Another Obamacare provision ruled unconstitutional: Forced contraception/abortion ins

[Little-Acorn]

And the hits just keep on comin'.

A Federal judge has ruled that Obamacare's requirement that employers must offer contraception and abortion coverage, is a violation of the employer's religious freedom where religious norms consider abortion or contraception to be immoral.

No surprise, really. That has been clear from the day Obamacare was proposed. But the liberal fanatics who wrote it, have been terminally convinced of the superiority of their own ideas over anyone else's. And with so little visibility of religious teachings, it probably never occurred to them that normal Americans would mind. Now it will all play out along the inevitable lines of screaming, lies, subject changes, denigration, and haughty sneers.

---------------------------------------------------

Judge: Feds Can?t Make Domino?s Founder Offer Birth Control « CBS Detroit

Judge: Feds Can’t Make Domino’s Founder Offer Birth Control

March 14, 2013 6:31 PM

DETROIT (WWJ/AP) — A federal judge has blocked the Obama administration from requiring Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan to provide mandatory contraception coverage to his employees under the federal health care law.

The devout Roman Catholic says he considers contraception “gravely immoral” practice. His lawsuit also lists as a plaintiff his Domino’s Farms, an office park outside Ann Arbor.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law against Monaghan and Domino’s Farms.

Monaghan has sold most of his controlling stake in Domino’s Pizza. He offers health insurance that excludes contraception and abortion for employees.

The new federal law requires employers to offer insurance including contraception coverage or risk fines.

The Michigan Catholic Conference and other Catholic entities also sued over the new law, saying it violates religious freedom by requiring many religiously affiliated hospitals, schools and charities to comply.

 

[Claudette]

Wonder how much of that POS bill will be ruled UC??

 

[g5000]

State laws which require contraception coverage have been upheld in the past.

This issue will obviously have to be bumped up to the Supremes.

 

[bripat9643]

State laws which require contraception coverage have been upheld in the past.

This issue will obviously have to be bumped up to the Supremes.

Really? Which ones?

 

[Little-Acorn]

State laws which require contraception coverage have been upheld in the past.

This issue will obviously have to be bumped up to the Supremes.

That's news to me.

Name one?

BTW, the 1st amendment was written to forbid only the Federal government from interfering with people's freedom of religion. Not the states.

When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, most states had official state religions, and the 1st was carefully phrased to not conflict with that. That's why it starts, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The 2nd amendment, on the other hand, was designed to apply to all governments: Federal, state, and local. It has no language restricting it to only one level of government.

The later ratification of the 14th amendment changed the scope of provisions like the 1st amendment which (at first) referred only to the Fed.

 

[g5000]

State laws which require contraception coverage have been upheld in the past.

This issue will obviously have to be bumped up to the Supremes.

That's news to me.

Name one?

Okey doke. I'll give you two:

In 2004, the Catholic Charities of Sacramento, a social-service organization, brought suit over the Women’s Contraception Equity Law, which required it to provide its employees with contraception coverage. The law made an exception for churches, just as the Obama regulation does, based on the criteria that such “religious employers” primarily hire people who embrace the tenets of the faith and exist mainly to inculcate religious beliefs, but Catholic Charities did not qualify on those grounds. The California State Supreme Court ruled against it. In doing so, the judges cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1990 case Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith: “The right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes.)’ ” A law of general applicability that served a legitimate state interest was not unconstitutional even if it placed a burden on a religious practice. It was unconstitutional only if its intent was to do so. The Women’s Contraception Equity Law had sought to end gender inequity in health insurance: women pay sixty-eight per cent more out of pocket for health care than men do, primarily because of the costs of prescription contraceptives and the health consequences of pregnancy. Its intent—like that of the Obama regulation—was not to punish Catholics but to promote women’s health care.

In 2006, when Catholic Charities and nine other religiously affiliated social-serves groups sued the state of New York over a similar law, the New York Women’s Health and Wellness Act, which also required employers to cover contraception, the New York State Supreme Court came to the same conclusion.

California and New York.

 

[JakeStarkey]

State laws have recognized the constitutionality of this requirement.

The conservative court with six RCs and three Jews will have to decide at the federal level.

 

[g5000]

BTW, the 1st amendment was written to forbid only the Federal government from interfering with people's freedom of religion. Not the states.

When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, most states had official state religions, and the 1st was carefully phrased to not conflict with that. That's why it starts, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The 2nd amendment, on the other hand, was designed to apply to all governments: Federal, state, and local. It has no language restricting it to only one level of government.

The later ratification of the 14th amendment changed the scope of provisions like the 1st amendment which (at first) referred only to the Fed.

The first amendment applies to states. For instance, New York could not require everyone to worhsip the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most of the first ten amendments have been incorporated so that they apply to state as well as federal government. Incorporation began after the Civil War as a federal reaction to the states' failures to protect personal liberties.

 

[Dutch]

And I suppose you guys would be alright with some one who offered healthcare to their employees denying it because they are in the Christian Science movement?

 

[g5000]

And I suppose you guys would be alright with some one who offered healthcare to their employees denying it because they are in the Christian Science movement?

How can they offer it if they are denying it?

 

[Dutch]

And I suppose you guys would be alright with some one who offered healthcare to their employees denying it because they are in the Christian Science movement?

How can they offer it if they are denying it?

I misspoke, I am talking about a business owner using this decision to drop healthcare for their employees.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is it that in threads like this you never hear from the rightwingers on the board who don't think that the judiciary rightfully has the power of judicial review?

They aren't shy to spout off about that everywhere else...

 

[g5000]

Employer-sponsored health insurance needs to go away. It is a big labor union boondoggle that drives the cost of healthcare up.

You ever wonder why you can't buy your health insurance the same way you buy your home, auto, and life insurance? Why does the federal goverment restrict the geographical region from which you can buy health insurance, but you can buy home, auto, and life insurance from any company in the US?

Hmmmm...

Becasue the government is in the health insurance market, and private companies are competitors. How fucked up is it, then, that the federal government gets to write the rules which affect its competition?

If you were able to buy your health insurance the same way you buy your home, auto, and life insurance, you could decide which options you want to pay for and which ones you don't. You would get to decide which company you want to buy from. And the company would be able to compete on a national level, thereby giving it just as much bargaining power with healthcare providers as Medicare has.

The federal government has created a completely unlevel playing field for itself. Medicare is able to use the bargaining power of a nationwide collective of clients, while health insurance companies are denied this ability.

Bogus. Completely bogus.

The government is forcing you to buy insurance through your company, which lowers your bargaining power with the health insurance company down to the size of your company. And you don't get to decide which options you want to pay for or not pay for. And if you lose your job, your health insurance stops. And you don't get discounts for staying with one insurance company for a long time like you do with home, auto, and life insurance.

Your home, auto, and life insurance don't automatically stop when you lose your job, but your health insurance does.

This is the bullshit Obama and the Democrats are perpetuating.

This is a union thing, not a healthcare reform thing.

 

[g5000]

And I suppose you guys would be alright with some one who offered healthcare to their employees denying it because they are in the Christian Science movement?

How can they offer it if they are denying it?

I misspoke, I am talking about a business owner using this decision to drop healthcare for their employees.

I'm perfectly fine with that. Why should an employer be forced to provide a benefit?

And see my previous post for why employer-sponsored insurance needs to go away for everyone.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, the 1st amendment was written to forbid only the Federal government from interfering with people's freedom of religion. Not the states.

When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, most states had official state religions, and the 1st was carefully phrased to not conflict with that. That's why it starts, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The 2nd amendment, on the other hand, was designed to apply to all governments: Federal, state, and local. It has no language restricting it to only one level of government.

The later ratification of the 14th amendment changed the scope of provisions like the 1st amendment which (at first) referred only to the Fed.

The first amendment applies to states.

Not when it was written, as I've already pointed out.

For instance, New York could not require everyone to worhsip the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Of course they could. But they didn't. They merely required everyone to be Protestant.

The New York state law on this was often not enforced very much, but it was on the books. And remained on the books for nearly a century after the Bill of Rights was enacted... and quite constitutionally.

As I pointed out, the 1st amendment was carefully crafted to not interfere with States' authority to enact official state religions... as most states did at the time.

Sorry they missed your preferred religion (Worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), but they mandated quite a few others. Hope you don't mind.

 

[g5000]

BTW, the 1st amendment was written to forbid only the Federal government from interfering with people's freedom of religion. Not the states.

When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, most states had official state religions, and the 1st was carefully phrased to not conflict with that. That's why it starts, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The 2nd amendment, on the other hand, was designed to apply to all governments: Federal, state, and local. It has no language restricting it to only one level of government.

The later ratification of the 14th amendment changed the scope of provisions like the 1st amendment which (at first) referred only to the Fed.

The first amendment applies to states.

Not when it was written, as I've already pointed out.

I am speaking in the present tense, since we are talking about a present case. The First Amendment does apply to the states.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And I suppose you guys would be alright with some one who offered healthcare to their employees denying it because they are in the Christian Science movement?

How can they offer it if they are denying it?

I misspoke, I am talking about a business owner using this decision to drop healthcare for their employees.

Many more will drop coverage and take the less expensive fine than will because of this ruling.

There are so many faults in this bill I don't see how anyone can support it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Workmans comp is even more restrictive. It is heavily regulated and severely overpriced. On top of that it seems that there is only one or two providers allowed by state.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And I suppose you guys would be alright with some one who offered healthcare to their employees denying it because they are in the Christian Science movement?

The government shouldn't be requiring employers to provide anything to anybody. What you receive in compensation via payment and benefits for your services is something that is worked out between you and your employer. These are offered as an incentive to come and work for them. If you don't like what is being offered then you shouldn't take the job. I don't know how we got to the point where the federal government suddenly decided it had the right to dictate private matters such as this.