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

[paperview]

Then why do they need to fill out the form ... If the form isn't going to make a difference?

.

To claim the exemption.

This is getting ridiculous.

It is ridiculous ... What does claiming the exemption do?
In the OP you mentioned that claiming the exemption and supplying the form allowed employees to get birth control covered by the insurers provided by the Catholic Organizations.

I guess that part of the OP was wrong and you have abandoned it ... The only part that talked about "why" the exemption was necessary.

.

You're not paying attention.

The insurers are exempt. They fall under the "church plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, meaning that it is exempt from regulation by the government."

Read the damn case.

 

[koshergrl]

Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.

 

[BlackSand]

It's self incrimination, a violation of the fifth amendment. By certifying they are exempt, these organizations are nominating themselves for said investigation. That may save tax payers money, but it's wrong. It's more of the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" mindset that seems to be gaining a foothold across the board in government these days.

I think the only mistake some people are making is thinking the Catholic Organizations believe their objection to or exemption from providing birth control comes from the government.

.

 

[paperview]

Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.

Oh brother.

Talk about jumping the shark.

 

[dblack]

What stops anyone from just saying they are exempt from taxes?

All they need to do is say "hey, too bad -- Ima church.

Suck eggs, gov."

Duddn't work that way.

That's part of the contradictory nature of such exemptions in the first place, and why they shouldn't exist.

 

[Norman]

Birth control has about as much to do with health care as a helmet.

And contraceptive insurance is not a proper insurance either, it's a service deal. A terrible one that no one would buy if it was their own money at that.

And yes birth control pills can be used for different conditions. Which has nothing to do with this, as you could still do that even if contraception wasn't covered by insurance. Further, I don't think pregnancy is the same as contraception, when did it become the same thing?

Up next: Insurance to cover your gas bills, and some stupid religious idiots (It's not the christians this time) believing that it's a good idea because of their ideology.


By the way, I am very pro contraception and abortion. But I am also pro sane economics. There is NO POINT in buying this type of "insurance". Everything you can do with it you can do without it, but much cheaper.

 

[BlackSand]

To claim the exemption.

This is getting ridiculous.

It is ridiculous ... What does claiming the exemption do?
In the OP you mentioned that claiming the exemption and supplying the form allowed employees to get birth control covered by the insurers provided by the Catholic Organizations.

I guess that part of the OP was wrong and you have abandoned it ... The only part that talked about "why" the exemption was necessary.

.

You're not paying attention.

The insurers are exempt. They fall under the "church plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, meaning that it is exempt from regulation by the government."

Read the damn case.

So you are saying they need to fill out a form stating they are exempt from doing something they are not required to do in the first place.
I read the case ... I read the articles and your OP ... That is not what it said.

Again ... This is what you posted ...

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)."

 

[dblack]

Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.

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.

 

[paperview]

These freaks are actually trying to say that filing a one page form that guarantees a religious exception is just like the Jews being carted off to concentration camps.

Wayyyyy too much Glenn Beck and Alex Jonesianism here.

My gawd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 is amazing. The government routinely says that it is illegal to make deposits under $10,000 in order to avoid the reporting requirement built into the law, and has even prosecuted lawyers for merely telling people they could do it, yet you question whether filing paperwork is a burden.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[paperview]

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.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

Jews weren't carted off to concentration camps until they were first had their rights stripped from them. That was justified by criminalizing them....

Which progressives the world over applauded.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.

EGGGS-zackly what popped into my mind.

WHAT are people thinking???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

Let's hear from that raging liberall, Anthony Scalia, on ...

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.
...

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

 

[paperview]

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.

We don;t know *why* Sotomayor issued 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.