Little Sisters Fight Obamacare

Discussion in 'USMB Breaking News' started by Peony, Mar 24, 2016.

  1. Peony
    Offline

    Peony Rookie Op-ed Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Ratings:
    +136
    On March 23, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Zubick v Burwell. This case has several plaintiffs. The issue is the HHS mandate which forces employers to provide health insurance to their employees that includes contraceptives. For those employers with a religious objection to contraception, an “accommodation” is offered. This accommodation allows the employer to opt out of health insurance policies that include abortifacients and contraceptives.

    Turns out, this accommodation isn’t that easy to get. One of the plaintiffs, The Little Sisters of the Poor, are a bunch of nuns who provide housing and care for indigent elderly all over the world. The Sisters were denied a Religious Exception because they don’t only employ or provide services to Catholics. So you see, according to the government, their religious beliefs do not apply here. The government frowns on groups like these nuns, pushing their religious beliefs onto others! After all, health care is now considered a “right”. And women who are denied contraception coverage in their health policy are being denied full rights.

    Religious Freedom is also a right. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ( H.R.1308 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993)
    Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

    The lower court decision deems the Sisters burdensome to governmental interests. They will be fined, tens of millions of dollars per year.

    If the Supremes decision, due in June, is 4-4, the ruling of the lower court -against the Sisters- will stand. The case can be resubmitted to the Supremes in the future after a new Justice has been installed to replace Antonin Scalia, Catholic, conservative, constitutional originalist, who would have almost certainly voted in the Sisters' favor.

    The new Justice will have a powerful vote. Will he or she be one of those living breathing constitution types, or one who remembers that the Founders saw our rights as coming from Our Creator. You know, God. Think about it. If rights come from God, man cannot take God given rights away. Those who figure the constitution is an outdated document, its principles unevolved, look to stand in for God. If rights are not from God, that frees up man to stomp all over other men’s rights.

    If another modern progressive is appointed Justice to the Supreme Court, expect efforts to silence God to ramp up. The Little Sisters of the Poor and the poor they serve, will not be the only casualties.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2016
  2. Valerie
    Offline

    Valerie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    26,632
    Thanks Received:
    6,280
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,599
    "HHS mandate which forces employers to provide health insurance to their employees that includes contraceptives."


    :uhoh3:


    an employer pays to cover the cost of monthly health insurance premiums, earned by their employee.

    health insurance is universal all encompassing coverage of all things medical...

    there's all sorts of coverage under such a policy that may never be needed or utilized.

    details of employee medical care is private and none of the employer's business.

    the slippery slope of "sinful" medical conditions is so obvious, i have to laugh.

    what might America's self-righteous employers choose to be offended by next? :eusa_think:
     
  3. Valerie
    Offline

    Valerie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    26,632
    Thanks Received:
    6,280
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,599
    employers are obligated to pay their employees dollar bills too, by the way...

    should employers feel compelled to step in and object to other employee private purchases?

    employees might use those dollar bills to purchase all sorts of sinful things. mon dieu!
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2016
  4. Valerie
    Offline

    Valerie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    26,632
    Thanks Received:
    6,280
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,599
    "If the Supremes decision, due in June, is 4-4, the ruling of the lower court -against the Sisters- will stand."



    that explains Republican obstruction of a timely nomination process. ^

    there are many SCOTUS cases just like this which Republicans are in effect sabotaging...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2016
  5. Valerie
    Offline

    Valerie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    26,632
    Thanks Received:
    6,280
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,599
    "The Sisters were denied a Religious Exception because they don’t only employ or provide services to Catholics."


    if you don't want to utilize contraceptives, you are FREE to refrain from ever utilizing contraceptive health coverage.

    religious freedom does not mean you have the right to discriminate against your employees who might^.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2016
  6. Compost
    Offline

    Compost Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    5,329
    Thanks Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +5,738
    This is most curious. There are some groups, like Pepsi and ExxonMobil, who don't appear to have a religious conscience yet are excused from the mandate.


    The Obama administration has been unrelenting in its fight to force a group of Catholic nuns to violate their beliefs and pay for abortion-causing drugs and contraception, arguing that they are essential health care services.

    On Wednesday,
    the U.S. Supreme Court heard an appeal from the Little Sisters of the Poor and 37 other religious groups to stop the Obama administration from forcing them to comply with Obamacare’s abortion mandate. The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control, drugs that may cause abortions and sterilization. Without relief, the Little Sisters would face millions of dollars in IRS fines.

    While arguing publicly that religious groups should be forced to comply with the HHS Mandate, the Obama administration quietly exempted several major companies from those same rules. Lawyers for the religious groups used this point to argue against the federal government’s overarching mandate on Wednesday.

    The Catholic News Agency reports more about the situation:

    Meanwhile, some other health plans have been “grandfathered” in and are not subject to the mandate. These include plans offered by ExxonMobil, Chevron, Visa Inc. and PepsiCo.

    Furthermore, the U.S. Military includes a family insurance plan that does not offer the mandated services.

    And, according to the website, one in three Americans do not have a health plan that satisfies the mandate. The Little Sisters say that since so many employers are offered exemptions under various justifications, there is no reason that they should not receive a religious exemption as well.

    While a narrow religious exemption to the mandate is offered to houses of worship and their affiliates, many faith-based charities and non-profits – including the Little Sisters – do not qualify due to a stipulation in tax law that was used to determine religious exemptions.


    continued here
    Pepsi, Visa, and Chevron are Exempt From HHS Mandate, But Little Sisters of the Poor are Not
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,581
    Thanks Received:
    2,287
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,629
    Clearly discrimination by creed. If your political beliefs match what govt regulates as approved beliefs you get exempted. If your beliefs differ where you fail to comply with creeds push thru govt, then you are penalized. Punished for your beliefs. This is discrimination in violation of first fourteenth and civil rights protections. But current govt will not recognize equally because of political bias in creed, that further violates the code of ethics for govt service public law 96- 303 on not putting party above loyalty to govt duty and laws which include the Constitution. That is, if ppl believe in following these laws consistently.
     
  8. Valerie
    Offline

    Valerie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    26,632
    Thanks Received:
    6,280
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,599
    "Punished for your beliefs."


    :rolleyes: religious conservatives are forever seeking reasons to feeeel persecuted.

    boo hoo hoo comprehensive health insurance is punishing you!?

    do you also feel persecuted for every other medical service considered basic STANDARD health coverage that you'll never use?

    religious employers should stop punishing their employees for PRIVATE beliefs.

    as an employer, religious groups are OBLIGATED to meet public anti-discrimination standards.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,581
    Thanks Received:
    2,287
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,629
    Re: belief that health care is a right

    Dear Valerie: the same arguments can be made for right to life imposing on the right to choice.
    Yes, it would be discriminating against prochoice beliefs to impose right to life.
    And yes it is discrimination against right to choice to impose right to health care. Treating these differently is Discrimination by Creed.

    Ps by your arguments that "feeling" discriminated against doesn't count, you just shot down LGBT arguments for changing bathroom policies because transgender ppl don't feel safe. See below about treating faith based beliefs creeds and arguments the same by law. Thanks Valerie! This is a very complex topic and I hope we as a nation reach a greater understanding on this for diversity sake.

    Re: comparing right to health care, right to life and LGBT policies as faith based
    Yes Valerie and Public antidiscrimination standards don't apply to BEHAVIOR that can still be regulated such as public lewdness. Abortion can be regulated where people AGREE to ban or restrict it, but not beyond the point people disagree on faith based arguments.

    For example in Hobby Lobby 's case they complied with providing birth control that isn't in line with their beliefs but doesn't cause enough harm to be intolerable. This is also like enforcing laws not to deny selling to or serving customers at the business premises on the basis of orientation which is within the bounds of tolerance and accommodation. BUT it is NOT agreed to go too far and force Hobby Lobby owners to provide insurance covering abortifacient Drugs that violate their beliefs where they cannot comply, would have to pay fines, and lose their business. In the case of accommodation laws, it is argued it is going too far to force people to attend or photograph gay weddings at private venues outside their business, that are choices of behavior and not about serving the customer on site.

    Until and unless homosexual orientatation/ transgender identity is proven by science, it remains faith-based. So that beliefs either for or against accepting it as natural remain a free choice and cannot be compelled by govt.

    Treating people equally for their beliefs would allow for nondiscrimination on both sides for equal Constitutional protection.

    The same with prochoice and prolife beliefs that would have to be equally protected and represented to be constitutionally correct equal and inclusive. If we are going to start letting govt endorse beliefs about identity beyond what is agreed to be the determining factor "at birth" this opens the door for right to life beliefs that push to shift the legal definition to something faith-based, beyond physical birth as well; how can we justify rejecting right to life arguments based on faith, while govt endorses and defends faith based LGBT beliefs that aren't proven either? Clearly that's Discrimination by Creed.

    There is no reason that a consensus on bathroom policies can't be the standard of enforcement, such as agreeing to neutral or singlestall facilities that don't force either side to change their beliefs. A consensus would protect all beliefs equally while imposing one side over the other would impose beliefs. So a consensus would include and treat all ppl of all views equally.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2016
  10. Valerie
    Offline

    Valerie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    26,632
    Thanks Received:
    6,280
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,599
    dear emily :laugh2: YOU can obviously make the same illogical "arguments" all.day.long...........

    but actually no, "the same LEGAL arguments" can NOT be made..at..all..

    your post is all over the road, thus a perfect template for the warped mind of a religious zealot.
     

Share This Page