Birth Control Mandate: Is this taking the Religous Liberty Exception too far?

[BlackSand]

Birth control pills for example are also used to treat endometriosis.

So are Medroxyprogesterone, Norgestrel Acetate, Danazol and GnRH analogs.

.

and?

There is more than one treatment for Endometriosis ... And therefore birth control pills are not a requirement ... Duh

 

[paperview]

"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves the relief they seek from this court — an exemption from the requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision — and the employer-applicants' employees (and their family members) will not receive contraceptive coverage through the plan's third-party administrator either. The application should be denied," Verrilli argued.


Gov't: Birth Control Mandate Should Not Be Blocked - ABC News

The argument against filing a form is absurd.

"If employer-applicants' third-party administrator were nevertheless to decide to provide contraceptive coverage, applicants' employees and their covered dependents would receive such coverage despite applicants' assertion of their religious objections, not because of those objections."

If you need a link ... It came from your source already linked.

.

As I pointed out earlier, the Christian Bros. Trust (the Insurance Co. who handles the Catholic orgs named in this suit) -- have no intention of providing BC Coverage.

"What's more, Justice argues that "this case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Employer-applicants' third-party administrator therefore will be under no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants certify that they object to providing it."

Those who support the nuns' case, though, argue that just the act of signing such a self-certification is tantamount to issuing a "permission slip" for the use of contraceptives, and violates the Catholic orders' rights."

Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR

This "church plan" insurer does not have to provide BC They are exempt. And Christian Bros. will be under no obligation, nor desire to provide it.

It's about filling out a form.

 

[paperview]

So are Medroxyprogesterone, Norgestrel Acetate, Danazol and GnRH analogs.

.

and?

There is more than one treatment for Endometriosis ... And therefore birth control pills are not a requirement ... Duh

Strawman. No one said it is *required.* Many doctors do, however, prescribe BC pills for that, and for other medical reasons.

 

[BlackSand]

and?

There is more than one treatment for Endometriosis ... And therefore birth control pills are not a requirement ... Duh

Strawman. No one said it is *required.* Many doctors do, however, prescribe BC pills for that, and for other medical reasons.

Strawman ... So what, they can choose to prescribe any number of treatments for medical reasons.
In fact ... GnRH analogs are prescribed precisely for people who don't want to, or cannot take birth control pills.

.

 

[rdean]

Birth Control Mandate: Is this taking the Religous Liberty Exception too far?

What's strange is the way right wingers fight for it and them completely ignore it by using contraception. The small size of their families tell the tale.

 

[BlackSand]

"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves the relief they seek from this court — an exemption from the requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision — and the employer-applicants' employees (and their family members) will not receive contraceptive coverage through the plan's third-party administrator either. The application should be denied," Verrilli argued.


Gov't: Birth Control Mandate Should Not Be Blocked - ABC News

The argument against filing a form is absurd.

"If employer-applicants' third-party administrator were nevertheless to decide to provide contraceptive coverage, applicants' employees and their covered dependents would receive such coverage despite applicants' assertion of their religious objections, not because of those objections."

If you need a link ... It came from your source already linked.

.

As I pointed out earlier, the Christian Bros. Trust (the Insurance Co. who handles the Catholic orgs named in this suit) -- have no intention of providing BC Coverage.

"What's more, Justice argues that "this case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Employer-applicants' third-party administrator therefore will be under no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants certify that they object to providing it."

Those who support the nuns' case, though, argue that just the act of signing such a self-certification is tantamount to issuing a "permission slip" for the use of contraceptives, and violates the Catholic orders' rights."

Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR

This "church plan" insurer does not have to provide BC They are exempt. And Christian Bros. will be under no obligation, nor desire to provide it.

It's about filling out a form.

It is absurd to think that the government indicating objections the Catholics have are meaningless is not an insult to their religious sensibilities.
The suit was brought by the nuns ... But is in no way restricted to their individual case any more than Roe vs Wade.

.

 

[paperview]

See?

"The Little Sisters, in their reply to the government’s brief on Friday afternoon, said that signing a piece of paper allowing contraception — even if it doesn’t result in contraception being handed out —is itself a violation of their religious protections.

Read more: Sonia Sotomayor faces health law contraception decision - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
​

 

[paperview]

"If employer-applicants' third-party administrator were nevertheless to decide to provide contraceptive coverage, applicants' employees and their covered dependents would receive such coverage despite applicants' assertion of their religious objections, not because of those objections."

If you need a link ... It came from your source already linked.

.

As I pointed out earlier, the Christian Bros. Trust (the Insurance Co. who handles the Catholic orgs named in this suit) -- have no intention of providing BC Coverage.

"What's more, Justice argues that "this case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Employer-applicants' third-party administrator therefore will be under no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants certify that they object to providing it."

Those who support the nuns' case, though, argue that just the act of signing such a self-certification is tantamount to issuing a "permission slip" for the use of contraceptives, and violates the Catholic orders' rights."

Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR

This "church plan" insurer does not have to provide BC They are exempt. And Christian Bros. will be under no obligation, nor desire to provide it.

It's about filling out a form.

It is absurd to think that the government indicating objections the Catholics have are meaningless is not an insult to their religious sensibilities.
The suit was brought by the nuns ... But is in no way restricted to their individual case any more than Roe vs Wade.

.

Huh? It has not reached SCOTUS, but the case was specifically in reference to the orgs that use the Christian Brothres Trust -- which is exempt, under the Church Plan.


"This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of Catholic employers who participate in the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust (the “Christian Brothers Trust&#8221."

Sotomayor now has to decide what to do. This case was narrow, but if it reaches SCOTUS, (and I suspect it will) -- it will then likely be enjoined with other suits, and then would have a reaching affect.

The problem the orgs will have is trying to say with a straight face filling out a form is an undue burden.

 

[paperview]

The premise was that an insurer or administrator would not have the same objection to providing such products. But the catch here is that the Little Sisters’ administrator — the Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust — is also run by a religious order.




The Christian Brothers, who joined the Little Sisters on the lawsuit, qualify as a church under employment law known as ERISA. And under that law, if they don’t want to provide contraception, the federal government has no recourse to force them to do so.

​

Read more: Sonia Sotomayor faces health law contraception decision - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
​

 

[paperview]

This is interesting part of the Solicitor General's brief:

"Applicants draw flawed analogies when they say that under the court of appeals’ reasoning,
“Quaker conscientious objectors would suffer no penalties if they would just join the military; Jewish prisoners would suffer no burden if they would just eat the pork; Seventh Day Adventists would not lose their benefits if they would just work on Saturdays.”

Appl. 26-27. To mirror the situation here, the question in all of those cases would be whether the religious objector could be required to sign a certification form in order to secure the religion-based exemption he sought.

It is applicants’ position, not that of the court of appeals, that would lead to absurd results in those cases, for it would seemingly mean that the Quaker could not be made to attest to his status as a conscientious objector before being absolved of his military obligations;

that the Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying he had a religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was provided an alternative meal;

and that the Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being relieved of his shift.


When extending religious accommodations, the government must be allowed to provide for regularized, orderly means of permitting eligible individuals or entities to declare that they intend to take advantage of them.

That is what the self- certification under the regulations accomplishes, and it does so by requiring only that employer-applicants say something that they have said repeatedly in this litigation, namely, that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. To interpret RFRA to negate even such a certification requirement would be extraordinary.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Little-Sisters-Injunction-Opp-13A691.pdf

Filling out a form. That's their objection.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Birth control is NOT a healthcare problem.

pregnancy IS a normal state and is avoidable by lifestyle options.
Government has no role in mandating the lifestyle choices.

Period.

If you want to live under gubmint total control - move to Cuba or North Korea and enjoy.

Birth Control is also used to treat medical problems, doof.

In this case, it still doesn't matter - as the org do not have to provide BC, nor does their insurance company - the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust.

EXEMPT. Both.

birth control is NOT used to treat hormonal imbalances. Hormones are. Some of the hormones are also used in the birth control preparations.
But they are not the same "pills"

educate yourself before you pose as a knowledgeable, doof.

You need to educate yourself; you are not an expert in this field.

This an issue between doctor and patient, not you and anyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is more than one treatment for Endometriosis ... And therefore birth control pills are not a requirement ... Duh

Strawman. No one said it is *required.* Many doctors do, however, prescribe BC pills for that, and for other medical reasons.

Strawman ... So what, they can choose to prescribe any number of treatments for medical reasons.
In fact ... GnRH analogs are prescribed precisely for people who don't want to, or cannot take birth control pills..

So you want to mandate that government interfere in patient decisions?

 

[dblack]

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

"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 needs—and got an exemption from covering their employees' contraception needs—are 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 employers—these Catholic non-profits—are exempt, as they want to be)."

Justice Sotomayor grants temporary injunction to Catholic groups who say filling out an Obamacare form about contraception violates their religious freedom.

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?

This isn't a religious freedom issue and it shouldn't be handled as such. It's a general freedom of conscience issue. None of us should have to fill out a fucking form to get 'permission' from the state to make these kinds of decisions.

 

[paperview]

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

"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 needs—and got an exemption from covering their employees' contraception needs—are 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 employers—these Catholic non-profits—are exempt, as they want to be)."

Justice Sotomayor grants temporary injunction to Catholic groups who say filling out an Obamacare form about contraception violates their religious freedom.

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?

This isn't a religious freedom issue and it shouldn't be handled as such. It's a general freedom of conscience issue. None of us should have to fill out a fucking form to get 'permission' from the state to make these kinds of decisions.

So the Quaker doesn't have to attest to his status as a conscientious objector before being absolved of his military obligations?

That a Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying he had a religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was provided an alternative meal?

That a Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being relieved of his shift?

You think a "general freedom of conscience issue" means you are not obligated to literally just state for the record you object - by signing a form that takes all of about 2 minutes? It goes against a persons religion to say formally it goes against their religion?

Think through what you are saying.

 

[koshergrl]

What military obligations? We no longer have the draft.

And yes, if you are in prison, you do have to fill out paperwork, if you don't like the accomodations. Because when you are in prison, many of your rights are suspended.

And a Seventh Day Adventist should not apply for a job that requires him to work on his Sabbath. If people could get time off on the weekends just because their religion calls this day or that day the Sabbath, there would be nobody working in any of the places that run round the clock.

Gads you loons are thick, and have such a limited understanding of everything.

 

[paperview]

What military obligations? We no longer have the draft.

We did. And could again.

The Quaker would still have to attest to his status, and has had to in the past.

 

[dblack]

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.

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?

This isn't a religious freedom issue and it shouldn't be handled as such. It's a general freedom of conscience issue. None of us should have to fill out a fucking form to get 'permission' from the state to make these kinds of decisions.

So the Quaker doesn't have to attest to his status as a conscientious objector before being absolved of his military obligations?

That a Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying he had a religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was provided an alternative meal?

That a Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being relieved of his shift?

You think a "general freedom of conscience issue" means you are not obligated to literally just state for the record you object - by signing a form that takes all of about 2 minutes? It goes against a persons religion to say formally it goes against their religion?

Think through what you are saying.

I've thought it through. I don't think those kinds of exemptions should exist. That interpretation actually perverts the intent of the First Amendment, which was to prevent government from writing laws that targeted religions for persecution, or to promote them as state religions. By using the religious clause of the First Amendment to, instead, grant special exemptions to 'qualifying' religions, the Court has turned the amendment against its purpose, setting the government up to judge which religions are valid and which aren't.

 

[koshergrl]

What military obligations? We no longer have the draft.

We did. And could again.

The Quaker would still have to attest to his status, and has had to in the past.

In your imaginary world, perhaps.

Let's try to stick to reality, shall we?

 

[paperview]

The reason why it matters that the plaintiffs in the case are claiming that such an insignificant requirement burdens their religious faith is because federal religious liberty law provides that “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” except when a specific exemption applies. So a person with a religious objection the law cannot immunize themselves from following it merely because they don’t like the law, they have to show that the law imposes a burden on their faith that is substantial.


That is why these plaintiffs should have no case. Being required to inform the government that you are invoking your legal rights isn’t a substantial burden. It’s barely a burden at all.


Should the Supreme Court side with the plaintiffs in this Colorado case, it will require the Court to effectively write the “substantially burden” requirement out of the law, a holding which could permit some truly absurd lawsuits.



When the state of North Dakota considered a ballot initiative that would have enacted a similar rule in that state, we quipped that “even the most minor inconveniences to religious practices would be suspect under the initiative. A person who is running late to church could claim it is illegal to make them obey traffic lights.”



Combine this with the extreme deference some lower courts have shown to people with religious objections to the law, and the result is a radical shift away from requiring people with religious objections to the law to actually comply with it.

Here's What's Really At Stake In That Birth Control Case Involving The Colorado Nuns | ThinkProgress

The loons here are the people who say simply stating for the record they object is a violation of their religious freedoms.

 

[koshergrl]

Think Progress! Awesome propaganda/hate speech! You rock!