Religious Freedom vs. Obamacare

[emilynghiem]

WaPo's Kathleen Parker Ignores Religious Protections, Cites Bush-Era Lawsuit To Attack Obamacare | Blog | Media Matters for America

I was looking online to find if any lawsuits against ACA cited "right to health" vs "right to choose" as beliefs equally protected by law, whereas the mandates impose the belief in "right to health". I couldn't find any such religious arguments.

All I found was religious arguments about the contraception mandates.

However, I found some interesting points cited below:
1. the issue of religious freedom on the cited case was brought up previously under Bush's administration, and cannot merely be blamed on Obama as an anti-Christian bias:

Parker's assertion that the Hosanna-Tabor case is evidence of the Obama administration's "willingness to challenge religious freedom" is surprising, as the EEOC brought this "challenge to religious freedom" while former President George W. Bush was still in office -- a president who cannot seriously be accused of harboring anti-Christian attitudes. More significantly, Parker's characterization of the Hobby Lobby case as evidence of the Obama's administration's efforts to challenge the free exercise of religion is misleading and favors the currently non-existent religious rights of corporations such as Hobby Lobby over the very real ones of its employees.

1. I believe the same challenges could be brought up under both administrations, and still reveal that Obama has a bias against conservatives. Had this battle been fought under Bush's administration, it would clearly not be seen as biased that way. but Obama made it it publicly clear that he believes in "voting as revenge" and has biases against the Tea Party as 'racist', and blames and rejects conservatives as "enemies" which he later changed to "opponents" after receiving criticism for his divisive remarks against fellow Americans.

As Brigham Young University Law School professor Frederick Mark Gedicks has explained, although "[t]he First Amendment's establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice," if the claims of employers like Hobby Lobby are successful, "it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners' anti-contraception religion."

Parker also ignores the fact that the ACA's contraception mandate does not require that the owners of Hobby Lobby use or take any medications to which they may have a religious or moral objection. The owners are not arguing that their own religious freedoms have been violated, but that the religious freedoms of Hobby Lobby as a corporation have been infringed because employer-sponsored health insurance must now cover comprehensive preventive services for women. Parker glosses over the fact that there is no precedent for this sort of religious argument -- although the Supreme Court expanded the notion of corporate "personhood" in the controversial Citizens United decision, it has never held that non-human, for-profit, secular corporations like Hobby Lobby are capable of expressing religious belief.

2. this point seems to argue that since the owners of Hobby Lobby are a corporation, they no longer have religious freedom as people; and only considers the "religious freedom of employees". However it seems to miss the point that these people are free to buy their own contraception. Just like natural herbal remedies may not be paid for by insurance but you can buy them on your own. you are not banned, and nothing makes you have to get this through your employer insurance.

What these two points tell me is why even put health care through federal govt if it is going to open up these conflicts at all.

Don't people have equal religious freedom?

Why is it pitting one sides' religious freedom over the other?

Why not keep health care choices and funding separate to AVOID these conflicts and entanglements to begin with?

This really makes no sense to me.

Are you going to join a Catholic church, but want to pray in the name of Vishnu then claim your religious freedom is abridged? Who said you had to join a Catholic church? And why can't you set up your own church where yuo can pray in any manner you deem?

Why this insistence on (1) pushing a policy through PUBLIC institutions which then must represent ALL people and not discriminate by favoring one over another by creed or belief
(2) then face lawsuits when two conflicting views clash because they should remain separate. isn't that a no brainer.

It is clear to me, but what I don't understand is why aren't other people getting this.
Especially where prochoice people understand the right to life should be practiced separately not imposed through govt, why not respect free choice with the right to health?

If anyone can please help me find a website, lawsuit, petition or law firm willing to help write a petition arguing for equal protection and separate funding and set up for BOTH the right to health and right to choose, such as separate systems by party, I am VERY grateful!

Thanks,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.[3]

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I looked up the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was found to only apply to federal govt, not States, in checking federal govt against the First Amendment religious freedom.

For the ACA not to violate religious freedom (by imposing the belief in "right to health" mandating that people buy private insurance or pay a fine to govt, and not allowed freedom to choose to pay for health care in other ways without paying a fine by tax penalty that discriminates on the basis of creed against citizens who believe in "free choice on how to pay for health care" without mandates (unless voted on by either Constitutional Amendment or through the states directly by the people)

Doesn't ACA FAIL to meet the two conditions given above:

(a) the burden put on citizens against religious freedom must be in furtherance of govt interest based on core Constitutional issues (such as security under federal responsibility) and not just "to improve govt efficiency"

isn't the argument that hospitals and ER are running up greater costs, so this move to compel insurance mandates is to make govt costs more efficient?

(b) the rule must be the least restrictive way to further the govt interest

how is ACA the least restrictive when it contained that many new regulations?

Isn't the least restrictive way to leave it open to all people and parties to makes sure they cover their health care costs their own way? so NOBODY's religious freedom is deprived whether people believe in right to choose or right to health or right to life. instead of restricting and penalizing how this is done such as by mandating insurance?

has anyone found any cases where people are arguing based on RFRA that the ACA fails to meet the two exceptions?

 

[emilynghiem]

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/12/did-affordable-care-act-partially.html

Dear Professor Dorf: I am becoming more concerned and distressed that the ACA mandates does not recognize either beliefs in "health care as a right" or "health care as a choice" equally under law as protected from discrimination by govt. In this case, tax penalties clearly discriminate, requiring people who believe in paying for health care "in other ways besides federal insurance mandates" to pay a fine to government supporting THAT system they don't believe in; but not requiring an equal fine for people who "don't have faith in free market choices for paying for or providing health care" to pay for THAT system. Instead the fines and mandates are onesided, burdening people of one belief while exempting the other. Since I believe in isonomy/isocracy under the Constitution, and defending both right to life, right to choose, right to health care and right to free choice in paying for health care, I cannot by conscience participate in this bill as written without violating the rights of people of opposing beliefs.

Can I argue under RFRA that my beliefs in treating respecting and protecting all views* equally by the First and Fourteenth Amendments are being violated by imposing these mandates where I cannot participate but am compelled to or else pay a fine that is discriminatory and I don't believe in? I believe in separating systems by party and having members support their own beliefs without imposing outside that agreed group policy. Isn't this the least restrictive way to further government interests? so the ACA is not the "least restrictive" but violates Amendments one, four, five, ten, fourteen and possibly thirteen.

Thank you Professor!
Yours truly, Emily Nghiem

*(including defending Constitutional beliefs that ACA imposing beliefs in the right to health care on States and people without either a Constitutional Amendment or vote by the people violates Tenth and Thirteenth Amendments, if not 4th and 5th by compelling a private business exchange or by depriving rights without due process for people not found guilty of committing a crime, which I believe are valid Constitutional beliefs, either by law itself or as religious beliefs protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment from govt infringement)