emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
WaPo's Kathleen Parker Ignores Religious Protections, Cites Bush-Era Lawsuit To Attack Obamacare | Blog | Media Matters for America
I was looking online to find if any lawsuits against ACA cited "right to health" vs "right to choose" as beliefs equally protected by law, whereas the mandates impose the belief in "right to health". I couldn't find any such religious arguments.
All I found was religious arguments about the contraception mandates.
However, I found some interesting points cited below:
1. the issue of religious freedom on the cited case was brought up previously under Bush's administration, and cannot merely be blamed on Obama as an anti-Christian bias:
1. I believe the same challenges could be brought up under both administrations, and still reveal that Obama has a bias against conservatives. Had this battle been fought under Bush's administration, it would clearly not be seen as biased that way. but Obama made it it publicly clear that he believes in "voting as revenge" and has biases against the Tea Party as 'racist', and blames and rejects conservatives as "enemies" which he later changed to "opponents" after receiving criticism for his divisive remarks against fellow Americans.
2. this point seems to argue that since the owners of Hobby Lobby are a corporation, they no longer have religious freedom as people; and only considers the "religious freedom of employees". However it seems to miss the point that these people are free to buy their own contraception. Just like natural herbal remedies may not be paid for by insurance but you can buy them on your own. you are not banned, and nothing makes you have to get this through your employer insurance.
What these two points tell me is why even put health care through federal govt if it is going to open up these conflicts at all.
Don't people have equal religious freedom?
Why is it pitting one sides' religious freedom over the other?
Why not keep health care choices and funding separate to AVOID these conflicts and entanglements to begin with?
This really makes no sense to me.
Are you going to join a Catholic church, but want to pray in the name of Vishnu then claim your religious freedom is abridged? Who said you had to join a Catholic church? And why can't you set up your own church where yuo can pray in any manner you deem?
Why this insistence on (1) pushing a policy through PUBLIC institutions which then must represent ALL people and not discriminate by favoring one over another by creed or belief
(2) then face lawsuits when two conflicting views clash because they should remain separate. isn't that a no brainer.
It is clear to me, but what I don't understand is why aren't other people getting this.
Especially where prochoice people understand the right to life should be practiced separately not imposed through govt, why not respect free choice with the right to health?
If anyone can please help me find a website, lawsuit, petition or law firm willing to help write a petition arguing for equal protection and separate funding and set up for BOTH the right to health and right to choose, such as separate systems by party, I am VERY grateful!
Thanks,
Emily
I was looking online to find if any lawsuits against ACA cited "right to health" vs "right to choose" as beliefs equally protected by law, whereas the mandates impose the belief in "right to health". I couldn't find any such religious arguments.
All I found was religious arguments about the contraception mandates.
However, I found some interesting points cited below:
1. the issue of religious freedom on the cited case was brought up previously under Bush's administration, and cannot merely be blamed on Obama as an anti-Christian bias:
Point 1 said:Parker's assertion that the Hosanna-Tabor case is evidence of the Obama administration's "willingness to challenge religious freedom" is surprising, as the EEOC brought this "challenge to religious freedom" while former President George W. Bush was still in office -- a president who cannot seriously be accused of harboring anti-Christian attitudes. More significantly, Parker's characterization of the Hobby Lobby case as evidence of the Obama's administration's efforts to challenge the free exercise of religion is misleading and favors the currently non-existent religious rights of corporations such as Hobby Lobby over the very real ones of its employees.
1. I believe the same challenges could be brought up under both administrations, and still reveal that Obama has a bias against conservatives. Had this battle been fought under Bush's administration, it would clearly not be seen as biased that way. but Obama made it it publicly clear that he believes in "voting as revenge" and has biases against the Tea Party as 'racist', and blames and rejects conservatives as "enemies" which he later changed to "opponents" after receiving criticism for his divisive remarks against fellow Americans.
Point 2 said:As Brigham Young University Law School professor Frederick Mark Gedicks has explained, although "[t]he First Amendment's establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice," if the claims of employers like Hobby Lobby are successful, "it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners' anti-contraception religion."
Parker also ignores the fact that the ACA's contraception mandate does not require that the owners of Hobby Lobby use or take any medications to which they may have a religious or moral objection. The owners are not arguing that their own religious freedoms have been violated, but that the religious freedoms of Hobby Lobby as a corporation have been infringed because employer-sponsored health insurance must now cover comprehensive preventive services for women. Parker glosses over the fact that there is no precedent for this sort of religious argument -- although the Supreme Court expanded the notion of corporate "personhood" in the controversial Citizens United decision, it has never held that non-human, for-profit, secular corporations like Hobby Lobby are capable of expressing religious belief.
2. this point seems to argue that since the owners of Hobby Lobby are a corporation, they no longer have religious freedom as people; and only considers the "religious freedom of employees". However it seems to miss the point that these people are free to buy their own contraception. Just like natural herbal remedies may not be paid for by insurance but you can buy them on your own. you are not banned, and nothing makes you have to get this through your employer insurance.
What these two points tell me is why even put health care through federal govt if it is going to open up these conflicts at all.
Don't people have equal religious freedom?
Why is it pitting one sides' religious freedom over the other?
Why not keep health care choices and funding separate to AVOID these conflicts and entanglements to begin with?
This really makes no sense to me.
Are you going to join a Catholic church, but want to pray in the name of Vishnu then claim your religious freedom is abridged? Who said you had to join a Catholic church? And why can't you set up your own church where yuo can pray in any manner you deem?
Why this insistence on (1) pushing a policy through PUBLIC institutions which then must represent ALL people and not discriminate by favoring one over another by creed or belief
(2) then face lawsuits when two conflicting views clash because they should remain separate. isn't that a no brainer.
It is clear to me, but what I don't understand is why aren't other people getting this.
Especially where prochoice people understand the right to life should be practiced separately not imposed through govt, why not respect free choice with the right to health?
If anyone can please help me find a website, lawsuit, petition or law firm willing to help write a petition arguing for equal protection and separate funding and set up for BOTH the right to health and right to choose, such as separate systems by party, I am VERY grateful!
Thanks,
Emily