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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.