There’s currently a bit of a kerfuffle between the Obama Administration and a Catholic ministry known as The Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of a nuns who assist elderly poor people by providing nursing homes and care. The case concerns the HHS mandate that all employers must provide health insurance that covers birth control, even though the USA has gotten along just fine without such a requirement for 237 years. The nuns take the position that they have freedom of religion and should not be forced to do anything which they find to violate their religious beliefs. The Obama Administration sees things a little differently. Their argument, well, let’s just quote exactly what they say:
[The Little Sisters of the Poor] need only self-certify that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, and then provide a copy of their self-certification to the third-party administrator of their self-insured group health plan. See id. at 39,874-39,886; see also 29 C.F.R. 2590.715- 2713A(b). At that point, the employer-applicants will have satisfied all their obligations under the contraceptive coverage provision.
…
this case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1003(b)(2). Employer-applicants’ third-party administrator therefore will be under no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants certify that they object to providing it.
So, in other words, the nuns must sign a piece of paper which says that they choose not to provide contraception coverage and that their third-party administrator must provide contraception coverage instead. After they sign the form, the Obama Administration says that the third-party administrator can ignore what the form says and not provide contraception coverage. So according to the Obama Administration itself, whether or not the nuns sign this form will have no effect on whether or not any person gets coverage for contraception. But nonetheless, the Administration is willing to fight all the way to the Supreme Court in order to force the nuns to sign this apparently meaningless piece of paper.
Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Why not just have the federal government give people the freedom of religion promised in the First Amendment?
You quoted: Employer-applicants’ **third-party administrator therefore will be under no legal obligation to provide the coverage **after applicants certify that they object to providing it.
You then typed: So, in other words, the nuns must sign a piece of paper which says that they choose not to provide contraception coverage and that their third-party administrator must provide contraception coverage instead. Bolding mine. Is it possible that you are misunderstanding your own citation?
While I am in no mood to read the 37 page application for an injunction, it sounds like the nuns’ health care coverage is provided by what amounts to a “religious” health insurer, which itself is just as exempt as they are from the requirement. I’m gathering this from the bit of the quote below the ellipsis.
As to why the Obama administration feels they need to fight over it, maybe just to avoid setting a precedent? No idea, really.
This whole issue is completely insane to me on every side. :mad:
You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you follow based on whether you like them or not and offering contraception is not the same as using it. (What, are the nuns going to protest that paying wages to their employees allows the employees to buy beer and porn, so they should be exempt from minimum wage too?)
On the other side, if you’re going to pass a law requiring everyone to do something, have the f—ing brains to pass what you want the first time and the f—ing balls to stand behind it after you pass it.
You almost made it through a whole paragraph without showing your clear bias.
The value of a policy is not in any way related to the fact that it failed to exist in the past. Suggesting that it does in such a poorly considered way is a cheap rhetorical device. The next time you advocate in favor of any policy change, I hope you’ll point out that it’s totally unnecessary, since by your own admission, the USA has gotten along just fine without it.
This particular third-party administrator will be exempt because it is a church-run plan which is exempt from regulation under ERISA. If insurance was provided through Blue Cross or another insurance company,* that* third-party administrator would not be exempt.
That question works both ways- because the nuns were willing to file the lawsuit and fight all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid signing the apparently meaningless ( in this particular case) piece of paper.
The nuns sued the Administration, not the other way 'round. You might just as well ask them why they are willing to fight all the way to the Supreme Court in order to avoid having to sign a meaningless piece of paper.
Quite obviously, they don’t agree that signing the paper is meaningless, or because of all the propaganda, they didn’t understand that this was their sole obligation. In neither case does your “won’t someone think of the poor prosecuted Christians” argument make any sense.
I agree; the federal government should net get to pick and choose whether or not it likes the First Amendment. It should be forced to follow the First Amendment.
And more power to them. I’m certainly not going to complain about people trying to enforce their constitutional and statutory rights, even over relatively trivial matters.
But you’re the one arguing it is ridiculous for the Obama administration to oppose the suit on the grounds that signing a sheet of paper is not a violation of anyone’s religious conscience. So it’s sort of on you to explain why the nuns cause is so righteous, and you’ve given us bupkis.
In my view of the First Amendment, no one needs to provide any explanation of their religion in order to exercise their freedom of religion. If the nuns feel that signing this particular piece of paper violates their religious conscience, then it does. I don’t personally claim to understand or support a great many religious practices, but I’m glad that this country gives people freedom for those practices. If an Orthodox Jewish group claimed merely signing a paper authorizing a third party to give pork to their employees was a violation of their religious conscience, it wouldn’t make any sense to me, but I’d say that they have such a right.