The board idiopert on the law is expounding here folks, give him you full attention.
Well it's not ALL Catholics who believe that. Some disagree with that premise completely, but there is a section that holds that view. As far as contraception I defend the right of a church to determine and maintain the tenants of their faith without government intrusion.
Yes, that goes without saying.
Hey there Jones, still can't find the quote button? How can anyone possibly treat you with any respect when you never attribute the people you are quoting.
By the way, if this actually went without saying there wouldn't be anyone on the other side who is claiming that Republicans and Catholics are trying to ban birth control.
However, there are some times when a particular position, regardless of how well intentioned, actually results in a much bigger disaster. I think contraception is one of those issues BUT it should be up to that church to make that determination for themselves and not forced upon them.
Whats being forced on the Church? No Catholic is being forced to use a contraceptive.
See, that is why people have to keep saying things that go without saying, because people like you just don't get it. There are actually honest people out there that fully support insurance companies providing contraceptives that have publicly admitted the claim that nothing is being forced on Catholics is a load of hooey, yet you keep saying it.
There is also no legal foundation for the inane premise that a policy requiring employers provide health benefits, that might include contraceptive therapies, in any way conflicts with given religious doctrine:
None? Are you sure?
In addressing the cnstitutional protection for free exercise of religion, our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith [1990.]
All well and good, but, since the federal government is actually doing this, Employment Division v Smith is not the applicable case law, Sherbert v Werner is, something you would actually know if you knew a tiny fraction as much about constitutional law as you like to pretend you do.
The
Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:
For the individual, the court must determine
- whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
- whether the government action is a substantial burden on the persons ability to act on that belief.
If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
- that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest" and
- that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.
- Is it a sincere religious belief? Yes?
- Is it a substantial burden? Yes
- Is it in furtherance of a compelling state interest? Let's just assume it is, even though I could argue otherwise.
- Is it the least restrictive or least burdensome solution test possible? Not even close.
Since it cannot pass the Sherbert test imposed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was unanimously held to apply to the federal government in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal which held that all churches can do drugs, not just the Native American church.
The policy requiring contraception health coverage is clearly neutral and generally applied, as no particular faith is singled-out, no specific religious tenet identified, and no religious practice curtailed.
Interesting argument, if you were properly applying case law I might take the time to disect it. As it is, I can simply laugh.
In order for the policy to be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Catholics must be specifically identified and compelled to use contraceptive therapies against their will.
Actually, that is not true. Even under Smith all that really needs to be proven is that the law is not applied to everyone. Since Obamacare specifically exempts one group because of their religious beliefs it frees others to argue that they should also be exempted. Regardless, you are still citing the wrong case.
This is clearly not the case concerning the coverage requirement.
Only if you are blind.
At a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.
Wow, look at that, you are arguing against your own argument. Do you realize how stupid that makes you look? The Catholics are being regulated in an area that is undertaken for religious reasons. Unless you can somehow argue that paying a company to do something is somehow a tax, you just blew your case out of the water.
The health insurance contraception requirement in no way discriminates against a religious belief or prohibits religious conduct; again, no Catholic is being forced to use a contraceptive or to have an abortion. Only non-Catholics or Catholics who elect to ignore such dogma will use contraceptive therapies. That the employer might have a religious objection is far too tenuous a connection to make a Free Exercise Clause violation claim.
It does, however, regulate an action that is undertaken for a religious reason, as you just pointed out.
A policy requiring employers provide health coverage that may include contraceptive therapies - which may or may not be used by employees - discriminates against no religion or religious belief. That an employer is associated with a religious entity whose dogma maintains contraception wrong means that adherents of that faith must refrain from using contraceptive therapies, not the employees.
It actually discriminates against me personally on the basis of sex because, as a man, none of those contraceptives are available to me, yet I am still required to buy them. Can you possibly explain that one?
Didn't think so.
To determine the object of a law, we must begin with its text, for the minimum requirement of neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face. A law lacks facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice without a secular meaning discernable from the language or context.
What if it discriminates as applied? Just because the law passes muster in text does not mean it will pass muster in application, which is why the Plan B mandate in Washington was recently struck down even though the 0th ruled that, on its face, it is not discriminatory.
The policy requiring employers provide contraception health insurance has only a secular intent: the health of women; it is narrowly tailored to address only that issue, and it compels no Catholic to act in such a way that violates his religious belief.
Being pregnant is unhealthy? Really?
By the way, if the government was actually interested in people's health they would advise them to be celibate or monogamous. They would tell them right up front that no contraceptive is actually healthy because they all mess with a women's natural bodily functions. They would also admit that no epidemiologist in the world thinks condoms keep people safe. Since the government is full of people who are at least as smart as I am, I am pretty sure someone pointed this out at some point, and then got pulled aside and told to shut up. The real issue here is not health, it is convenience. It is inconvenient for women to pay for contraception, so the government wants to make things easier.
An employer paying for part or all of an employees health insurance premium is providing compensation for services rendered, the same as salaried compensation. No one would support an employer threatening to withhold an employees salary because he might use that compensation to purchase a contraceptive therapy that the employer considers morally wrong. To support an employer withholding health insurance compensation for the same reason is equally unsupportable.
Funny how you can make that argument and not end up with cramps from the cross typing you have to do to avoid the truth.
Case law for the cited above:
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
Just a question... If you can't afford the cost of contraception, how can you afford to raise a child?
You cant hence the need to include the coverage in ones health insurance, so she doesnt become pregnant, avoiding having the children she cant afford.
Want to make a bet that, even if the mandate makes it through all the possible legal challenges, that abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies are still going to happen at the same rate?
Didn't think so.
By the way, once you check Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and find out that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act actually makes this contraception mandate illegal under federal law, feel free to pretend your position was always that the RFRA is what applies. I know you will anyway, you have every single time I actually used case law to trump your argument, and this is the worst you ever got anything.
