Supreme Court delays health law's birth control mandate

Justice Sonia Sotomayor decides to block implementation of contraceptive coverage hours before it went into effect
Associated Press
Jan 1, 2014

 

The Supreme Court has thrown a hitch into President Barack Obama's new health care law by blocking a requirement that some religion-affiliated organizations provide health insurance that includes birth control.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor late Tuesday night decided to block implementation of the contraceptive coverage requirement, only hours before the law's insurance coverage went into effect on New Year's Day.

Her decision, which came after federal court filings by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the nation in hopes of delaying the requirements, throws a part of the president's signature law into temporary disarray. At least one federal appeals court agreed with Sotomayor, issuing its own stay against part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The White House on Wednesday issued a statement saying that the administration is confident that its rules "strike the balance of providing women with free contraceptive coverage while preventing non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage."

Sotomayor acted on a request from an organization of Catholic nuns in Denver, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Its request for an emergency stay had been denied earlier in the day by a federal appeals court.

The government is "temporarily enjoined from enforcing against applicants the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," Sotomayor said in the order.

Sotomayor, who was in New York Tuesday night to lead the final 60-second countdown and push the ceremonial button to signal the descent of the Times Square New Year's Eve ball, gave government officials until 10 a.m. EST Friday to respond to her order. A decision on whether to make the temporary injunction permanent or dissolve it likely won't be made before then.

"The government has lots of ways to deliver contraceptives to people," said Mark Rienzi, a lawyer for the nuns. "It doesn't need to force nuns to participate."

Under the health care law, most health insurance plans have to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives as preventive care for women. That means the coverage is provided free of charge.

Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the birth control requirement, but affiliated institutions that serve the general public are not. That includes charitable organizations, universities and hospitals.

The requirement prompted an outcry from religious groups, which led the administration to try to craft a compromise. Under that compromise, insurers or health plan administrators must provide birth control coverage, and the religious institution itself is not responsible.

But the administration's compromise did not satisfy some critics, who called it a fig leaf.

The nuns would have to sign a form authorizing their insurance company to provide contraceptive coverage, which would still violate their beliefs, Rienzi said.

"Without an emergency injunction, Mother Provincial Loraine Marie Maguire has to decide between two courses of action: (a) sign and submit a self-certification form, thereby violating her religious beliefs; or (b) refuse to sign the form and pay ruinous fines," Rienzi said.

The Little Sisters operate homes for the elderly poor in the United States and around the world. They were joined in their lawsuit by religious health benefit providers, Christian Brothers Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust.

Sotomayor's decision to delay the contraceptive portion of the law was joined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which also issued an emergency stay for Catholic-affiliated groups challenging the contraceptive provision, including the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and Catholic University.

But one judge on the three-judge panel that made the decision, Judge David S. Tatel, said he would have denied their motion.

"Because I believe that appellants are unlikely to prevail on their claim that the challenged provision imposes a 'substantial burden' under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I would deny their application for an injunction pending appeal," Tatel said.

The archdiocese praised the appeals court's action in a statement.

"This action by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is in line with the rulings of courts all across the country which have held that the HHS mandate imposes a substantial and impermissible burden on the free exercise of religion," the archdiocese said. "These decisions also vindicate the pledge of the U.S. Catholic bishops to stand united in resolute defense of the first and most sacred freedom — religious liberty."

The Supreme Court already has decided to rule on whether businesses may use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees. That case, which involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees, is expected to be argued in March and decided by summer.

 

Comments

donutshopguy

The separation of church and state is a paramount belief set out by our founding fathers.

The Big Dog's back

It was so the church wouldn't make our country a theocracy.

Contango

Re: "It was so the church wouldn't make our country a theocracy."

Musta been on Bizarro World.

'Cause on Earth, it was the other way around. In England the monarch took over and headed the church.

See: Henry VIII

John Harville

Yeah. And Catholics were banned for nearly 120 years on penalty of death. Thus "the 12 days of Christmas".

But what is your point?

Contango

Re: "But what is your point?"

You CAN read can't you? Follow the thread.

John Harville

Following the thread, Godtango.
Henry VIII destroyed the monasteries and churches and took their money for the government - and extreme tax - then outlawed their existence because the pope wouldn't grant him a divorce from his wife so he cold marry the babe he'd been doing...who literally lost her head for the king. Then his son Edward (born of another woman who fortunately...for her... died) continued Henry's ways against Catholics until he was slowly poisoned.
Then his daughter Mary restored Catholicism and kept the Smithfield fires burning with Protestant fat.
Then his daughter Elizabeth I restored Protestantism, outlawed Catholicism, killed her cousin Mary of Scotland, then put Mary's very homosexual son James VI of Scotland on England's throne as James I (who commissioned the King James Version of the Bible to try to buy his way into heaven) and fathered Charles I who lost his head to the Puritans and Oliver Cromwell.
Now, again, what was your point?

Contango

Re: "now, again, what was your point?"

G-o-t-t-a s-p-e-l-l i-t o-u-t f-o-r y-o-u e-h?

"It was so the church wouldn't make our country a theocracy."

- The Big Dog's back, 01/01/2014 - 8:54pm

Better see the First Amend. Sport:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

John Harville

CONGRESS being the key word.
When the Puritans came to the new land, the first thing they did was establish a theocracy.
The Constitution makes no reference to God or religion.
The Bill of Rights was to assure the rights of the states without FEDERAL interference. Thus CONGRESS. The AHCA makes no prohibition on any religion - which the court will find. It DOES guarantee health care without discrimination for employees of any company/corporation not founded on specific religious statements. Personal religion of owners is not protected. Congress can protect employees from discrimination because they have a religion/no religion different than the employer.
An employer cannot withhold - on the basis of religion - health care that may include contraceptives (they are used for women who have uterine/ovarian issues to avoid surgical procedures.

John Harville

so... "one nation, under God," does not establish religion, especially when young children have no understanding?

"In God We Trust" does not establish a national religion?

The First Amendment DOES allow individual states to ESTABLISH a state religion... yes?... or prohibit the practice of certain religions? Is THAT what they meant?

Pterocarya frax...

And since a lot of churches can't seem to keep their noses out of politics, we need to start taxing them.

Contango

Re: " we need to start taxing them."

Agreed.

'Specially those southern black churches where the Dems go politicking.

Google:

"Eric Holder, IRS officials coached tax-exempt black ministers on how to engage in political activity"

Kingsin

Re: " we need to start taxing them." The reason for tax exemption is to deny the state its one method of control- through the use of taxation. The Church in America was to be left absolutely free from influence- a moral compass and voice concerning the operation of Government. The Supreme Court understood this (Walz v. tax commission) Quote: In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Contango

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy,"

- Chief Justice John Marshall

John Harville

"CONGRESS shall make no law..." does not exempt churches from state and local taxation.
The Tenth Amendment leaves to states the power to tax.
Churches and other faith-based groups hide behind their 'religion' to carry on political activities.
Now for-profit corporations (which are people, remember when it comes to political contribution) want to use their 'religion' to avoid providing preventative health care for women (cancer screenings, breast exams, cancer surgeries, other medical issues) in the name of being 'anti-abortion' (which they classify as keeping sperm from fertilizing egg). Soon they'll want to outlaw masturbation, cunnilingus, hetero anal.... which all also are 'abortion' in the purest sense.
Churches claim they should not have to provide ACA healthcare to employees in their hospitals, nursing homes, healthcare centers, etc. but still have the right to bill Medicare, Medicaid etc. for services they provide.
Tax their institutions or remove their Medicare/Medicaid privileges - which, of course, penalizes patients.
Tax the churches - including those predominantly Black/Hispanic churches who promote Pews to Polls Sunday voting.

Contango

Re: "The Tenth Amendment leaves to states the power to tax."

Forgetting the 16th?

It gave the Feds the power to cross state lines and directly steal from citizens.

John Harville

The tenth, then, has been negated by the 16th? And the 14th? etc.?

Babo

Actually churches are exempt from taxation pursuant to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Government cannot regulate religion and taxation is a form of regulation. If one is to start taxing churches, than all non profits must be taxed.

Contango

Re: "Actually churches are exempt from taxation pursuant to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment."

And some states and locales required the funding of churches through taxation.

If a church or NGO loses it's not-for-profit status, all income becomes taxable.

Babo

Example of a state or locale in the US that directly funds a church in the US through taxation?

And yes if an entity violates 501(c)(3) requirements for non profit status, then the entity loses its non profit status. So take your argument about black churches in the South engaged in politics to the IRS.

Contango

Re: "Example"

Note word "required" (past tense).

See: U.S. History.

H*ll, Gen. Washington "required" his officers to attend religious services.

----------------------

Re: "So take your argument about black churches in the South engaged in politics to the IRS."

With the current progressives in the WH? Yea right.

Babo

You stated some states and locales required the funding of churches through taxation. I asked for an example of a state or locale that required funding of churches by taxation. Gen. Washington's church requirement during the Revolutionary War isn't an example of a state or locale supporting a church through taxation.

Re: Tax exemption and black churches. So you don't want to take action (exercise your 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress) to try to change things, you'd just rather make unsupported comments (exercise your 1st Amendment Free expression clause right)about politics on a blog. That's productive!

Contango

Re: "I asked for an example of a state or locale that required funding of churches by taxation."

Be sure to let me know if also need help with operating a search engine and I’ll see what I can do.

Google: “Established Churches in Colonial Times.”

-------------------

The progressives in DC are already aware of it and prefer the status quo.

Fired off an email to my U.S. rep. the other day regarding a tax issue.

Babo

"Colonial Times" predates the formation of the country. So your search results are not relevant.

Good for you on the email concerning the tax issue.

Contango

Re: 'Colonial Times' predates the formation of the country."

However "U.S. History" includes that period.

Keep researching Sport, it's there.

Babo

Contango, just admit you made an unsupported factual statement and enjoy quibbling over semantics to distract from the weakness of your argument. You are a poor verbal dancer. Gosh is that you Bill Clinton?

Contango

Re: "weakness of your argument."

Obviously like most lazy students today, you prefer to be fed and can't do the work yourself.

See: "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" (V. Religion and the State Government.)

Hopefully you're literate and I won't need to read it to you.

Babo

LOL, I'm a lazy student?! You appear to be a typical self aggrandizing/ self-taught internet social isolationist who refuses to offer support for his/her factual statements and then resorts to insults when called out on your intellectual dishonesty.

John Harville

Actually many/most churches are 501(c)(3) corporations to assure tax-exempt status to cover all their events (ice cream socials, catering, dinners) that are open to public for income production. It's also necessary for obtaining mortgages for building programs etc.
However, 501c3 cannot engage in ANY form of political action.

coasterfan

I agree with Ptero and Contango. Churches should absolutely be taxed. If they are going to try to continually exert sovereignty over other public entities via politics, then they have chosen to not play by the rules the legislative branch set up on their behalf.

Contango

Re: "Churches should absolutely be taxed."

Eliminate the 16th Amend. and it won't be an issue.

John Harville

How about a little reality Godtango? You really think 2/3 of the
Congress and the States will repeal the Income Tax? And how does that affect churches?

Contango

Re: "You really think 2/3 of the Congress and the States will repeal the Income Tax?"

Nope. Just a wish.

The 16th was passed in response to the future loss of revenue in passing the 18th.

Funding churches? Charity.

ACA "written in stone"? The 21st Amend. proves otherwise.

John Harville

Actually, property taxes on churches would bring in much more revenue. Look at some of the megachurches around here. the land an buildings ALL are tax-exempt. Imagine that revenue.
Churches never would pay much income tax. They are charities and the rest who aren't would rush to be nfp.
Sales tax is state and not regulated by 16th
Next?

Darwin's choice

"Throws the presidents signature law into disarray" !!!!

Enough said, but it's already a monumental failure.

John Harville

Don't you wish...
Actually it give a group of nuns a delay until the full court takes up the Hobby Lobby case.
The Disarray was to the Republican/TP plan for ending ACA when Roberts voted with the Majority to make it the "law of the land".

Contango

Re: "Roberts voted with the Majority to make it the 'law of the land'".

As a TAX and NOT under the Commerce Clause as the progressive-socialists had originally argued.

"Law of the land"? The 21st Amend proves that mistakes can be undone.

John Harville

You wanna compare the people voting for getting back their booze to people voting to give up affordable health care they've never had?

Lessee.
First you need a member of the HOuse - or 35 state legislatures to propose it.
Second you need 290 votes in the House.
Third you need 67 votes in the Senate
Fourth you need 67 state legislatures in session, convention, or ballot to approve the amendment.

But since the AHCA act is not an amendment you still need steps two and three AND a president to sign it.
next?

Darwin's choice

8 Million+ lost their insurance today, and another 1.5 million were cut off unemployment.

A great day for democrats. Hope you're proud.

John Harville

Whooooaaa! the 1.5 million were cut off because the GOP House didn't act to prevent it.

Contango

Re: "GOP House didn't act to prevent it."

The Dems who voted for the budget were equally culpable.

John Harville

How does GOP majority make dems 'equally' culpable?

Contango

Re: "How does (snip)"

How many Dem Reps and Senators voted for the budget Sport?

Darwin's choice

OK, azzwagon, then what about the 8 million who lost insurance? Seems thats ok by you jerk!

John Harville

What 8 million? You mean the millions cut by INSURANCE COMPANIES who cancelled grandfathered policies? Those millions? The millons who had months to seek new insurance policies on their own.. like the millions who entered into annual negotiations for renewal? Nearly everyone on a private contract gets a cancellation notice October 1 every year.

Donegan

The reason the Democrats do not like the church is because they want to corner the market in forcing people to do things they would not normally do.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Reminds me of a popular saying (and a sign that Ron Paul has on his desk): "Don't steal! The government hates competition."

coasterfan

Forcing people to do things they wouldn't normally do... Such as being a responsible adult who would pay for their own health insurance, so that the rest of us don't have to subsidize their health care through higher insurance premiums.

The big question we Dems have is why Republicans - who try to market themselves as the party of "responsibility" are so anti-Obamacare, since it's a program that forces everyone to be responsible for their own healthcare costs. Especially ESPECIALLY since it was first championed by... Republicans.

Contango

Re: "that the rest of us don't have to subsidize their health care through higher insurance premiums."

A poor argument considering that approx. 60% of insureds will be subsidized under Obama☭are.

John Harville

you just love to toss out unsupported figures don't you... because the sheeples here will go with whatever Godtango says.

Contango

Re: "unsupported figures"

Don't like my number? Then you provide one Sport.

How many millions of Americans will be financially subsidized to purchase health ins. under ACA?

Babo

You forget that all people who receive insurance through their employment are also subsidized because these benefits are not taxed as income. Thus, the subsidy to people who are not employed by businesses who provide them health insurance as a tax free benefit.

Contango

Re "You forget that all people who receive insurance through their employment are also subsidized because these benefits are not taxed as income."

I was asking SPECIFICALLY about federal subsidies under Obama☭are, but you make an excellent point.

Employers pay with before-tax dollars and individuals pay with after-tax dollars - wholly unfair.

During the '08 campaign, Sen McCain suggested taxing employee health benefits and was skewered for it.

Donegan

First off, Any responsible adult ALREADY HAS INSURANCE. Secondly the only thing the ACA does is forces more people to subsidize irresponsible behavior.
"since it's a program that forces everyone to be responsible for their own healthcare costs" It does not make people to be responsible at all, It forces the irresponsible people to gouge those who already have (Or did have) Insurance.
If the program was championed by Republicans my question is why do you dislike them so much? You seem to like the same policy's, Let me guess, It is not the policy but the figure head they have in office?

anthras

coasterfan Re: Such as being a responsible adult who would pay for their own health insurance, so that the rest of us don't have to subsidize their health care through higher insurance premiums.

So who is going to be paying the subsidies awarded to certain groups
of persons that will be having their premiums subsidized ????? In addition to that many persons that went on the site to sign up were placed in medicaid also paid for by other persons. Many persons had full time jobs with a decent health coverage and could actually see their own doc and now will be working part time with no health care leaving them with about 12 hours less pay per week and in addition must obtain their own health care and possibly not able to see their doc.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Your unabashed use of the word and support of imposed "force" is disturbing to say the least. What else should our government force us to do?

I will make the note again that force does NOT equal responsibility. If that's the case then we have the world's most responsible population of criminals since they all responsibly put themselves in jail to follow the law that says what happens after they break the law.

John Harville

The problem with your statement is that no one can be required to have a religion or go to church. Church attendance/membership is lowest in recent decades and continues to decline.

JMOP

I can't believe she did that. Obama's own court appointed judge.
She either grew a conscious (hardly), blackmailed (doubt it), or if she didn't obey the constitution (at least some of it) the whole obamacare scam could be in jeopardy.

John Harville

Does that J stand for Jerk?
She followed the law. The not-for-profit groups who asked for the delay were primarily in her judicial district. She simply granted their request to suspend implementation on THEIR groups until the full court hears the FOR-PROFIT hobby lobby case. It's a standard judicial move that will be addressed in a hearing Monday and then sent to the full court.
It's like one justice granting a stay of execution.

JMOP

No, the J doesn't stand for jerk, but thank you for asking in such a gentlemanly way.

John Harville

Never claimed gentlemanly ways.

Contango

Re: "Under that compromise, insurers or health plan administrators must provide birth control coverage, and the religious institution itself is not responsible."

Since the health care trust employs the HPA, this is an absurd "compromise."

So why are the Amish exempt from paying Soc. Security, Medicare and Obama☭are taxes?

sash

Not entirely true Contango. Amish were given an exemption on SS and Medicare if they are self employed because they, as a community, are completely self reliant and take care of their elderly without any outside assistance. They are not exempt from paying SS and Medicare if they are an employer or if they are employed by any outside employer. The Amish who work for Kraftmaid in Middlefield see those deductions on their paycheck every week. The Amish pay all Federal, State, Local, sales and property taxes like everyone else.

Contango

Re: "Amish were given an exemption on SS and Medicare if they are self employed,"

Understood.

However, reads like cherry picking.

While self-employed, I pay BOTH employer and employee percentage contributions for SS & Medicare.

How fair is that?

Give me my money back and I won't take either.

sash

We owned our own business, so I understand your pain. May not seem fair, but for the general public a "promise" not to take would be pretty worthless. Congress was willing to take their word, as a community, because of their long standing and well documented history of refusing outside help and taking care of their own. If their practices ever changed, the exemption should be reviewed. One thing to keep in mind though is that their exemption was based on the history of their community refusing outside help, not a religious/moral exemption based on doctrine. The Catholic church may prohibit contraception, but a majority of Catholics do not follow that doctrine. I do think that history and practice should carry more weight than official doctrine.

Contango

Re: "I do think that history and practice should carry more weight than official doctrine."

And the dispensation for the Amish could be discontinued using similar criteria.

John Harville

The Church of Contango is not a recognized religion, though we realize you kiss your own ring every morning and have a shrine in your bathroom.
The Amish own banks utilized by Amish and English alike and are subject to all the regulations.
Amish carpenters use computers and cell phones - just not in/on property they own. They have electricity in their workshops and use power tools - just not on property they own.
The Amish are allowed to ride in motor vehicles but cannot own or drive them.
The Amish are a recognized religion whose members do not vote (glaring error in "The Witness") and conscientiously object to military service.
Do not challenge me on this... I can trace my Amish/Mennonite ancestry to Switzerland in the 15 century.
And do NOT cast slurs and aspersions on the Amish et al.

Contango

Re: "I can trace my Amish/Mennonite ancestry,"

Good for you.

You're begging the question:

Why are Amish exempt from certain govt. diktats and other religious institutions and oriented entities are not under the progressives and Obama☭are.

John Harville

Your primary premise is faulty. The Amish are not exempt. they insure their employees - many who are not Amish - and follow all the rules.
Other 'entities' get some of the same exemptions unless they rely on government-based benefits.

Contango

Re: "Other 'entities' get some of the same exemptions unless they rely on government-based benefits."

And why should ANYONE be exempt Sport?

grumpy

How can ANYONE be made exempt after the bill became a tax? It should have to go through Congress to make exceptions, like any other tax exemption. (SCOTUS ruled it is Constitutional as a tax, not as a law, so I can't logically refer to it as a law)

John Harville

Self-employed yes. Religion/Church? no.

dorothy gale

I do not understand the fuss. If your "religious" beliefs forbid birth control then don't f***ing use it! Why insist on imposing your beliefs on everyone?!

JMOP

You really don't understand? At least you're asking, so that's a start.
It's the employers that are fighting to supply the birth control. The employer believes in gods word, not what the government tells/forces them what they need to do.

The Big Dog's back

Good thing Gov forces a lot of things, like not dumping raw sewage into the lake, like not polluting our air with poisonous gases. I'm sure a lot of employers don't like being forced to do that huh?

JMOP

Go toke one up with Gore.
I'm sure they don't like doing it, not with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Maybe our forefathers would've added that in the constitution, but it wasn't around then, religion was.
That's what I see the left do. Go totally out of left field to try to make an irrelevant point.

John Harville

Neither were automobiles, gasoline, jets, spacecraft, fracking, goldmining, professional sports, railroads,...

So the 'forefathers' wrote a Constitution which was flexible enough to provide for governance over such situations - and amendable for things not in the Constitution or that should be removed (like that 3/5 rule). Religion WAS around... and burned people for witches, and confined all the Catholics to Rhode Island, and outlawed Christmas, and forced taxation on its members (tithing), and....
So the 'forefathers' - most of whom were not Christians and many of whom were happy scre*ing their slaves knew religion had to be kept out of government.

Contango

Re: "So the 'forefathers' - most of whom were not Christians,"

You obviously do not know History.

A progressive-socialist like yourself prefers the State as their god and religion.

Good luck with that Sport.

John Harville

I do know history. Except the Catholics who were forced into Rhode Island by the Puritans who had forced the beheading of a king and their own translation of the Bible. Religion was something to be borne. Christians could not have enslaved others. Christians could not have fathered children by slaves. Christians could not have used slaves to build the House where the president lives. Some were Deists for whom 'the Creator' created and then went on to other things. Some believed in Christ only as a prophet - and believe so today. Christians would not have burned people who believed differently.
Saying one is 'Christian' does not make it so.
Saying contraception is abortion does not make it so.
Saying masturbation is abortion (which Catholics do) does not make it so.

Do not presume to say what is my 'religion'. In fact I have faith in a Triune God.

If you can call me a Socialist, I then can call you a fascist.

Justme...

Its not about using it, its about paying for it. The Church does not want to funding something they consider marally wrong.

John Harville

The Church... which one? Hobby Lobby owners are not Catholic.

John Harville

Contraception - female contraception - is such a minute part of the AHCA. No one - even the little band of nuns - has mentioned denying men health care which can include vasectomy which is paid by insurance.
The Church (assuming you mean the Catholic church which is the only one who has such rules) condemns any sexual act outside
penis-in=vagina sexual intercourse between a married man and woman. Thus ANY other form of sex - oral, masturbation, interruptus, condom,. diaphragm, - which is designed to keep sperm from egg, is forbidden.
So would the nuns - and corporations - choose to enter into bedrooms and private matters?
The church itself allows 'natural' contraception by rhythm.
The Church funds many things they 'consider morally wrong' like telling their members the War in Iraq was 'justified'.

SamAdams

Actually, the people imposing their beliefs are those who DON'T have religious prohibitions on contraceptives!

Nobody anywhere has said that, because Catholic institutions oppose contraceptives, YOU'RE not allowed to get them. What they ARE saying is that, if you do choose to get them, they shouldn't have to PAY for them, making them morally culpable for providing something they consider sinful.

No, what HAS been said is that Catholics should be FORCED to facilitate contraceptives and abortions. So much for who's imposing religious beliefs on whom, eh?

John Harville

Well I don't believe in masturbation and coitus interruptus because it is abortion. And I'm fairly sure many of my employees have engaged in cunnilingus or other gratification with 'unclean' women - some probably even engaged during the period when a woman was 'in her monthly impurity' - also 'abortion'. I guess, then, that women - and men - can be excluded from my insurance plan because they do things my religion says are sins.
Of course, I can refuse to hire smokers because INSURANCE COMPANIES increase my premium for such higher risks (check the casinos).

Contango

Re "Well I don't believe (snip)"

Better lay off the porn there Sport, it's softening your brain.

IMO, health ins. should be like auto, property, et. al., - individual. Keep the employer out of it.

John Harville

The employers are forcing their religious beliefs on their employees.

Hobby Lobby's owners are not Catholic.

Catholic institutions which accept Medicare and Medicaid cannot cherrypick what they will and won't pay.

Where does it say Catholics will be forced to facilitate abortions?
Catholics try to claim that contraception is de facto abortion - yet the Church ALLOWS contraception as long as it is 'natural'.

the Church also claims children born through in vitro 'have no souls' and thus forbids the procedure - but haven't complained about paying for it.

coasterfan

Agree with Dorothy 100%.

Justme...

Agree with Sam Adams 100%

Donegan

You talk of responsibility but want others to subsidize bad behavior, Make up your mind.

John Harville

what 'bad behavior'?

John Harville

1. Some churches (primarily Catholic) believe contraception is a form of abortion - as they also believe about coitus interruptus (pulling), masturbation - anything that keeps sperm from getting to egg.
2. Not-for-profit groups run by faith-based organizations think they should not have to provide contraception for employees as part of insured health care for female employees.
3. For-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby (whose non-Catholic owners claim contraception is abortion) say they should not be required to provide insured health care for women because it would include contraception and violates their religious 'separation'.
4. Such organizations also, by not offering women insurance, would deny women preventative health care like cancer screening, surgical procedures (mastectomy, hysterectomy, etc.)
5. In effect, the "corporations are people" for-profit want to be exempt from certain portions of the law and in so doing want to impose their beliefs on all their female employees.
Don't know if that helps...

grumpy

Re: "4. Such organizations also, BY NOT OFFERING WOMEN INSURANCE, (emphasis mine) would deny women preventative health care like cancer screening, surgical procedures (mastectomy, hysterectomy, etc."

I have not seen that any organization or company that doesn't want to pay for birth control for religious reasons, also not paying for ANY insurance for women, but then I don't go out of my way to find out what all they disapprove of. But I would require more than you stating it to believe it. I think something like that would be memorable, and I just don't remember seeing it before. Or if you mean not paying for women's preventive health , I don't remember that either.

John Harville

Contraception is part of preventative health. Don't take my word for it... research.

Dr. Information

Proud moment for religious entities and I think they will ultimately win. The government cannot force you to cover something you do not believe in. Don't like it, quit and go find another job. Yet another huge blow to the overall disturbing and abysmal Obamacare.

John Harville

Dr Misinformation: You are wrong. They only will win in the same very narrow context in which they got this delay - but will have to demonstrate clearly they get no federal, state, or local government funding for their agencies and - in the case of hospitals and nursing homes, etc., - don't accept Medicare or Medicaid patients or payments.
The government forces corporations etc. to cover something in which they don't believe all the time... the aforesaid Medicare etc. for example.
The Justice was merely granting a delay until both sides can present their positions and has no effect on the larger Hobby Lobby et al case before the court.
Please quit dispensing Misinformation.

John Harville

Hobby Lobby is against anything not Protestant Christian.. basically your textbook bigoted WASP. They refused (as is their right) to carry craft/hobby items with Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or 'generic' themes. Last summer a local church couldn't get materials for their Noah and the Flood/Covenant study because they wanted the Rainbow Covenant crafts - but HL didn't have it because they are opposed to gay culture.

Dr. Information

Who cares if they are opposed to the gay culture. That is their right and unrelated to this topic. Spin some more minion. Lol

John Harville

It's all part of the same fabric... fruit of the poisonous tree if you will. To take their stance, they will have to find an insurance company that does not provide contraception. But insurance companies will not be able to discriminate against women - especially on religious principles.

JMOP

John, pease take your meds and stay on topic.

Contango

Contraception is the ol' camel's nose in the tent.

First, contraception. And next comes self-insured health trusts paying for abortions, sex change operations, et. al.

Progressives are Fabian socialists; it's the gradual take over of all the means of production until the State is in complete control of all facets of society.

Wonder if Ms. Sotomayor got knocked off the Obamas' Christmas card list?

Huron_1969

Didn't you mean Ramadan list?

Contango

Excuse me - HOLIDAY card list. :)

Don't wanna (bleepin') offend anyone's disbeliefs.

coasterfan

When social change comes via politics, it is always the result of evolving public opinion, NOT at the behest of one political party. Civil Rights demonstrations and outcry from millions of Americans forced political change from our leaders, and exactly the same thing happened with the recent political shift/support for gay rights.

It is when a majority of Americans push for change that politicians often follow and enact change. If the gradual take over you predict does, indeed, occur, it will be because a majority of Americans or a majority of American politicians favor them.

As we look at the political landscape today, Republicans are definitely a shrinking Demographic. But for you Neanderthals, all hope isn't lost. Thanks to gerrymandering, you'll at least be able to control the House until 2022, despite your candidates earning more than a million fewer votes in 2012 House races.

As for State takeover over all means of production, I'm not going to start wringing my hands (I leave that job to conservatives). I don't find that to be anywhere near as detrimental as the current capitalism/greed system which is choking the middle class and poor. I guess I'd prefer to have the State running things as opposed to the Koch brothers. As soon as we stop giving tax breaks to the 1% and subsidies to billion dollar oil corporations who don't need or deserve them, THEN we can begin to have an adult conversation about things that truly matter.

Contango

Re: "I guess I'd prefer to have the State running things,"

Welcome to "The Road to Serfdom."

Ya better hope that the central planners are ALWAYS benevolent.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Of course they have! The government is run by perfect angels. Centrally-planned societies are the jewels in the crown of civilization. Let's look at them with sparkling eyes. First there's...

...

...

Um, Contango, my Neanderthal brain can't recall any gleaming jewels of civilization that use/d central planning. Can you help me? As for you, coasterfan, if you want to become a ward of the state that's fine as it is your choice as an adult. Your willingness to shrive to someone else to run your life is your decision. You recognize they can run your life better than you can. Just stop making other people wards of the state, too, who otherwise don't need/want to be.

grumpy

What makes anyone think that a church should be allowed an exemption in the first place? The Church is not a union that donates money to political parties, nor a corporation that does the same, we can all agree with that. Churches are organizations that receives donations that rightfully should go to political parties. In other words it is competition for the money that the politicians deserve. The politicians know better where the money needs to go instead of some religious zealots who basically are crazy bible thumpers. The churches don't deserve any exemption. Case closed.

Nor'easter

And who is going to Feed the hungry, Cloth those in need, Provide care for your children with their donations? Clearly NOT the government. They have managed to terminate 6,500,000 health care insurance policies that individuals were personally paying for.

grumpy

It will be "interesting" to see what will happen next year when the mandated company paid insurance plans fall under obamaScare. The vast majority of folks have their insurance through work, about 150 million folks get their health insurance through work, and many more get it through medicaid and medicare. Who thinks obamaScare will be "fixed" by then? They had dman near 3 years to get ready for the original roll out and we have all seen how well that is going. I bet it will be even more "interesting" when many times more people will be affeted by obamaScare, right before the mid-term election. It will certainly be "interesting".

John Harville

Churches donate to the political realm routinely... most don't even bother to disguise it.

grumpy

What makes anyone think that a church should be allowed an exemption in the first place? The Church is not a union that donates money to political parties, nor a corporation that does the same. It is an organization that receives donations that rightfully should go to political parties. In other words it is competition for the money that the politicians deserve. The politicians know better where the money needs to go instead of some religious zealots who basically are crazy bible thumpers. The churches don't deserve any exemption. Case closed.

Dr. Information

So what you are saying is, that in order to be exempt you need to pay the government?

"It is an organization that receives donations that rightfully should go to political parties".......?????? Really. Sounds a whole lot like highway robbery telling a church that they should have to pay off political parties.

Guess what. Case isn't closed. lol.

Babo

I suspect Grumpy is engaged in witty satire.

grumpy

Satire, sarcasm,snark, and irony are becoming lost arts, don't tell anybody but I even like puns, and those are not even accepted by social rejects. Thanks for noticing what I was attempting. I am NOT a good writer, but I do enjoy those who are.

Babo

You are a delightful writer and I too enjoy puns. Actually many people and social rejects/misfits such as myself think puns are the highest form of humor. I used to laugh a lot over these comments years ago when the environment wasn't so polarized and politicized.

Posters would create new characters on the fly and generate funny yet thought provoking conversations. The comments would number sometimes in the hundreds on some stories. Some of it was mean but by and large it was hilarious.

Got to admit the country was a lot funnier with W in charge. But then he was such an easy target. Everybody now seems to be so dour and gloomy. So thanks Grumpy for making me laugh.

grumpy

Sorry doc, I was being sarcastic. Seems that every, or almost every exemption to obamaScare are donators to political parties. If you search you can find the list of those who are exempt from parts or all of obamaScare. They seem to have donations to political candidates or parties in common.

Babo

And don't forget the US Supreme Court case Citizens United that made corporations and unions "citizens" for purposes of political commentary. Brought us all the "Ads" nauseum

Think9

The issue of birth control is bogus. One of the main groups against the birth control is the Catholic Church. For us, birth control begins in the home between married men and women. We don't believe in oral sex, masturbation, or pulling out at the moment of ejaculation. It is for creation of children and that's all. I do wonder if this means that every Catholic is abstaining from sex no matter their age. If not, they really need to not be against anything against birth control, or else they are guilty of hypocrisy. All three of these actions, oral sex, masturbation, or pulling out at the moment of ejaculation, are sins against the church. And if you are not in agreement with those that control your church, you are against them. And if you are against them, you are of the world, not of Christ. And the world says it's none of your business if we take the pill or even get an abortion. Odd thing is, if you read the bible and go by it only, there is little on the issue except the Old Testament in regards to abortion and if you read the book of Solomon, has a lot to say about real love. But, we have the Pope and the rules they make which is written in the Catechism books, which you are forced to go by, which ends your sex life if you don't want more children. So for the Catholic church to voice an opposition opinion on this issue, they need to talk to their flock first about the "other forms of birth control".

SamAdams

As I recall, the Catholic Church approves of two methods of birth control: Abstinence, and the so-called "Rhythm Method." (As an aside, there's an old joke that asks, "What do you call people who use the rhythm method?" The answer: "Parents!")

Interestingly enough, there's one small section of the Old Testament (Leviticus, I believe) where abortion is MANDATED. The woman is to take an herbal abortifacient so that "her thigh falls away from her." Interesting, no? It's also fascinating to point out to the most religious of abortion foes that the Bible itself says the human being isn't imbued with a soul until it takes its first breath. But then name ANY Christian religion that adheres 100% to it's so-called Holy Book. Bet you can't!

Think9

"Rhythm Method." itself, as I recall, is the counting of the days from the first day of a woman's period to 14 and knowing that 3 to 4 days before and after that date are possible ovulation days. This wipes out about 14 days of the month. 100 percent to the book? Nope. Not the southern Baptist that say baptism is only a show for the congregation that you have already been saved, nor the church of Christ, which says there can be no musical instruments in the church worship totally disregarding both the instruments of David in the Old, and the harps played by angels in the new. Religion is such a funny thing these days, and I guess, in those days. Nice to see some people actually studying issues on this group of post's. I guess the beer ain't flowing yet at home.
PS...the joke on the rhythm method and parents???, well, our next to last child was conceived 2/3 days after the last day of my wives period which keeps us on "may get freaked out soon" alert the last third of every month and sometimes into the next month for a week.

John Harville

A person I know says "I don't let religion get in the way of my faith". Never understood until now.

John Harville

And a section in Deuteronomy says a woman found not a virgin on her wedding night is to be executed.

Be a whole heluva lot of dead brides.

Babo

Would you agree that the Church's prohibitions are designed to discourage one of the seven deadly sins "lust" and place sex in its proper place, i.e. within a loving marriage between a man and woman. It then becomes a spiritual act reverencing God and His plan and not an act that places the needs of the individual first.

In other words is encouraging celibacy a bad thing for society?

Contango

Re: "In other words is encouraging celibacy a bad thing for society?"

It was ultimately disastrous for the Shakers.

Would like to see the progressives abort themselves into extinction. :)

Babo

No actually, I was thinking of encouraging them to take up dancing instead and changing my handle to ProTango.

John Harville

well... look what it did for all those altar boys.

And no I would not agree. The Church's prohibitions are designed to proliferate little Catholics. ... and that comes from 60-plus years of experience going back before Vatican II and through the Latin mass and NPO after midnight and 10 Pater Nosters and 10 Hail Marys and Limbo... and the Baltimore Catechism.
God's Plan - I won't even try to speak for God.

Babo

Do you believe some Catholic Church priests and leaders to be any more corrupt than educational or government leaders? Open your eyes, there is far more child sexual abuse among law enforcement and teachers than among priests. The values of the Catholic Church are still sound.

Also, you seem to confuse the Body of Christ i.e. the Church/Faithful with churches as run by men. I noted in a prior post that you profess a faith in a Triune God but claim not to be a gentleman. So is your Triune God, me, myself and I or do you believe in Jesus Christ? If you do believe in Jesus Christ why do you not acknowledge that He supplanted the law of the Old Testament and why do you come across so hate filled?

grumpy

doubled

Contango

Google: "Unlocking the mystery of Obamacare demographics" (CNBC)

"The demographic profile of Obamacare enrollees nationally—in particular the sizes of various age groups and gender distribution—still has not been revealed after the first three months of open enrollment."

IMO, it's pretty obvious.

If the young "Invincibles" were signing up in order to help offset the poor, the uninsurable and seniors, the Obama Admin. would be CROWING about it.

Sticker shock is in store for those 'suffering' through Obama☭are in '14.

grumpy

Google: "Unlocking the mystery of Obamacare demographics" (CNBC)

What news aggregators do you use? I use drudge, huffpo, google, and dailykos for giggles, you seem to come up with articles that I would like and don't run across.

Contango

Re: "What news aggregators do you use?"

CNBC, Bloomberg & WSJ are in my favorites.

News aggregators:

Google Business, Seeking Alpha, Business Insider, Drudge, Zero Hedge & Armstrong Economics (blog).

Hope that helps.

grumpy

Thanks I will add it to my bookmarks and sort through them over the next week or so. I generally stay away from goole and mostly use Duck Duck Go so I can get away from some of the autogenerated ads but will give their business site a try. I do CNBC Bloomberg WSJ, and IBD. I actually like IBD better than WSJ for some things.

Contango

Re: "IBD"

Haven't looked at IBD in a while and agree that they can be informative.

Thanks.

grumpy

Thanks I will add it to my bookmarks and sort through them over the next week or so. I generally stay away from goole and mostly use Duck Duck Go so I can get away from some of the autogenerated ads but will give their business site a try. I do CNBC Bloomberg WSJ, and IBD. I actually like IBD better than WSJ for some things.

SamAdams

Another great way to aggregate news on a given topic: Google's news alerts. You set it up for a specific word or phrase, and you're emailed every 24 hours with links to the latest news stories that include that specific word or phrase. Obviously, the more you narrow things down, the better. If your word or phrase is too generic, you'll get few relevant "hits." But if you do it right, it's a fantastic tool.

donutshopguy

Justice Sotomayor is a liberal leaning judge. She was appointed by President Obama who introduced Obamacare. But, those two factors still didn't outweigh the law of the land. For some of us who believe in individual rights and the Constitution this ruling was unexpected but welcomed. Go America.

John Harville

It was procedural and pertains only to the Little Sisters of Whatever. She was on duty. Procedure requires her to tell both sides present briefs in district court. It only delays I,plementation for the nuns.
It's like the 'stay' in Utah only affects the Gay Marriage decision by a lower court IN UTAH. It doesn't affect any other states. And it won't be heard before SUPCO but in the Tenth District.
It's just unfortunate reporters aren't required to have basic understanding of law.

Contango

Yep! Let the progressive-socialists keep piling on those "common sense" largely unfunded "feel-good" social programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid and now Obama☭are for the good of the masses.

When are we gonna get publically funded guaranteed food, clothing, jobs & housing programs?

See: FDR's "Second Bill of Rights."

To listen to the progressives - the people demand it!

Yep, "the current level of central government debt in advanced economies is approaching a two-century high."

Google: "1930s-style debt defaults likely, says IMF research" (CNBC)

When we're all suffering through the coming massive economic catastrophe; be sure to thank a "bleeding heart," profligate spending progressive-socialist.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Hmm let's see if one sentence doesn't flag the spam filter.

EDIT 1: Ok, I'm in! Let's see what I can post (no links even) before it cuts me off.

EDIT 2: Duh, Contango! If that happens we just spend out of debt. The more we spend, the less debt we create! It's one of the seven commandments on the barn that the sheep continually repeat to us.

EDIT 3: Filter's super cranked up tonight, I doubt I can get much more in aside from the sentiment that I hope Animal Farm is taught about more in school these days.

John Harville

Oh... you mean those 'feel-good' unfunded mandates like the Medicare Advantage Part D program? There is not a larger unfunded social program. SS and Medicare is paid by recipients. SS is not in the budget.

You mean like the get those WMDs and feel good about taking down that tyrant that embarrassed 'Daddy' with unfunded wars and loans from China? The War in Iraq was a feel-good operation.

Those unfunded programs?

Contango

Re: "SS and Medicare is paid by recipients."

In both programs the payouts exceed revenue.

And like the current occupant of the WH, Pres. Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. Your point?

JudgeMeNot

Contango and Sam, keep up the good work.

John Harville

Yeah keep spreading your bull and misinformation. It makes for great reading and a chance to introduce a bit of reality here.

John Harville

Godtango and Sam... get your hands back where we can see them.