This is not true. The Little Sisters are not seeking to prevent anyone from obtaining contraception through a 3rd party insurance company. The Obama Administration has specifically said that employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor will not be able to obtain contraception through a 3rd party insurance company, regardless of whether or not the Little Sisters of the Poor sign the paper. The Obama Administration has chosen to make this true. I’ve quoted the exact words of the Obama Administration in this first post in this thread. If you were actually upset about the fact that employees can’t obtain insurance through a third party insurance company, then you would be demanding that the Obama Administration be punished.
That said, let’s return to the basic fact that I’ve already mentioned many times, which you’ve totally ignored because it makes your whining look so ridiculous: anyone in the USA, whether employed by the Little Sisters of the Poor or not, can get birth control in any drugstore, or for free from countless sources. To claim that anyone is trying to prevent anyone from getting contraception through a 3rd party insurance company is meaningless, since even a person who can’t get birth control through a third party insurance company can still get (free) birth control. You’ve ignored this point countless times already–why?
Like all of your points, this has already been addressed clearly and carefully, many times. But since you apparently think that you can prove something by ignoring what’s already been explained to you, I’ll give you the answer once again. Why do I say the paper is meaningless? Because the Obama Administration said so, in a legal filing, which I quoted in my first post. If you think I’m wrong, then apparently you believe that the Obama Administration is lying through its teeth in a legal filing to the Supreme Court. If that were true, then it would be time for someone to be impeached for perjury.
As for your argument that the Little Sisters “obviously don’t think its [sic] a meaningless [sic]”, that’s been clearly and carefully addressed many times as well. The paper is legally and financially meaningless, in that it won’t affect anyone’s birth control coverage in any way, shape, or form. The Obama Administration has said this is true. However, the Little Sisters do not view it as being religiously meaningless.
I would imagine he ignored it because it’s ridiculous. Any one in this country can toddle on down to their local hospital and get a heart transplant too; but we’re talking about what is insured, not what is available.
And the “free birth control” you speak of is pretty disingenuous too. “Birth control” isn’t completely encapsulated by “a handful of condoms you can grab from the basket down at Planned Parenthood.” You do know that there’s more to it than that, right?
The answer to that is a lot less clear than you would like it to be. As far as I know, it’s still being worked out in the circuits.
My sense is that it’s more than possible but not necessarily all the way to probable. The greater your likelihood of success, the weaker the other factors get to be. (Some circuits, I believe, still apply the “irreperable harm” plus “serious question of law” approach).
That’s a meaningless comparison since heart transplants cost huge amounts of money while birth control costs very little and is available for free.
As a matter of fact, I not only know that there are birth control methods other than condoms, but also know that Planned Parenthood and other organizations give away brith control methods other than condoms for free. According to the CDC, contraceptive use is “virtually universal” among women. When they polled women on reasons for not using birth control, expense didn’t even register. 100% of women in all income brackets, including the poorest, use contraception. No one’s doing without it because of the expense, even if they can’t get it for free.
And that doesn’t even mention the most obvious reason why YogSosoth’s claim is absurd. No one is forced to work for the Little Sisters of the Poor if they don’t want to, so the claim that the Little Sisters are “controlling” anyone is therefore wrong.
Again, we seem to have a breakdown in communication. This isn’t about expense and it never has been. It’s about what is insured, not how much it costs or what is available through other less optimal options.
I’m sure there’s something buried in your 54 page cite about the cost of birth control pills and condoms, but again … that isn’t the issue. You’ve set this whole argument up as one of morals. Fine. Leave expense out of it.
Uh, since when? As I showed in the OP, the question in this lawsuit concerns a certain piece of paper. According to the Obama Administration, if the Little Sisters of the Poor sign this piece of paper, nothing will change regarding anybody’s insurance or coverage of contraception. So what on earth are you referring to when you say “it’s about what is insured”?
YogSosoth said that the Little Sisters of the Poor aim to “force others to act they [sic] way they want them to”. What YogSosoth said is untrue on two grounds. First, the piece of paper at the center of the lawsuit does not create any change in insurance for any person, and the Obama Administration has said so. Second, even if this lawsuit somehow affected whether someone’s insurance covered contraception, it would have no effect on whether anyone could get contraception, since contraception is readily available to everyone. You appear to agree with this point, so why on earth does it matter whether the free birth control that a hypothetical employee gets come from an insurance company or somewhere else? (Of course, neither YogSosoth nor anyone else who’s attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor has given us any reason to believe that there’s a single employee of them who wants contraception coverage.)
The Little Sisters want to follow their own laws. They don’t want to play ball. They want to be special. And you seem to have no problem demanding that a law respecting the establishment of a religion be put in place (or at least be re-interpreted) because it’s your religion.
This is about the law. Law that is designed for the common good, not just the Little Sisters of Mercy.
By you’re own rationale, there really is no problem here, because if “the Obama administration decides to shut down the Little Sisters” the people they normally would have helped can just find the help they need somewhere else for the same low-low price, right? But no, the Little Sisters are completely willing the shutter the doors and fuck over all the people they normally would have helped because they don’t want to play ball all while blaming the administration that governs us all – not just Christians.
Wrong, actually. The Little Sisters of the Poor are a charity group that runs nursing homes for poor, elderly people. By working for charity, and taking a vow of poverty, they presumably offer the service at less cost than a for-profit company would. If Obama imposes ruinous fines that result in forcing the Little Sisters to shut the nursing homes, it seems doubtful that anyone else would replace all of them with homes of equal cost.
Really? I’m not aware that I’ve demanded any such thing. What I want is freedom of religion for everybody, as the First Amendment says.
And when, exactly, did he threaten to do so? Obama, that is, personally hounding those poor dear nuns. And when did it fall under his purview to impose fines, ruinous or otherwise? How is any of this his personal responsibility?
Point of fact, if it were in his power to grant taxation and compliance amnesty to the dear sisters, offering them a special advantage, wouldn’t that be a very mild form of establishing a state church, by offering the Catholic church an exemption not available to Presbyterians or Methodists? Would that not violate the express purpose of the First Amendment, which you are so anxious to defend?
Serious Question: The Catholic Church opposes in vitro fertilization. Though Obamacare does not, several US states require that In Vitro Fertilization be included in all health care plans.
This situation seems similar to the objections from Catholic groups about religious freedom and Obamacare’s requirements regarding contraception. Have any Catholic groups raised this issue with state legislatures, or filed lawsuits similar to the one filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor against these state mandates?
I’m not the guy who’s all het up about this. But, yeah, sure, and so what? Am I obliged to roll around on the floor screaming and tearing my hair?
The Constitution isn’t Scripture. Hell, Scripture isn’t Scripture! I am perfectly willing to shrug and allow the Amish a good leaving alone, an accomodation I am unwilling to extend to Scientology. If that makes me a hypocrite in your estimation, I can only hope to find the strength to go on living. Somehow.
That is a good question and the answer may be the best predictor of the outcome here. (eta: though those State legislation don’t require employers to have any insurance at all if they decide, right? So “opting out” is a lot easier, in that case)
They may or may not offer the services at a lower cost than a for-profit owner would - but if the nursing homes are staffed solely by people who took a vow of poverty, I would be absolutely shocked. It’s been years since religious orders in the US have been able to operate nursing homes, hospitals and schools staffed solely or predominantly by members of the order. And I doubt this one charges Medicare and Medicaid less than any other non-profit organizations running nursing homes.No reason to assume that another non-profit wouldn’t be willing and able to provide the care for the same cost ( which seems to be the plan for the home in Latham for reasons unrelated to the ACA.
