# 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:** 4
**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, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/61 "2014-01-09T13:55:32Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > 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 I agree with your last sentence. The OP grievously misstates – or misapplies – existing First Amendment law. However, i don’t agree with the remainder of your post. The nuns’ claim is not grounded in the First Amendment – it’s grounded in the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). You may believe that _Congress_ somehow infringed on the freedoms of Americans when they mandated that any future laws which burdened the exercise of religion be justified under a strict scrutiny standard, and you’re welcome to make that argument. But the nuns are simply calling for the enforcement of 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). Perhaps your arguments would have more traction if they addressed that claim, instead of the spurious First Amendment claim advanced by the OP, since we both agree that the OP was way off base invoking the First Amendment here. ---
**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, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/62 "2014-01-09T13:57:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > AGAIN, for possibly the sixth time – do you imagine that this kind of claim hasn’t been addressed in the case law? Of course it has. I’m just piling on the ludicrous OP. It looked like fun. ---
**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, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/63 "2014-01-09T13:59:33Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Of course it has. I’m just piling on the ludicrous OP. In other words, you can’t defend the Obama Administration, so instead you make an argument that you know is untrue? ---
**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, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/64 "2014-01-09T14:03:30Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m glad that the Obama Administration is not letting the nuns violate the First Amendment rights of their employees. As the OP explains, the Obama Administration itself has clearly said that if it gets its way, employees of the Little Sisters will have health insurance that does not cover contraception. How does this justify your statement, “I’m glad that the Obama Administration is not letting the nuns violate the First Amendment rights of their employees”? Please explain. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/65 "2014-01-09T14:03:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wasn’t the whole point of the RFRA to restore the Sherbert test that the Supremes eviscerated in Smith? Yes, but this misses the point somewhat. While the doctrine I refer to (i.e., that any compelled activity that one considers sinful is a substantial burden) is Sherbert-era, it is not Sherbert, AFAIK. > [@Bricker](#): > > I haven’t, but the Little Sisters’ brief in support of the stay has: First, that section does not address the element we were discussing (least restrictive means). And second, the crux of the argument in that section is a factual disagreement about whether the third party is, in fact, compelled. Do you have a view on which side is correct about that factual view? ---
**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, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/66 "2014-01-09T14:05:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. That’s not the way First Amendment claims are analyzed. Merely because a law now prevents someone from “doing what they had always done” does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Moreover, even the First Amendment does not protect someone from doing _anything_ they wish as long as it’s religiously-based. We learn this from Alfred Smith and Galen Black, two employees who were also members of the Native American Church. As part of their faith, they took peyote. When drug tests showed the presence of peyote, they were fired. They claimed unemployment benefits for having been fired unfairly, given that the ingestion of peyote was – for them – a legitimate religious practice of long standing, one they sincerely believed was a part of their religious faith. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled on their claim, and said that the law’s actual purpose was not to prohibit the exercise of religion – but that one incidental effect of the law did in fact prohibit religion, then the law could stand. The law had to be “generally applicable and otherwise valid provision,” of course, but as long as the those conditions were met, the First Amendment was not violated. > [@](#): > > To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’ contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.’ To adopt a true ‘compelling interest’ requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy. So that’s the nature of the First Amendment’s protection when the law in question is religiously neutral, generally applicable and otherwise valid. OK? ---
**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, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/67 "2014-01-09T14:07:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In other words, you can’t defend the Obama Administration, so instead you make an argument that you know is invalid? I wasn’t defending the Obama Administration; I was just disputing the view that “religious freedom” means that religious beliefs trump the law in all cases. You keep saying this is a “First Amendment violation”; as **Bricker** points out, it’s not remotely so. ---
**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, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/68 "2014-01-09T14:09:29Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Also, about this issue: freedom of religion should mean freedom from religion, too. These nuns refuse to supply birth control, fine. But they also want to be refused from the onerous task of signing a piece of paper so people can get birth control. You’re wrong on two counts. First, as has been pointed out already, any employee of the Little Sisters can go to the nearest drug store and get birth control. No piece of paper signed by nuns will affect their ability to do so, positively or negatively. Second, regarding “freedom of religion should mean freedom from religion”. That’s correct to the extent that any person in the USA if free to not participate in any activity of the Catholic Church. However, if a person chooses to be employed by the Little Sisters of the Poor, then they’ve voluntarily chosen to live with the employment decisions that group makes. ---
**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, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/69 "2014-01-09T14:14:04Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes, but this misses the point somewhat. While the doctrine I refer to (i.e., that any compelled activity that one considers sinful is a substantial burden) is Sherbert-era, it is not Sherbert, AFAIK. Admittedly I haven’t read enough to know precisely where that doctrine comes from, and specifically to what extent it is tied to Sherbert and Sherbert’s progeny. So… I dunno. > [@](#): > > First, that section does not address the element we were discussing (least restrictive means). And second, the crux of the argument in that section is a factual disagreement about whether the third party is, in fact, compelled. Do you have a view on which side is correct about that factual view? I’m inclined to credit the nuns who say they are compelled. My own view would be different: I’d be willing to note that the form merely memorializes my own exemption under the law, and not take the position that it deputizes anyone. But Catholic teaching emphasizes the criticality of examining one’s own conscience, so I am willing to accept as factually true the proposition that the nuns are compelled. Returning to the least restrictive means – I’d say no. The least restrictive means would be to simply exempt them from even signing. Let the employees who are thus bereft of contraception coverage be the ones who have to certify that (a) they want contraception coverage and (b) their employer does not provide it because their employer is exempt, and they can get a tax credit, or sign up for an exchange that offers this coverage as a supplemental benefit to their existing coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/70 "2014-01-09T14:23:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m inclined to credit the nuns who say they are compelled. But there are two layers here. The first is them signing the form to obviate any obligation on them, which they claim causes another party to be compelled. That’s fine, and I think that’s the point you’re crediting them. But the second layer is that, in this particular case, that other party isn’t \*actually \*compelled. The other party is also free to tell the government to fuck off. It’s that second layer that seems to be in factual dispute, but I think the government is right and the nuns are wrong on that fact question. I don’t see why the nuns personal view of that second layer is relevant. > [@Bricker](#): > > Returning to the least restrictive means – I’d say no. The least restrictive means would be to simply exempt them from even signing. Let the employees who are thus bereft of contraception coverage be the ones who have to certify that (a) they want contraception coverage and (b) their employer does not provide it because their employer is exempt, and they can get a tax credit, or sign up for an exchange that offers this coverage as a supplemental benefit to their existing coverage. I think the law generally recognizes that opt-in generally garners less participation than opt-out, so the means chosen there would affect the success of the policy. Can we at least compel the nuns to inform the employees about their right to opt-in? I’m guessing not. ---
**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, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/71 "2014-01-09T14:58:29Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I wasn’t defending the Obama Administration; I was just disputing the view that “religious freedom” means that religious beliefs trump the law in all cases. If I meet anyone who takes the view that religious freedom means that religious beliefs trump the law in all cases, I’ll let them know. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/72 "2014-01-09T15:39:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But there are two layers here. The first is them signing the form to obviate any obligation on them, which they claim causes another party to be compelled. That’s fine, and I think that’s the point you’re crediting them. But the second layer is that, in this particular case, that other party isn’t \*actually \*compelled. The other party is also free to tell the government to fuck off. It’s that second layer that seems to be in factual dispute, but I think the government is right and the nuns are wrong on that fact question. I don’t see why the nuns personal view of that second layer is relevant. It’s relevant only to the extent that the nuns’ position is: it’s immoral to ask another to sin for you, even if the other does not actually sin. So the factual aspect – that Christian Brothers are themselves exempt – is not dispositive. > [@](#): > > I think the law generally recognizes that opt-in generally garners less participation than opt-out, so the means chosen there would affect the success of the policy. Can we at least compel the nuns to inform the employees about their right to opt-in? I’m guessing not. No. The least restrictive means would be to not make the nuns do anything. But the government is free to run ads, or enclose flyers with IRS mailings, or do whatever they wish to independently inform the employees about their right to opt-in. ---
**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, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/73 "2014-01-09T15:41:11Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > 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 They are not pushing their beliefs on their employees. They know full well that their employees are free to procure contraception as well as all kinds of immoral things with their wages. They are pushing their religious beliefs on themselves – not taking part in helping procure contraception. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/74 "2014-01-09T15:48:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s relevant only to the extent that the nuns’ position is: it’s immoral to ask another to sin for you, even if the other does not actually sin. So the factual aspect – that Christian Brothers are themselves exempt – is not dispositive. Yes, but they are not making that argument in the paragraph you quotes, are they? They seemed instead to be making a factual argument about who is in fact compelled. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. The least restrictive means would be to not make the nuns do anything. I don’t think that’s quite right. The term “least restrictive means” refers to the least restrictive way to achieve the same goal. If opt-in + advertising is not as effective as opt-out, then it doesn’t matter that it is less restrictive. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/75 "2014-01-09T16:07:55Z")
I don’t see anywhere any mention of the government lining up every single person in the US and forcing contraception down their throats … or implanting that thingy that releases the chemicals, or lining all the women in the US up and shoving in a mirena IUD … if the damned nuns don’t want contraception, nobody is forcing them to have contraception. The issue here is the idiot nuns want to prevent anybody who works for them even though they have not taken any vow to become a nun from getting possible contraception because their particular religion forbids chemical contraception. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/76 "2014-01-09T16:17:52Z")
Is there any kind of precedent (if that’s the right word) for this? I mean, national health care is the order of the day in the majority of industrialized countries. Do we have the complete monopoly on religious fruitcakes who refuse to play by the rules and then complain they are being persecuted? I realize the First Amendment throws an extra-special knot in a bunch of panties here, but do we see similar bitching from the religious in other countries? Surely, there are people in Great Britain who are morally against something National Healthcare covers. What is the rebuttal for them? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/77 "2014-01-09T16:20:26Z")
**JB** : How many other country force employers to provide Health Insurance? That’s the source of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/78 "2014-01-09T16:24:39Z")
Point taken, but there is still a thread of commonality here. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/79 "2014-01-09T16:35:47Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Point taken, but there is still a thread of commonality here. Can you clarify what the thread of commonality is? ---
**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, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/80 "2014-01-09T16:53:37Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > The issue here is the idiot nuns want to prevent anybody who works for them even though they have not taken any vow to become a nun from getting possible contraception because their particular religion forbids chemical contraception. It has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over that this is not true. The nuns are not preventing, or trying to prevent, anyone from getting contraception. Who do you think you’re fooling? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300.md?page=5)