This is not a terribly convincing argument. You ask: “why would [Obama] want to risk bad publicity on purpose by fighting nuns?” Well, first of all, Obama has constituents like yourself, who seem to think that the more punishment dished out on nuns who are dedicated to helping the poor, the better. But I doubt that’s the reason.
It’s the Obama Administration who’s fighting this court case, not Obama personally. Obama constantly tells us, without any apparent embarrassment, that he has no clue what his administration is doing. When the public learned that the IRS had been targeting groups that opposed Obama, Obama didn’t know about it. When we learned that the NSA was spying on Angela Merkel and countless other people, Obama didn’t know about it. When healthcare.gov was launched and failed, Obama didn’t know it was going to happen. When the Department of Justice was harassing reporters who published stories that made Obama look bad, he didn’t know that either. Since Obama is so proudly clueless about so much that goes on in his administration, you can’t ask anyone to accept the argument that he must have a good reason for imposing heavy fines on nuns. It’s as likely as not that he has no clue that he’s trying to impose heavy fines on the Little Sisters.
It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t convince you, that’s probably what it is. Neither Obama nor his cabinet sits around twirling their mustaches to get back at the nuns. We know he wants health care for all and we know he believes, and rightly so, that contraception is an important part of it. The Justice Department is doing what they are doing because unlike you, they are convinced that they can get these people health care. But unlike you, they have to worry about PR, so they don’t explicitly say that it can get them contraception. You’ve been duped, you fell for it, and now you’re misdirecting your anger. Its a good move by them, except for us who have to watch you post about something you don’t understand and try to help you see the truth.
And yeah, Obama probably didn’t know about those things. Get over it, its a big government, no one man can know or respond to everything, that’s why he has staff. Rather, you should judge him for how he responds. He’s due to announce changes to the NSA which, we know the IRS thing extended to both liberal and conservative groups so it was a non-scandal, and Obama can hardly be blamed if he didn’t know specifically who the NSA was targeting, that place is a black hole of information. So keep trying, but know that the nuns are still in the wrong and still assholes
I’m wondering how much the nuns themselves are actively involved. They are represented by an organization that specializes in defending religious liberties, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. I’ve run across their name before, and they appear to be pretty legit, defending Muslims in Tennessee against religious discrimination, for instance.
But I’m thinking maybe they took the ball and ran with it, and the Little Sisters aren’t actually calling the shots. My understanding of them is that they are a very cloistered order outside of their charitable activities, and such people tend to lack sophistication in the ways of a wicked, wicked world.
Which people are “these people”? The employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor already have health care.
Furthermore, as you’ve already been told about a dozen times, Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that if the Little Sisters sign the piece of paper, then their third party administrator will not need to provide coverage of contraception. Here’s the quote again:
[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.
I’ve asked you several times whether you believe that the Obama Administration is lying to the Supreme Court. You’ve refused to answer. That’s not surprising, since if you answer “yes”, then you’re accusing the Obama Administration of a serious crime, and if you answer “no”, then you’re admitting that almost everything you’ve said in this thread has been untrue. I hereby ask it again: do you think that the Obama Administration is lying to the Supreme Court?
This is one of the funniest sentences that I’ve ever read.
Dr. Marty Lederman currently teaches at Georgetown Law School. Previously, he was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Obama Administration. So I hope we can all agree that he knows what the law actually says. He supports the Administration’s side in this case. Here’s what he says about the matter:
As explained below, because of an unanticipated gap in the government’s “secondary accommodation” regulation, and the unusual circumstances of this particular case, if the plaintiffs were to sign a self-certification stating that they oppose providing coverage for contraception, their employees would not receive such coverage.
Take note of the final clause there. “…their employees would not receive such coverage.” I was right. You were wrong. You should admit it, but if you don’t that’s fine with me. I greatly enjoy proving you wrong over and over again.
No, it isn’t, for an obvious reason that’s already been given to you many times by many people. Nobody is forced to be an employee of the Little Sisters of the Poor, obviously. Thus the Little Sisters of the Poor are not forcing their employees to do anything. Period. Full stop.
Furthermore, consider that the health insurance coverage I get through my employer does not cover tylenol, cough drops, red wine, bicycle helmets, or beluga caviar. By failing to cover these things, is my employer forcing me to forgo them? Obviously not. I can buy any of those things with my own money. To claim that an employer is “forcing” an employee to do anything by failing to cover it in insurance is obviously a preposterous misuse of the English language.
I am not asking you to agree or believe me. Just as I don’t believe that any religion should hold people through Fear or guilt, that is mind control! People should be able to think for themselves not just believe something because somebody says it is true.
Everything people believe is really from the mind of someone else or their own mind. That is a fact, They can say it is from God, but that doesn’t make it so.
