# Obama vs. the Nuns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300 "2014-01-08T19:20:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/41 "2014-01-08T22:12:04Z")
> [@citizenzen](#): > > Could Christian Scientists deny all forms of health coverage? Certain groups can claim an exemption from the insurance requirements of the PPACA on religious grounds. Oddly the exemption is based upon whether the groups is also exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes on religious grounds. So many self employed members of the Old Order Amish are exempt from Social Security due to that group’s history of providing care to their own elderly. But many Amish do seek modern medical care and carry medical insurance. Yet they are exempt from PPACA. But a group such as the Christian Scientists that doesn’t raise the same objection to Social Security is not exempted. Therefore they are not exempt from PPACA even though the single most distinctive belief of that sect is to eschew modern medical care. See the [Snopes article](http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp) for more detail. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/42 "2014-01-08T22:17:38Z")
> [@citizenzen](#): > > But the Obamacare mandate was ruled constitutional. So one could say there is a constitutional basis for requiring every American to have healthcare … and there are minimums in the law that must be met… The court simultaneously ruled that the government cannot make you buy insurance. They can only tax you if you fail to do so. A fine distinction only a lawyer could love. The court was not asked to address issues surrounding what coverage must include in order to be exempt from the mandate. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/43 "2014-01-08T22:17:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Why not just have the federal government give people the freedom of religion promised in the First Amendment? I’m glad that the Obama Administration is not letting the nuns violate the First Amendment rights of their employees. The nuns compensate their employees in cash and in insurance. Whether they buy Bibles or condoms with their compensation is none of the nuns’ business. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/44 "2014-01-08T22:27:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The RFRA requires that when any law burdens on religious exercise, the government must justify two things: that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest; and that the method being used is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Didn’t Boerne set the precedent that the Supreme Court can overrule the RFRA when it wishes to do so? ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/45 "2014-01-08T22:38:26Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > So… forgive me if this suggestion has already been raised (or if it’s much stupider than I think it is), but in cases like this where the organization refuses to cooperate, why can’t someone just send them a certified letter asking whether they consent to provide contraceptive coverage – if “yes,” respond to this letter by [arbitrary deadline]; if the deadline expires, it’s assumed to be a “no”? This was my first thought when I heard about the case. Seems like a fairly easy thing that could be done to avoid the whole mess (the nuns may still sue, but in that case they aren’t really asked to do anything whatsoever). ---
**Author:** ![citizenzen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a8b319/32.png) [@citizenzen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/citizenzen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/46 "2014-01-08T22:51:08Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Certain groups can claim an exemption from the insurance requirements of the PPACA on religious grounds. Oddly the exemption is based upon whether the groups is also exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes on religious grounds. > > So many self employed members of the Old Order Amish are exempt from Social Security due to that group’s history of providing care to their own elderly. But many Amish do seek modern medical care and carry medical insurance. Yet they are exempt from PPACA. > > But a group such as the Christian Scientists that doesn’t raise the same objection to Social Security is not exempted. Therefore they are not exempt from PPACA even though the single most distinctive belief of that sect is to eschew modern medical care. > > See the [Snopes article](http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp) for more detail. Interesting distinction. And IMO another reason why we need to move past Obamacare as quickly as possible to universal healthcare. But then I guess we’d still hear people complain about how their tax money is being spent. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/47 "2014-01-09T00:01:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Their religion commands them to neither use, nor procure, nor instruct or cause others to use, artificial barrier methods of contraception. > > In order to comply with the law, they are being asked to sign a piece of paper that has\*\* the legal effect of instructing or causing others to use artificial barrier methods of contraception.\*\* They are asked to “deputize a third party to sin on their behalf,” as a filed brief put it – why would being required to deputize someone else to sin on your behalf be anything but a religious burden? > > The RFRA requires that when any law burdens on religious exercise, the government must justify two things: that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest; and that the method being used is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. The bolded part (my emphasis) is, in the kindest interpretation, imprecise. The legal effect is to allow others to use contraception. In no real way does it instruct them or cause them to use it. I hope these nuns never shop in any modern market or drug store. By giving those businesses their custom, they are helping keep the place open, which allows others to obtain and use contraceptives. Maybe even the nun’s employees. ---
**Author:** ![BlueMit11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@BlueMit11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueMit11)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/48 "2014-01-09T04:04:59Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m glad that the Obama Administration is not letting the nuns violate the First Amendment rights of their employees. The nuns compensate their employees in cash and in insurance. Whether they buy Bibles or condoms with their compensation is none of the nuns’ business. The nuns buy the insurance, and therefore _they’re_ the ones buying the condoms. [QUOTE=Saltire] I hope these nuns never shop in any modern market or drug store. By giving those businesses their custom, they are helping keep the place open, which allows others to obtain and use contraceptives. Maybe even the nun’s employees. [/QUOTE] From the nuns (and the Catholic Church’s) point of view, translated into legalese already quoted by Bricker (“deputize a third party to sin on their behalf”), the act for paying for a specific insurance plan that provides contraception is proximate cooperation in evil. It’s not akin to shopping at a store that sells contraceptives. That’s remote cooperation in evil, which is unavoidable. It is akin to specifically purchasing contraceptives (or in this case, telling _someone else_ to purchase them) for another person. Further, they’re arguing that “freedom of religion” extends to their charitable activities (in this case running homes for the elderly and all that entails, including employing workers at those homes). So they have a choice: stop exercising their religion (shut down the homes), or be forced to violate that exercise of religion (cooperate in evil). It is not the business of the U.S. government to dictate specific doctrine to any particular religious organization, so any argument that it’s not really “evil” would be moot. So what’s left is either: a) the Supreme Court more strictly define “religion” (something they’ve wisely avoided in the past), or b) a debate over cooperation in acts contrary to one’s religion and when/if the government can coerce said cooperation. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/49 "2014-01-09T04:44:57Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > What sort of services does the church have to provide in other places where universal health care is a given? Other countries with universal health care don’t normally provide it through the employer, so the issue doesn’t arise. For instance, in Canada, UHC is provided by the provincial governments, who are the single payer. There is no obligation on the employers to provide any health care benefits, although some do as a matter of employment policy. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/50 "2014-01-09T05:03:45Z")
> [@jsquire](#): > > So these nuns don’t want to pay for things that violate their beliefs. OK. > > Does this mean that Catholics can opt out of paying the taxes that pay for capital punishment and Quakers can opt out of paying the taxes that pay for war? > > If I’m being flagrantly obnoxious by suggesting these things, it’s just par for the course in this thread. Yes, there are war tax resistance efforts. Traditionally the federal excise tax on phones was the one to refuse to pay. [http://www.nwtrcc.org/](http://www.nwtrcc.org/) ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/51 "2014-01-09T05:05:40Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Birth control is for good Christian wives, too, who don’t want to be baby making machines all their lives. It is not an inherent evil for employees to simply get some. And the Church would say yes, it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/52 "2014-01-09T05:14:18Z")
I remain unclear on how the nuns’ freedom of religion is being infringed. That they do not have comparable freedom when it comes to employee compensation policies doesn’t exactly push my sympathy button. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/53 "2014-01-09T05:55:01Z")
The nuns are absolutely 100% wrong on this. They are trying to push their religious beliefs on their employees. They are infringing upon the freedoms of Americans and need to be punished. The OP also needs to actually understand the Constitution before commenting on it ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/54 "2014-01-09T06:03:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Choose your weapons!” > > “Nun-chuks.” "[Obamadachi!](https://www.google.com/search?q=o+dachi&client=firefox-a&hs=XC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kjnOUpWyKfShsQSQlIH4Cw&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=954#q=odachi&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1&tbm=isch) Because this can only be settled by the Supreme Cut! Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/55 "2014-01-09T06:15:22Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Choose your weapons!” > > “Nun-chuks.” AKA, wooden rulers. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/56 "2014-01-09T13:10:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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? Politics, of course. Unmarried women are, by a mile, the most important demographic group in the Democratic coalition; their advantage over the GOP among women is in fact only an advantage among unmarried women – e.g. married women went solidly for Romney in 2012. Thus, especially coming towards what look to be challenging elections in 2014 & 2016, Dem Pols don’t want to be seen as soft on a major issue for their core constituents. Granted, it may hurt them among Catholics; but Catholics are less numerous, and the stricter sorts already vote GOP anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/57 "2014-01-09T13:27:38Z")
I worship Kali\*. My right to religious freedom is infringed by not letting me kill people. I plan to sue the government. That’s how this works, right? “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” is now a legal principle? - I do not actually worship Kali. Or kill people. As far as you know, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/58 "2014-01-09T13:49:00Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But, AFAIK, that doctrine is a consequence of _Sherbert_-era precedent interpreting “substantial burden” rather than the text of RFRA. So I’m not sure they will succeed on that prong. Wasn’t the whole point of the RFRA to restore the Sherbert test that the Supremes eviscerated in Smith? > [@](#): > > Why isn’t an opt-out the least restrictive way to enforce the contraceptive mandate? (If you’ve analyzed this elsewhere, forgive me. I haven’t followed this case much.) I haven’t, but the Little Sisters’ brief in support of the stay has: > [@](#): > > Respondents’ Self-Certification Form is not merely an “opt-out.” As the overwhelming majority of courts have recognized, Respondents have designed a regulatory scheme in which the Form acts as a “permission slip” that authorizes and in some cases commands another organization to provide objectionable drugs to the Little Sisters’ employees within the terms of the Little Sisters’ health plan. See, e.g., Southern Nazarene Univ., 2013 WL 6804265, at \* 8; see also Application n.10 (collecting cases). Yesterday, the district court in Diocese of Beaumont, a church plan case involving two Catholic organizations that receive benefits through the Christian Brothers Trust, put it this way: > > > [@](#): > > > > According to the Government [the Bishop] need only sign EBSA Form 700, which contains a true statement of his, and the Church’s, objection to contraceptive services. But, the regulations provide that “the self-certification **will be treated as a designation** of the third party administrator(s) as plan administrator and claims administrator for contraceptive benefits . . . .” 78 FR 39879 (emphasis added). The rule drafters have chosen to be their own lexicographers, and the Government is bound by that choice. Like Humpty Dumpty, politicians may ascribe varied nuances of meaning and intent to their statements. Judicial interpretation of federal regulations requires a more consistent, plain meaning approach.” > > Catholic Diocese of Beaumont v. Sebelius, No. 1:13-cv-00709, at 13-14 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2014) (emphasis in original) (citing U.S. v. Woods, \_\_\_ U.S. \_\_\_, 134 S. Ct. 557, 566-67 (2013)). > > Respondents seek to avoid the plain language of their rule in 78 Fed. Reg. at 39879 by changing the subject: they correctly note that the Little Sisters are part of an ERISA-exempt church plan, but wrongly assert that “‘[t]here is no enforceable obligation – through ERISA or otherwise – for [a third party administrator of a church plan] to provide any of the objectionable coverage.’” Resp. Br. at 27-28. (quoting Court of Appeals Order 2). That is false. The Self-Certification Form commands third party administrators to obey regulations promulgated under both ERISA and the Internal > Revenue Code. Treasury Regulations apply to church plans as much as they apply to all other plans, and the Treasury Regulations cited in the Self-Certification Form state that third party administrators that receive a Self-Certification Form “shall provide or arrange payments for contraceptive services.” The plain language of Respondents’ Treasury Regulations applies equally to all third party administrators, regardless of whether they serve church plans. Respondents have no answer, and simply ignore their own regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/59 "2014-01-09T13:50:01Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I worship Kali\*. My right to religious freedom is infringed by not letting me kill people. I plan to sue the government. > > That’s how this works, right? “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” is now a legal principle? > > - I do not actually worship Kali. Or kill people. As far as you know, anyway. AGAIN, for possibly the sixth time – do you imagine that this kind of claim hasn’t been addressed in the case law? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/60 "2014-01-09T13:54:57Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The nuns are absolutely 100% wrong on this. They are trying to push their religious beliefs on their employees. How so? Any employee of the Little Sisters of the Poor is free to do whatever that employee wants at any time, without caring what the Little Sisters think about it, so long as it doesn’t interfere with job duties. Thus your statement that the nuns are trying to push their religious beliefs on their employees certainly looks very false. What’s your justification for the statement that the nuns are trying to push their religious beliefs on their employees? Please be specific. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m glad that the Obama Administration is not letting the nuns violate the First Amendment rights of their employees. The nuns compensate their employees in cash and in insurance. That elides over the question that’s actually being debated. The nuns compensate their employees in cash and a certain type of insurance. Until 2014, they were allowed to purchase insurance that didn’t cover contraceptives. This did not violate anyone’s First Amendment Rights, since the First Amendment says nothing about what insurance an employer can buy or refuse to buy. Then the Obama Administration banned the Little Sisters from doing what they had always done. Plainly this is a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which the Little Sisters had exercised freely prior to 2014. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300.md?page=4)