# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/161 "2014-01-11T20:53:15Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And how, precisely, is calling them “fruitcakes” violating their religious rights? . . . I never said that, or anything even close to that. This thread has officially gotten surreal. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/162 "2014-01-11T21:25:14Z")
How is it not a violation of my 1st Amendment rights that the Little Sisters are demanding that the government provide them with a special privilege based strictly on their religious beliefs? Everyone else has to follow ACA - what makes them so damned special? Going all the way back to my pal Roger Williams, part of the deal is supposed to be the prohibition of the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Not having to buy mandated insurance sounds pretty damn preferential to me. ---
**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 11, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/163 "2014-01-11T23:26:04Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > How is it not a violation of my 1st Amendment rights that the Little Sisters are demanding that the government provide them with a special privilege based strictly on their religious beliefs? Everyone else has to follow ACA - what makes them so damned special? The ACA, itself, explicitly provides an exemption for Religious employers. The issue is defining where that line is drawn. So, when you say “everyone else has to follow the ACA”, they do, except when they don’t. > [@](#): > > Going all the way back to my pal Roger Williams, part of the deal is supposed to be the prohibition of the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Not having to buy mandated insurance sounds pretty damn preferential to me. Roger Williams died almost 100 years before there was anything called the US. And the US has always recognized exemptions from certain activities on religious grounds. This is nothing new. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/164 "2014-01-12T00:15:10Z")
I know when Roger Williams died - well as much as anyone, he was found dead in his house so we aren’t sure of an exact date. I also realize that exemptions for religious grounds are nothing new, but that doesn’t mean I agree with that precedent. ---
**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 12, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/165 "2014-01-12T01:05:56Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I never said that, or anything even close to that. No you didn’t say that; \*\*Blue \*\*did – or at least intimated that. That’s what I was referring to when responding to your post. Surreal? I don’t know. Byzantine, maybe. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/166 "2014-01-12T01:41:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So if you believe that, once the Little Sisters sign the paper, the third party administrator\*\* must\*\* provide contraception coverage, then you apparently also believe that the Obama Administration is blatantly lying. To a court. To the Supreme Court, in fact. You’re still not getting it. Not “must”. “Can”. They “can” provide coverage. That’s your mistake. The 3rd party insurer can provide it. Nothing I said was untrue or even that hard to understand. ---
**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 12, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/167 "2014-01-12T02:13:31Z")
So that’s the sticky wicket, then? The insurance company _can_ supply contraceptives, but the nuns _just won’t take that chance_. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/168 "2014-01-12T07:43:19Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > …Surreal? I don’t know. Byzantine, maybe. You had a chance to say “unorthodox” and you didn’t take it? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/169 "2014-01-12T12:46:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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](http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/13a691-little-sisters-injunction-opp.pdf): > > [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](http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/EBSA-Form-700.pdf) 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? There are two sided to that story, The R C C wants to deny people of other religions the right to their beliefs as well. Insurance is part of their wages and should be able to use the insurance any way they can. A great many Catholics don’t follow the Church’s teachings. Plus one need look to Haiti and other countries to see the poverty where every one who doesn’t allow Birth Control lives, If those who want to use Birth control can’t get it. There would be a lot less poverty if a sure way of birth control was used. I know many RC’s that have a vasectomy or get their tubes tied so they won’t be so poor. Many die trying to get to the USA by boat from Haiti to get away from the poverty of their own country. If I were a R C I would just use the money that I normally would use to give the church I would spend it on Birth control or a tubal litigation. No one is forcing anyone to use Birth control against their beliefs, Just the Church trying to push their beliefs on others. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/170 "2014-01-12T13:13:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. In this sense then since it is okay with a Muslim to cut off his daughter’s ear because he thought (and believed) was the thing to do in his religious beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/171 "2014-01-12T22:29:56Z")
It was already discussed earlier that no violent crime doesn’t get religious exemptions and really shouldn’t be brought up anymore. Read the thread monavis. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/172 "2014-01-12T23:03:50Z")
**Bricker** , I’m curious as to whether you feel the analysis under the RFRA would be different since the ACA was upheld as a tax instead of a criminal law. In other words, does the “least restrictive means” test apply to the least restrictive means to provide contraception or the least restrictive means to raise revenue for the general welfare? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/173 "2014-01-13T00:24:47Z")
So is the government’s goal for birth control to be widely available, or for it to be covered by employer-provided insurance? If ITR is right, it’s almost certainly the latter, since the law was written in a climate in which birth control is already available. As such, when we’re talking about “least restrictive means” to achieve an end, the end achieved must be the coverage of birth control by employer-provided health insurance. I think the government can justify that end on a variety of public policy grounds. And if they can–if they can meet the very low bar required for them to do so–then I have a hard time imagining a means of doing so that’s less restrictive than having folks who want an exemption sign a paper saying they want an exemption. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/174 "2014-01-13T03:26:50Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > In this sense then since it is okay with a Muslim to cut off his daughter’s ear because he thought (and believed) was the thing to do in his religious beliefs? It’s pretty clear to me that you either haven’t read, or haven’t really understood, the discussions about about the analytical framework in which 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). Which is it? ---
**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 13, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/175 "2014-01-13T04:45:28Z")
Maybe monavis doesn’t care because whether or not it can be argued that what the nuns are doing is legal, it’s obviously stupid. Or ignorant, whichever. Of course, I can only speculate. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/176 "2014-01-13T12:43:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Maybe monavis doesn’t care because whether or not it can be argued that what the nuns are doing is legal, it’s obviously stupid. Or ignorant, whichever. > Of course, I can only speculate. I didn’t state that they were doing any thing illegal. I just don’t agree that a church should dictate what an insurance company covers. Like it or not Insurance is part of a person’s salary and if they used their own money to pay for it then it should be included in their wages. Just like the Blue laws when people couldn’t shop on Sunday. I know a priest and a nun who is related to me, and both have had several breakdowns. A lot has to do with the Church’s laws on sex. I also know a family where 2 the girls were molested by their brother’s because the idea of their sexuality was only taught sex was a big sin. Years ago it just wasn’t reported. and perhaps the church’s laws about sex are partly to blame for the child molesting? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/177 "2014-01-13T15:11:46Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Not “must”. “Can”. They “can” provide coverage. That’s your mistake. The 3rd party insurer can provide it. Nothing I said was untrue or even that hard to understand. This to me is the key question, and I’m not sure that I’ve gotten a satisfactory response. The nuns say that “ordering” someone to do something sinful is itself sinful. I get that. The administration says that this particular issue is moot, because these nuns use an insurance plan that is itself exempt because it’s a “church plan.” The nuns say that that doesn’t matter because ordering someone to do something sinful is sinful, even if you know they’ll say “no” (I’m not sure how persuasive I find this, but I understand it). But that hinges on the assumption that the form, in fact, _compels_ the run-of-the-mill insurer to provide the coverage. That makes a huge difference to my personal opinion on the matter. The HHS final rule appears to be here(in .pdf form). As I read it, once an organization self-certifies, the insurer “_must_ provide separate payments for any contraceptive services.” The insurer is “required” to provide payment for excluded services (i.e., the ones objected to) but required by the rule; but it “may” provide payment for “all contraceptive services.” If the organization self-insures, but uses a third party administrator, the administrator “shall provide or arrangement payments” for the services. That doesn’t sound like “may” to me. It sounds like “must.” So the point of the self-certification is to _require_ either the insurer or the third-party administrator to make the payments. It’s not a question of “permitting” them to. Or “allowing” the employees to obtain alternative coverage. Or am I missing something? If it’s that the third-party insurer “may” provide the coverage, then I’m inclined to agree with you. If it’s “must,” then I see the nuns’ point (the fact that these nuns’ plan is exempt from ERISA is, I think, a bug not a feature and would not typically be true of the objecting religious organizations). ---
**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 13, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/178 "2014-01-13T16:06:59Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > So the point of the self-certification is to _require_ either the insurer or the third-party administrator to make the payments. It’s not a question of “permitting” them to. Or “allowing” the employees to obtain alternative coverage. Or am I missing something? As we’ve seen, the Administration told the Supreme Court that the third-party administrator would not be legally obligated to provide the coverage. They back this up with a reference to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Of course, this contradicts what they’ve said in their public announcements earlier, and it contradicts what their allies in the media say. So to summarize: [ul] [li]The Administration says that the Little Sisters must sign a piece of paper instructing their third-party administrator to cover contraception.[/li][li]The Administration also says that once the third-party administrator gets this piece of paper, they can fail do to what the paper says.[/li][li]But if the Little Sisters don’t sign the paper, then the Administration will impose ruinous fines on them.[/li][/ul] It doesn’t make much sense, but that’s what the Kafka Administration says. Sorry, that’s what the _Obama_ Administration says. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/179 "2014-01-13T16:16:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So, will this dispute end with a bang or with a wimple? I am agog to find out. If the church wins the case, then it’s probably not a big deal to the US government. Mr Obama gracefully concedes a minor concession to the faithful, and the rest of his project sails on. Win-win for him. But if the church loses, then what? Options: - the nuns sign the paper, confirming that there wasn’t a religious imperative to refuse in the first place (and they have lied about it) - the nuns continue their charitable mission, but with just nuns and volunteers rather than employees - the nuns continue their charitable mission, but by channelling the funding through a secular body which can both employ the staff and provide them with proper health insurance - the nuns cease their charitable mission and don’t spend the funds on anything worthy. That’s not going to be an easy decision for the church to take. Limited scope to come out with integrity and intelligence. It looks like the suit is quite a high risk gamble for them, and a smarter organisation might have worked behind the scenes to agree the best compromise available. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300/180 "2014-01-13T16:26:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As we’ve seen, the Administration told the Supreme Court that the third-party administrator would not be legally obligated to provide the coverage. They back this up with a reference to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Of course, this contradicts what they’ve said in their public announcements earlier, and it contradicts what their allies in the media say. So to summarize: You’re missing something here in a rush to accuse the Administration of … something (inconsistency? questionable application of the law? dishonesty? I don’t know). As I understand the rule, the employer self-certifies and the insurer (or third-party administrator) is obligated to provide the coverage. Nuns say: we don’t provide and we won’t order others to provide. No problem. But wait. The HHS (apparently) derives its authority to require the insurer to do these things from ERISA, which regulates employee benefits plans, not the ACA. Under ERISA there is this carve out for “church plans” (there are reasons for this, I do not understand them, I think they’re mostly about pensions). So, the HHS cannot require church plans to do the things in the HHS rule. No big deal, because the HHS rule also exempts churches from the contraceptive mandate. But, woah, hold on again. These nuns have gotten themselves on a qualifying “church plan” for their health insurance. So while the nuns are being compelled to do something (and can be, because they’re not exempt), their insurer can’t be. So, as a practical matter (and this is the Administration’s point), the nuns’ insurer can’t be compelled to offer the coverage. I don’t think the Administration intended this result; I think it was an oversight (in my opinion, this administration has a frighteningly narrow approach to religious liberty). But I can’t prove that, of course. But, that is the result, and that’s why it’s perfectly consistent to say that the mandate compels the insurer and that the nuns insurer isn’t being compelled. My guess is that most religious organizations don’t get their health plans from the church (which is, I believe, a fairly narrow ERISA exemption). Or I’m wrong, because (like everyone else) I don’t understand ERISA. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-the-nuns/678300.md?page=10)