They’re not directing anyone to pay for the coverage. They’re saying they are exempt from providing it. Their insurer may be exempt from providing it under a different statute. Their employees might not get the coverage whether the nuns sign the form or not, and if that’s true, I’m wondering what they’re doing in this case since it certainly can’t be against their beliefs to sign a form claiming exemption that will do nothing but document their claim as * no one will get any contraception coverage as a result.*
If anyone is requiring payment , it’s the government, and according to what I can figure out, the third-party administrators will be reimbursed through a reduction in fees charged to insurance companies to sell on the federal exchange. It’s no different than if the employee needed such a form to obtain Medicaid coverage, and I’m guessing the nuns would object to that too,on the grounds that they were directing the government to pay
And even if the insurer isn't exempt, there's a long way to go to get to
The effect is not the procural of an abortion, even if one believes that every form of prescription contraceptive is an abortifacient. After all, the employees of the Little Sisters may all be good Catholics who don’t use any form of birth control. Or they may all be childless post-menopausal women and unmarried men who have no need for birth control coverage. They might all be members of the order, or some combination of those categories, so that no one ever seeks contraceptive coverage. There may be no effect at all other than the employees having the *opportunity * to obtain contraceptives.
Then stop trying to push your personal moral values onto the rest of us.
Can someone boil this down for me, since I can’t see an interpretation other than the nuns discovering a way to be self righteously spiteful.
How is it spiteful? You are elevating contraception to something much more than it is. For us secular folks, it’s a fairly cheap thing that you buy, most of the time without insurance, because you want to have sex and not get pregnant. I think you can understand why the issue might mean a lot more to devout catholics. It’s not spite, it’s called religion. Some people are actually serious about it.
Well, then feel free to boil it down, as I requested, in providing a clear explanation of the reasoning involved on the parts of the nuns, their employees, the government and the insurance providers. I don’t really care how you define spite or religion.
The reasoning is that the compromise the administration came up with still doesn’t work for the nuns because they have to request that the insurance company provide contraception in their place. That’s fine for politicians, not so good for religious folk. Religious people don’t see rules as something to be gotten around like politicians do and I’m surprised the administration thought this would appease anyone.
You’re presenting conclusions when I’m asking about background.
The background is that contraception is contrary to the catholic faith, so catholics cannot buy other people birth control.
Okay, so what bearing does this opt-out document they refused to sign have, if it can be so described?
The opt out document only opts out of paying for contraception directly. It acts as a request to the insurance company to pay for contraception out of the insurance company’s pockets. Which in the real world is impossible, since funds are fungible and the insurance company would pass the extra cost on to all customers, including the nuns.
Like I said, it’s the kind of thing only a politician would find satisfactory. The proof that it isn’t is that they exempted churches entirely.
I’m just going to reread the last page or two of the thread and follow some of the links.
But they have no problem if the wages they pay are used to buy contraception.