Bob Loblaw wrote:In short, churches (as in houses of worship, etc.) don't have to pay for contraception, but non-church religious institutions, such as charities and universities, do (although they now have a year to implement the change).
Not much of a compromise.
I think you're confusing compromise with capitulation.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
just me wrote:Should an employer be able to dictate how an employee uses their paid vacation time?
Sure, employers (even non-religious ones) do that all the time. If you work at BYU, you would get fired if you went on a sex tour of Southeast Asia. My father would have been fired had he picked me up at the end of my mission, as we had planned, because he would have lost his security clearance.
For me, freedom of conscience is a basic right enshrined in the First Amendment. No matter how much I disagree with religious beliefs and policies, I think it's important to protect that basic right. Call me old-fashioned.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
beastie wrote:I think you're confusing compromise with capitulation.
I know what compromise is, condescension aside. If a religious organization is forced to do something that violates its beliefs, that is an erosion of First Amendment rights. I am not religious and don't believe in God, but I believe in freedom of conscience, and the compromise as it stands violates freedom of conscience, in my view. YMMV.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Last week, as the nation paid rapt attention, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The decision is especially critical for women, who are more likely to suffer gaps and discrimination in their health care coverage. Importantly, it means that the contraceptive coverage rule – which ensures access to affordable birth control for millions of women across the country – is still in place.
That same day, the Supreme Court made a second decision about the ACA to a much quieter reception. The Court declined to hear Seven-Sky v. Holder, a case alleging that the ACA’s individual mandate provision violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a statute that precludes federal laws from placing a “substantial burden” on religious exercise unless the government has a compelling interest in enacting the law. Here, the plaintiffs argued that they “believe in trusting in God to protect [them] from illness or injury,” and therefore did not “want to be forced to buy health insurance coverage.”
Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion authored by conservative judge, Laurence Silberman, resoundingly rejected this argument, concluding that there was no substantial burden. The Supreme Court, in turn, determined that there was no need to review that conclusion. That’s bad news for groups hoping to radically redefine the meaning of religious liberty and overturn longstanding principles regarding the freedom of religion by challenging the contraceptive coverage rule under RFRA. If a law requiring an individual to acquire insurance coverage for herself despite claims that it’s contrary to her beliefs doesn’t trigger RFRA, the even more tenuous connection between an employer’s contribution to an insurance plan for its workers and the health services accessed by workers under that plan should certainly be on safe ground. That’s good news for women.
The 23 lawsuits attacking the contraceptive coverage rule as infringing on the religious liberty rights of employers that want to withhold coverage of birth control from their employees have always been all bark, no bite. Our courts have long held that institutions that operate in the public sphere are not above the law; the Supreme Court has recognized that allowing employers to get around laws like these can “operate[] to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” Both the California Supreme Court and New York’s equivalent have dismissed claims that requiring coverage of contraception runs afoul of religious liberty. After last week’s decision, the plaintiffs’ claims should quiet to a whimper.
Insurance covers a broad range of benefits, some of which any given individual will never use. The rule simply requires that employers and insurers not deny individuals coverage for contraception. It’s up to the employee – as it should be – to decide whether to access that coverage in her private life. That connection is far too tenuous to impose a substantial burden on the employer. As New York’s highest court explained, there is no “absolute right for a religiously-affiliated employer to structure all aspects of its relationship with its employees in conformity with church teachings.” It would be akin to allowing a company to dictate how its workers spent their paychecks.
None of this, of course, is stopping groups like the Becket Fund from promising to press forward with the lawsuits with full force, or the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from continuing to condemn the coverage requirement. But with both law and public health policy on the rule’s side, it’s only a matter of time before we celebrate another court victory for the Affordable Care Act, women, and families.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Bob Loblaw wrote: For me, freedom of conscience is a basic right enshrined in the First Amendment. No matter how much I disagree with religious beliefs and policies, I think it's important to protect that basic right. Call me old-fashioned.
Nobody is making a Catholic take birth control. Forcing others to comply with your (general your) beliefs is not protecting freedom. At. all.
The fact is 98% of Catholic women report using some form of artificial birth control at some point in their life (the other 2% use NFP to curtail pregnancy). Ninety-nine percent of all women use birth control at some point.
Just because the Pope (who is not an American) believes that birth control is wrong does not mean that Catholic women agree with him.
So, who is REALLY against access to birth control? Not the women.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Then I suppose I disagree with the court. Not the first time.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
beastie wrote:I think you're confusing compromise with capitulation.
I know what compromise is, condescension aside. If a religious organization is forced to do something that violates its beliefs, that is an erosion of First Amendment rights. I am not religious and don't believe in God, but I believe in freedom of conscience, and the compromise as it stands violates freedom of conscience, in my view. YMMV.
Mr. Obama announced that rather than requiring religiously affiliated charities and universities to pay for contraceptives for their employees, the cost would be shifted to health insurance companies. The initial rule caused a political uproar among some Catholics and others who portrayed it as an attack on religious freedom.
I'm sorry you read condescension into my remarks, but what it seems to me that "compromise" for you means just totally giving in to the demands of the Catholic church. In other words, no birth control for any woman who works at any hospital or university that is affiliated with - not entirely funded by - the Catholic church.
How is that "compromise"?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Bob, does it bother you at all that the church in question has a male clergy (one who do not marry or father children) and that all these decisions made about women's health issues are made by a single elderly male who does not go with the majority of what the membership (especially women) want?
The women have no voice in this belief. In fact, they reject it by disobeying it at a rate of 98%.
Why is the voice of one man (and those men who support him) more important than the voice of the ninety and nine?
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
just me wrote:Nobody is making a Catholic take birth control. Forcing others to comply with your (general your) beliefs is not protecting freedom. At. all.
But they are making a Catholic pay for someone else's birth control. If you are a religious institution, you have the right to determine what your institution stands for. If I wanted contraception coverage, I wouldn't work for the Catholic church. If I wanted free coffee, I wouldn't work at BYU.
The fact is 98% of Catholic women report using some form of artificial birth control at some point in their life (the other 2% use NFP to curtail pregnancy). Ninety-nine percent of all women use birth control at some point.
I get that. We used birth control.
Just because the Pope (who is not an American) believes that birth control is wrong does not mean that Catholic women agree with him.
I understand that as well. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect the pope to pay for people's birth control.
So, who is REALLY against access to birth control? Not the women.
As I said, I'm not talking about that.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
beastie wrote:I'm sorry you read condescension into my remarks, but what it seems to me that "compromise" for you means just totally giving in to the demands of the Catholic church. In other words, no birth control for any woman who works at any hospital or university that is affiliated with - not entirely funded by - the Catholic church.
How is that "compromise"?
This is an important issue for me, not because it involves religion but because it involves a First Amendment right. I think the Catholic church is dead wrong about contraception, but then I'm not a Catholic. I know I'm drawing a hard line here, and it has absolutely nothing to do for me with women's issues. I would feel the same if they were forcing BYU to serve coffee or JWs to say the pledge of allegiance.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado