Sorry for the long excerpt. The opinion was written by Justice Scalia and it might be very interesting if he reverses himself now that the law in question would interfere with practices of the Catholic Church instead of Native Americans using peyote.
Like I said, I’m rooting for this law to be overturned because then we can get more aspects of healthcare out of the hands of employers, but caselaw suggests the church has an uphill fight. It should be a very interesting case, but we won’t know for several years how it shakes out probably.
Considering that the only forms of contraception that stop STDs are also the cheapest, that argument makes no fucking sense. If you can’t afford a tenner for a pack of condoms, you’re not in a position to benefit from this mandate anyway, because your broke ass is obviously unemployed.
If my daughter went to our family doctor under my health plan for birth control, he better not be bound to not discuss condom use with her just because my employer is the church.
Our “rights” are not now and have never been an absolute. We have a right to free speech but not a right to “yell fire in a crowded theatre.” Yes, religious freedoms have to be balanced with the right of individuals as well.
Not all rights are enumerated in the US Constitution, but just because they are not explicity stated doesn’t mean they are lesser rights.
If I have a religion that hates black people, that doesn’t mean I have the right to exclude all black people.
Companies and insurers are always trying to get around paying. I recall back in the 80s when AIDS was rampant, insurers were folding policies from groups of florists, actors and other fields with a lot of gay men in them. People pay in fairly then get a raw deal, so the government has to step in and force them to do what is right and they should’ve been doing, without being sneaky.
If Catholic or other groups don’t want to pay for contraceptives, then don’t offer heath insurance. See what quality people they get
I live in the US, where the pill does not reduce STDs, and any teenager who wants contraception can get it. See my earlier post about Planned Parenthood.
Actually, you do. You may not be able to claim tax exempt status (and I’m not certain about that), but you can set up a White People’s Religion if you want, and the government cannot stop you.
How do you think the RCC is able to function without allowing women in the priesthood?
I see. So if the church pays me money and I raise my child to be informed about birth control measures and take her to Planned Parenthood, that’s fine, but if I take her to her doctor to discuss birth control, the constitution is in tatters?
I’m not finding this argument particularly compelling.
Not if this White People’s Religion becomes employer and starting hiring people. They can exclude other races but they get slapped with anti-discrimination law. Church can do what they want in their house of worship, but freedom of religion means government treats all religion the same not that they get a free pass doing what they want. It’s about separation of church and state and being neutral to all religion so no one religious group can hijack it and start killing off all other religion.
here is the first amendment if you forgot:
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
-Bill of Rights | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Why you keep on insisting on government have to make special provision for one religion in this case Christians is really weird. As far as I am aware making the church obey the same laws as every other employers is well within first amendment, the church is still allowed to preach the evils of contraceptions all they want.
I have to wonder what problem is this ruling supposed to address? How many women working for religious organizations are unable to obtain birth control relatively easily through their own efforts or through agencies readily available to them?
Is this good social policy if all it accomplishes is having the Religious organizations opt out of providing their employees with insurance? If it turns large numbers of Catholics against supporting the HCRB that spawned this ruling?
Seriously, this smacks of the kind of far left political position that Obama is routinely accused of supporting, and that I’ve spent a good amount of time defending Obama against on this MB. In this can’t, I can’t defend him.
There are a LOT of people who are working, but not making much money at all. If they want to have sex responsibly, I think that they should be allowed to.
I’m continually amazed at the efforts being put forth in this thread to pretend it isn’t about religion and the 1st Amendment. Your post is perfect example.
You still failing to see the point I am trying to make. I stressed many times and many others have as well religion do not get a special pass. Lets say the exemption stays, then some Jehovah’s Witnesses affiliated organization don’t allow any insurance policy involving procedures that requires blood transfusion based on religious grounds. By your arguments Jehovah’s Witnesses should get their way but that defeats whole point of Obama trying to improve the minimum standard of health care if people can pick and choose which rules to follow, this defeats the whole purpose of trying to revamp and regulate the heath care system.
Freedom of religion means to me people are free to believe what they want. They are free to spread their faith and other are free to follow or not. However this does not mean religion are allowed to spread their doctrine through the government, thats call a theocracy not a democracy. If religion do decide to opt out health insurance completely thus holding their employees hostage some of whom are not religious, that’s blood on their hand no one else. When it come to making laws regarding religion most of times it either beneficial to all religion or deny all religion. Examples are tax exemption for all religions and religious classes in public schools.
Yes, it does get a special pass. The only question is what is the scope of that special pass. Note that Obama administration has not eliminated the special pass-- they have narrowed its scope.
And note that I have already stated several times that the opt out clause makes any court challenge unlikely to be successful.
If they get money from the state, then the state has the right(as I understand it) to make sure all people have access to thngs that are not illegal.
One need just look to Haiti that is 80% RC and see the results of lack of birth control that works. The RCC forbids any thing that they consider’ not natural’, but taking one’s tempeture etc, as required, is not natural, nor is a lot of other things they consider natural that they approve of, such as surgery, keeping a comatose person on Oxygen etc. natural.
It looks like they talk the talk about poverty, but then their laws create more poverty.
Show me where in the the First Amendment it says religion get gets a special pass?
Let me break it down for you.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” this axing of exemptions does not apply obviously.
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
The only thing that might apply here is “free exercise”.
" or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Once again does not apply.
So tell me what is your definition of “free exercise”, and show how it applies in this case, you and me obviously have different understanding of this term “free exercise”
Hey I’m all for that. I support a good single payer that everyone pays into.
I certainly think that regulating can go to far but as long as we have profit driven HC and insurance we need some regulations. I’m open to the idea that this is going to far on regulating, but IMO, it’s not a violation of religious freedom.
Another thing About John’s position , if I understand it, is that “the government needs a complelling reason” and doesn’t have one in this case.
It’s as if any religious belief is already a compelling reason. As we see in the post above and the excerpt from a decision, the parameters of compelling are subjective.
It’s a simple principle, people are free to believe and practice as they choose , within the guidelines of existing law. Free exercise doesn’t mean anything you percieve it to be. Free exercise certainly means you don’'t have to personally go buy contraceptives for employees, but you obviously can’t control thier choices about what do do with their pay.
That’s my take on this religious freedom thing being over blown and essentially non existent in this case. Should religions be able to examine every perscription drug and decide which ones they won’t allow thier employees to have? Can they select which medical procedures the insurance comapny will cover? I still have questions about vascetomies and other sterilization procedures.
They simply are not being asked to directly pay for contreceptives and thier religious conscience has a perfect avenue to be assuaged and still comply.