DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

[AmyNation]

The government has been mandating basic insurance coverage long before Obama became President. The only reason the majority of people are sitting up and saying "wait a second" now is because they happen to mandate something you don't personally agree with.

The government shouldn't be mandating insurance, at all, but if you're going to let them, you don't get to pick and choose the preventive care they mandate.

 

[Jroc]

The government has been mandating basic insurance coverage long before Obama became President. The only reason the majority of people are sitting up and saying "wait a second" now is because they happen to mandate something you don't personally agree with.

The government shouldn't be mandating insurance, at all, but if you're going to let them, you don't get to pick and choose the preventive care they mandate.

When? Many people I know don't have health insurance, I had catastrophic coverage, which was fairly inexpensive until recently. Now we haft to cover this, or that, we can't have tailored coverage any more thanks to Obamacare

 

[OriginalShroom]

The government has been mandating basic insurance coverage long before Obama became President. The only reason the majority of people are sitting up and saying "wait a second" now is because they happen to mandate something you don't personally agree with.

The government shouldn't be mandating insurance, at all, but if you're going to let them, you don't get to pick and choose the preventive care they mandate.

Would you care to back that up?

Exactly what kind of Insurance did the Government mandate you, as an idividual, buy simply because you are alive?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Some women are put on birth control due to ovarian cancer risks. Im no expert, but, I knew two women who were prescribed the pill due to their risk factor for ovarian cancer.

So, if a woman needs it to prevent or treat the caner risk, should a doctor be able to deny it based on religious beliefs?

Who is trying to deny it?

 

[Oldguy]

No, idiot. As usual you have it wrong.
No one is denying anything to anyone. Except the Obama administration denying people the free exercise of their religion. Hobby Lobby does not believe in abortion. They do not want to pay for someone else's abortion. Yet Obamacare mandates that their personal religious scruples be damned and they must cover something they believe is immoral.
Can a Muslim employer require the burqa? Yes, why shouldnt they be allowed to? And the employee can find work elsewhere.

No, Hobby Lobby does not believe in abortion. It's a corporation which does not, cannot "believe" in anything. Hobby Lobby's OWNER does not believe in abortion and that's a key difference.

That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Of course it does, but that's a fine point of law which usually confuses people.

 

[AmyNation]

The government has been mandating basic insurance coverage long before Obama became President. The only reason the majority of people are sitting up and saying "wait a second" now is because they happen to mandate something you don't personally agree with.

The government shouldn't be mandating insurance, at all, but if you're going to let them, you don't get to pick and choose the preventive care they mandate.

When? Many people I know don't have health insurance, I had catastrophic coverage, which was fairly inexpensive until recently. Now we haft to cover this, or that, we can't have tailored coverage any more thanks to Obamacare

Insurance has been regulated by the government since they 1st began selling insurance. The ACA expands a lot of required coverage, but the key word is, it expands it, it didnt create basic insurance regulations out of thin air. If you have insurance, you know your get a yearly checkup, your child gets their shots, there are lots of things along those lines that is required by the government.

 

[Oldguy]

Well...before we re-fight this battle, everyone please remember something about the reproductive care mandate under Obamacare.

Just because the coverage is mandatory does not mean anyone has to take advantage of it. If someone has religious objections, just don't file a claim for it.

Conversely, if it's NOT mandated, there's nothing stopping anybody from getting such coverage on their own.

It's a manufactured issue, manufactured for political purposes, and nothing else.

 

[AmyNation]

The government has been mandating basic insurance coverage long before Obama became President. The only reason the majority of people are sitting up and saying "wait a second" now is because they happen to mandate something you don't personally agree with.

The government shouldn't be mandating insurance, at all, but if you're going to let them, you don't get to pick and choose the preventive care they mandate.

Would you care to back that up?

Exactly what kind of Insurance did the Government mandate you, as an idividual, buy simply because you are alive?

I'm sorry, I didn't clarify.


I'm not discussing mandating individuals buy insurance. This thread is about mandating insurance plans cover birth control, Im talking about the government mandating basic coverage insurance must cover. They've been doing that way before Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

Wrong.

The DOJ was arguing that this case was similar to a Missouri case, where the court ruled that requiring health coverage, which may include contraceptive therapy, did not manifest an undue burden on the plaintiff’s religious expression:

The defendants nonetheless urge the Court to adopt the reasoning of O'Brien v. HHS, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 4481208 (E.D. Mo. 2012). There, the court considered the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to plaintiffs Frank O'Brien and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, "a secular, for-profit company in St. Louis, Missouri, that is engaged in the business of mining, processing, and distributing refractory and ceramic materials and products," of which Mr. O'Brien is the chairman and managing member. Id. at __, *1. Mr. O'Brien is Catholic and "tries to manage and operate [his company] in a manner consistent with his religion." Id. The company's lobby contains a religious statue, the company's mission and statement of values contain religious references, and the company and its subsidiaries pledge to tithe the earnings generated by the companies. Id. __, *1 n.3. The company also provides health insurance to its employees through a group plan. Id. at __, *2. The O'Brien plaintiffs brought a RFRA claim against the same six defendants currently before this Court, alleging that inclusion of contraceptive coverage in the company's group plan would violate the plaintiffs' religious belief that requires the "condemnation of contraception." Id. at __, *4.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' RFRA claim, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdened their religious exercise. Id. at __, *6-7. Describing the burden at issue as the "funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, [that] might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the company's] plan, subsidize someone else's participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs' religion," the court reasoned that the burden on the plaintiffs' religious exercise was simply too attenuated to qualify as "substantial." Id. at __, *6 (emphasis in original). The court emphasized that the decision to use contraceptives, the objectionable act, was ultimately in the hands of a third party, the plan participant, and that such a burden was not within the contemplation of the RFRA. See id. (stating that the RFRA "protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one's religion forbids, or forbids action one's religion requires; it is not a means to force one's religious practices upon others"). The court therefore found that this "slight" burden of requiring the plaintiffs to contribute to a group plan that provides contraceptive coverage "has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff's [sic] religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees." Id. at __, *6-7.

Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius - Google Scholar

Consequently it’s a lie to state the government was arguing that it could ‘violate’ a person’s religious beliefs, when in fact it was making a perfectly appropriate and legitimate argument predicated on another court’s decision.

A lot of companies suing for relief under Obamacare are basically making the case that corporations have the same religious liberties as individuals.

Has anybody stopped to consider the ramifications if they should win using that argument?

The government will have less power?

Sounds good to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some women are put on birth control due to ovarian cancer risks. Im no expert, but, I knew two women who were prescribed the pill due to their risk factor for ovarian cancer.

So, if a woman needs it to prevent or treat the caner risk, should a doctor be able to deny it based on religious beliefs?

Next. Some religions believe in the use of marijuana. What if a doctor of that religious belief tries to prescribe weed for anti-depression, where weed is not legal? Should he religious beliefs be suppressed by the government?

I do not give a fuck, there is no need for what is, essentially, a routine expense to be covered by insurance.

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

Then I, at least, am being intellectually consistent when I argue that the government should not be involved in this at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not really. Because individuals engaged in commerce can't force their religious views on their employees either.

That's exactly what Hobby Lobby and other businesses are arguing for. The owners want to deny their employees reproductive care options because of their own religious convictions, which could hardly be argued as anything else other than forcing their religious vies onto their employees...right?

That can't be seen as anything other than expanding the religious freedom rights of the 1st Amendment to include corporations, which already have been deemed "persons" in the legal sense.

Where does this end? Once the law accepts the rights of corporations as being equal to Constitutional rights of individuals, does that mean no member of a corporation may be forced to testify against that corporation (5th Amendment) or that a corporation has the right to arm its employees (2nd Amendment)? Does that mean a Muslim business owner may impose the Sharia punishment for theft from the corporation and claim his religious liberty to do so? Can a Muslim employer require his female employees to wear a bur qua on the job?

Somebody needs to really seriously think this through before we go any farther.

If you work for the federal government, which closes for Christmas, does that mean they are forcing their religious beliefs on you by giving you a day off? Do you think we should force people to work on Christmas simply to avoid your completely ignorant understanding of what force is?

 

[Oldguy]

Not really. Because individuals engaged in commerce can't force their religious views on their employees either.

That's exactly what Hobby Lobby and other businesses are arguing for. The owners want to deny their employees reproductive care options because of their own religious convictions, which could hardly be argued as anything else other than forcing their religious vies onto their employees...right?

That can't be seen as anything other than expanding the religious freedom rights of the 1st Amendment to include corporations, which already have been deemed "persons" in the legal sense.

Where does this end? Once the law accepts the rights of corporations as being equal to Constitutional rights of individuals, does that mean no member of a corporation may be forced to testify against that corporation (5th Amendment) or that a corporation has the right to arm its employees (2nd Amendment)? Does that mean a Muslim business owner may impose the Sharia punishment for theft from the corporation and claim his religious liberty to do so? Can a Muslim employer require his female employees to wear a bur qua on the job?

Somebody needs to really seriously think this through before we go any farther.

If you work for the federal government, which closes for Christmas, does that mean they are forcing their religious beliefs on you by giving you a day off? Do you think we should force people to work on Christmas simply to avoid your completely ignorant understanding of what force is?

Government offices also close on the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Presidents Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, which aren't religious holidays, so your case fails. And, don't forget, every federal employee does not get Christmas off. Soldiers, federal police officers, air traffic controllers and many others work right on through the holiday.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well...before we re-fight this battle, everyone please remember something about the reproductive care mandate under Obamacare.

Just because the coverage is mandatory does not mean anyone has to take advantage of it. If someone has religious objections, just don't file a claim for it.

Conversely, if it's NOT mandated, there's nothing stopping anybody from getting such coverage on their own.

It's a manufactured issue, manufactured for political purposes, and nothing else.

You really don't understand money at all, do you?

This is going to cost money, and everyone is going to have to pay for it, even if they don't need it. Every policy sold in this country is going to cover birth control. Old men are going to be able to have prescription coverage for the pill simply because it is covered, even though no man needs the pill for anything. Gay couples are going to have it included in their policies, even if they do not want it. Everyone in this country is going to be paying for it, no matter what.

You can sit there and pretend to yourself that you have an intelligent argument, but the only person you are fooling is the three year old child who used to be you.

 

[AmyNation]

I do not give a fuck, there is no need for what is, essentially, a routine expense to be covered by insurance.

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

Then I, at least, am being intellectually consistent when I argue that the government should not be involved in this at all.

Good.

And look! I happen to agree with you.

 

[Oldguy]

Well...before we re-fight this battle, everyone please remember something about the reproductive care mandate under Obamacare.

Just because the coverage is mandatory does not mean anyone has to take advantage of it. If someone has religious objections, just don't file a claim for it.

Conversely, if it's NOT mandated, there's nothing stopping anybody from getting such coverage on their own.

It's a manufactured issue, manufactured for political purposes, and nothing else.

You really don't understand money at all, do you?

This is going to cost money, and everyone is going to have to pay for it, even if they don't need it. Every policy sold in this country is going to cover birth control. Old men are going to be able to have prescription coverage for the pill simply because it is covered, even though no man needs the pill for anything. Gay couples are going to have it included in their policies, even if they do not want it. Everyone in this country is going to be paying for it, no matter what.

You can sit there and pretend to yourself that you have an intelligent argument, but the only person you are fooling is the three year old child who used to be you.

Government mandated car insurance also includes provisions and coverages you may never need, yet you still have to pay for them. How is that any different?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's exactly what Hobby Lobby and other businesses are arguing for. The owners want to deny their employees reproductive care options because of their own religious convictions, which could hardly be argued as anything else other than forcing their religious vies onto their employees...right?

That can't be seen as anything other than expanding the religious freedom rights of the 1st Amendment to include corporations, which already have been deemed "persons" in the legal sense.

Where does this end? Once the law accepts the rights of corporations as being equal to Constitutional rights of individuals, does that mean no member of a corporation may be forced to testify against that corporation (5th Amendment) or that a corporation has the right to arm its employees (2nd Amendment)? Does that mean a Muslim business owner may impose the Sharia punishment for theft from the corporation and claim his religious liberty to do so? Can a Muslim employer require his female employees to wear a bur qua on the job?

Somebody needs to really seriously think this through before we go any farther.

If you work for the federal government, which closes for Christmas, does that mean they are forcing their religious beliefs on you by giving you a day off? Do you think we should force people to work on Christmas simply to avoid your completely ignorant understanding of what force is?

Government offices also close on the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Presidents Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, which aren't religious holidays, so your case fails. And, don't forget, every federal employee does not get Christmas off. Soldiers, federal police officers, air traffic controllers and many others work right on through the holiday.

Thanksgiving, or Thanksgiving Day, is a holiday celebrated in the United States on the fourth Thursday in November. It has officially been an annual tradition since 1863, when, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens", to be celebrated on Thursday, November 26.

Thanksgiving (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, nothing religious about that.

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your willingness to eat your feet.

 

[Oldguy]

If you work for the federal government, which closes for Christmas, does that mean they are forcing their religious beliefs on you by giving you a day off? Do you think we should force people to work on Christmas simply to avoid your completely ignorant understanding of what force is?

Government offices also close on the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Presidents Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, which aren't religious holidays, so your case fails. And, don't forget, every federal employee does not get Christmas off. Soldiers, federal police officers, air traffic controllers and many others work right on through the holiday.

Thanksgiving, or Thanksgiving Day, is a holiday celebrated in the United States on the fourth Thursday in November. It has officially been an annual tradition since 1863, when, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens", to be celebrated on Thursday, November 26.

Thanksgiving (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, nothing religious about that.

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your willingness to eat your feet.

Ok, I'll concede that without debating the origins of Thanksgiving in this country.

Now...show me the religious linkage to Memorial Day and Labor Day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

Then I, at least, am being intellectually consistent when I argue that the government should not be involved in this at all.

Good.

And look! I happen to agree with you.

Except I am going to keep arguing against the birth control mandate, and it will not hold up in court in its current form.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What abortion inducing drugs does the ACA mandate?

Obama administration has decided to move forward with its mandate that private insurance companies must provide "free" coverage of contraception and sterilization procedures, as well as an abortion pill called "ella"--which is much friendlier sounding than its "close chemical relative" RU-486.

Obamacare Will Mandate Free Coverage of Abortion Drug & Contraception Without Religious Exemption | The Weekly Standard

I believe Obamacare violates Amendment I.

I'm sorry Obama was ushered back into power by people who have been misinformed by journalistic omission of facts who used to be but no longer are nonparticipants in politics. Instead, they are political cheerleaders for a failed system of government--socialism going community-based.

We assume you’re unaware of the fact that this makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

What abortion inducing drugs does the ACA mandate?

Obama administration has decided to move forward with its mandate that private insurance companies must provide "free" coverage of contraception and sterilization procedures, as well as an abortion pill called "ella"--which is much friendlier sounding than its "close chemical relative" RU-486.

Obamacare Will Mandate Free Coverage of Abortion Drug & Contraception Without Religious Exemption | The Weekly Standard

What kind of lowlife scum would allow religious nuts or just plain weirdo-nuts with secular licenses granted by government to deny decent people access to the full range of medical options?