I Pit Those who Believe in a War on Religion

[steronz]

@Bricker

As I asked above, how does the President get the authority to order insurance companies to extend this kind of coverage?

That’s a good question, and one for lawyers and bureaucrats to hash out in a dark room somewhere. It’s the sort of boring, menial decision that gets made all the time without the public even caring.

What it does not amount to, and I think we can all agree, is a calculated war on religion. So get your level-headed, rational analysis out of the pit and let’s bash some people!

[Telemark]

@Maus_Magill

The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Christian Science Publishing Society, which is under the authority of the Christian Science Board of Directors.

My question still stands.

A friend used to work for the CSM. They provided pretty standard health care plans for their employees, many of whom don’t practice Christian Science. They also offered prayer-based plans, presumably at a discount.

[Bricker]

@steronz

That’s a good question, and one for lawyers and bureaucrats to hash out in a dark room somewhere. It’s the sort of boring, menial decision that gets made all the time without the public even caring.

What it does not amount to, and I think we can all agree, is a calculated war on religion. So get your level-headed, rational analysis out of the pit and let’s bash some people!

No, I agree it’s not a war on religion. But in its execution, it reflects an indifference towards the protected status that religion holds as a result of the First Amendment.

And I don’t agree it’s boring. To move a power held by Congress, where you need 200+ reps and 51+ senators to agree on something before it happens, to the Oval Office, where one person can make it happen, is a fairly significant move. there are some areas where it makes perfect sense; I’m not sure this is one of them.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Yes. Very valid point.

I should have asked, “Why does the President have this power?” It’s undisputed (at least by me) that Congress does.

Congress made the Affordable Care Act. I assume that the ability for the administration to do this was in there. Is it not?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Yes. Very valid point.

I should have asked, “Why does the President have this power?” It’s undisputed (at least by me) that Congress does.

Congress delegated that power to the executive under the Public Health Service Act.

The Departments note that PHS Act section 2713(a)(4) gives HRSA the authority to develop comprehensive guidelines for additional preventive care and screenings for women “for purposes of this paragraph.” In other words, the statute contemplated HRSA Guidelines that would be developed with the knowledge that certain group health plans and health insurance issuers would be required to cover the services recommended without cost-sharing, unlike the other guidelines referenced in section 2713(a), which pre-dated the Affordable Care Act and were originally issued for purposes of identifying the non-binding recommended care that providers should provide to patients. These HRSA Guidelines exist solely to bind nongrandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers with respect to the extent of their coverage of certain preventive services for women.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Congress delegated that power to the executive under the Public Health Service Act.

Yes. But Congress did not exempt this from the Administrative Procedure Act’s public notice and commentary period, did they? The executive cannot simply promulgate new rules without complying with the notice and comment period, can he?

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Congress made the Affordable Care Act. I assume that the ability for the administration to do this was in there. Is it not?

Not that I can find. Admittedly, it’s a long bill. But we’ve passed it , so now we know what’s in it.

More specifically, the Secretaries of various executive departments have the power the issue new rules that could indeed have this effect, but only after either a delay for public comment OR a finding of good cause why there’s no time for such public comment. So far as I’m aware, there has been neither.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I can vaguely understand how one wouldn’t want employers to be able to casually pick-and-choose what they’ll cover, in the sense that sooner or later some company will claim to insure its employees but has managed to find reasons to reject 95% of what a typical policy covers, leaving coverage that is effectively useless.

Of course, the whole employer-insurance model kinda baffles me.

[you_with_the_face]

@YogSosoth

Shit, they just get dumber and dumber. I also love how on the Daily Show, they showed a “panel” of religious leaders discussing the question on Hannity. All old men, each one of whom think they know what’s best for women

What kills me is that no one at Fox News took a look at all those men and either didn’t bother or couldn’t find a female token or two to stick in there. There were more black dudes represented than women, and females make up half the population!

Might be a bit wishful thinking on my part, but it would be awesome if maybe, just maybe, Catholic women would think a little bit about who really here is being oppressed. It ain’t the church.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Yes. But Congress did not exempt this from the Administrative Procedure Act’s public notice and commentary period, did they? The executive cannot simply promulgate new rules without complying with the notice and comment period, can he?

I doubt it, which is probably why a comment period is provided for in the first page of the interim rule I linked to above.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I doubt it, which is probably why a comment period is provided for in the first page of the interim rule I linked to above.

The comment page you linked to is from July of last year, and cannot possibly have been for the President’s recent announcement of a rule change.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Presumably the President didn’t want to announce the rule change until the rule was finalized.

In response to the request for comments on the interim final regulations, the Departments received considerable feedback regarding which preventive services for women should be considered for coverage under PHS Act section 2713(a)(4). Most commenters, including some religious organizations, recommended that HRSA Guidelines include contraceptive services for all women and that this requirement be binding on all group health plans and health insurance issuers with no religious exemption. However, several commenters asserted that requiring group health plans sponsored by religious employers to cover contraceptive services that their faith deems contrary to its religious tenets would impinge upon their religious freedom. One commenter noted that some religious employers do not currently cover such benefits under their group health plan due to their religious beliefs.

<snip>

Even if the APA requirements for notice and comment were applicable to these regulations, they have been satisfied. This is because the Secretaries find that providing for an additional opportunity for public comment is unnecessary, as the July 19, 2010 interim final rules implementing section 2713 of the PHS Act provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the implementation of the preventive services requirements in this provision, and the amendments made in these interim final rules in fact are based on such public comments. Specifically, commenters expressed concerns that HRSA-supported guidelines issued under section 2713(a)(4) that included coverage of contraceptive services could impinge upon the religious freedom of certain religious employers. The flexibility that is afforded under these amendments is being provided to HRSA in order to allow HRSA the discretion to accommodate, in a balanced way, as discussed above, these commenter concerns.

See for yourself. This links directly to the Federal Register entry.

[steronz]

@Bricker

But in its execution, it reflects an indifference towards the protected status that religion holds as a result of the First Amendment.

Man, look at this language from Really Not All That Bright’s link:

In the Departments’ view, it is appropriate that HRSA, in issuing these Guidelines, takes into account the effect on the religious beliefs of certain religious employers if coverage of contraceptive services were required in the group health plans in which employees in certain religious positions participate. Specifically, the Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions. Such an accommodation would be consistent with the policies of States that require contraceptive services coverage, the majority of which simultaneously provide for a religious accommodation.

<snip>

The definition set forth here is intended to reasonably balance the extension of any coverage of contraceptive services under the HRSA Guidelines to as many women as possible, while respecting the unique relationship between certain religious employers and their employees in certain religious positions.

It sounds to me like the people involved in making this decision have been bending over backwards to try and make everyone happy. I can’t, in good faith, agree with your characterization of this as “indifference.” Nobody is flippantly dismissing the requests of religious organizations here. That they ultimately made a decision that certain religious leaders disagree with doesn’t mean that they arrived at that decision due to indifference.

No war, no indifference. Just a bunch of churchy-people whining 'cuz they lost.

[Buck_Godot]

Should conscientious objectors or Cathicls against the death penalty be able to avoid taxes because some of their money goes to fund wars or executions that are against their beliefs?

[John_Mace]

@Buck_Godot

Should conscientious objectors or Cathicls against the death penalty be able to avoid taxes because some of their money goes to fund wars or executions that are against their beliefs?

No.

[Gagundathar]

[Church Lady]

You know who was behind all of this?

Satan!

[/Church Lady]

[Voyager]

First, could someone point me to the requirement that insurance cover abortions? I don’t think it exists, and the church would really be yelling at that one.

@Bricker

Not quite an accurate summary of how religious freedom and laws purporting to impact religious exercise are analyzed.

For example, the law does not require that the Catholic Church ordain women as priests, even though – by your summary – it would. Normally an employer is free, under the law, to require its employees to wear a standard uniform – may an employer thus forbid a female who wishes to wear a hijab, or must the employer make some sort of reasonable accommodation to her needs?

Direct church employees are still not covered, IIRC. The requirement is only for employees of church-affiliated institutions like colleges. While the church cannot be forced to hire female priests, I believe that Catholic universities are not allowed to discriminate against women. That would seem to be a more appropriate analogy.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Presumably the President didn’t want to announce the rule change until the rule was finalized.

See for yourself. This links directly to the Federal Register entry.

No. The original rule was the one that’s the subject of this announcement. You can see the date at the top of the page: Wednesday, August 3, 2011.

The President’s change was just recently announced.

[Bricker]

@Voyager

First, could someone point me to the requirement that insurance cover abortions? I don’t think it exists, and the church would really be yelling at that one.
Direct church employees are still not covered, IIRC. The requirement is only for employees of church-affiliated institutions like colleges. While the church cannot be forced to hire female priests, I believe that Catholic universities are not allowed to discriminate against women. That would seem to be a more appropriate analogy.

And what of EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (DC Cir. 1994)?

[Lightnin]

@Bricker

And what of EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (DC Cir. 1994)?

What of it? I must have left my legal precedents in my other pants.

Seriously, why do you do this? You know we’re not all lawyers here- so why do you expect us to be able to look up the exact case you’re talking about and give an informed legal opinion?