Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
birth control is NOT a healthcare issue and should not be covered by ANYBODY.
Period.
you need birth control? you BUY it in Walmart.
Or CVS
Of course it.
Long before The Pill was used for contraception, it was used for medical issues. It is still the go-to drug for many very serious medical issues.
If you were a woman or a doctor or could read, you would know that.
The DOJ responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
That emanated from this:
Sonia Sotomayor halts contraceptive rule for Denver center - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
The matter in this case boils down to filling out a short form form. Just filing an automatic waiver.
That's it.
Catholic Employers Claim That Filling Out an Obamacare Form Violates Their Religious Freedom
Justice Sotomayor grants temporary injunction to Catholic groups who say filling out an Obamacare form about contraception violates their religious freedom."Late on New Year's Eve, Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a small number of religiously affiliated groups a temporary injunction from a provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows them not to cover contraception in their health care plans if they fill out a form that states that they want an exemption from the law for religious reasons.
Go ahead and read that sentence again.
These Catholic non-profits that wanted an exemption from covering their employees' contraception needsand got an exemption from covering their employees' contraception needsare now fighting the provision (that exempts them from covering their employees' contraception needs) simply because they don't want to have to fill out a form that states that they are exempt.
Why? Because their employees need that form in order to get birth control directly from their insurers (which they need to do because their employersthese Catholic non-profitsare exempt, as they want to be)."
Yes, filling out a form. Nothing more.
Their religious sensibilities are insulted by merely stating on paper they have religious objections.
Now, you may agree that religious organizations should not be forced to contribute to a health plan that makes them pay for Birth Control - and I do too,
but do you think the mere act of filing out a form is taking the Religious Liberty exception just a bit too far?
Does religious liberty extend to the right to not have to fill out paperwork?
What article are you pulling that from?I repeat:
It just seems bizarre to me filing out a one-page form is such an onerous and sinful act, all unto itself.
Theyre saying, I cant fill out permission slips for abortion, sterilization or contraception under any circumstances.
Do these quotes from the article help?
None placed here.
The case in question does not force the Sisters or their Ins company to supply BC. BOTH are exempt.
"Late on New Year's Eve, Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a small number of religiously affiliated groups a temporary injunction from a provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows them not to cover contraception in their health care plans if they fill out a form that states that they want an exemption from the law for religious reasons.
Sotomayor delays birth control mandate for Catholic groups | MSNBC
Let's hear from that raging liberall, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!Oh brother.
Talk about jumping the shark.
Think so? Seems like a valid analogy. And potentially as dangerous. There's good reason to not have government in the business of deciding which religions deserve which special perks.
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
And, also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that 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)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
Your assumption that everyone on the left is atheist is just hilarious. And God happens to be concerned for the poor, mentioned more in the Bible than homosexuals, so why are those on the right, who are supposed to be Godly, not concerned for the poor, too?A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
why won't you create your own religion where the poor take the place of god?
the hypocrisy of the militantly atheist left is just hilarious.
Christianity is, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have mentioned it so many times. He even told a rich man who wanted to know how to get into heaven, to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor....but he couldn't because he had so much.Catholic faith is NOT centered around helping the poor. It is a secondary and even a tertiary problem. Neither is it a centerpiece for any religion, for that matter - and it should not be.
Let's hear from that raging liberall, Anthony Scalia, on ...Think so? Seems like a valid analogy. And potentially as dangerous. There's good reason to not have government in the business of deciding which religions deserve which special perks.
edited: yeah, I actually agree with Scalia here. Do you realize his statement contradicts the idea of the exemption, and implicitly the need to fill out a form?
A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
Exactly. They are making this a political issue and wasting money and energy on it when they could be doing what they should be doing, which is focus on those in need, not in doing everything they can to prevent women from getting birth control. Absolutely shameful.
A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
Funny how you aren't worried about how much the government is pending on litigation, especially when you consider that it is considerably more than all the people challenging the law combined. That tells me you don't care about the money, you just want to look smart, and forgot that being smart is more than saying stupid things.
Well, you're right about one thing ... no one would ever mistakenly think the right doesn't care about money first, with people WAY down the list.
the catholic church could feed the whole damn planet if they just sold their gold.
NO, I'm not saying they should sell their gold. I'm saying they lie when they say they give a fuck about a starving child. If you want to to see what is wrong with out planet, look to the catholic church.
Let the lawyers live. XXXXXXX
A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
why won't you create your own religion where the poor take the place of god? I'
the hypocrisy of the militantly atheist left is just hilarious.
Catholic faith is NOT centered around helping the poor. It is a secondary and even a tertiary problem. Neither is it a centerpiece for any religion, for that matter - and it should not be.
So, creating the Church of Pauperes Cultus can be your next business
project, Moonglow
l'll ke 10% of profits for providing the idea
Helping those in need is indeed an essential tenet of Christianity. Absolutely. Anyone who says differently is off his rocker.
he's taking all the parts out that they have a hard time with.
We don;t know *why* Sotomayor issued the injunction.Filling simple paper work neither is onerous nor a violation of the 1st Amendment
Apparently, unless you suddenly reversed your position that Sotomayor was correct to issue the injunction.
It may have been to force the gov't to refine their argument re: religious objections.
These orgs are exempt. That's not in question.
(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
You're wrong. As usual.I see you didn't even bother to read the OP.
The organization does NOT have to provide BC coverage. They are exempt.
Their objection is to filling out a short form claiming they are exempt.
No it isn't.
God's people deserve better than having the F word hurled at them in addition to evil government poops farting out their little unconstitutional rules against the good of the land.
Sounds like the Obama Administration is hell-bent on destroying the First Amendment Privilege that says "The government shall pass no law against religions..."
I hate the disparagement of the Christian Church.
Reverend Wright commanded his paritioners to "God damn America."
That's happening here, except insert "government" where the Lord's name is invoked in vain.
I'm tired of government harassing churches, churches WHO DID BUILD THE BUSINESSES OF CHRISTIAN CARE, in accordance with the scriptures.
And for Jeremiah Wright, chief hater in American History, he built a church around taking God's name in vain, causing racial hatred in his congregation and through its most prominent member, racism from coast to coast to goad people into doing things against themselves or being disparaged as racists, which is a false allegation I've heard time after time from the bully pulpit. It's beginning to be the bullshit pulpit, and punishing the Little Sisters of the Poor is pure dee genuine bullshit.
I've met some Little Sisters of the Poor who helped the poorest of the poor in the community on a shoestring. They've turned lives around, cared for sick and dying and people so poor they have no roof over their heads, the Little Sisters provided them with so much. What a dynamite charity they are. I'm a protestant, but my hat's off to the Little Sisters of the Poor who operated mercy and kindness to all who needed their special caring and beneficence in the humility of hard poverty themselves. They did without to see to it that poor people got a lease on life, health, education, and shelter.
What effective people the Little Sisters of the Poor are in communities I have lived in. They're something else.
The government has become a harassment outfit against churches and against the best charitable institutions we have.
They're just bent on destroying wealth to bring America down, and I'm tired of government that beats up on the Little Sisters of the Poor as their convenient whipping boy. It's flat out evil.
Uh.... WTF?
No. You obviously have not read the Solicitor General's reply.Let's hear from that raging liberall, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!Think so? Seems like a valid analogy. And potentially as dangerous. There's good reason to not have government in the business of deciding which religions deserve which special perks.
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
And, also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that 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)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
Do you understand that, according to the government, the reason this rule does not apply to the Sisters is that federal law already exempts them as a church? That means that any argument you use has to take into account the declared position that they are exempt already are exempt from the law, not that the law is neutral toward religion.
Nobody is redefining their religion. You seem to not understand the issue.I'm not a militant anything; and I was raised a Christian, am baptised and everything. I chose not to practice any religion, doesn't mean I'm an atheist and definitely doesn't mean I am militant. You are the one who is militant. A militant Stone Age thinker.
Regardless, the Catholics alone have the right to define their religion. IF you don't like their faith - don't work for them.
Please explain how the 1st amendment is being violated. You seem to be a tad confused...seems to me that these Catholics that are being extremely difficult are the ones that are violating women's rights.Violating the 1st amendment is not acceptable. Look, I realize this is just part of the war the democrats are waging on civil rights, but knock it the fuck off.
The administration says just because it might, doesnt mean it would. The government wrote in its filing Friday morning that the insurers to whom the nuns would submit their certification have already said they will not provide contraceptive coverage because they are exempt from the mandate. Concern that [the nuns] are authorizing others to provide coverage lacks any foundation in the facts or the law, the administration wrote in its response.
The most likely outcome of the current exchange at the court is that Sotomayor will send the case back down to the Tenth Circuit to be decided there. Sotomayor could leave the injunction in place for the nuns, or lift it, at her discretion, and the Supreme Court could reconsider whether to take the case and rule on it later. The nuns have asked that if she lifts the injunction that the Supreme Court hear the case before the lower court rules, something the court rarely does.
No. You obviously have not read the Solicitor General's reply.Let's hear from that raging liberall, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
And, also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that 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)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
Do you understand that, according to the government, the reason this rule does not apply to the Sisters is that federal law already exempts them as a church? That means that any argument you use has to take into account the declared position that they are exempt already are exempt from the law, not that the law is neutral toward religion.
Nope. Obamacare is just wrong on multiple levels.
It's wrong on a lot more levels as well..and the wrong levels are going to continue to pile up until they reach the moon. Because it's unconstitutional at its very core.
