It doesn’t. Nobody is tying up a monk and giving him a vasectomy. Nobody is forcing a nun to take the pill, and nobody is harnessing up the pregnant catholic women/wives and aborting them. These are options paid for by the health insurance with nobody forcing anybody to use these services.
It means that any claims that you’re doing this for people’s own good are full of shit.
Oh, well. As long as the government isn’t running a damn eugenics program, who cares, right?
Yes.
It is neutral. The government is neither encouraging nor discouraging the use of contraceptives, vasectomy/tubal ligation not medication as birth control, not abortion in any form [medically required nor as birth control] just making sure that it is available. They are not forcing the distribution of the pill, condoms or plan B. They are making them legal to be available to the populace if the populace wants them.
Yes, just like overtime pay laws, workplace safety regulations and every other law that interferes with an employer’s God-given right to do whatever it likes with its employees. :rolleyes:
My understanding has always been that Amish (and other groups meeting similar criteria) could opt out of Social Security. http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm
Am I incorrect about this? I don’t suppose it has many implications for the case at hand either way.
Self-employed members of recognized religious groups with a religious objection to life, health or retirement insurance plans can opt out, provided their community/faith can demonstrate a history of self-sufficiency and some other things. Basically, it’s for the Amish and Mennonites. IRS Form 4029.
Note that Amish who work outside the Amish community (ie., for non-Amish employers) are not exempt.
It also has a grandfather clause that no religion or institution established after 1950 can claim this exemption. The distinction here is that was a legislative change, not a judicial one. The legislature went back and re-wrote the tax code to carve out that exemption for the Amish. The judges have consistently said that generally applicable laws which have a side effect of proscribing or prescribing things which offend religious practices do not offend the first amendment. In fact, the Lemon test, asks if a law has “a primary purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion” because if it does then it probably offends the first amendment. Laws with a secular legislative purpose, not primarily about advancing/inhibiting religion, or “creating excessive entanglement” are considered just fine by the first amendment.
The details of individual laws and communities and exemptions are complex. For example not long ago it was illegal to use peyote in religious ceremonies, even in a recognized church, under the supervision of a minister, etc. That’s part of what Employment Division v Smith was about. Since that time Congress has passed a law making an exemption to the controlled substances act for peyote use during specific ceremonies in recognized religious establishments, etc. Prior to that law peyote use was illegal under generally secular laws regarding controlled substances. This did not offend the first amendment. It was a side effect. Similarly when Social Security was first established the Amish were required to pay into it. The Congress and LBJ changed that, not the courts. The courts have repeatedly told religious petitioners saying their beliefs should exempt them from a generally applicable law to go pound sand. The Mormons, the Amish, Native Americans, Jews, and even Catholic Charities have all had their religious based objections tossed out on their ears.
Enjoy,
Steven
I say it is a false and highly hypocritical argument. “They” do not mind “enforcing” their personal religious view on other people at all. They see no problem in allowing or denying something to others based on “their Bible”. But when it is “someone else’s Bible” they howl like scalded cats.
I can smell their hypocrisy from here.
I did not mean to imply that the Amish exemption was an argument in favor of “this is a violation of freedom of worship”.
I’m not really sure I understand what the big deal is. Regardless of their personal coverage the religious groups are paying for contraceptives even if their employees are not covered themselves. It’s not like the money you pay in is sitting their waiting for your use. It goes into a big pool and is paid out to anyone who submits a claim against any policy issued by the insurance company.
That’s exactly what it is and the GOP candidates are running with it. Oh what a horrible thing the president did that has already been done repeatedly on the state level.
The check is for insurance, period. Nothing specific
Gender eqaulity, employee rights, certainly those are far more compelling than church affiliates who serve and hire outside the faith, enforcing beliefs their own members ignore.
I agree with John Mace here. There is a big difference between the normal wages that are paid to an employee (with which it is implicit that you are allowed to buy whatever you want with) and a third party product that you buy for the employee as part of his wages.
If that third party product doesn’t comply with your beliefs, you are in effect “endorsing” what it provides.
Nobody sees the difference between a church employee taking $100 of his wages and buying services from a prostitute versus the church providing a $100 gift certificate for use at a brothel?
Is there a difference between handing a homeless guy a Big Mac Combo versus handing him $6?
Would you have any problem with churches telling their non-Catholic employees, if they use birth control, or have abortions, they are subject to dismissal? Can the federal government prevent churches from enforcing such a rule?
As has been mentioned several times, merely by buying insurance they are—in that sense you mention—implicitly “endorsing” what it provides, due to the way insurance works. Except it is kind of stupid to think like this about insurance products. Am I endorsing a young kid driving recklessly because he’s got great insurance with the same company I do?
This analogy is just terrible and I don’t understand how it makes sense to you. Insurance is a fairly unique product and the way insurance companies act is relatively well known to all parties. Analogies will only serve to make this conversation harder, because they can’t illuminate any relationships. The church doesn’t care about insurance companies providing birth control, it cares about its employees using birth control. It can still care, and its employees are still as free as ever to not use birth control.
Obviously, there is a difference. Please explain how this difference involves the first amendment.
I agree, but I also think the government has the power to establish minimal standards for services. Imagine if you worked for a company founded and operated by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they wanted to withhold health insurance that covered blood transfusions and organ donation.
It’s an employer’s duty to cover their employees’ health care costs in some reasonable manner. It’s an employee’s right to have your health care covered according to the reasonable expectations of society, and that includes birth control.
Most states already require contraceptives be covered and most of them require religiously affiliated organizations to cover it. Catholics and libertarians need to get their panties out a wad.
I don’t think your explanation is quite accurate. A religious institution which objects to this mandate, does not object because it wants to prevent its employees from using the product; it objects because it does not want to be forced to buy the product.
As has been observed many times in this thread, insurance is difficult to classify, since it is not simply wages or money, nor is it necessarily a purchase of every item that happens to be covered.
I think the best solution would be for HHS to allow an exemption for the institutions on the conditions that the institutions clearly explain to current and potential employees that the items are not covered. HHS should also work with insurance companies to develop a catch-all rider for those items to be made available to persons working for exempt institutions who wish to have that coverage. It’s not perfect, but I don’t think a perfect solution exists.
People could just stop listening to celibate men in dresses, agree that birth control is a reasonable expectation of health care, and move on with their lives. :rolleyes:
But 28 states already force religious institutions to buy insurance that includes birth control. Why has that not been a problem? This is just a political talking point for conservatives; if Obama does it, it must be bad.
It isn’t buying birth control. When I paid for my car insurance, was I buying body work? If I never use it because I never got into an accident, should I get my money back? “Buying a product” analogy is a flawed way to look at insurance. We all know how insurance works. I don’t see why we have to resort to analogies.
Show me a catholic that cannot observe the prohibition on birth control, and you have my support.