BlackSand
Nobody
- Oct 23, 2013
- 23,348
- 13,666
- 1,435
There is more than one treatment for Endometriosis ... And therefore birth control pills are not a requirement ... Duh
Birth Control Mandate: Is this taking the Religous Liberty Exception too far?
- Thread starter paperview
- Start date
There is more than one treatment for Endometriosis ... And therefore birth control pills are not a requirement ... Duh
paperview
Life is Good
- Thread starter
- #62
As I pointed out earlier, the Christian Bros. Trust (the Insurance Co. who handles the Catholic orgs named in this suit) -- have no intention of providing BC Coverage.
"What's more, Justice argues that "this case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
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."
Those who support the nuns' case, though, argue that just the act of signing such a self-certification is tantamount to issuing a "permission slip" for the use of contraceptives, and violates the Catholic orders' rights."
Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
This "church plan" insurer does not have to provide BC They are exempt. And Christian Bros. will be under no obligation, nor desire to provide it.
It's about filling out a form.
BlackSand
Nobody
- Oct 23, 2013
- 23,348
- 13,666
- 1,435
Strawman ... So what, they can choose to prescribe any number of treatments for medical reasons.
In fact ... GnRH analogs are prescribed precisely for people who don't want to, or cannot take birth control pills.
.
R
rdean
Guest
Birth Control Mandate: Is this taking the Religous Liberty Exception too far?
What's strange is the way right wingers fight for it and them completely ignore it by using contraception. The small size of their families tell the tale.
What's strange is the way right wingers fight for it and them completely ignore it by using contraception. The small size of their families tell the tale.
BlackSand
Nobody
- Oct 23, 2013
- 23,348
- 13,666
- 1,435
It is absurd to think that the government indicating objections the Catholics have are meaningless is not an insult to their religious sensibilities.
The suit was brought by the nuns ... But is in no way restricted to their individual case any more than Roe vs Wade.
.
Last edited:
paperview
Life is Good
- Thread starter
- #67
See?
"The Little Sisters, in their reply to the government’s brief on Friday afternoon, said that signing a piece of paper allowing contraception — even if it doesn’t result in contraception being handed out —is itself a violation of their religious protections.
"The Little Sisters, in their reply to the government’s brief on Friday afternoon, said that signing a piece of paper allowing contraception — even if it doesn’t result in contraception being handed out —is itself a violation of their religious protections.
paperview
Life is Good
- Thread starter
- #68
Huh? It has not reached SCOTUS, but the case was specifically in reference to the orgs that use the Christian Brothres Trust -- which is exempt, under the Church Plan.
"This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of Catholic employers who participate in the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust (the “Christian Brothers Trust”
."Sotomayor now has to decide what to do. This case was narrow, but if it reaches SCOTUS, (and I suspect it will) -- it will then likely be enjoined with other suits, and then would have a reaching affect.
The problem the orgs will have is trying to say with a straight face filling out a form is an undue burden.
paperview
Life is Good
- Thread starter
- #70
This is interesting part of the Solicitor General's brief:
"Applicants draw flawed analogies when they say that under the court of appeals’ reasoning,
“Quaker conscientious objectors would suffer no penalties if they would just join the military; Jewish prisoners would suffer no burden if they would just eat the pork; Seventh Day Adventists would not lose their benefits if they would just work on Saturdays.”
Appl. 26-27. To mirror the situation here, the question in all of those cases would be whether the religious objector could be required to sign a certification form in order to secure the religion-based exemption he sought.
It is applicants’ position, not that of the court of appeals, that would lead to absurd results in those cases, for it would seemingly mean that the Quaker could not be made to attest to his status as a conscientious objector before being absolved of his military obligations;
that the Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying he had a religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was provided an alternative meal;
and that the Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being relieved of his shift.
When extending religious accommodations, the government must be allowed to provide for regularized, orderly means of permitting eligible individuals or entities to declare that they intend to take advantage of them.
That is what the self- certification under the regulations accomplishes, and it does so by requiring only that employer-applicants say something that they have said repeatedly in this litigation, namely, that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. To interpret RFRA to negate even such a certification requirement would be extraordinary.
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Little-Sisters-Injunction-Opp-13A691.pdf
Filling out a form. That's their objection.
"Applicants draw flawed analogies when they say that under the court of appeals’ reasoning,
“Quaker conscientious objectors would suffer no penalties if they would just join the military; Jewish prisoners would suffer no burden if they would just eat the pork; Seventh Day Adventists would not lose their benefits if they would just work on Saturdays.”
Appl. 26-27. To mirror the situation here, the question in all of those cases would be whether the religious objector could be required to sign a certification form in order to secure the religion-based exemption he sought.
It is applicants’ position, not that of the court of appeals, that would lead to absurd results in those cases, for it would seemingly mean that the Quaker could not be made to attest to his status as a conscientious objector before being absolved of his military obligations;
that the Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying he had a religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was provided an alternative meal;
and that the Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being relieved of his shift.
When extending religious accommodations, the government must be allowed to provide for regularized, orderly means of permitting eligible individuals or entities to declare that they intend to take advantage of them.
That is what the self- certification under the regulations accomplishes, and it does so by requiring only that employer-applicants say something that they have said repeatedly in this litigation, namely, that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. To interpret RFRA to negate even such a certification requirement would be extraordinary.
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Little-Sisters-Injunction-Opp-13A691.pdf
Filling out a form. That's their objection.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #71
birth control is NOT used to treat hormonal imbalances. Hormones are. Some of the hormones are also used in the birth control preparations.
But they are not the same "pills"
educate yourself before you pose as a knowledgeable, doof.
You need to educate yourself; you are not an expert in this field.
This an issue between doctor and patient, not you and anyone else.
Last edited:
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #72
So you want to mandate that government interfere in patient decisions?
This isn't a religious freedom issue and it shouldn't be handled as such. It's a general freedom of conscience issue. None of us should have to fill out a ******* form to get 'permission' from the state to make these kinds of decisions.
paperview
Life is Good
- Thread starter
- #74
So the Quaker doesn't have to attest to his status as a conscientious objector before being absolved of his military obligations?
That a Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying he had a religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was provided an alternative meal?
That a Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being relieved of his shift?
You think a "general freedom of conscience issue" means you are not obligated to literally just state for the record you object - by signing a form that takes all of about 2 minutes? It goes against a persons religion to say formally it goes against their religion?
Think through what you are saying.
koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,136
- 14,068
- 2,190
What military obligations? We no longer have the draft.
And yes, if you are in prison, you do have to fill out paperwork, if you don't like the accomodations. Because when you are in prison, many of your rights are suspended.
And a Seventh Day Adventist should not apply for a job that requires him to work on his Sabbath. If people could get time off on the weekends just because their religion calls this day or that day the Sabbath, there would be nobody working in any of the places that run round the clock.
Gads you loons are thick, and have such a limited understanding of everything.
And yes, if you are in prison, you do have to fill out paperwork, if you don't like the accomodations. Because when you are in prison, many of your rights are suspended.
And a Seventh Day Adventist should not apply for a job that requires him to work on his Sabbath. If people could get time off on the weekends just because their religion calls this day or that day the Sabbath, there would be nobody working in any of the places that run round the clock.
Gads you loons are thick, and have such a limited understanding of everything.
Last edited:
I've thought it through. I don't think those kinds of exemptions should exist. That interpretation actually perverts the intent of the First Amendment, which was to prevent government from writing laws that targeted religions for persecution, or to promote them as state religions. By using the religious clause of the First Amendment to, instead, grant special exemptions to 'qualifying' religions, the Court has turned the amendment against its purpose, setting the government up to judge which religions are valid and which aren't.
Last edited:
koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,136
- 14,068
- 2,190
paperview
Life is Good
- Thread starter
- #79
Here's What's Really At Stake In That Birth Control Case Involving The Colorado Nuns | ThinkProgress
The loons here are the people who say simply stating for the record they object is a violation of their religious freedoms.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Harvard/Harris Polls Show Democrats On the Wrong Side Of Several Things- Started by Independent thinker
- Replies: 19
-
-
