You just can't turn off the blatant dishonesty in the US.
17
Excellent...........Required Reading for people who want to get their heads out of the sand and join a secular society!
18
Evidently both evangelicals and Catholic Supreme Court justices believe their own afterlives depend on how many other people they can delude into belief in afterlife.
21
There is, of course, nothing extreme in an administration which could have provided contraceptives directly, as many state health departments do, and every time it is rebuked by the court tweaks its regulation NOT to liberate religious organizations but to insure they have a reporting requirement. Why is it that when abortion (and in recent days Planned Parenthood) and pornography are involved the New York Times and liberals generally are handwringingly concerned about the chilling effect on civil rights, but in this case smell not a whiff of government harassment. Do I smell a whiff of faked outrage and hypocrisy? I think I do.
7
It's obviously not enough for these organizations to not have to provide contraception. They literally want to keep women from using any contraception. How is that not imposing their religious beliefs on others?
39
Unfortunately, these institutions have become so devalued, diminished in stature, they risk the ultimate threat - - irrelevance. In short, no one is listening, or cares about what they say or do. Kind of like the office of the presidency..
2
I have to wonder when those with religious objections will wake up. Your efforts to wipe out contraception and abortion, or restrict marriage are wasted effort. To affect a social change is not to legislate, but to win the hearts, minds and souls of those who have differing views. And when you cannot, remember that Jesus instructed his followers to hate the sin, love the sinner.
But I won't hold out a hope for such a change soon. Too many people have been convinced by their religious leaders that those who aren't with us are the enemy and must be beaten into submission.
But I won't hold out a hope for such a change soon. Too many people have been convinced by their religious leaders that those who aren't with us are the enemy and must be beaten into submission.
18
Ms. Greenhouse shows again a tendency to misunderstand law.
The Little Sisters case (TLS) was already working thru the courts before Hobby Lobby was even taken up by the court and is only "post-Hobby Lobby" by way of the fact somethings happen before other; all the Hobby Lobby ruling did was affirm the arguments being made by TLS.
Additionally, Ms. Greenhouse makes the all too common mistake of presuming the courts have authority to decide what an Objector's religion requires. However, as the Supreme Court noted in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, such line drawing may not be done by the courts: "We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one." In other words, only the Objector gets to state what Their religion requires. In this case, TLS states Their religion prohibits Them from filling out either Form 700 or its alternative. The question then turns to whether failure to fill out either form results in a substantial burden and not whether filling out either form would be a substantial burden. Simply put, Judge Smith is incorrect in the analysis of what constitutes a substantial burden. (Continued in another comment)
The Little Sisters case (TLS) was already working thru the courts before Hobby Lobby was even taken up by the court and is only "post-Hobby Lobby" by way of the fact somethings happen before other; all the Hobby Lobby ruling did was affirm the arguments being made by TLS.
Additionally, Ms. Greenhouse makes the all too common mistake of presuming the courts have authority to decide what an Objector's religion requires. However, as the Supreme Court noted in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, such line drawing may not be done by the courts: "We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one." In other words, only the Objector gets to state what Their religion requires. In this case, TLS states Their religion prohibits Them from filling out either Form 700 or its alternative. The question then turns to whether failure to fill out either form results in a substantial burden and not whether filling out either form would be a substantial burden. Simply put, Judge Smith is incorrect in the analysis of what constitutes a substantial burden. (Continued in another comment)
4
Is it any wonder why more and more Americans are alienated from religion and that millennials are the least religious generation yet? The main reason cited has been the right-wing GOP religious politicization of contraception and same-sex marriage. You would think that with Pope Francis's specific emphasis on the poor, social justice and environment that groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor would back off from the shrill and alienating culture wars and focus on the work that the were originally sent to this country to perform -- caring for the elderly.
31
Dear Little Sister of the Poor: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." Caesar is the law of the land. If your faith dictate it, do not take contraceptives and do not have abortions! You're free to practice your religion -- and the people who believe what you believe can do the same But, please do not steal from others by taking away their rights and money! Jesus wouldn't like that -- no casting stones either! It's not up to you to punish them.
33
Religion is just another form of tyranny. The thought they I provide indirect support for religion due their tax exempt status makes me sick.
30
Ideologies (and religion IS an ideology) are packages of disparate beliefs joined together by a common narrative. You have to understand this narrative in order to discern the inner logic of what seems to be completely illogical on the face of it. Worshippers of the Prince of Peace rabidly supporting the Second Amendment? Little Sisters of the Poor making sure that there are many more poor and abused children born to poor and abused mothers? Well, the hidden narrative behind these actions has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospels and everything to do with the rejection of science, modernity, and the Enlightenment. Science has made women free of soul-crushing unwanted pregnancies - and this is reason enough for these "believers" to make opposition to contraception into their eleventh commandment which, apparently, supersedes the other ten.
28
There's no war on religion in the US, just a war on women.
33
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." is the opening phrase of the first amendment, and the second phrase re free exercise of religion does not negate the first. How is RFRA possibly constitutional. The framers were obviously very worried about the influence of religion, and probably would be horrified now. As far as that is concerned no religion should be tax exempt except for purely charitable work.
27
Yet again, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
8
The Sisters could also make an argument that paying their employees a salary would make them "complicit" if the employee chose to spend any part of that salary to purchase contraceptives or an abortion
29
The best solution is for the Affordable Care Act to provide mental health counseling to those suffering from the world's most popular psychological disorder - organized religion.
Religious fantasies and delusions have no business in everyday reality.
Religious fantasies and delusions have no business in everyday reality.
29
The way these delusions are coddled in the US is an insult to all honest people.
25
Contraceptives are inexpensive, less than $50 per month for the pill. So this is not about denying women reproductive health rights. It's about who should be forced to get involved with paying for condoms or the pill. So lets stop with the hyperbole.
Most people with chronic medical conditions pay over $50 per month for medicine. Why should contraceptives be given special status?
That said, I am not against contraception being available. In fact, for women and men who can't afford it; they should be able to get contraceptives free or at a minimal cost from the government.
What I am against is government coercion; the forcing of those with moral qualms about contraception to get involved with it; unless there is no other reasonable solution.
Most people with chronic medical conditions pay over $50 per month for medicine. Why should contraceptives be given special status?
That said, I am not against contraception being available. In fact, for women and men who can't afford it; they should be able to get contraceptives free or at a minimal cost from the government.
What I am against is government coercion; the forcing of those with moral qualms about contraception to get involved with it; unless there is no other reasonable solution.
8
It's not about the cost, it's about an employer interfering with their employee's personal lives and medical care.
30
Marriage between one man and one woman, as stated repeatedly and symbolized throughout the Bible, IS Christianity. Obergefell (the same-sex case) applied a secular redefinition of the basic tenet of the Christian faith to all Christians in America, whether we wanted it or not.
For Justice Kennedy to not only play Constitutional framer, Congress, and 50 state legislators but to play God and rewrite the foundation of the Christian faith is not only crazed, but anything but evidence of a "friendly" Roberts Court.
Get serious Ms. Greenhouse.
For Justice Kennedy to not only play Constitutional framer, Congress, and 50 state legislators but to play God and rewrite the foundation of the Christian faith is not only crazed, but anything but evidence of a "friendly" Roberts Court.
Get serious Ms. Greenhouse.
5
I don't care what the bible says. I was married in a park and a judge presided over the ceremony. Religion had nothing to do with it. When a couple gets divorced it's hashed out in court. Marriage is a legal contract and someone who claims to be a lawyer should know that.
Homophobes lost this one. Get over it or move to a country more suited to your prejudices.
Homophobes lost this one. Get over it or move to a country more suited to your prejudices.
36
If you keep following the logic of the fully religious, not having sex is, in fact, a form of birth control. Perhaps in the future they will seek an exemption to not hire or have to mingle with single people. Maybe they will ask for an exemption from hiring sterile people, or masturbators, or women who have gone though menopause, or men with erectile dysfunction.
At what point do the logical people get to draw the line in the sand?
At what point do the logical people get to draw the line in the sand?
24
At some point, could someone point out to the Religious Right that imposing a moral code, bigotry, misogyny, exclusivity and the insistence that it's your way or the highway (to Hell) may, indeed, be part and parcel of religion but none of these things have anything to do with faith.
18
When it gets to the point where an organization will tell the individual employee what there belifs are going to be, we have gone too far. Is that personal religious freedom, I think not.
19
Why would a pregnant woman, mother, wife, choose her own potential death when a safe abortion before viaibility keeps her family and it's health safe. How can the religious right considering the decimation of a whole family be God's loving answer to a family trying to maintain a loving family?
Is this a rational, loving democratic society, or one filled anxiety that God won't make the right choice when he "answers" genuine prayer? Or that intelligent people are actually needing to have their bodies, their families, their prayers controlled by uneducated, thoughtless men who do not know what a democeacy really is all about? Sometimes it is hard for me to believe they understand religion or democracy and I fear for our children's future.
We all should support education that teaches all children how to seek facts over fiction.
Is this a rational, loving democratic society, or one filled anxiety that God won't make the right choice when he "answers" genuine prayer? Or that intelligent people are actually needing to have their bodies, their families, their prayers controlled by uneducated, thoughtless men who do not know what a democeacy really is all about? Sometimes it is hard for me to believe they understand religion or democracy and I fear for our children's future.
We all should support education that teaches all children how to seek facts over fiction.
19
Prayer was invented to reinforce the delusional notion that nature has some kind of personality that listens.
13
Thank you, Ms Greenhouse.
This column, again, shouts the need for us "lefties" (of whatever amount of leaning) to get out and vote for whichever Democrat gets the nod--even the anti-Hillary, pro-Bernie, wish-Elizabeth-Warren-had-run crowd.
ALL of the current Republican candidates will nominate religious nut-jobs to the Supreme Court, even the "sane" ones like Jeb! or Kasich!
This column, again, shouts the need for us "lefties" (of whatever amount of leaning) to get out and vote for whichever Democrat gets the nod--even the anti-Hillary, pro-Bernie, wish-Elizabeth-Warren-had-run crowd.
ALL of the current Republican candidates will nominate religious nut-jobs to the Supreme Court, even the "sane" ones like Jeb! or Kasich!
42
You are absolutely right, slim1921. It has become a hold-your-nose-if-you-must voting situation, and a vote for a Democrat is the only way we can escape the religious bullying of our Supreme Court. That also would be good voting advice for the dwindling number of reasonable Republicans out there.
14
Why do we never see these groups refusing to allow medical benefits to pay for Viagra, which is used as a recreational drug by many men?
28
The problem with the PPACA is that it is federal law which cannot violate the Constitution, 1st Amendment with its requirement that "Congress shall pass no law..." The same Amendment used by corporate entities like the NYT and other press. The same Amendment used by individuals to speak freely like those commenting here.
1
I am often censored here. The first amendment doesn't apply to speech in private places.
1
Why in the world do we give a corporation or business - that is nothing but a construct under the law to gain tax and other advantages - "freedom of religion"?
Does a business have a right to decide a religion other than that of the owner? Is there any "free will" involved? Is a business a sentient being?
No doubt the owner of such a constructed entity should have religious freedom. When they impose that religion on others through a government-sanctified legal construct, they are violating the separation of church and state, for there should be "no law respecting an establishment of religion."
If they want to impose their values on the business, the business should be run as a proprietorship - forfeiting all tax and legal advantages of incorporation or limited liability company.
Does a business have a right to decide a religion other than that of the owner? Is there any "free will" involved? Is a business a sentient being?
No doubt the owner of such a constructed entity should have religious freedom. When they impose that religion on others through a government-sanctified legal construct, they are violating the separation of church and state, for there should be "no law respecting an establishment of religion."
If they want to impose their values on the business, the business should be run as a proprietorship - forfeiting all tax and legal advantages of incorporation or limited liability company.
26
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for pointing out the complicity of paying taxes. Part of growing up is accepting that we all participate, to some extent, in the evils of the world. Otherwise one must not think too much when sitting down to a meal, or resting one's head, at the end of the day, under a quiet roof.
14
what bothers me most in all this is the incredible narcissism of those who claim to be uniquely discriminated against for their particular religious beliefs, completely ignoring, as ms greenhouse notes, that the religious objections of others do not get generally exempt them from the laws we all live by, for example, paying taxes to support the military. contrary to what i often hear, the first amendment was surely not crafted to protect christians from atheists or sharia law, but to address a long history of christian discrimination and violence toward other christians. so how have we come to a place where some christians both claim that their particular beliefs have precedence in a "christian nation" and that they are being uniquely discriminated against for those beliefs? if you strip away the notion that they are both uniquely privileged and uniquely discriminated against, you would have to extend the exemptions they claim in the public sphere to all religious traditions. i feel quite confident that this is not an outcome that even the most strident supporters of "religious freedoms" want. how sad.
25
If you sign this form stating you object to providing contraceptives, then your insurance company will do it for you.
That's the gist of the exemption the Federal Government is asking these objectors to sign.
Knowing how insurance companies act, do any readers believe that the costs of contraceptives are not already in the premiums or will be put in the premiums in the next year. Look at how an auto accident or a traffic ticket affects your premiums.
So an exemption is not really an exemption if the insurance company is required to provide the service over the objections of its client.
I personally don't care about contraception, if you want it you should be able to buy it. I just don't think that the Little Sisters of the Poor should be told that their plan will have to provide contraception if they have a valid religious objection (I think being a Catholic Nun is a valid religious objection). I also think that forcing the insurance company to provide the contraception at no charge (ha, ha, wink, wink) is the same as having the Little Sisters provide it.
If the Federal Government wants to bully the Little Sisters, they should look out for The Little Sisters' BIG BROTHER. I wouldn't want to get on HIS bad side.
In the end, freedom is diminished by forcing a wrong into a right.
That's the gist of the exemption the Federal Government is asking these objectors to sign.
Knowing how insurance companies act, do any readers believe that the costs of contraceptives are not already in the premiums or will be put in the premiums in the next year. Look at how an auto accident or a traffic ticket affects your premiums.
So an exemption is not really an exemption if the insurance company is required to provide the service over the objections of its client.
I personally don't care about contraception, if you want it you should be able to buy it. I just don't think that the Little Sisters of the Poor should be told that their plan will have to provide contraception if they have a valid religious objection (I think being a Catholic Nun is a valid religious objection). I also think that forcing the insurance company to provide the contraception at no charge (ha, ha, wink, wink) is the same as having the Little Sisters provide it.
If the Federal Government wants to bully the Little Sisters, they should look out for The Little Sisters' BIG BROTHER. I wouldn't want to get on HIS bad side.
In the end, freedom is diminished by forcing a wrong into a right.
6
Incorrect on several issues. 1) It is illegal for them to include this coverage in their premiums. The difference would be obvious for anyone who took the time to look.
2) Insurance companies WANT to provide contraceptives. Condoms and Diaphrams are MUCH cheaper than prenatal and delivery services.
3) If anyone is being bullied, it's the employees of the Little SIsters. The government provided a work around for companies that objected. They want to force their views on other people, and are throwing a tantrum when they aren't allowed to do so.
2) Insurance companies WANT to provide contraceptives. Condoms and Diaphrams are MUCH cheaper than prenatal and delivery services.
3) If anyone is being bullied, it's the employees of the Little SIsters. The government provided a work around for companies that objected. They want to force their views on other people, and are throwing a tantrum when they aren't allowed to do so.
8
What garbage all these threats based on post-mortem punishments by God really are. You never grew up if you believe them.
6
Jeez
Can anyone point me in the direction of forming my own religion? There are all kinds of things I object to which I want to opt out of. I would also certainly love to gather a group of marks who pay me a nice healthy tax free tribute every week.
Seems like the best scam going.
Can anyone point me in the direction of forming my own religion? There are all kinds of things I object to which I want to opt out of. I would also certainly love to gather a group of marks who pay me a nice healthy tax free tribute every week.
Seems like the best scam going.
61
My son-in-law got a license to perform religious marriages for $15 and has conducted several. He is a very religious person, but has no training as a minister. Apparently ordination is not a difficult proposition, and if the couple is willing and the State recognized the marriage certificate, you can pretty much conduct yourself as a Gnostic minister.
So register and get a license, conduct a few services, especially those approved by the State to give you color of law, to prove you are not just playing a joke on the system, and take on the whole governmental apparatus including the IRS.
You might as well start reading up on the law and be prepared to defend yourself Pro Se as well, because the Government doesn't like rebels.
So register and get a license, conduct a few services, especially those approved by the State to give you color of law, to prove you are not just playing a joke on the system, and take on the whole governmental apparatus including the IRS.
You might as well start reading up on the law and be prepared to defend yourself Pro Se as well, because the Government doesn't like rebels.
1
"The extreme to which the plaintiffs’ refusal takes their “complicity” argument is what the appeals courts have found so alarming. The organizations don’t want to pay for birth control and they don’t want anyone else to pay for it either" That is the most important point. The religious right's assertions here are not about being one voice among many, but being The Voice of all. For them, unless they can voice what they think is the laws of God's creation, they are supporting the darkness of the world. They must give witness to The Right Thing, or they will be as culpable as those who are wrong---the sinners who would interrupt God's power of creation, even when it comes through a rapist, as one fine perverted example of their insanity. Do not be fooled by this. They are trying for a theocracy and nothing less.
42
They are resisting a policy that would reduce the costs of health care insurance for everyone.
5
As a retired clergy, hospital chaplain and bioethicist, the honing of religious objections seemingly has no end. Of the many good reasons to find other ways to fund health care (Single Payer, e.g.) than through Employer-provided insurance, an employer's religious objections essentially provides dictation of what kind of health care an employee receives. Permitting an employers' "religious objections" to prescribe the elements to be covered in a health policy injects the business owner into an area of medical and health care for which he or she is not qualified nor privileged to decide--unless, perhaps, it interferes with the job for which the person is hired. Employer-provided Health Insurance is both an inefficient and basically unethical way to provide health coverage for anyone. My pension plan and Medicare provide for us, but reimbursements are consistent with widely-held medical standards for care. One may not agree with one or another, but on the whole, it works for the vast majority of health needs.
49
The worse thing about these psalm-singing hypocrites is that they are indeed hypocrites with a capital H. The second worse thing is you can't get rid of them. The good thing is their percentage of the population is dwindling. Thank God.
16
For that matter, why should "religious" companies even pay their employees? After all, nobody's forcing them to take jobs with such companies. Perhaps "faith based" CEOs have the deep spiritual belief that monetary gain is a moral pollutant (for everyone else, that is, not themselves, of course; in that fascinating way that religious principles and biblical law are always absolute in the second and third person but flexible and even optional in the first) and that God will provide for the truly faithful.
"War on Religion": the faith-based temper tantrum.
"War on Religion": the faith-based temper tantrum.
25
I am a frequent commenter here known for my conservative Baptist viewpoints [but certainly not Republican!]. I can imagine that those who have responded to my conservative views on a variety of topics will be stunned to know that I am in full support of reform in this area of religious exemptions from taxation.
For a number of decades as a pastor of a church, I have complained that the commercial nature of the “mega-church” movement was more about business and profits than about religion. I have despised the commercial activity of these “churches,” for once the pastor becomes an MBA in a business, the Gospel disappears entirely. A huge number of these so-called churches are little more than tax shelters for huge commercial activities only tangentially related to or totally irrelevant to the Great Commission which Christ gave the church. As such, none of these activities ought to be tax exempt.
One church building, that one that is used for worship and for the weekly education and training of godly people desiring to know God better should be exempt, as an expression of the historic tolerance and acceptance of the First Amendment rights of our people. And even that narrow exemption should be recognized by the churches as an expression of the goodness of the American taxpayer, not a right that attaches.
For a number of decades as a pastor of a church, I have complained that the commercial nature of the “mega-church” movement was more about business and profits than about religion. I have despised the commercial activity of these “churches,” for once the pastor becomes an MBA in a business, the Gospel disappears entirely. A huge number of these so-called churches are little more than tax shelters for huge commercial activities only tangentially related to or totally irrelevant to the Great Commission which Christ gave the church. As such, none of these activities ought to be tax exempt.
One church building, that one that is used for worship and for the weekly education and training of godly people desiring to know God better should be exempt, as an expression of the historic tolerance and acceptance of the First Amendment rights of our people. And even that narrow exemption should be recognized by the churches as an expression of the goodness of the American taxpayer, not a right that attaches.
18
Why do religionists demand any subsidy at all from unbelievers?
Another good reason for single payer insurance covered by employment taxes. All persons would have equal access to all forms of medical care, including contraception, and whether or not to use them would be up to the patient, not their employer's whims.
28
We do not need a war on religion, we need broad, secular indifference. The numbers of agnostic and atheist citizens is growing, and we insist that religion finds NO place in our government, nor in our social policy. We do good things because they are morally correct, and our nation does not need a ghost in the clouds to send us instructions. The more they insist, the more we will resist.
19
Religious freedom for me not for thee, unless you agree with me.
34
We keep hearing the nauseatingly false argument about a "war on Christianity," but what about the religious war on the secular state and those who do not share all or any of the beliefs espoused by religious faiths and denominations?
40
"Thousands of elderly poor have a home today because of one remarkable woman." This quote is attributed to Sister Jeanne Jugan, a French saint in the Catholic Church, who assisted and sheltered the poor and needy in her native France.
These nuns arrived in America in 1868 and have been operating thirty nursing homes throughout the US. Without these kind and loving nuns many of these elderly and poor people would be wards of the state in charity homes with deplorable conditions. These nuns do not receive one dime in salary and have devoted their entire lives to these destitute and less fortunate people.
These nuns have never had to pay for contraceptives so why must they be forced to now? What has happened to their religious freedom? Why must they be forced to sacrifice their conscience and Catholic teachings. This is a travesty.
If these nuns were to close their doors, thousands of needy people would be without quality and compassionate care. Also, many workers would be unemployed and without a decent living. They would lose their healthcare to say nothing of their decent quality of life. Be careful what you wish for. Someone would have to pay for these people to be relocated. It is the taxpayer who would foot the bill. How would you liberals feel about that?
These nuns arrived in America in 1868 and have been operating thirty nursing homes throughout the US. Without these kind and loving nuns many of these elderly and poor people would be wards of the state in charity homes with deplorable conditions. These nuns do not receive one dime in salary and have devoted their entire lives to these destitute and less fortunate people.
These nuns have never had to pay for contraceptives so why must they be forced to now? What has happened to their religious freedom? Why must they be forced to sacrifice their conscience and Catholic teachings. This is a travesty.
If these nuns were to close their doors, thousands of needy people would be without quality and compassionate care. Also, many workers would be unemployed and without a decent living. They would lose their healthcare to say nothing of their decent quality of life. Be careful what you wish for. Someone would have to pay for these people to be relocated. It is the taxpayer who would foot the bill. How would you liberals feel about that?
4
No amount of good someone does entitles them to violate the rights of others. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
13
If they're willing to close their doors over something like this, they're probably not the heroines you paint them to be.
4
One, being good people doesn't mean you're not also unreasonable. Two, the whole point of this exemption is they WON'T be required to pay for contraception. Three, just because something's always been done this way, doesn't mean it's right or shouldn't change. Four, if these people decide to close their doors on the poor, since they can't force their views on third parties, then they can answer to their god.
3
Glad the Circuit Courts are in agreement so far.
I don't think anyone wants to read future headlines like "Supreme Court upholds Amish request to ban motor vehicles nationwide".
I don't think anyone wants to read future headlines like "Supreme Court upholds Amish request to ban motor vehicles nationwide".
31
Could we please have this one?!
2
Roberts is from Indiana, where the peepul really cannot believe that Jews don't take Jesus as their personal savior.
6
These relentless micro-aggressions just prove that it's time for a big push toward a single-payer model of healthcare. Get the employer out of the middle, and most of these employer-specific issues, both fabricated and legitimate, disappear.
19
They are pretending to resist government control of their religion in order to turn their religion into a political tool for the Right.
19
I heard a discussion of the supreme court this morning and they were picking out the issues they thought affected decisions such as gender, age, political party but they never mentioned religion. I believe that is the single greatest issue. Se have five old, conservative men pushing their catholic religion on the country and they are consistent with their votes.
10
Our SCOTUS will be hoisted on their own petard through their Hobby Lobby decision. Christian Shariah is their non-logic and has prevailed. Those of us who are not Christian see the hypocrisy and the blindness of the Catholic justices and wonder as was said to someone in the Bible: Remove the mote from thine own eye first.
10
We have been "accommodating" religion for centuries. Religion has literally become this sacred cow seeking immunity from laws that it might find objectionable while meddling with the lives and personal choices of people that do not subscribe to their world view. It is time to stop treating these religious organizations and churches as some sort of golden calf and call them out for their abuse. A good start would be making them comply with the law like all other organizations and taxing them for the business enterprises that they are.
12
By the Little Sisters' argument, simply existing on this earth and sharing the same oxygen as the rest of us makes them complicit in activities they object to.
18
They don't want women to have access to free contraceptives. Period.
And, yes, it has everything to do with their patriarchal religion. For them, women have no business being intimate without specifically wanting a child to be the result. It's positively medieval. And I think their excuses may have finally run out.
And, yes, it has everything to do with their patriarchal religion. For them, women have no business being intimate without specifically wanting a child to be the result. It's positively medieval. And I think their excuses may have finally run out.
28
They don't want women to have access to any contraceptives!
1
These "deeply held" religious cases are about power, not reproduction.
An old maxim:
Once religion ruled the world.
It was called The Dark Ages.
An old maxim:
Once religion ruled the world.
It was called The Dark Ages.
28
I'm at a loss to understand why signing a form declining to provide an optional service would be considered a substantial legal injury.
Surely the plaintiffs don't have a leg to stand on, even in a court that seemingly gives carte blanche to religious complaints.
Surely the plaintiffs don't have a leg to stand on, even in a court that seemingly gives carte blanche to religious complaints.
17
Where will the mania of religious-over-lord-control of our worker-surf population end? I am guessing - not in this supreme court.
8
It becomes more and more imperative that a conservative never again be president, with the power to appoint judges. I hope sensible people who value first amendment freedoms get out and vote.
11
Moriality does not derive from law, rather law derives from morality. As the mores of society evolve and change, the laws which codify them must also change. This is the brilliance of our Constitution, and the concept that Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, the Court's arch conservatives, refuse to accept.
11
"At that point, the spotlight will return to the court, along with the heated rhetoric about the Obama administration’s supposed “war on religion.” Not only is there no such “war,” but the administration has bent over backward to accommodate religious claims that are by any measure extreme".
Tell that, literally, to the "Sisters of the Poor", who the Obama Administration just buried in Court.
Tell that, literally, to the "Sisters of the Poor", who the Obama Administration just buried in Court.
2
I would like to tell my employees that they cannot take time off for religious celebrations -- not one day, not one hour -- because I am an atheist and object to supporting with my profits organizations that deal in the supernatural.
How would that go over?
How would that go over?
23
This would not go over very well. They have a right to take vacation time for religious holidays as you cannot stop them. Now look who is imposing their views .
1
Opposition to atheism is the only thing that unites all the ridiculous people who claim to know what God thinks.
I remember during the Vietnam War, many people tried to withhold taxes based on their lack of support and opposition to the war. All those claims were summarily dismissed.
If religion gets a pass from obeying state and federal laws, I am starting my own church, limiting our speed on the highway is against our faith, paying for a movie I decide I don't like is against my faith, and leaving work when I am bored is part of my faith. Is that all I have to do to be free of these issues.
If religion gets a pass from obeying state and federal laws, I am starting my own church, limiting our speed on the highway is against our faith, paying for a movie I decide I don't like is against my faith, and leaving work when I am bored is part of my faith. Is that all I have to do to be free of these issues.
9
The only real solution is slavery. If you give an employee wages they might spend it on birth control or porn or excessive amounts of alcohol.
12
Signing a form that says your organization declines to participate in a program is not itself participation. Their argument is fatuous, and it undermines the credibility of the religious liberty movement.
The more interesting question is whether there should be ANY accommodation afforded to employers, healthcare providers, educators, etc., simply because they claim to believe that such activities are religiously inspired.
The more interesting question is whether there should be ANY accommodation afforded to employers, healthcare providers, educators, etc., simply because they claim to believe that such activities are religiously inspired.
85
There are no legitimate exceptions to the Constitutional ban of faith-based legislation.
1
Suppose my boss is the owner of a closely held family company and a devout Jehovah Witness? What is going to stop him from imposing on my family health plans that prohibit coverage for any blood related products and procedures that may be needed to save my son's life in the aftermath of a midnight motorcycle accident? Suppose my boss owner is a devout Christian Scientist and the health policy exclude coverage for disease preventing childhood illnesses like the Measles? Both my religious freedom and right to life and health would be surely stepped by these extremist interpretation of religious "freedom"
17
In no context other that advancing Christian – or, more specifically, Catholic – doctrine on birth control would even the Roberts court allow parties to litigate and re-litigate issues on which the Supreme Court already has spoken (i.e., Griswold) and on which the appellate circuits are not in conflict.
The impediment to the Roberts court’s following the law on these issues is not a conservative judicial philosophy, as demonstrated by Judge Jerry E. Smith of the Fifth Circuit. The obstacle is purely and simply the strong religious bias of Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow justices in the majority.
It even goes beyond Roman Catholicism, given the statistics on the use of birth control by Catholic couples in the United States, and actually centers on the particular orthodoxy of these men on the bench of our nation’s highest court.
Is it not the traditional, ethical, honest and honorable thing for a judge harboring such a bias to recuse himself from the case?
The impediment to the Roberts court’s following the law on these issues is not a conservative judicial philosophy, as demonstrated by Judge Jerry E. Smith of the Fifth Circuit. The obstacle is purely and simply the strong religious bias of Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow justices in the majority.
It even goes beyond Roman Catholicism, given the statistics on the use of birth control by Catholic couples in the United States, and actually centers on the particular orthodoxy of these men on the bench of our nation’s highest court.
Is it not the traditional, ethical, honest and honorable thing for a judge harboring such a bias to recuse himself from the case?
12
When have Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito ever been bound by "tradition, ethics, honesty, or honor?" They can ALWAYS be counted on to do the wrong thing, except in those exceedingly rare instances (ACA votes) when Roberts has gotten nervous about how he will be regarded by history, and so voted against what the rabid, right-wing faction in this country wanted.
The most liberating thing you can do is stop claiming to know what God thinks. It allows you to blow off all the idiots who continue to claim to know what God thinks.
10
I certainly can sympathize with religious orders/institutions not wishing to underwrite contraception or abortion practices, but that's their choice and We, the People, are entitled to make other choices for ourselves. Just as I observe the Sabbath on Saturday, no one has the right to tell me I must observe it on Sunday (which is biblically incorrect anyway since calendars show Sunday as the first day of the week, not the 7th, and everyone knows G-d rested on the SEVENTH day, but who's counting)
Attempts to skirt the laws are simply attempts to force one religious opinion down everyone else's throats, and I'm pretty sure the framers of the Constitution would agree with that assessment, and in doing so, would rule those attempts to circumvent the Constitution as unconstitutional.
The US does a great job of complaining about the Taliban, sharia, the religious right Rabbinate in Israel, and encroachment of civil law in Catholic countries, but refuses to acknowledge the religious right here is not unlike those other bodies. We cannot be exempt recognizing the same intolerance at home.
SCOTUS tends to sit on the fence , and while it's nice they are, to date favoring the government lately, I suspect a single change of justice would alter that momentary balance. It's past time for the court to be free from religious doctrine and dogma when considering cases for We, the People. We shouldn't even need to be having this discussion.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
Attempts to skirt the laws are simply attempts to force one religious opinion down everyone else's throats, and I'm pretty sure the framers of the Constitution would agree with that assessment, and in doing so, would rule those attempts to circumvent the Constitution as unconstitutional.
The US does a great job of complaining about the Taliban, sharia, the religious right Rabbinate in Israel, and encroachment of civil law in Catholic countries, but refuses to acknowledge the religious right here is not unlike those other bodies. We cannot be exempt recognizing the same intolerance at home.
SCOTUS tends to sit on the fence , and while it's nice they are, to date favoring the government lately, I suspect a single change of justice would alter that momentary balance. It's past time for the court to be free from religious doctrine and dogma when considering cases for We, the People. We shouldn't even need to be having this discussion.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
10
Christianity belongs on the same dusty shelf as Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse mythologies. Go to ANY of these more ancient texts and you will find talking animals, virgin births, half-god half-human offspring, plus numerous other "miracles" and magical nonsense. Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along.
13
Plaintiffs object to providing birth control, and want to assure that their female employees don't use it. The employers aren't required to provide birth control. But they don't have the right to prevent employee use. The religious want not only to practice their religion, but to impose it on others. That's where they step over the line.
15
I'm curious, is "be fruitful and multiply" the only basis for the religious right's prohibition of birth control, or is this mostly church doctrine? How is this different from "a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" which sounds a lot like Sharia? Either way, denying birth control certainly helps keep poor people poor. Perhaps the religious right should volunteer to adopt more babies from poor families!
9
Isn't it strange that the amendment guaranteeing religious freedom is being used by those it is supposed to protect to do just the opposite? They want to prevent others from benefiting from the same law that allows them their freedom.
80
Yes. The product is a generic contraceptive pill whose monthly supply costs around $4. My asthma medication (with insurance) runs me $300/month with a co-pay. My asthma medication keeps me out of the ER. Presume the OC does the same. Why am I paying $300 co-pays and yet it is high theatre that $4 a month is too much for an individual to shell out?
2
Cost a different matter. Take that up with your insurance company or better yet help fight for a single payer system.
2
I object ! ....for deep and sincerely held spiritual reasons of course, to the 'Little Sisters of the Poor' having tax exempt status as a non-for profit entity. I also object to Hobby Lobby (a retail store that is creepily focused on other people's reproductive health) to availing itself of generous corporate tax 'incentives' not available to me ! Unincorporated average wage earners (that live and breath but are not the kind of "persons" recognized by 'Citizens United) are paying the tab and the societal costs for too much 'personal belief'. Enough already.
13
The answer to employers whose religious convictions impel them to deny health insurance for family planning -- or any other healthcare services -- should be to exempt those employers from the obligation to provide any health insurance benefits to their employees. Instead, those employees would obtain their own health insurance, the cost of which would be imposed on their employer. As inclusion of family planning services actually reduces the cost of insurance, the employers would not be financing it.
7
churchers have tried, are trying, to subvert the country since it began...religion, at the retail level, is a controlling force that keeps it's customers from thinking for themselves and questioning the authority and threatening the brand (a habit, once ingrained, that can be marketed, sold or leased, to anyone willing to pay the price of endorsement)...the definition of marriage, for example, cast in a religious light, inflects any debate over the civil (constitutional) issue, pushing it toward a pro or anti religious issue ("spiritual" is the buzz word, with its after-life connotations, with "conscience" thrown in to keep guilt in active for its day-to-day influence in this life)...in the medical issue, the easy answer is and always will be single payer...the moral issue of exploiting the faith of the faithful for material or political gain will, if the churchers have their way, never come to the floor for debate as long as hypocrisy serves as cover for a multitude of sins (see history for the full catalog of of the venal and deadly offenses perpetrated, empowered and protected thereby).
8
If you believe in women having the right to contraception and the right to choose abortion, vote Democratic in Nov. 2016. If you want to live in a theocracy where back-alley abortions and stay at home moms in aprons are the norm, vote Republican. The choice could not be clearer.
14
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in 1993 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton; it was not proposed or seen as an agent of the culture wars." One can only ask how any intelligent individual who voted for that act could not read into the title alone that it was in fact, an agent of the cultural wars! We daily, continue to suffer from the inadequacies of our elected politicians.
5
We need an activist supreme court to overrule all precedents granting religious exemptions from generally applicable laws and declaring all similar legislation unconstitutional. Perhaps president clinton can find somebody who is neither catholic nor an ivy league graduate for the court. Then somewhere not too far down the road religions will disappear.
3
These groups who are opposed to going against their consciences are not forcing their religious beliefs on anyone. They do not want to participate in something that is against their moral fortitude. What is wrong with that? This is their right and they should be left alone. Let them buy their birth control at the local women's health clinic which will cost them very little. Even if they have to pay out-of-pocket expenses it is still inexpensive.
2
Please go back and read the article carefully. It is very easy for these groups to opt out of participation, as Greenhouse makes clear. What they want to do is precisely what you say they don't -- that is, prevent others from having access to insurance-provided contraception even when provided by third parties.
As with the bogus "religious freedom" objections to same-sex marriage, what kind of "freedom" is it that consists of restricting the freedom of *others*, and why in the world should we be expected to respect that?
As with the bogus "religious freedom" objections to same-sex marriage, what kind of "freedom" is it that consists of restricting the freedom of *others*, and why in the world should we be expected to respect that?
6
...said the misogynist KMW. Women are NOT your personal property to control and their reproductive freedoms are simply more important than your petty sectarian beliefs. Get this through your sexist skull.
7
Remember, those groups wanting to avoid allowing their employees to use their health benefits as they need also have worked hard to close down those 'local women's health clinics.' They may not be forcing their beliefs on anyone, but they certainly are forcing their religious beliefs about behavior on their employees. Very un-American. And no, birth control pills are not inexpensive. The full cost can be $200 a month.
5
Not only do I agree whole heartedly with the position taken by Ms Greenhouse, here and elsewhere, but I find the reasoning and articulation refreshing in ways that make the effort to follow the trail into the labyrinthine thickets of the law and its historical context most enlightening. The author has found her stride and one could only hope that might lead her someday to a seat on the Court.
6
Single payer health coverage would solve all of these problems.
7
Like the environmental "greenhouse effect", what is described here by Linda Greenhouse on TP-GOP religion and society (e.g. women's issues) also do not require TP-GOP facts or logic. We see the same in Paul Krugman's columns detailing the history of failed austerity economics and its punishment of the already down-trodden. It is scary...its creeping into all discussions of society...and its the favored low info voter/modus operandi of the current TP-GOP campaigns.
5
The current U.S. Supreme Court majority and its self-appointed black-robed high priests seems to fully support the Republican Party's goal of turning the United States into a right-wing militaristic Christian nation where the objects of worship are wealth, war, weapons, and the womb.
11
Evidence is that people who fight for what they call religious freedom is the freedom to impose their beliefs on others. And one may think that the five Catholic justices agree with that view. Democracy is just bothering for these people.
9
The complicity argument says that by filling out the opt-out form the employer is setting in motion a series of actions that leads to contraceptive coverage. I think a good response is to argue that the law says all women WILL have contraceptive coverage, the only question is who will pay for it. By filling out the opt-out form, the employer isn't causing their employees to have coverage, they're just be saying that they don't want to pay for it.
6
The Administration's attempts to impose on the free exercise of religion reveals that it has not "has bent over backward to accommodate religious claims that are by any measure extreme." but that the Supreme Court recognizes freedom of religion is not restricted to freedom of private belief (as the Administration sees it) but includes, as the Constitution says, free exercise of religion.
1
If Muslims petition the court to insist on all women being covered head to toe so they aren't forced to view women's bodies & faces, or if the neighborhood Orthodox Temple sues to have no restaurant open on Saturdays, because it offends their beliefs, you'd be okay with that?
Or is it that only certain evangelical Christians get to say what everybody else must do in order to accommodate them?
Can you not see the illogic of your argument? Freedom to worship as you wish must not be allowed to impinge on anybody else.
Or is it that only certain evangelical Christians get to say what everybody else must do in order to accommodate them?
Can you not see the illogic of your argument? Freedom to worship as you wish must not be allowed to impinge on anybody else.
Until all people who are claiming a religious exemption for providing a service which should fall under any civil rights expectation actually follow the bible in toto... then they have no right to claim any refusal to provide a service. There are 613 commandments in the bible for which evangelicals pick and chose what they like. So I suggest, that when a client enters their business establishment, they provide a check list for the client to complete and sign then for the business to review. If any biblical commandment is violated, then the evangelicals should not provide any service no matter what as it violates the evangelicals right not to support that persons sin. Let's start with adultery, alcohol, self enjoyment (or spilling your seed), no eating pork, no touching the opposite sex if not married to her or him, driving on the Sabbath, eating milk and meat together,eating shellfish, using materials that are forbidden to be mixed together, (wool and cotton, horses and mules behind your plow, etc) and the list goes on for 600 plus more of 248 must do's and 365 cannot do's. Until the evangelicals do all the commandments they have no place to judge others because they leave themselves open to accusations of hypocrisy and fraud.
3
Hypocrisy and fraud are their stuff in trade!
The issue as framed by Ms. Greenhouse is much too complicated. It really boils down to can the government force me to buy something for you?
1
I OBJECT to religious employers who wish to exercise their right to object by refusing to fill out the form notifying the government of their objection. Hey, I could go spinning around in circles on that one till kingdom come. But I, the Supreme Court, and I suspect many others, excepting those with the intent to subvert the law, using clandestine, tortuous, tangled webs, along with the clear wish to block a woman's right to maintain control over her own body. They might do better praying--for themselves and even, in a moment of uncharacteristic largesse, for those with whom they disagree. After all, that would be loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc., etc. How radical! How sacrilegious!
4
If you choose to work for a religious entity you have to expect irrationality from your employer.
5
I cannot imagine any smart loving husband, boyfriend or partner who would let his wife or girlfriend take the contraceptive pills for years and decades thus changing the crucial chemical and hormonal reactions within her body for the sake of his selfish worry-free lifestyle and personal pleasure.
The pharmaceutical companies have assured us that those hormonal pills are safe, but do they really know it for sure?
The human body and nature have perfected those internal chemical reactions for several hundred thousand years but big corporations claim they managed to have better results in a few decades.
Really?
Is there any direct consequence between the hormonal pills and the cancers the people suffer from later in life?
You have to understand the pharmaceutical companies have no idea what they are talking about.
They might have tested those pills for a decade or shorter and blame the bad long-term consequences on a million different reasons.
We cannot prove a direct relationship between the increased number of cancers among the female population and the hormonal pills. They cannot disapprove such a connection.
Are you really willing to accept such a colossal risk just to please your selfish partner?
No pharmaceutical company has tested a composite effect on your body of the contraceptive hormonal pills AND SEVERAL OTHER PILLS YOU MIGHT TAKE SIMULTENIOUSLY.
No smart pharmacist could claim with a certainty those contraceptive pills don’t have a harmful effect on you.
The pharmaceutical companies have assured us that those hormonal pills are safe, but do they really know it for sure?
The human body and nature have perfected those internal chemical reactions for several hundred thousand years but big corporations claim they managed to have better results in a few decades.
Really?
Is there any direct consequence between the hormonal pills and the cancers the people suffer from later in life?
You have to understand the pharmaceutical companies have no idea what they are talking about.
They might have tested those pills for a decade or shorter and blame the bad long-term consequences on a million different reasons.
We cannot prove a direct relationship between the increased number of cancers among the female population and the hormonal pills. They cannot disapprove such a connection.
Are you really willing to accept such a colossal risk just to please your selfish partner?
No pharmaceutical company has tested a composite effect on your body of the contraceptive hormonal pills AND SEVERAL OTHER PILLS YOU MIGHT TAKE SIMULTENIOUSLY.
No smart pharmacist could claim with a certainty those contraceptive pills don’t have a harmful effect on you.
1
And what in H does this have to do with so-called religious exemptions? Or providing IUDs for that matter.
For that matter, no smart human being could claim with a certainty that pregnancy doesn't have any negative effects.
For that matter, no smart human being could claim with a certainty that pregnancy doesn't have any negative effects.
1
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you don't feel comfortable taking birth control pill don't take them.
1
Between efforts to eliminate birth control and and eliminate all abortion for any reason is to force all wonen all women and families to consider the value of a non viable fetus, to be adored as sacred while the family loses their mother, a husband loses his wfle,
8
To those religions that seek to have laws passed or get special treatment, based entirely on their religious beliefs, I say: "When your god [aka "God"] appears before my elected representatives in Congress and explains why such a law is necessary for, or benefits, all of us, I will then listen and decide." Until then your religion is just another lobbying group to me.
15
The real problem is that so many of these religious organizations misunderstand the multiple roles of human sex. In most animals, the sole point of sex is fertilization and conception. However, unlike most other animals, human sex has a second role to play in reproduction and propagation of the species, namely, maintaining the emotional bond between male and female through the very long process of raising offspring to adulthood - because it takes two to do it (or at least it did up to a century or so ago). Its one of the things that makes us unique and has made us so successful as a species.
Strange that religions that tend to deny the animal nature of humans fail to recognize this important difference between human and animal sex.
Strange that religions that tend to deny the animal nature of humans fail to recognize this important difference between human and animal sex.
7
these religious protesters will not take yes for answer because they don't seek answers. they seek to portray themselves as helpless victims of a secular humanism that disrespects all spiritual values. this is a legitimate issue for public discourse in its own right, but it does NOT jibe with their allegations of a war on religion. YOU GET RESPECT WHEN YOU GIVE RESPECT!
7
Women should "just say no" to working for these bigoted "religious" establishments. Let the Little Sisters of the Poor run their nursing homes entirely with male employees. See how that works for them.
7
The pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution and subsequently became the religious persecutors here. Our nation was founded on the liberal principle that every citizen had the right to pursue their happiness free from the tyranny of kings and theocracies. The separation of church and state is what allows everyone the freedom to pursue their religion free from persecution, but it also prevents religions from imposing their religious beliefs on others.
What is so hypocritical of many religionists is that while they enjoy the freedom to practice their religion free from persecution, they don't tolerate the freedom of others to their own beliefs, and actively endeavor to impose their religious beliefs on them.
One of the most fundamental tenets of almost all religions is humility, to live and let live, and to leave judgment to God. What a better world this would be if only this most fundamental religious tenet wasn't most often practiced in its breach.
What is so hypocritical of many religionists is that while they enjoy the freedom to practice their religion free from persecution, they don't tolerate the freedom of others to their own beliefs, and actively endeavor to impose their religious beliefs on them.
One of the most fundamental tenets of almost all religions is humility, to live and let live, and to leave judgment to God. What a better world this would be if only this most fundamental religious tenet wasn't most often practiced in its breach.
89
Behind these apparently nonsensical cases are people like you and me who might one day find themselves forced to do something abhorrent to them under the guise of "the public good". Criminals occasionally escape prosecution on legal technicalities but the rules are there to protect all of us. Of course these "religious non-profits" are trying to game the system. But the system is coercive and arbitrary in the sense that it decides that an existing voluntary benefit must be made compulsory for no other reason than to satisfy a political objective. That it enjoys popular support is irrelevant. Locking some people up without trial would enjoy popular support.
2
They'll keep fighting, rather than declare victory, because the fight really isn't about contraception as such. Rather, the religious groups -- and more to the point, their allies/sponsors -- are looking for ways to scuttle the ACA itself. If their appeals fail this time (and I hope they do) they'll just keep looking around for something else...
10
As always, this is a well considered article from Greenhouse. She alludes to the greater problem we have caused by Republican idealogues: it is not enough to get what they want, they must utterly crush any position contrary to their own. Compromise is just not possible with such people. It will be interesting to see how the public perceives these increasingly extreme positions. Will there be a huge upswelling of rejection or will the public simple remain asleep?
8
There is already an upswelling, but in the wrong direction - look at the popularity of of Donal Trump. There used to be a party called the Knownothings. I think that it has returned
All these attempts to establish a government-sanctioned religion--and we all know which kind of religion is supposed to be the "official" religion--should be declared unconstitutional. These rulings seem to be slanting two ways: in favor of the wealthy corporations and against women.
Perhaps someone should start calling out this "official" religion for what it is, a patriarchal, rich white man's religion based on a completely inaccurate understanding of the religion they're trying to impose on the rest of us.
Perhaps someone should start calling out this "official" religion for what it is, a patriarchal, rich white man's religion based on a completely inaccurate understanding of the religion they're trying to impose on the rest of us.
10
These laws are unconstitutional under any plain reading of the first amendment. The Supreme Court is not above making abject fools of themselves by garbling plain English.
If a non-profit religious organization "opts out," so that the insurance company must provide contraception, the non-profit religious organization will still end up paying for contraception. Insurance companies aren't in the habit of providing any coverage for free. Every insurance company that makes a rate proposal to the organization will take this projected cost into account when it comes up with its rate proposal, and so every insurance company's rate quote will be higher than it would have been if no contraception coverage were provided.
In short, the non-profit religious organization will end up paying for contraception coverage, one way or another – unless it's allowed to exclude contraception coverage from its plan. Whatever one's views may be on this, let's not pretend that's not the economic reality here.
In short, the non-profit religious organization will end up paying for contraception coverage, one way or another – unless it's allowed to exclude contraception coverage from its plan. Whatever one's views may be on this, let's not pretend that's not the economic reality here.
16
Actually, from what I have read the non-profits will end up paying less. Apparently, insurance companies have found that fully covering contraception is actually cheaper in the long run than not fully covering contraception and they are able to lower premiums because of the difference.
6
Actually, costs go down because unintended pregnancies cost insurance companies far more than contraceptives.
6
Thinker: and of course they are paying for contraception coverage for workers of other employers in an even more direct way whenever they shop for goods or services. If they really want to be as pure as they pretend, they'll have to grow their own food, make their own clothes, travel by foot, etc.
5
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for your continuing coverage of our courts. I very much appreciate your efforts to explain the inexplicable.
There is one point I wish we heard more often; contraception is a necessary and much desired product for men too. How many men, who engage in sexual intercourse, want to have a baby? Every time they have sex? It is not just an issue for women. There are many rational, family-centered, family and sanity preserving, explanations for why contraception and family planning is a very, very good thing. A family values issue in the best sense of the words.
There is one point I wish we heard more often; contraception is a necessary and much desired product for men too. How many men, who engage in sexual intercourse, want to have a baby? Every time they have sex? It is not just an issue for women. There are many rational, family-centered, family and sanity preserving, explanations for why contraception and family planning is a very, very good thing. A family values issue in the best sense of the words.
3
It is ridiculous for the legislators to attempt to pass laws for no reason other than to accommodate this church or that religion, and then for the courts to interpret, apply and enforce every one of these intrusions into what freedom of religion really is. The constitution guarantees freedom of, and from, religion. That is the only reference to religion that has any justification for being in the legal canon of the United States.
Your religion, when it attempts to limit or force change on my religion or lack of it, is illegal. The moment the first law addressing the demands or preferences of a religious group was passed and signed into being, the Constitution was violated. Your freedom to practice each and every facet of your religion is available to you, when this practice is undertaken in your place of worship.
If your cult, and I'm taking the liberty of labeling each and every form and variety of religion a cult, requires you and your fellow cultists to dance naked, you are free to do so. In the confines of your faction's privately owned and controlled meeting place, have at it. In the public high school parking lot or on the corner of Main and Elm Streets, dance all you want, but wear the minimum amount of clothing society allows for public appearance, and don't disrupt traffic.
All the exemptions granted for religious relief of everything from taxation to reproduction had no justification for being made law and then forced on those with differing beliefs.
Your religion, when it attempts to limit or force change on my religion or lack of it, is illegal. The moment the first law addressing the demands or preferences of a religious group was passed and signed into being, the Constitution was violated. Your freedom to practice each and every facet of your religion is available to you, when this practice is undertaken in your place of worship.
If your cult, and I'm taking the liberty of labeling each and every form and variety of religion a cult, requires you and your fellow cultists to dance naked, you are free to do so. In the confines of your faction's privately owned and controlled meeting place, have at it. In the public high school parking lot or on the corner of Main and Elm Streets, dance all you want, but wear the minimum amount of clothing society allows for public appearance, and don't disrupt traffic.
All the exemptions granted for religious relief of everything from taxation to reproduction had no justification for being made law and then forced on those with differing beliefs.
5
Any court that has the audacity to declare corporations to be people shouldn't create more havoc in real peoples' lives.
4
Silly me, I thought he 'case too far' was the denial of religious conscience over wedding cakes and pictures
the populace favors such exceptions, if prison beards are ok, wedding cakes can be selective , here in conservoland
the populace favors such exceptions, if prison beards are ok, wedding cakes can be selective , here in conservoland
1
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the uber religious are trying to do. They are trying to use a law that was designed to allow for reasonable accommodation of religion, and turn it into a club so the religious can use their beliefs to force everyone else to live by them. So for example, I am sure you will see these so called 'religious liberty' groups arguing that a born against christian moron can discriminate against gay employees, or allow an employer to deny health care insurance to a same sex married employee, or to outright discriminate. They want religion as a club and won't stop until they get it, they want the first amendment to be "uber alles". The conservative Catholics, especially the Bishops, the evangelicals, all want to find ways to put their bias and discrimination into law again.
1
Your comment "They want religion as a club and won't stop until they get it, they want the first amendment to be "uber alles", should be a rallying cry to all of us who need the constitutional protection of freedom from religion! If we can get a groundswell supporting Internet neutrality, surly we could do more of the same with clogging Congress with our opposition to religious creep into politics. It would be difficult for me to believe that there is not one Republican, or Catholic woman who does not use birth control.
Linda Greenhouse calls the Roberts Court the most "religious friendly" iteration of the Supreme Court.
Again, I love Linda Greenhouse, I remember her from my grad school days at Harvard. But she's wrong. Severely wrong.
Marriage is literally the fundamental basis of Christianity, with the act and ceremony of marriage being a direct reflection of our relationship with God through his Son. It is why God sent and sacrificed His only Son and the basis of the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible.
In other words, marriage IS Christianity.
Justice Kennedy's blindingly stupid, legally obtuse, unilateral decision to amend the Constitution of the United States defaced the entire Christian faith.
Maybe I've been in the courtroom too long, but when someone drives a car through your pristine, newly remodeled house and levels it, that's not home improvement.
Ms. Greenhouse, next time, study Christianity as keenly as you do the law before making such an erroneous statement as the basis for an equally erroneous column.
Again, I love Linda Greenhouse, I remember her from my grad school days at Harvard. But she's wrong. Severely wrong.
Marriage is literally the fundamental basis of Christianity, with the act and ceremony of marriage being a direct reflection of our relationship with God through his Son. It is why God sent and sacrificed His only Son and the basis of the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible.
In other words, marriage IS Christianity.
Justice Kennedy's blindingly stupid, legally obtuse, unilateral decision to amend the Constitution of the United States defaced the entire Christian faith.
Maybe I've been in the courtroom too long, but when someone drives a car through your pristine, newly remodeled house and levels it, that's not home improvement.
Ms. Greenhouse, next time, study Christianity as keenly as you do the law before making such an erroneous statement as the basis for an equally erroneous column.
3
Are you sure you are a Christian?
Your theology is less than weak. It is downright wrong.
"Marriage is literally the fundamental basis of Christianity"
No. Believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior is the fundamental basis of Christianity.
====
"It is why God sent and sacrificed His only Son and the basis of the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible."
Again, no.
Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb, whose death atoned for the rest of us who live with Original Sin.
It couldn't be clearer.
John 3:16: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life"
====
"In other words, marriage IS Christianity."
Tell that to a Jew or Muslim, or the billions of other Non-Christians who have somehow managed to get married.
Also tell that to Jesus himself who was unmarried, as well as to every Nun and Priest who are not allowed marriage.
If Marriage IS Christianity, why are the holiest of those disallowed from Marriage?
Your theology is less than weak. It is downright wrong.
"Marriage is literally the fundamental basis of Christianity"
No. Believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior is the fundamental basis of Christianity.
====
"It is why God sent and sacrificed His only Son and the basis of the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible."
Again, no.
Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb, whose death atoned for the rest of us who live with Original Sin.
It couldn't be clearer.
John 3:16: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life"
====
"In other words, marriage IS Christianity."
Tell that to a Jew or Muslim, or the billions of other Non-Christians who have somehow managed to get married.
Also tell that to Jesus himself who was unmarried, as well as to every Nun and Priest who are not allowed marriage.
If Marriage IS Christianity, why are the holiest of those disallowed from Marriage?
76
DCBarrister, I suppose this may be one of those situations in which you insist, as you so often do, that your interpretation is the only correct or possible interpretation. Usually, these claims on your part are limited to legal interpretation; this time you have extended it to your preferred theological interpretation.
Christ himself did not marry. St. Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 7, that he believes it is best to be unmarried, suggesting that marriage is a secondary spiritual state to ensure that a believer not stray into fornication. Prior to the 11th Century, the Roman Catholic Church did not consider marriage a sacrament, and the designation was not final until the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. At that time, most Protestants did not consider marriage a sacrament. None of my Protestant ancestors in the 17th Century considered it a sacrament, with the exception of those who were married in the Anglican Church before they left it. Presently, several denominations actually perform same sex marriages. You have the right to consider them not Christian. They have the same right to so consider you, although they tend to show more charity than that.
I don't dispute that you firmly believe marriage is central to your understanding of Christianity. I do dispute, however, your right to insist that civil law enshrine your specific theological beliefs at the expense of those who have other beliefs.
Christ himself did not marry. St. Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 7, that he believes it is best to be unmarried, suggesting that marriage is a secondary spiritual state to ensure that a believer not stray into fornication. Prior to the 11th Century, the Roman Catholic Church did not consider marriage a sacrament, and the designation was not final until the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. At that time, most Protestants did not consider marriage a sacrament. None of my Protestant ancestors in the 17th Century considered it a sacrament, with the exception of those who were married in the Anglican Church before they left it. Presently, several denominations actually perform same sex marriages. You have the right to consider them not Christian. They have the same right to so consider you, although they tend to show more charity than that.
I don't dispute that you firmly believe marriage is central to your understanding of Christianity. I do dispute, however, your right to insist that civil law enshrine your specific theological beliefs at the expense of those who have other beliefs.
17
Nonsense. The Christian delusion is that life after death is accessible through idolatry of Jesus.
6
If you claim to be "pro-life" but object to making contraception available to women, you're a hypocrite. There's no point in sugar-coating that.
3
Religion, a narrow and discriminatory make-believe fiction, being 'free' to indoctrinate its members into its beliefs and practice, ought not to dictate to our secular society its restrictions, as they are not based in reality and the needs of women in particular. Civil society is the one that must remain free of the faith-based constraints noted, in regards to using birth control pills or any other method deemed scientifically adequate for the well-being of humanity.
1
In no context other that advancing Christian – or, more specifically, Catholic – doctrine on birth control would even the Roberts court allow parties to litigate and re-litigate issues on which the Supreme Court already has spoken (i.e., Griswold) and on which the appellate circuits are not in conflict.
The impediment to the Roberts court’s following the law on these issues is not a conservative judicial philosophy, as demonstrated by Judge Jerry E. Smith of the Fifth Circuit. The obstacle is purely and simply the strong religious bias of Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow justices in the majority.
It even goes beyond Roman Catholicism, given the statistics on the use of birth control by Catholic couples in the United States, and actually centers on the particular orthodoxy of these men on the bench of our nation’s highest court.
Is it not the traditional, ethical, honest and honorable thing for a judge harboring such a bias to recuse himself from the case?
The impediment to the Roberts court’s following the law on these issues is not a conservative judicial philosophy, as demonstrated by Judge Jerry E. Smith of the Fifth Circuit. The obstacle is purely and simply the strong religious bias of Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow justices in the majority.
It even goes beyond Roman Catholicism, given the statistics on the use of birth control by Catholic couples in the United States, and actually centers on the particular orthodoxy of these men on the bench of our nation’s highest court.
Is it not the traditional, ethical, honest and honorable thing for a judge harboring such a bias to recuse himself from the case?
I'm reading this to mean that the religious conservative's position is that not interfering is equivalent to assisting. In other words, their obligation is to interfere, and if they aren't allowed to interfere, their religious beliefs have been violated. Incompatible with secular democracy.
3
Any religious order who chooses to run a business in competition with others should follow the rules applicable to that business. period. Don't like it? stop competing. Very simple.
3
Yes, I agree religion is a case too far in a country supposedly predicated upon a clear separation of church and state. If, instead of trying to determine the medical needs of women, they spent those resources helping the poor get a better life, we could step back and admire them. They seem like pedantic predators ready to strike out at anything that isn't in their play book. Really, a legal system that has to joust with a religious system is absurd. We let the Amish be Amish without too much difficulty. If these "good Catholics" asked for a show of hands on Sunday morning of how many sitting in the pews used contraception, what would one predict the outcome to be. If, it were announced that those practicing birth control using contraception were held to be in sin and outside the church's moral teachings and could therefore not receive any of her blessings, how many parishioners would be left if the sinners left? These same righteous ones think homosexuality is a choice. If that's true, and it isn't, it would imply that heterosexuality is a choice . I don't remember making any choice. Do you? I now know why I didn't become a lawyer. I wouldn't want to compromise my sanity with obscure nonsense like this argument. For pity's sake, our women are entitled to health care that includes all of their needs not just some religions' idea of their needs. Your essay was beautifully written and it is clear to me that this "problem," ought not to have seen the light of day. Thank you!
4
All religion is superstition. For any court, especially the Supreme Court, to subvert any person's rights based on a belief no more or less significant than a middle school student wearing lucky socks to help him pass an algebra test is, well, to flunk their test of knowledge of Constitutional Law.
3
The striking element about all these ostensibly Free Exercise decisions is that the government, in creating them, is engaging in Establishment of Religion.
It mimics the historical American pattern of religious groups who impose their religion on others, and then claim that their restrictions on religious freedom are in fact an assertion of "Freedom of Religion." The practice goes back to the Plymouth Plantation.
It mimics the historical American pattern of religious groups who impose their religion on others, and then claim that their restrictions on religious freedom are in fact an assertion of "Freedom of Religion." The practice goes back to the Plymouth Plantation.
2
As one raised in the Catholic church, I can attest the teaching that 'the woman has had her chance to determine whether she goes to heaven or hell, her death during childbearing or delivery is not worthy of consideration relative to bringing another child into the world.'
1
Apparently these non-profits or whatever one chooses to call them are not satisfied with a system that allows them to escape paying for contraception for their employees. They want to go beyond that and prevent their employees from receiving contraception aid from any source, i.e., impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Jerks.
4
The most important need for contraception is among these religious types who overpopulate the planet for their pathetic interpretation of 'god's rules'.
3
It's all ok. The government can defeat most any claim by proving that it has a "compelling interest". Hobby Lobby was a bit of an aberration because the government had already exempted thousands and set up another avenue for getting contraceptives, thereby preventing them to successfully argue a "compelling interest". New lawsuits will come but that's natural considering the socially changing climate we are in.
1
My father, a life long democrat, didn't vote for a democrat the last twenty years of his life. His bishop wouldn't let him. Couldn't vote for a politician who supported a woman's right to choose. He could, however, vote for a politician who supported war as a first option.
Republicans have made hay and achieved great success the last half century by convincing Catholic voters to ignore the seperation of church and state and "take their orders from the Vatican". (I remember JFK promising that he would do no such thing.)
Of course, now that the Vatican has put cultural war issues on a back burner and come out with full voiced support for the Earth and its climate woes republicans are telling the Vatican to mind its own business. Especially, it seems, Catholic republicans.
Maybe the Little Sisters of the Poor should get on the bus. Although, I really wonder if the suit was brought by the nuns or the bishops.
Republicans have made hay and achieved great success the last half century by convincing Catholic voters to ignore the seperation of church and state and "take their orders from the Vatican". (I remember JFK promising that he would do no such thing.)
Of course, now that the Vatican has put cultural war issues on a back burner and come out with full voiced support for the Earth and its climate woes republicans are telling the Vatican to mind its own business. Especially, it seems, Catholic republicans.
Maybe the Little Sisters of the Poor should get on the bus. Although, I really wonder if the suit was brought by the nuns or the bishops.
5
I am pretty sure that the Supreme Court knows how to use the idea of 'defeasible' in looking at these new cases. And I am equally sure that the Court's emphasis in Hobby Lobby on RFRA was not a mistake. The Court knew well the why and the wherefore of RFRA's enactment by an almost unanimous Congress. It was to provide bounded context to the First Amendment's protection of religion.
RFRA was enacted by Congress to eliminate the punishment for possessing and using peyote by members of the Native American Church. Peyote is a Schedule 1 drug, like marijuana, magic mushrooms, and a few other botanicals. After Hobby Lobby, I am of a mind that RFRA, entails a due process inconsistency in punishing a person for using any of the botanicals as part of a religious belief system. How can it be that it's OK for someone who is a member of church to find sacred meaning in life by chewing on a piece of cactus, but not for someone not a member of that church to find a sacred meaning in their own lives. And by extension, there is the Rastifari use of marijuana in its religion; and by similar extension, there are many indigenous peoples in the Southwest who use the magic mushroom, "shrooms" as part of an ancient religious practice to aid them in their pursuit of sacred meaning in their lives.
RFRA was enacted by Congress to eliminate the punishment for possessing and using peyote by members of the Native American Church. Peyote is a Schedule 1 drug, like marijuana, magic mushrooms, and a few other botanicals. After Hobby Lobby, I am of a mind that RFRA, entails a due process inconsistency in punishing a person for using any of the botanicals as part of a religious belief system. How can it be that it's OK for someone who is a member of church to find sacred meaning in life by chewing on a piece of cactus, but not for someone not a member of that church to find a sacred meaning in their own lives. And by extension, there is the Rastifari use of marijuana in its religion; and by similar extension, there are many indigenous peoples in the Southwest who use the magic mushroom, "shrooms" as part of an ancient religious practice to aid them in their pursuit of sacred meaning in their lives.
I would encourage your readers to read about the history of Griswold v. State of Connecticut and the life of Stelle Griswold. More than 50 years ago I was a student at a Roman Catholic high school in West Haven, Ct. I followed the case closely since Mrs. Griswold was a family acquaintance and the father of one of my classmates was a leading and very vocal opponent of Planned Parenthood providing contraceptive care to women.
The experience had a profound effect on me. I saw first hand how a church was seeking to use the State to impose its sectarian beliefs and moral discipline on all citizens - intruding into the most intimate and private matters and inserting the State into their marriages.I
These events caused a 17 year-old boy to closely examine his religious and political views through the lens of reason and justice. When I graduated from high school and went to Yale I promptly became an Episcopalian and interested in law and social justice.
Now, more than 50 years later, I see the same religious forces seeking State protection to allow them to impose their sectarian beliefs on employees, students and the general public in the name of protecting religious freedom. They seek to use the State to turn what was a shield into a sword to use against others of different beliefs.
The experience had a profound effect on me. I saw first hand how a church was seeking to use the State to impose its sectarian beliefs and moral discipline on all citizens - intruding into the most intimate and private matters and inserting the State into their marriages.I
These events caused a 17 year-old boy to closely examine his religious and political views through the lens of reason and justice. When I graduated from high school and went to Yale I promptly became an Episcopalian and interested in law and social justice.
Now, more than 50 years later, I see the same religious forces seeking State protection to allow them to impose their sectarian beliefs on employees, students and the general public in the name of protecting religious freedom. They seek to use the State to turn what was a shield into a sword to use against others of different beliefs.
4
Where do liberals go to refuse to pay for pre-emptive war they find religiously offensive?
5
As they say, Ms. Greenhouse, "from your mouth to God's ear."
I guess in this case "God" would be at Justice Kennedy yet again.
I guess in this case "God" would be at Justice Kennedy yet again.
2
Will someone please explain how these groups expect to be exempt from the birth control provisions if they are not willing to fill out a form that says that they object? Do they think the insurance companies should read their minds?
It seems like a simple answer, if you don't notify the proper channels of your objection, then birth control is included in the plan.
It seems like a simple answer, if you don't notify the proper channels of your objection, then birth control is included in the plan.
3
Interesting case. But it's puzzling to me that the case exists at all. Contraceptives are a legitimate topic of discussion for folks receiving any form of public aid. But this case is about contraceptives for people with salaries. There is no need to include contraceptives or vitamins or aspirin or flu shots or haircuts in their coverage. If they want any of these things ... they have the salaries to purchase them.
1
Wow. Who in their right minds equates contraceptives with vitamins? Sex ed is really lacking in this country.
Almost all contraceptives require a prescription or the services of a medical professional (e.g. the IUD). This is called health care and it's covered by insurance.
Almost all contraceptives require a prescription or the services of a medical professional (e.g. the IUD). This is called health care and it's covered by insurance.
Taking these religious freedom arguments to a not so very extreme case would imply that a Christian Scientist employer should be allowed to provide no medical insurance whatsoever.
What people don't seem to get here is that this is not about religion so much as it is about one of the two cast in concrete irrational taboos in American society: Sex and drugs. In this country, persecution of any sexual or drug activity outside of the "establishment mainstream" is much more readily accepted than for other offenses.
What people don't seem to get here is that this is not about religion so much as it is about one of the two cast in concrete irrational taboos in American society: Sex and drugs. In this country, persecution of any sexual or drug activity outside of the "establishment mainstream" is much more readily accepted than for other offenses.
1
So essentially, religious organizations want to make anything they disagree with illegal or impossible to obtain. Sounds like Afghanistan and the Middle East.
7
Our Constitution is being perverted. As has been pointed out, the reason for separation of church and states was so that the State could not impose any particular religion and it's associated beliefs on the public. Conservatives have cleverly turned this on it's head - with complicity from SCOTUS-screaming "war on religion". The "war" is actually on those who do not profess to any particular religion-or associate with a religion that does not parrot the belief's of conservatives. If the conservative members of the court, and those filing this type of court case had their way, the United States would become a Christian theocracy. While we decry the meddling of mullahs in political and public life in countries such as Iran, apparently it is acceptable for similar activities to occur in this country, as long as it is clocked under the "freedom of religion" banner.
6
The five male catholic corporate justice majority who inhabit OUR United States Supreme Court may very well try to place more restrictions on what women do with their own bodies and lives. They might very well want to see the taliban-style-christianization of America. However, over one-half the world's population - women - and the men who love them will not stand for it. There is a national effort, led by some of America's most powerful women, to pass the Equal Rights Amendment that was stalled by three "fundamental religious" states in 1972-1982. NOW is the time!
http://www.eracoalition.org/ourmembers.php#
http://www.eracoalition.org/ourmembers.php#
Do these employers also pay their employees in scrip so that they can control their purchases? After all, if they pay in cash, the employee can turn around and buy something the employer doesn't like or condone, which is exactly the issue their making a stink of here - a third party is providing a product or service the employer doesn't like to its employees, while simultaneously avoiding the employer involvement.
115
The next president should nominate Linda Greenhouse for the next vacancy on the Supreme Court. She is as astute and learned, if not more so, as most of them and would do us all a favor by unnerving the likes of Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
2
On a long crooked path religious interests want to eventually force religious belief into the law of the land. When that happens citizens who are not concerned about religious doctrine will be denied legitimate(morally acceptable practices and products on a nonreligious basis) goods and services. The court is deliberately allowing word games to confound the intent of our forefathers to keep religious prejudices out of politics and law.
1
This is yet another example of why we need to get healthcare out of employment and stop allowing employers to micromanage women's, yes only women's, health. Under a universal system supported through taxes no one could opt out. Little Sisters of the Poor might complain. But I haven't heard them complaining about their tax dollars supporting war or drone strikes that kill children.
1
There was no way to frame the Hobby Lobby decision as anything but permission to impose the Pentacostal views of the owner on all HIS female employees. The SC decided these hapless females could "choose" to work elsewhere.
Now how does that work if the Catholic Church takes over the hospital you work in, the only hospital for 70 miles?
IMO, there is no way to frame the decision as not intruding on the personal lives and choices of employees. I don't think this court, including the blighted Justice Kennedy, have any problem imposing religious beliefs on women.
Now if the subject had been Viagra or Cialis, we might have seen a very different decision but I've yet to hear of a denomination objecting to male sexuality after the good lord takes that man's natural ability away. I guess impotence isn't considered God's will the way pregnancy is...
Now how does that work if the Catholic Church takes over the hospital you work in, the only hospital for 70 miles?
IMO, there is no way to frame the decision as not intruding on the personal lives and choices of employees. I don't think this court, including the blighted Justice Kennedy, have any problem imposing religious beliefs on women.
Now if the subject had been Viagra or Cialis, we might have seen a very different decision but I've yet to hear of a denomination objecting to male sexuality after the good lord takes that man's natural ability away. I guess impotence isn't considered God's will the way pregnancy is...
4
Wow. Powerful column, Linda. The most salient points for me were as follows:
1. "The problem is that the religious groups pressing these claims refuse to take yes for an answer."
2. "The organizations don’t want to pay for birth control and they don’t want anyone else to either."
Of these comments, number two is far more pressing: because it's a direct violation of the anti-establishment clause of the 1st amendment. That no religion shall be established in the public square or influence legislation that applies to all citizens in a secular society.
In the vernacular: the religious right is not fighting for its rights to practice religion but for the right to impose its edicts on all citizens, practicing Christians or not.
If this case makes it to SCOTUS, I truly hope it clarifies the slippery slope we're on when religious zealots refuse to take "yes" for an answer. Give em inch and they take a mile---but when it comes to forcing their religious views into the legal system with the goal of setting a "religious freedom" precedent without parallel, this could be one of the most critical cases of this fall's caseload.
1. "The problem is that the religious groups pressing these claims refuse to take yes for an answer."
2. "The organizations don’t want to pay for birth control and they don’t want anyone else to either."
Of these comments, number two is far more pressing: because it's a direct violation of the anti-establishment clause of the 1st amendment. That no religion shall be established in the public square or influence legislation that applies to all citizens in a secular society.
In the vernacular: the religious right is not fighting for its rights to practice religion but for the right to impose its edicts on all citizens, practicing Christians or not.
If this case makes it to SCOTUS, I truly hope it clarifies the slippery slope we're on when religious zealots refuse to take "yes" for an answer. Give em inch and they take a mile---but when it comes to forcing their religious views into the legal system with the goal of setting a "religious freedom" precedent without parallel, this could be one of the most critical cases of this fall's caseload.
5
The best solution would be to separate healthcare from employment completely. The state should be the sole administrator of healthcare. In the same transition, it should also get out of the marriage business, which is too loaded with historical and cultural peculiarities to serve as an efficient mechanism for the distribution of benefits.
84
The real root problem is employer sponsored insurance. The individual should make their own decisions based on their needs. They should be able to pick their own insurance plan. Having the employer in the middle is a huge impediment to a reasonably functioning health care system. Let's move on to a system that won't continually trip over itself.
2
What is a religion? Does it require a God? Are many Gods allowed? Do Buddhism and Confucianism qualify? Is Pacifism a religion? Must it be organized? How organized? What about religions that require human sacrifice? Why should religious beliefs override beliefs supported by facts and logic?
In a different directions, one should ask oneself if the good done by religions since the beginnings of civilization outweighs the evil?
In a different directions, one should ask oneself if the good done by religions since the beginnings of civilization outweighs the evil?
4
There are no tax preferences for atheism.
1
Actually, while we had the military draft, conscientious objectors basing their objection on religious belief, typically Quakers and Mennonites, had to perform alternative service instead, a far, far more intrusive action than any required of these supposedly conscientiously objecting employers.
4
Religious extremist have always tried to have a say in other peoples lives. If these employees wishing to use birth control were paying for everything out of their own pocket they could be regarded as sinners that should be made to change their ways. If sinning employees fail to quit their "evil ways" they could be easily fired and some non religious reason would be sited. They just love to meddle in other people's business.
1
If I were handling the matter for DOJ I'd argue that filing the lawsuit provides notice that the plaintiff wants to opt out, that it represents substantial compliance with statute and regulation, that the exemption has already been granted, and the lawsuit is moot.
1
Religious groups should have the opportunity to opt out of birth control coverage, so long as they also opt out of coverage of any other service or procedure not mentioned in the Bible.
No birth control, no stents, no antibiotics, no anesthesia. Go for it.
No birth control, no stents, no antibiotics, no anesthesia. Go for it.
2
Private employers would seem to have right to plead exemption on the basis of their personal religious belief. However corporations are not persons with religious beliefs, since they area paper device for doing business, As it is, the Court seems to have erred in that in the Citizens United decision, in which they said that corporations had the right to give unlimited funds for political purposes, because money is speech. - Of course, money in these cases is frequently the"legalized bribery" of members of a legislature, and we know it speaks loudly. But to allow a corporation, owned by many stockholders to profess a religious belief beggars the imagination. It seems to reflect, in the case of contraception, the facts that five of the Justices are practicing Catholics. None have recused themselves for having a clear conflict of interest,
just as their political beliefs often seem to color their opinions and votes.
That said, contraception is a very personal issue, and there seems no reason why people cannot decide and make their own purchases. It is not a capital outlay. - If an employer of many young women, whom he values as trained, valuable employees, and wants to curtail turnover of personnel, due to unwanted pregnancies, providing contraception would be a good investment.
just as their political beliefs often seem to color their opinions and votes.
That said, contraception is a very personal issue, and there seems no reason why people cannot decide and make their own purchases. It is not a capital outlay. - If an employer of many young women, whom he values as trained, valuable employees, and wants to curtail turnover of personnel, due to unwanted pregnancies, providing contraception would be a good investment.
Don't forget that for young women, obtaining contraception is not necessarily simple or inexpensive (relatively). Unlike the ease of drugstore condom purchase, a contraceptive prescription requires a doctor's visit and likely a co-pay. And the item itself may cost more at the pharmacy than condoms. So there is a financial aspect to this.
I do agree with your observation about turnover. And of course, about corporations having religion.
I do agree with your observation about turnover. And of course, about corporations having religion.
It is also important to consider that birth control is often used for medical reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy.
Would the conservative males on the Court analyze this differently if a "religious" employer declined to provide coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs because recreational sex is anathema to the Bible, and refused to even write a letter stating that they won't?
It seems that these "religious" employers are only concerned about women's sexuality. Men are free to promote wildly non-creative sex with their blessing. At some point, can we just say that their religion is sexist and we won't let it bleed over into our constitutionally egalitarian society?
It seems that these "religious" employers are only concerned about women's sexuality. Men are free to promote wildly non-creative sex with their blessing. At some point, can we just say that their religion is sexist and we won't let it bleed over into our constitutionally egalitarian society?
2
If a religious person or organization says:
1> My god says I should BELIEVE this ... OK, go for it
2> My god says I should DO this ... Fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others
3> My god says you should DO this ... Now, we have a problem
4> My god says I should MAKE you do this ... Those are fighting words
The US is a secular society. People may observe their religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If every religion, every religious sect, every cult could enforce ITS tenets, ITS beliefs on society, chaos would reign and individual freedom would be nonexistent.
1> My god says I should BELIEVE this ... OK, go for it
2> My god says I should DO this ... Fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others
3> My god says you should DO this ... Now, we have a problem
4> My god says I should MAKE you do this ... Those are fighting words
The US is a secular society. People may observe their religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If every religion, every religious sect, every cult could enforce ITS tenets, ITS beliefs on society, chaos would reign and individual freedom would be nonexistent.
2
I think if you're going to claim religious exemption, you should at a minimum show that you are following the teachings of your religions.
Let's take American so-called Christians.
Do they follow the teachings of Christ?
Christ turned the other cheek (anti-war. Pacifist)
He fed the poor for free (Food Stamps)
He healed the sick for free (Medicare or All)
He told the rich to GIVE all their wealth away (Progressive Tax Rates)
Christ hung out with prostitutes and the dregs of society. As he said well, the meek shall inherit the earth. (War against the rich)
Most importantly: he said nothing about gay people, and he certainly cherished the women around him.
You want a religious exemption: start acting like a Christian. then we'll talk.
I will happily grant a religious exemption to any institution that fulfills all of the above criteria.
And I'll tell you what: Hobby Lobby fails miserably.
We'll see about Little Sisters of the Poor. Depends on whether or not they align more closely with the last few Popes, or the current one.
Let's take American so-called Christians.
Do they follow the teachings of Christ?
Christ turned the other cheek (anti-war. Pacifist)
He fed the poor for free (Food Stamps)
He healed the sick for free (Medicare or All)
He told the rich to GIVE all their wealth away (Progressive Tax Rates)
Christ hung out with prostitutes and the dregs of society. As he said well, the meek shall inherit the earth. (War against the rich)
Most importantly: he said nothing about gay people, and he certainly cherished the women around him.
You want a religious exemption: start acting like a Christian. then we'll talk.
I will happily grant a religious exemption to any institution that fulfills all of the above criteria.
And I'll tell you what: Hobby Lobby fails miserably.
We'll see about Little Sisters of the Poor. Depends on whether or not they align more closely with the last few Popes, or the current one.
Isn't any employer "complicit" in any of their employees' purchases given that it is the employer who pays the employee's salary?
I find the extremes to which some people are going to oppose the ACA a sign of a mean sickness in this nation.
I find the extremes to which some people are going to oppose the ACA a sign of a mean sickness in this nation.
52
"Dozens of these organizations promptly filed suit claiming that they couldn’t possibly fill out the form or sign the letter because to do so would make them complicit in the ultimate choice their employees might make to use birth control."
So, really, the fabricated war on religion could more realistically be called war by religion, with the intent of depriving employees of their civil rights and right to health care coverage — which includes reproductive health care. Female employees are the primary victims of this inane religious nonsense.
These issues continue to confirm just how antithetical to human intelligence religious belief is. Primitive, arbitrary and capricious, religious dogma is central to the fear of modernity among believers, who also mistakenly believe they are going to heaven for their beliefs. They aren't going anywhere, but in the meantime they make life pointlessly difficult for anyone who doesn't agree with them whenever they can. "Religious freedom" is the inverse of personal freedom.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
So, really, the fabricated war on religion could more realistically be called war by religion, with the intent of depriving employees of their civil rights and right to health care coverage — which includes reproductive health care. Female employees are the primary victims of this inane religious nonsense.
These issues continue to confirm just how antithetical to human intelligence religious belief is. Primitive, arbitrary and capricious, religious dogma is central to the fear of modernity among believers, who also mistakenly believe they are going to heaven for their beliefs. They aren't going anywhere, but in the meantime they make life pointlessly difficult for anyone who doesn't agree with them whenever they can. "Religious freedom" is the inverse of personal freedom.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
44
They are just provocateurs bawling about perfectly justifiable blowback.
1
The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect religion from the government, but rather to protect the government from being ensnared by religion. That it has somehow been seen to allow for seeming open-ended exceptions is, as Scalia would write if on the other side, an exercise in bombastic slippery slopedness. Really, where does this end?
Churches flourish within, and by the grace of, the society within which they exist. As non-profits (in theory) they pay no taxes, and are largely unaccountable (e.g. Catholic church). Now the religious extremists want to be able to dictate to society at large what 'they' will 'allow' or 'support' or 'uphold' and many, including too many extremist GOP members, speak in nonsense about 'god's laws' being higher than the laws of men. While that is an acceptable position for a private individual to hold, it is an impeachable position for any judge, congressman, or President to hold.
Churches flourish within, and by the grace of, the society within which they exist. As non-profits (in theory) they pay no taxes, and are largely unaccountable (e.g. Catholic church). Now the religious extremists want to be able to dictate to society at large what 'they' will 'allow' or 'support' or 'uphold' and many, including too many extremist GOP members, speak in nonsense about 'god's laws' being higher than the laws of men. While that is an acceptable position for a private individual to hold, it is an impeachable position for any judge, congressman, or President to hold.
16
The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms. I believe you meant the 1st amendment which contains the anti-establishment clause. Otherwise great post.
Some time ago, I believe in the '80s, Grove City College in Grove City, Pa. was forced to sign a non-discrimination form for Uncle Sam because some students attending the college were receiving federal education assistance. That went through about 4 years of litigation till the final outcome. The college itself received no federal support. It's a religiously supported institution, by the Presbyterian Church. If the government's reach is that far, then I hope that the Supreme Court hears a case and sides with the Circuit courts decisions, otherwise we'll all know how much religion affects their judgment!
1
It's unfortunate that SCOTUS refuses to recognize the rights of atheists who believe that providing contraceptive freebies is against our ethics.
4
It's unfortunate that some people are too dim to know the difference between earned compensation and a freebie.
1
Religious groups are within their purview to discuss what is, within their view, moral or immoral. However, they have no authority to impose those views on the rest of us, or for that matter their own parishioners. If they employ lay people than they must abide by the law of the land and should not be able to opt out of any law based on religious beliefs, period. It is tiresome to keep hearing certain religious groups carp about being persecuted when in actuality society resists their attempts to impose their beliefs on others.
35
One hundred percent agreed. Disagreeing with them is not 'persecution'.
As a country, we can only hope that all of this is paving the way of universal Medicare.
21
These clearly spurious lawsuits are nothing less than an assault on our government and freedoms by fanatical zealots. Too many fundamentalist preachers and their fellow travelers are relentless in their quest for dominion over us all. A line must be drawn.
23
The government neither has nor lacks faith. Freedom of religion or atheism or agnosticism does not include restricting the civil secular rights of others via government generally applicable legal action or inaction. The current court is not representative of the faith or faithlessness of most Americans. With 6 Roman Catholic justices (24% of Americans) and 3 Jewish justices (2% of Americans) the least democratic branch of government gives more than the appearance of impropriety and bias.
8
The thing is this is not about religion. Religion is the vehicle being used to win what they really want-control over women's sexuality. They want to decide when and with whom women have sex. And if women don't obey their rules, they want them punished by having to deal with a pregnancy they didn't plan for. Thus, no contraceptives and no abortion. In their weird view, rape is no excuse. And the mother's health needs do not matter. Even if the baby will die anyway, they don't want doctors to save the mother. In that case, it's probably about punishing her for being unable to bring that precious baby to term. Misogyny rules in their world. I don't know why they hate and fear women so much, but that's what it boils down to.
38
My mind keeps coming back to a basic question: Why are conservatives so determined to force women to have unwanted children? To punish them for sex? That seems to be the only explanation for their medieval crusade.
34
They believe abortion is murder, and this is pushing that belief to its extreme/absurd limit.
I shudder to think of what they would be like if science discovered a
way to clone a human from a cheek swab. "Spitting is MURDER!"
I shudder to think of what they would be like if science discovered a
way to clone a human from a cheek swab. "Spitting is MURDER!"
This is the real, and frightening, problem in American culture: the pervasive idea that employers own, yes actually own their employees' bodies. This is evinced in the ubiquitous, groundless drug testing that is done, certainly. But employer-provided health insurance is an even more insidious manifestation of it. If this were a "free" country, employers would have NOTHING to do with employees' health care. You know, like in other, civilized nations. This is a matter of privacy and freedom. Employer-provided insurance is no "benefit", it is a trap. Universal, single-payer health care would be a big step towards freedom from indentured servitude in America.
44
Everything our founders warned us about is coming to pass under the direction of the republican party; standing armies (and the slavish devotion to the myth of the military man), corporations taking too much power to themselves, and the crumbling of the wall of seperation between private devotion and public subservience.
Taliban, IS, and the republican party all share the concept that theirs is the only true path of devotion (or thinking) and all others are to be destroyed.
Taliban, IS, and the republican party all share the concept that theirs is the only true path of devotion (or thinking) and all others are to be destroyed.
1
It there is such a thing going on as a war on religion, I am heartily in favor of it. Founded on nothing more substantial than made-up nonsense, it is time to put religion in the category that it belongs in, superstitious nonsense, and dismiss it as a viable means of solving human problems. If you are an intelligent person, and I assume that most readers here are, and if you are religious in any way, ask yourself what your beliefs are based on. You will most certainly discover that reason is not something that supports them. we have minds. We should use them in rational ways to move civilization forward, not backward. If, in your deepest heart you feel the need to continue in your religious beliefs, please keep those beliefs to yourself and allow more secular minded people to THINK our way to an improved society and government. Enough with the supernatural and the incredible. Let's use our faculties to make rational decisions supported by the use of reason. We are no longer in the Middle Ages.
25
One can read the strangest things in these pages.
1
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion…..I do not want the religious rules & laws of various religious groups & cults imposed on me. They choose to be in those groups, which are not for everyone.
16
If the issue of how the religious beliefs of an employer (profit, or non-profit) should be allowed to affect the medical insurance of its employees, then it would be instructive to consider other regions apart from Catholics and traditional Protestants. So, suppose a company is run by Jehovah's Witnesses, who object to blood transfusions. Should any insurance coverage for the employees pay for any and all expenses except blood transfusions? And what happens when we get to Christian Scientists? What should be paid for in their case? Ultimately, when religious organizations pay taxes they, by definition, may pay for things they consider wrong. War, for example. Do any corporations get to pick and choose what they pay taxes for? Of course not. We are a pluralistic society whose taxes, disability benefits, and insurance, may offend some people's sense of morality. But there is no Constitutional right for them to opt out when their beliefs are at odds with the majority. Such an allowance would ultimately make governance impossible.
24
Actually, corporation do seem to be able to opt out of paying taxes they don't want to pay.
The Hobby case was not decided incorrectly. The problem is the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"! It is a "law respecting an establishment of religion"! The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no (such) law".
13
One more instance of the cowardly Clinton caving in to right wing ideology.
3
If a for profit corporation can be said to have religious belief, which is nonsense, perhaps religious organizations should forfeit their tax exempt status.
109
Yes it was decided incorrectly
3
It's obvious that few readers of the Times understand the theology behind the Catholic opposition to birth control, or the notion of moral complicity. (Contraception is a much more serious matter than Friday abstinence.) The point is that for the State to say that it will allow one to practice certain beliefs, but constrain others, creates a serious entanglement of government with religion and makes a mockery of the separation of Church and State. Obviously that entanglement is necessary when the result would be grievous bodily harm to another (e.g. human sacrifice), but with an issue like contraception, which is widely available for little or no cost, the State's insistence smacks of a determination to force dissenters into submission, regardless of the injury to their consciences.
2
"The point is that for the State to say that it will allow one to practice certain beliefs, but constrain others, creates a serious entanglement of government with religion and makes a mockery of the separation of Church and State"
Perhaps the author of this statement, LEM, will explain how the state should respond to those who claim their religious beliefs require the practice human sacrifice? Does the state's banning of this practice "make a mockery of the separation of Church and State"? Humans who live in civil societies are entangled with their state, which can, must and does constrain them in ways determined by the form and practices of their government -- whether divine right monarchy, federal republics, or direct democracy --, regardless of what their religious beliefs might demand.
Perhaps the author of this statement, LEM, will explain how the state should respond to those who claim their religious beliefs require the practice human sacrifice? Does the state's banning of this practice "make a mockery of the separation of Church and State"? Humans who live in civil societies are entangled with their state, which can, must and does constrain them in ways determined by the form and practices of their government -- whether divine right monarchy, federal republics, or direct democracy --, regardless of what their religious beliefs might demand.
8
"Contraception is a much more serious matter than Friday abstinence"
Using artificial contraception is a mortal sin, but so is deliberately eating meat on Ash Wednesday and Fridays during Lent. The latter is a rebellion against the Church teachings, and rebellion against the Church is a mortal sin. Last time I checked, there was no ranking of mortal sins; they're all equally serious.
Using artificial contraception is a mortal sin, but so is deliberately eating meat on Ash Wednesday and Fridays during Lent. The latter is a rebellion against the Church teachings, and rebellion against the Church is a mortal sin. Last time I checked, there was no ranking of mortal sins; they're all equally serious.
2
Religious freedom does not give you the right to force your beliefs on others.
1
It's not a "supposed" war on religion. It is a concerted effort to usurp religious adherents' rights with the rights of other groups. It is no less a serious offense than those aggrieved by a "war on" women, voters, etc.
It's just a little too convenient that the "wars" that don't victimize the right groups are labeled "supposed" wars. All those other wars could be rationalized quite easily in a column.
It's just a little too convenient that the "wars" that don't victimize the right groups are labeled "supposed" wars. All those other wars could be rationalized quite easily in a column.
8
So the religious right is strictly a right to oppress? I see the conservative definition of rights as including the right to oppress. This is all we need to know about the conservative mind set.
11
@AACNY: "It is a concerted effort to usurp religious adherents' rights with the rights of other groups." Not so, AACNY. I'm sure you're familiar with the constitution, as we all are. Nobody is infringing on anybody's right to practice religion in America, in these "wars" which are not wars at all. What the left will protest until our dying day is the passage of laws, or the pressing of lawsuits, that attempt to allow religious groups to dictate their beliefs to others who are not of their faith.
Religion belongs in church and in one's personal life. But your right to dictate your beliefs to me ends with your personal life, not mine. And, for the record, I am a practicing Catholic. That said, I would never ever advocate that Vatican teachings be applied into federal laws governing the behavior of all citizens living in the United States. We are a secular nation, not a religious one. We have freedom to practice religion and freedom from the imposition by religionists on our own behaviors.
Religion belongs in church and in one's personal life. But your right to dictate your beliefs to me ends with your personal life, not mine. And, for the record, I am a practicing Catholic. That said, I would never ever advocate that Vatican teachings be applied into federal laws governing the behavior of all citizens living in the United States. We are a secular nation, not a religious one. We have freedom to practice religion and freedom from the imposition by religionists on our own behaviors.
33
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. If there is such a 'concerted effort', please to be showing some examples rather than just making an unfounded assertion of victimization (something that 'aggrieved' women can do with ease). As a non-believer in this country, I can tell you firsthand that the religious are neither persecuted nor under-represented in our politics or our laws.
21
"At stake is the health of civil society...". Let's not get carried away. On the whole the tide is against religious extremists. For whatever exact reasons Kennedy sided with public opinion and not the extremists in the case of same-sex marriage (and twisted law and logic mightily in the process), so he may feel he has to throw a token bone back to the religionists. Law and logic again may have little to do with it. But whatever the decision, this case is not going to change things much. The conflict will go on.
2
What's "extreme" is the left's view that Obamacare must pay for routine purchases of contraception. This is what drives people crazy about Obamacare. We were told that we needed Obamacare because of the tragedy of people having to declare bankruptcy because of huge medical bills, or of people with pre-existing conditions who could not obtain insurance. Fine. But then we're told that insurance must also cover the purchase of $9/per month birth control pills, and condoms. This is not the purpose of insurance! And it demonstrates how Obamacare was crafted behind closed doors, by "advocates" for every type of medical treatment, which is why Obamacare also covers smoking-cessation programs and drug addiction. Obamacare should provide a basic level of insurance for people who can't get insurance in the private sector, and that's it. If a person truly can't afford monthly birth control pills, then there is an array of other government programs that can help, or private organizations.
8
R.P. If you look at the costs to the healthcare system (and society in general) for preventing/avoiding unwanted pregnancies, smoking, addiction, etc. it doesn't take a math wizard to see the net savings to everyone—it is orders of magnitude cheaper for the insurer, and therefore all insured, to prevent these outcomes.
8
Those birth control pills probably cost "$9/month" because of an INSURANCE SUBSIDY which the employees are trying to get/maintain. No, condoms will not help treat endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, nor will they regulate menstrual cycles.
8
You seem to have an issue with insurance covering contraception, smoking cessation programs and drug addiction. Let me ask you this, what is more costly to the healthcare system/society as a whole, BC pills or maternity/childbirth hospital care/taxpayer funded welfare for poor families? Smoking cessation programs or cancer/COPD/emphysema treatment? Drug addiction programs or hospital care for people who overdose/a taxpayer funded prison stay. You can cry all you want about these being covered by insurance, but the alternatives are significantly more expensive. Preventative measures are always cheaper than treatment of what we wish to prevent.
6
Why are these religiously-affiliated institutions so fixated on birth control?
Suppose an employee is divorced and remarried. Can a Catholic-affiliated institution refuse to provide spousal and family medical benefits to that family?
The government provides an easy and almost automatic birth control accommodation. Notre Dame had already received its exemption. Its unwillingness to take "yes" for an answer was so convoluted that the 7th Circuit wrote that it couldn't understand what Notre Dame was asking for.
At the same time, Catholic institutions are forced to treat all their employees' families equally---regardless of whether the marriage is OK with the church. Yet Notre Dame is running to the courts on this cooked-up issue instead.
It is easy to think of examples where medical care is in tension with religions beliefs. Some religions prohibit certain drugs, except when ethically prescribed for a healing purpose. Can their insurance coverage exclude palliative care? I don't know. But instead they are arguing over whether they must file for the birth control exemption.
Suppose an employee is divorced and remarried. Can a Catholic-affiliated institution refuse to provide spousal and family medical benefits to that family?
The government provides an easy and almost automatic birth control accommodation. Notre Dame had already received its exemption. Its unwillingness to take "yes" for an answer was so convoluted that the 7th Circuit wrote that it couldn't understand what Notre Dame was asking for.
At the same time, Catholic institutions are forced to treat all their employees' families equally---regardless of whether the marriage is OK with the church. Yet Notre Dame is running to the courts on this cooked-up issue instead.
It is easy to think of examples where medical care is in tension with religions beliefs. Some religions prohibit certain drugs, except when ethically prescribed for a healing purpose. Can their insurance coverage exclude palliative care? I don't know. But instead they are arguing over whether they must file for the birth control exemption.
34
They want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, that's why.
10
Why are these religiously-affiliated institutions so fixated on birth control?
Because effective birth control allows women to live independent lives. It's no coincidence that the great increase in women working outside the home began with the invention of the birth control pill.
Because effective birth control allows women to live independent lives. It's no coincidence that the great increase in women working outside the home began with the invention of the birth control pill.
11
The better question is, why is this administration so fixated on forcing employers to provide free birth control despite their religious exemptions? There are a multitude of ways to get birth control to those who want it, so why not do everything in your power to respect the religious views of these organizations?
If the employer wants to opt-out, then let them, and just require them to notify the employees. Then let the employees find where they can get birth control, as it is not difficult at all. It's really not that hard. The Obama administration just is caught up in this power struggle. They are not used to being told "no".
If the employer wants to opt-out, then let them, and just require them to notify the employees. Then let the employees find where they can get birth control, as it is not difficult at all. It's really not that hard. The Obama administration just is caught up in this power struggle. They are not used to being told "no".
1
Let me just mention that Jeb Bush expressed his support for the position of the Little Sisters before the recent case was decided at his announcement speech. His view seems to be that those who are of his faith can opt out of any civil obligation that they decent from. It would be interesting to ask him if Catholics could refuse to pay state income taxes if it were the case that their state ( such as it was in Florida) use tax payer monies to pay for the death penalty. Or is his view that complicity is only implicated when it protects a value that his interpretation of canon law sees as binding? Is this really the arguments we want to enter into when we elect a president.
61
You won't see JEB! getting behind the Pope's position on carbon taxation. He will be a cafeteria Catholic on that issue, for sure.
Rather than the made-up "war on religion" by the Obama administration, the Little Sister's case is proof of the "war against women" that is being perpetuated by the Right. It's clear that through these cases, the religious conservatives hope to stop contraception in all forms to all people. They fail to see that they will never be victorious. Never. Even "good" Catholics use contraception. Even religions conservatives use contraception. In fact, almost every adult that has a sexual life uses some form of contraception. It may not be birth control pills, but there are many other methods.
64
Yes, you've discovered the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to keep birth control from elderly nuns.
1
There is absolutely no war on religion in the 'greatest nation on earth'.
There is actually a raging war on science, a war were the only participants seem to be our 354 Republican wanna-be presidents, their leadership in Congress and their base.
Analytical reasoning was never their forte. At the same time that they want to reverse Rowe versus Wade step by step, they obviously can't figure out that contraception and education about birth control will make legal abortions less frequent.
All other advanced countries with universal health care have much less teen age pregnancies and less abortions per capita than the good ol' U.S. of A. And they most certainly have no exemptions of providing contraception for religiously affiliated employers.
There is actually a raging war on science, a war were the only participants seem to be our 354 Republican wanna-be presidents, their leadership in Congress and their base.
Analytical reasoning was never their forte. At the same time that they want to reverse Rowe versus Wade step by step, they obviously can't figure out that contraception and education about birth control will make legal abortions less frequent.
All other advanced countries with universal health care have much less teen age pregnancies and less abortions per capita than the good ol' U.S. of A. And they most certainly have no exemptions of providing contraception for religiously affiliated employers.
31
I remain convinced that the Roberts Court, with its rigidly doctrinaire and profoundly political right-wing leanings, is using the so called religious freedom doctrine as a stalking horse, and that their real intention is to roll back nearly a century of legislation governing everything from the safety of the workplace and employment-related benefits to the fundamental rights of workers. Religious "rights" make a useful proxy, in that they shatter the relationship between government and workplace, employer and employee, creating a nebulous zone where individual whim (or "deeply held belief") replaces precedent and statute law.
People like the good sisters are useful pawns in this enterprise--they are ideal from a public relations viewpoint, since they are both sincere and adorable.
The pattern of this court has been persistently and slyly to undermine the rights of ordinary individuals (prisoners, employees, union organizers) while elevating the authority of the rich and the powerful.
Since even in reactionary America, it would be risky to make these moves right out in the open--after all, it would require a certain amount of chutzpah to undo a century of progress in so many words, in the bright light of day--these right-wing justices have opted to set precedent from behind a fog of pieties about God and liberty. Pieties sell awfully well on the nightly news.
People like the good sisters are useful pawns in this enterprise--they are ideal from a public relations viewpoint, since they are both sincere and adorable.
The pattern of this court has been persistently and slyly to undermine the rights of ordinary individuals (prisoners, employees, union organizers) while elevating the authority of the rich and the powerful.
Since even in reactionary America, it would be risky to make these moves right out in the open--after all, it would require a certain amount of chutzpah to undo a century of progress in so many words, in the bright light of day--these right-wing justices have opted to set precedent from behind a fog of pieties about God and liberty. Pieties sell awfully well on the nightly news.
24
Right on target. They are assisting in the one world government by corporations. It is what all the trade deals are leading to.
I think the idea that this case is a bridge too far is overly optimistic. We are, without a doubt, headed towards an atomized theocracy, to be administered by conservative businesses (or those who, for economic reasons, wish not to cover services), at the state level when state government is dominated by religious conservatives, and, ultimately, at the federal level, when the stars align (as they may in 2017.) That is the nature of the beast right now--there is no war on religion. The true targets are the Establishment Clause, and the rights of the individual to decide their own theological preferences and behavior.
15
Ms. Greenhouse, we have a perfect storm here, narcissism, combined with a system of unregulated capitalistic democracy, for which the only God is Profit, and a Supreme Court, whose majority was supplied by Republican toadies of big business.
What this country needs is a psychiatrist to accurately assess our problems, and those of the Supreme Court's, which has become a millstone around our collective neck.
To analyze this dilemma is to come to grips with the agony between our Constitution, a document developed during the Enlightenment, and a reactionary element of our society that has still not shaken off our Puritan heritage, one that considers the Bible the only Constitution. Remember, England rejected them and they came here for "religious freedom," That mindset still infects the Supreme Court and the Republican Party (A party that never saw a means of profit it didn't like, nor a wedge issue not to exploit). Add the many American citizens afraid of dealing with modernity and you have a crucible churning with unresolved, festering problems.
Of course, the irony is that we look to the Supreme Court to make "sense" of the irrational.
What this country needs is a psychiatrist to accurately assess our problems, and those of the Supreme Court's, which has become a millstone around our collective neck.
To analyze this dilemma is to come to grips with the agony between our Constitution, a document developed during the Enlightenment, and a reactionary element of our society that has still not shaken off our Puritan heritage, one that considers the Bible the only Constitution. Remember, England rejected them and they came here for "religious freedom," That mindset still infects the Supreme Court and the Republican Party (A party that never saw a means of profit it didn't like, nor a wedge issue not to exploit). Add the many American citizens afraid of dealing with modernity and you have a crucible churning with unresolved, festering problems.
Of course, the irony is that we look to the Supreme Court to make "sense" of the irrational.
18
What I find interesting about the so-called "war on religion," is that it seems to be waged largely over women's bodies. When it strays from being a fight over women's bodies, it becomes a fight over people publically declaring their desire to marry someone of the same sex, but that is still a fight over bodies. Actually, it's a fight over sex.
It feels like we have been fighting elections and debating public policy issues over sex for decades, probably because we have. I find that mystifying and deeply disturbing. The sexual activity, the desire to have children or not, the choice of partner for my neighbors, my elected officials, even my family, is no concern of mine unless one of the people involved is being forced to have sex or is too young to be asked to make that decision. Imposing the religious beliefs of persons not directly involved in the relationship is a form of religious oppression. For the record, we are NOT a Christian country. We are a secular country by choice and any Christian who wants to change that should remember they are not part of the world's majority religion. Beware what you ask for. It could come back to bit you.
I think it might be very useful to debate some of the pressing issues that do not involve sex - poverty, hunger, homelessness, diminished social mobility, a stratified education system, millions with no access to health care. Maybe it's time to start thinking above the waist.
It feels like we have been fighting elections and debating public policy issues over sex for decades, probably because we have. I find that mystifying and deeply disturbing. The sexual activity, the desire to have children or not, the choice of partner for my neighbors, my elected officials, even my family, is no concern of mine unless one of the people involved is being forced to have sex or is too young to be asked to make that decision. Imposing the religious beliefs of persons not directly involved in the relationship is a form of religious oppression. For the record, we are NOT a Christian country. We are a secular country by choice and any Christian who wants to change that should remember they are not part of the world's majority religion. Beware what you ask for. It could come back to bit you.
I think it might be very useful to debate some of the pressing issues that do not involve sex - poverty, hunger, homelessness, diminished social mobility, a stratified education system, millions with no access to health care. Maybe it's time to start thinking above the waist.
42
Of course, the debate centers on women's bodies. That is normally where conception occurs, and the place in which millions of fetuses' lives are ended. And it is the mother who makes the decision to terminate that life.
Thus there is no way to exclude a woman or her body from this debate. Declaring it "private" and trying to separate the concerns concerning life from a woman's body is an artificial construct that doesn't change the reality of where life begins and is terminated.
Thus there is no way to exclude a woman or her body from this debate. Declaring it "private" and trying to separate the concerns concerning life from a woman's body is an artificial construct that doesn't change the reality of where life begins and is terminated.
2
AACNY - If you and others are so opposed to abortion then wouldn't it make sense to make sure that people use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancies?
Bottom line, it's none of your business. Like it or not this is settled law and while I remain deeply uncomfortable with abortion I'm a lot more uncomfortable with a bunch of religious zealots interfering into the most personal part of people's lives.
Bottom line, it's none of your business. Like it or not this is settled law and while I remain deeply uncomfortable with abortion I'm a lot more uncomfortable with a bunch of religious zealots interfering into the most personal part of people's lives.
5
There you go again, AACNY, with your extremism. The whole point of contraception is to eliminate the need for abortions. If you would slow down and think logically, you'd see that providing contraception would help prevent abortions. It's a simple equation, really. No conception, no abortion. But maybe your religion doesn't allow you to use logic to address issues around public health? You should do something about that because it is really getting in the way of your being able to think rationally.
4
Religion has no place in the decisions relating to government policy. While I may agree with one or the other relgious leader on an issue that does not mean that I want relgious leaders deciding policy or receiving government money to push their agenda. Unfortunately religions now received billions in direct and indirect grants as well as tax exemptions. They have lobbyists paid for with millions that are available because tax payers are covering other costs to make sure they get more $ and special exemptions from the law.
Separation of church and state is key to maintaining true freedom in this country and it's continuing vitality protects us from the dangers of theocracy and religous strife.
Separation of church and state is key to maintaining true freedom in this country and it's continuing vitality protects us from the dangers of theocracy and religous strife.
31
Correct, and separation of church and state is the reason it was very poor policy in ACA to allow for any religious exemptions at all.
The root problem is religion itself and the fact that in less-enlightened times, we built protections for it into our Constitution (although, of course, we also built in protections FROM religion).
Contraception is an excellent example. Virtually all Americans support the wide availability of contraceptives. It is dotty not to. In their innermost brushes with clarity, I believe the vast majority of Americans would recognize that there is not really any god, or any angels, miracles, or absolute rules for morality set down by some supernatural being(s). To believe that these things do exist is silly and childish. So, the "bargain" we make over religion is that we accept ridiculous concepts, authorities, and rules in order to get a false (but apparently effective) sense of comfort and the very real benefits of enhanced community feeling. What results is predictable: cognitive dissonance, which then infects our political sphere.
Let's hope that when we all grow up, finally putting away our rose-colored glasses, these "issues" and problems will eventually become less and less necessary, and then will disappear.
Contraception is an excellent example. Virtually all Americans support the wide availability of contraceptives. It is dotty not to. In their innermost brushes with clarity, I believe the vast majority of Americans would recognize that there is not really any god, or any angels, miracles, or absolute rules for morality set down by some supernatural being(s). To believe that these things do exist is silly and childish. So, the "bargain" we make over religion is that we accept ridiculous concepts, authorities, and rules in order to get a false (but apparently effective) sense of comfort and the very real benefits of enhanced community feeling. What results is predictable: cognitive dissonance, which then infects our political sphere.
Let's hope that when we all grow up, finally putting away our rose-colored glasses, these "issues" and problems will eventually become less and less necessary, and then will disappear.
25
I strongly disagree. The power of religious fundamentalists is at present overwhelming. A pretty high majority of americans do believe in a god, and a scary minority of them believe the bible is absolutely true. Thus, we as a so-called enlightened nation need absolute protection FROM religion. Not one of them has to worry about the practice of their faith, but as a country, we truly have to fear their power and influence.
1
If offering insurance coverage that includes access to birth control makes a religious institution or religiously affiliated business complicit in providing a product to which they object, are employers then complicit in employees acquisition of illegal drugs, the purchase and use of weapons used in a crime. Can the family of a person killed in a drunk driving incident sue the employer of the driver who used funds earned to buy a legal product? This web can get pretty darn tangled. How about we remove all employers from the mix, have a single payer plan and then let the legalistically moral ponderers decide if accepting reimbursement from a plan that covers everything bothers their conscience so much that they close their door? Place that burden on employers and let them put their money where their mouths are.
34
The big issue may be more complex than suggested. The reference to the 50 year old Griswold v. Connecticut case is less about an individual's use of contraception than it is about the government's lack of legitimate interest in the subject matter. Many feel that the government should neither ban nor promote contraception (by making it one of the few free commodities in our society). In China, and perhaps soon in the U.S., contraception (or abortion) might be mandatory. After all, if the government can promote population control it should be able to use any reasonable lawful means - no matter how many religious norms it violates.
The article comes close to the heart of the subject when it mentions conscientious objectors who oppose killing for reasons which may or may not be tied to a particular religion. Some believe that some forms of contraception are a form of killing to the extent it can destroy new life after the moment of conception. The Supreme Court may officially does not know if this is "human" life in the first trimester but people of conscience have strong opinions on the subject.
Thus in the big picture, it is not about complicity in allowing third parties insurers to pay for the destruction of human life but rather in the government promoting the killing under the pretext that it is the choice of others. The government is actively promoting the destruction of an unborn child, often contrary to the wishes of the father - a violation of equal protection.
The article comes close to the heart of the subject when it mentions conscientious objectors who oppose killing for reasons which may or may not be tied to a particular religion. Some believe that some forms of contraception are a form of killing to the extent it can destroy new life after the moment of conception. The Supreme Court may officially does not know if this is "human" life in the first trimester but people of conscience have strong opinions on the subject.
Thus in the big picture, it is not about complicity in allowing third parties insurers to pay for the destruction of human life but rather in the government promoting the killing under the pretext that it is the choice of others. The government is actively promoting the destruction of an unborn child, often contrary to the wishes of the father - a violation of equal protection.
5
Wow! What a convoluted argument!
5
"In China, and perhaps soon in the U.S., contraception (or abortion) might be mandatory."
On what basis so you make this contention? Paranoia?
Oh and if a father is that concerned about the "killing" of his "unborn" child, perhaps he should have worn a condom.
On what basis so you make this contention? Paranoia?
Oh and if a father is that concerned about the "killing" of his "unborn" child, perhaps he should have worn a condom.
1
Nonsense. Science, not religion gets to be the decider here-- and birth control cannot be construed by any scientific measure, as "killing" anything.
2
"But the court can do its part, as I believe it will, by labeling this anachronistic and politically driven dispute over birth control for what it is, a case too far."
Wishful thinking? While many different types of ugly ego-driven values have been furthered by the majority of this Supreme Court, if corporate profits or privilege are at stake it is most likely that that factor will really determine the Court's decision. The only other important factors that affect this court's drive toward the far right has been a) the fear that the Court will lose all of its already seriously damaged credibility, and b) as another reader wrote, Roberts' desire to affect the 2016 elections in favor of the Republicans.
Other than some great moral or religious awakening of one of the Far Right Five, or a new Justice being appointed, I think this Court will continue its mostly quiet onslaught on equality and freedom for the American people.
Wishful thinking? While many different types of ugly ego-driven values have been furthered by the majority of this Supreme Court, if corporate profits or privilege are at stake it is most likely that that factor will really determine the Court's decision. The only other important factors that affect this court's drive toward the far right has been a) the fear that the Court will lose all of its already seriously damaged credibility, and b) as another reader wrote, Roberts' desire to affect the 2016 elections in favor of the Republicans.
Other than some great moral or religious awakening of one of the Far Right Five, or a new Justice being appointed, I think this Court will continue its mostly quiet onslaught on equality and freedom for the American people.
13
The may be deliberately blowing the Court's credibility so that nobody will be left to enforce the Constitutional bounds on Congressional idiocy.
"Evidently, the religious groups pressing this litigation would rather keep fighting than declare victory."
Well, duh. Of course they would. There raison d'etre is crusading for a cause. Even if every last demand of theirs was met, they would find some opposition, even if they had to create it out of thin air, to justify continuing the crusade.
The unspoken truth of all such similar organizations (including those, e.g., supporting gay marriage and abortion on demand, and those opposing it) is that the organizations don't really want to win. The NRA secretly loves that Obama was elected President; it profited handsomely from the fear that his Administration would restrict gun ownership. (Gun and ammo manufacturers also could not have been happier.) Even if the NRA succeeded in getting the whole of the population walking around armed like cowboys in a spaghetti western, it would not stop its crusade. It would find some enlightened corner somewhere that it could set upon to cast its dark shadow.
This is the nature of political organizations in every realm. They exist in order that they might continue to exist. It's true even of the Department of Defense, that can always find some threat to protect us from because without which there were a threat, we wouldn't need them.
So, of course, religious organizations protecting us from the horror of female contraception can't take yes for an answer. Because yes is not the answer they seek, and never was.
Well, duh. Of course they would. There raison d'etre is crusading for a cause. Even if every last demand of theirs was met, they would find some opposition, even if they had to create it out of thin air, to justify continuing the crusade.
The unspoken truth of all such similar organizations (including those, e.g., supporting gay marriage and abortion on demand, and those opposing it) is that the organizations don't really want to win. The NRA secretly loves that Obama was elected President; it profited handsomely from the fear that his Administration would restrict gun ownership. (Gun and ammo manufacturers also could not have been happier.) Even if the NRA succeeded in getting the whole of the population walking around armed like cowboys in a spaghetti western, it would not stop its crusade. It would find some enlightened corner somewhere that it could set upon to cast its dark shadow.
This is the nature of political organizations in every realm. They exist in order that they might continue to exist. It's true even of the Department of Defense, that can always find some threat to protect us from because without which there were a threat, we wouldn't need them.
So, of course, religious organizations protecting us from the horror of female contraception can't take yes for an answer. Because yes is not the answer they seek, and never was.
35
This is smart analysis and spot on. The rallying cry of "persecution" forever fills the coffers and keeps "aggrieved victims" allied under someone's banner.
I once worked for a Catholic newspaper and the editors assured me almost daily of the relentless persecution faced by Catholics in America. It keeps the herd together -- no offense to anyone, but that's a simple truth.
What conservatives in this case are doing is sowing the seeds of the dissolution of American society by attempting to establish an ultimate right, clothed in "religious freedom," to pick and choose which laws to obey. Creating chaos, apparently, is part of the game plan for a small minority to hold onto its eroding status.
Indeed, as Greenhouse states, the Obama Administration has gone to great effort to address rational objections to the ACA. At some point -- and, apparently, it has been reached -- these are frivolous and disingenuous cases that place an undue burden on the court system.
Hmmm, should we all be paying for that?
I once worked for a Catholic newspaper and the editors assured me almost daily of the relentless persecution faced by Catholics in America. It keeps the herd together -- no offense to anyone, but that's a simple truth.
What conservatives in this case are doing is sowing the seeds of the dissolution of American society by attempting to establish an ultimate right, clothed in "religious freedom," to pick and choose which laws to obey. Creating chaos, apparently, is part of the game plan for a small minority to hold onto its eroding status.
Indeed, as Greenhouse states, the Obama Administration has gone to great effort to address rational objections to the ACA. At some point -- and, apparently, it has been reached -- these are frivolous and disingenuous cases that place an undue burden on the court system.
Hmmm, should we all be paying for that?
Another example of in a very long tradition of monotheists feeling that they can't exercise religious freedom unless they're allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others.
93
And doing so tax free to boot.
1
Succinctly and very well put. Freedom for one means loss of freedom for others should they win this suit.
3
Another Atheist who isn't happy unless they can impose their secular view on people of Faith.
1
"The problem is that the religious groups pressing refuse to take yes for an answer"
In 1943 the then Gen Eisenhower being considered for Chief of Staff stated the following: "He would be forced to tell the President that it was a tremendous mistake for he was not temperamentally fitted for the job."
Eisenhower pointed out he had no patience with politicians because he could not bear to continue an argument after logic had made the opposition's position untenable, yet politicians persist against all logic.
In 1943 the then Gen Eisenhower being considered for Chief of Staff stated the following: "He would be forced to tell the President that it was a tremendous mistake for he was not temperamentally fitted for the job."
Eisenhower pointed out he had no patience with politicians because he could not bear to continue an argument after logic had made the opposition's position untenable, yet politicians persist against all logic.
35
A case of mania...even the RC in Italy is not entitled to such sweeping powers of auto-exclusion.
30
These religious organizations are constantly trumpeting that they are against birth control and will not provide it.
What's the difference between saying it and writing it down?
What's the difference between saying it and writing it down?
30
Yes, it's a case too far. Just wait for an idiotic judge to rule for the objection is unconscientious and summarily reverse.
1
The organizations claim that "they couldn’t possibly fill out the form or sign the letter because to do so would make them complicit in the ultimate choice their employees might make to use birth control." Then they ought to shut down their businesses — after all, their employees might spend their paychecks on birth control, and thus paying any salaries will make the company complicit in this godless act.
They can't control what other people do or believe, no matter how much they wish to. This is not Iran, where the mullahs dictate what the laws are.
They can't control what other people do or believe, no matter how much they wish to. This is not Iran, where the mullahs dictate what the laws are.
113
Ah, but conservatives' ongoing efforts to install an "official" American Taliban will not end, and reasonable citizens must never become complacent. In the hands of these people, the Constitution is always in danger. Fanatics do not give up, until they die in the attempt.
1
Why should you depend on your employer for routine supplies? Does your employer pay for your toothpaste and toilet paper?
Let employers pay employees in cash, and employees can buy whatever they need regardless of whether their employer approves of it or not.
Let employers pay employees in cash, and employees can buy whatever they need regardless of whether their employer approves of it or not.
10
Agree. No one wants to discuss the real underlying problem, which is that benefits have replaced salary and wages. The reasons are too complex to explore in detail here. However, we seem to have lost one principal reason for shifting from pay to benefits, namely that the employer's size enabled economies of scale and bargaining power that could get better, less expensive terms than the individuals. Now 'health insurance' is ratcheting up to unaffordability no matter where or how you buy it (thanks, Pres. Obama!).
Benefits are compensation in lieu of salary. (Any teacher knows this; it's why they're so poorly paid compared to equally educated and skilled professionals.) Maybe it's time to abolish benefits entirely and just pay workers enough to buy what they need on the open market. Granted, that would exacerbate unemployment, as entire phalanxes of HR drones and paper-pushers would be dumped on the job market. But as it is now, we have the worst of both worlds (as usual) - the employer wants to control the employees' purchasing decisions in a way he could never do with cash. (This is partly why, in the 'company towns' of the 19th C., workers were paid with scrip, which could be redeemed only at the 'company store'. In part it put them in debt peonage, since the scrip never covered the high prices and workers ran up unpayable tabs - but in part it was so employers could restrict workers' sinful habits, e.g., spending their pay on demon rum.)
Benefits are compensation in lieu of salary. (Any teacher knows this; it's why they're so poorly paid compared to equally educated and skilled professionals.) Maybe it's time to abolish benefits entirely and just pay workers enough to buy what they need on the open market. Granted, that would exacerbate unemployment, as entire phalanxes of HR drones and paper-pushers would be dumped on the job market. But as it is now, we have the worst of both worlds (as usual) - the employer wants to control the employees' purchasing decisions in a way he could never do with cash. (This is partly why, in the 'company towns' of the 19th C., workers were paid with scrip, which could be redeemed only at the 'company store'. In part it put them in debt peonage, since the scrip never covered the high prices and workers ran up unpayable tabs - but in part it was so employers could restrict workers' sinful habits, e.g., spending their pay on demon rum.)
3
Indeed, why should we depend on our employers for health insurance? How logical is that?
1
Contraception not the same as toothpaste and toilet paper. Normally it requires a prescription from a licensed physician and is dispensed by a licensed pharmacist. It is just as much medical as treatment for any chronic condition.
If women could purchase contraception over the the counter without also having to get approval from a medical professional, your argument might have some validity.
If women could purchase contraception over the the counter without also having to get approval from a medical professional, your argument might have some validity.
"whether women who work for a religious employer can receive contraception."
Cpmpletely misleading: At issue is whether medical insurance for those women must pay for contraception.
Another stark reminder of the bias of the Times!
Cpmpletely misleading: At issue is whether medical insurance for those women must pay for contraception.
Another stark reminder of the bias of the Times!
7
As long as medical insurance provided by any other employer must pay for contraceptive supplies, your rewording is apt but only serves to point out that those employees should have their contraception paid for by their medical insurance plans.
12
First of all, benefits are part of a worker's compensation package. They are earned. When someone uses their health insurance they are, in essence, spending what they have earned they are not spending the employer's money. By your logic, the employer could object to any way that an employee uses their earned compensation: their health benefits, how they use their vacation time, what they purchase with their salary.
Second, the issue is whether of not informing the government of the objection to covering contraceptives is an undue burden on religious expression.
Second, the issue is whether of not informing the government of the objection to covering contraceptives is an undue burden on religious expression.
21
Not so. The government and the courts have already declared that the medical plans of "religious nonprofit organizations" do not have to provide contraception, if the organizations sign the opt-out form, or send a letter. In such cases, the contraception is then provided to employees that want it by the insurance carrier, or a third-party administrator. It is entirely removed from the "religious nonprofit organization" and none of the organization's money may be used to provide the coverage. Judging by the writings of the organizations, they clearly do object to the contraception being provided at all, under any circumstances. In fact, I suspect that these organizations would prefer a total ban on all contraception for any and all women, not just their employees. The way the issue was described by the Times was correct.
18
The social "conservatives" on the Supreme Court are guilty of nothing less than "the establishment of religion" by allowing some groups (certainly not all) to impose their religious views on their employees. And why is this always limited to women's reproduction and not other tenets of these faiths? The answer is that all of these decisions are politically motivated and have nothing to do with the law or justice.
125
tolerance is not establishment
1
You are incorrect. Other issues of these faiths besides women's reproductions are involved: male sterilization procedures, embryonic cell research, homosexuality, etc.
Thank you Ms. Greenhouse, for naming this contorted political strategy for the legal abuse that it is. I hope the over weaning Hobby Lobby court can step back from the legal thicket that the Little Sisters (already used as a grandstand by JEB! ) and myriad other litigants invite us to enter (see Indiana pizza). We were forewarned by RGB and Sotomayor then and perhaps their willful brethren can now see the danger of the HL misadventure.
53
NO exceptions! That, my friend, is equality.
You mean Jeb? Don't you.
Someone should remind Catholics that opposition to birth control was a pragmatic decision made centuries after the crucifiction because the church needed more people to work the fields, etc.
How about fish on Fridays, now abandoned, whose origin was to help fishermen. If it were still in force, would the Supremes force employees of religious organizations to eat fish on Fridays?
Religious myths and craziness have no business in establishing laws that affect us all.
How about fish on Fridays, now abandoned, whose origin was to help fishermen. If it were still in force, would the Supremes force employees of religious organizations to eat fish on Fridays?
Religious myths and craziness have no business in establishing laws that affect us all.
74
'If it were still in force, would the Supremes force employees of religious organizations to eat fish on Fridays?'
No, but undoubtedly Scalia, and probably Alito, would find some kind of right whereby Catholic employers could somehow govern how employees spent their food dollar, to make sure they didn't go into a McDonald's or a steakhouse on Friday.
This is the trap you put your foot into when you decide, for whatever reason, to buy something for the employee rather than give him the money to buy it himself. By the employer's argument, he's in a paternalistic position and is buying the contraception, in violation of his beliefs. It would be simply solved if he paid enough to enable the employee to purchase, or not purchase, the goods independently. (Yes, I know about economies of scale, bargaining power, etc. No room to argue here that the 'discounts' are largely illusory, like bargaining down the MSRP on a car; that would be a different post I have neither time nor patience to write right now.)
I'm in a tough position here because I sympathise, to some extent, with both sides. E.g., I am a vegan. Say I hire an assistant, and pay him, oh, $100. I can't stop him from buying hamburger with that $100. Once that $100 is in his hands any moral responsibility is his. However, if I pay him $50 and do $50 worth of his grocery shopping as a 'benefit', he'd better develop a taste for tofu and kidney beans, because I am not going to become complicit in his carnivorous lifestyle.
No, but undoubtedly Scalia, and probably Alito, would find some kind of right whereby Catholic employers could somehow govern how employees spent their food dollar, to make sure they didn't go into a McDonald's or a steakhouse on Friday.
This is the trap you put your foot into when you decide, for whatever reason, to buy something for the employee rather than give him the money to buy it himself. By the employer's argument, he's in a paternalistic position and is buying the contraception, in violation of his beliefs. It would be simply solved if he paid enough to enable the employee to purchase, or not purchase, the goods independently. (Yes, I know about economies of scale, bargaining power, etc. No room to argue here that the 'discounts' are largely illusory, like bargaining down the MSRP on a car; that would be a different post I have neither time nor patience to write right now.)
I'm in a tough position here because I sympathise, to some extent, with both sides. E.g., I am a vegan. Say I hire an assistant, and pay him, oh, $100. I can't stop him from buying hamburger with that $100. Once that $100 is in his hands any moral responsibility is his. However, if I pay him $50 and do $50 worth of his grocery shopping as a 'benefit', he'd better develop a taste for tofu and kidney beans, because I am not going to become complicit in his carnivorous lifestyle.
Birth control centuries after the crucifixion? Really. Did you think this out before you believed it and then regurgitated this stupidity here?
Please review church history CORRECTLY before giving out erroneous facts and information. Birth control bans was NOT established to create more Catholics! It is a theological offense against God's purpose for marriage and sex. Please educate yourself adequately before commenting.
1
So, insurance companies are supposed to give away birth control coverage completely free of charge. Really? That would be unique in American corporate history.
Someone is paying for this either directly or indirectly ... the customers of the insurance company. The religious organizations that provide insurance to their employees are among those customers, and are paying for the coverage in one way or another. That is their objection.
If you object to paying taxes to support a war effort, you can choose to live on an income low enough to avoid paying any income tax. I know people who have done that. But the Little Sisters cannot choose to not pay for, indirectly, coverage that violates their religious beliefs.
Someone is paying for this either directly or indirectly ... the customers of the insurance company. The religious organizations that provide insurance to their employees are among those customers, and are paying for the coverage in one way or another. That is their objection.
If you object to paying taxes to support a war effort, you can choose to live on an income low enough to avoid paying any income tax. I know people who have done that. But the Little Sisters cannot choose to not pay for, indirectly, coverage that violates their religious beliefs.
7
The benefits in question are paid for by taxpayers. In essence, employers (including for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby) have been given permission to transfer financial responsibility for contraceptives to the public as a whole.
Insurance companies, drug companies and pharmacies are not giving away contraceptives. They are all getting paid.
Insurance companies, drug companies and pharmacies are not giving away contraceptives. They are all getting paid.
2
re: Jeffrey Wood's comment
Providing birth control is, as I understand it, a net cost saver for insurance companies. So providing birth control actually reduces the cost of insurance.
But there is a bigger issue, I believe:
Who is paying for the insurance. I would argue it is the employee, even if the policy is viewed as 'subsidized' by an employer such as Little Sisters.
The provision of health insurance is part of the compensation package earned by the worker. What the worker does with her compensation is - or surely should be in a free society - up to her to decide.
If a worker takes a chunk of his pay and gambles it on the horses, are the Little Sisters subsidizing his gambling? No. They pay him for his work, has free will in a free society, outside of work hours. If his gambling ruins him and makes him unreliable, they can fire him. That's about consequences of his choices, but what he does with his pay while off duty should not be something they control if his on the job performance is satisfactory.
Likewise the *earned benefit* of health insurance. Insurance is not a gift, it is not a subsidy. It is part of a worker's pay packet, administered as a group benefit for a variety of reasons and history that probably don't make much sense in the 21st century. But that's a debate for another time.
At it's core, I see this whole thing as religion impinging on the free choice of individuals to do as they see fit with the total compensation they earn.
Providing birth control is, as I understand it, a net cost saver for insurance companies. So providing birth control actually reduces the cost of insurance.
But there is a bigger issue, I believe:
Who is paying for the insurance. I would argue it is the employee, even if the policy is viewed as 'subsidized' by an employer such as Little Sisters.
The provision of health insurance is part of the compensation package earned by the worker. What the worker does with her compensation is - or surely should be in a free society - up to her to decide.
If a worker takes a chunk of his pay and gambles it on the horses, are the Little Sisters subsidizing his gambling? No. They pay him for his work, has free will in a free society, outside of work hours. If his gambling ruins him and makes him unreliable, they can fire him. That's about consequences of his choices, but what he does with his pay while off duty should not be something they control if his on the job performance is satisfactory.
Likewise the *earned benefit* of health insurance. Insurance is not a gift, it is not a subsidy. It is part of a worker's pay packet, administered as a group benefit for a variety of reasons and history that probably don't make much sense in the 21st century. But that's a debate for another time.
At it's core, I see this whole thing as religion impinging on the free choice of individuals to do as they see fit with the total compensation they earn.
7
No funds of the employer are used in any way to provide the coverage, and of course the contraceptive coverage is not free. If an insurance carrier provides the separate coverage, separate payments are made by employees directly to the carriers for contraceptive services. If provided by a third-party administrator, the costs of coverage are borne by the federal government, in the form of an adjustment to the user fees paid by that third-party administrator on the federally administered exchange. No public funds are used.
As Justice Smith wrote: “The insurers and third-party administrators may not impose any direct or indirect costs for contraceptives on the plaintiffs; they may not send materials about contraceptives together with plan materials; in fact, they must send plan participants a notice explaining that the plaintiffs do not administer or fund contraceptives. The payments for contraceptives are completely independent of the plans. . .”
As Justice Smith wrote: “The insurers and third-party administrators may not impose any direct or indirect costs for contraceptives on the plaintiffs; they may not send materials about contraceptives together with plan materials; in fact, they must send plan participants a notice explaining that the plaintiffs do not administer or fund contraceptives. The payments for contraceptives are completely independent of the plans. . .”
5
Currently the right wants to turn women into walking incubators for any zygote they choose because as I frighteningly read yesterday, all zygotes are viable because they can be implanted into a uterus. Think about that for a second. A woman is just a uterus to these people and she can be forced, if they have their way to carry anything they choose to term. It's horrifying. It sounds like he plot of movie.
Women need to wake up and smell the coffee. They are being turned into nothing but a uterus with no rights and no recourse. There are some truly scary things being said out there in the name of religion and an ovum.
Women need to wake up and smell the coffee. They are being turned into nothing but a uterus with no rights and no recourse. There are some truly scary things being said out there in the name of religion and an ovum.
53
mj,
It's not women who need to wake up. They know their rights are being assaulted. It is complacent men, many of whom who vote for tax cuts over basic decency, that are enabling the right wing, and for justices like Scalia and Thomas to be selected and approved.
It's not women who need to wake up. They know their rights are being assaulted. It is complacent men, many of whom who vote for tax cuts over basic decency, that are enabling the right wing, and for justices like Scalia and Thomas to be selected and approved.
1
Universal Sigle Payer Healthcare or Medicare for all, is the only answer to these issues. Until that time we will be continually fighting the conservative hypocrites that want so badly to keep women "in their place."
74
George Bernard Shaw, in Major Barbara, pointed out, through his character Adolphus Cusins (emphasis added):
It is not the sale of my soul that troubles me: I have sold it too often to care about that. I have sold it for a professorship. I have sold it for an income. *I have sold it to escape being imprisoned for refusing to pay taxes for hangmen's ropes and unjust wars and things that I abhor.* What is all human conduct but the daily and hourly sale of our souls for trifles?
We all pay taxes to support 'things that [we] abhor'. The government takes vegans' tax dollars to support the meat industry in all kinds of ways, from USDA inspections of slaughterhouses to ads for the National Beef Council, to the 'experimental' farms exposed by the NYT, essentially 'Mengele for animals'. I don't get a conscientious-objection exclusion; nor, for that matter, does an Orthodox Jew whose tax dollars help underwrite pork factory farms.
Medicare for all, though I strongly support it, still leaves this theoretical problem that 'my' tax dollars are supporting 'your' wrongdoing.
It is not the sale of my soul that troubles me: I have sold it too often to care about that. I have sold it for a professorship. I have sold it for an income. *I have sold it to escape being imprisoned for refusing to pay taxes for hangmen's ropes and unjust wars and things that I abhor.* What is all human conduct but the daily and hourly sale of our souls for trifles?
We all pay taxes to support 'things that [we] abhor'. The government takes vegans' tax dollars to support the meat industry in all kinds of ways, from USDA inspections of slaughterhouses to ads for the National Beef Council, to the 'experimental' farms exposed by the NYT, essentially 'Mengele for animals'. I don't get a conscientious-objection exclusion; nor, for that matter, does an Orthodox Jew whose tax dollars help underwrite pork factory farms.
Medicare for all, though I strongly support it, still leaves this theoretical problem that 'my' tax dollars are supporting 'your' wrongdoing.
The real problem here is not other people's incursion on religious freedoms. It's the fact that only the Judeo-Christian faiths (and not all of them) are being recognized as HAVING religious freedoms. I follow a system of beliefs that do NOT condemn LGBT people or require prayer of blind faith. But rabid faux-Christians are trying to deprive ME and all LGBT people of our Constitutional rights by fighting SCOTUS over the question of marriage equality.
14
Right on topic. Not.
Constitutional right? Show me the exact language in the Constitutional that says marriage is a right
So in Oregon taxpayers should foot the bill ($150,000) for a 15 year old transgender to have the surgery without parental consent?
So as a Christian I am not allowed to have an opinion right? I am suppose to compromise my beliefs so you get whatever you want? Why don't you look up the Equal Protection Clause You're not the the only one with rights
So in Oregon taxpayers should foot the bill ($150,000) for a 15 year old transgender to have the surgery without parental consent?
So as a Christian I am not allowed to have an opinion right? I am suppose to compromise my beliefs so you get whatever you want? Why don't you look up the Equal Protection Clause You're not the the only one with rights
since it's against my religion to fill out forms, any kind of forms, including Form 1040, can I please be exempted from filing/paying income tax?
47
The real question is what a point of health care is.
The objective is to make the people healthy.
When you are perfectly healthy you should not mess up with your body. The healthy body is an ultimate blessing.
Those who unconditionally trust the global corporations put their faith in the wrong place. The main objective of those corporations is to be very profitable and not to protect you best interests.
They spends dozens billions dollars to manipulate your brain and persuade you that you cannot leave without their specific products and that those products are in your best interest.
Is it true? Do they corrupt our elected officials to protect YOUR INTERESTS OR THEIR INTERESTS?
Have the tax cuts on big corporations made our federal government financially more stable? Did the banks tell you not to take the loans during the housing bubble to protect your bottom line? Did the foreign wars make us safer or just the weapon manufacturers extremely profitable? Has the export of our jobs overseas provided you with better paid gig?
Don’t mess up your healthy body with any medicine that changes your inside chemical balance. Those internal chemicals have been fine-tuned over hundreds thousands years. If you believe that the pharmaceutical companies have achieved better results in few decades, you are very naïve.
Do you really think they would disclose any fact that increase in number of cancers is related to your contraception treatment?
Do they even know it for sure?
The objective is to make the people healthy.
When you are perfectly healthy you should not mess up with your body. The healthy body is an ultimate blessing.
Those who unconditionally trust the global corporations put their faith in the wrong place. The main objective of those corporations is to be very profitable and not to protect you best interests.
They spends dozens billions dollars to manipulate your brain and persuade you that you cannot leave without their specific products and that those products are in your best interest.
Is it true? Do they corrupt our elected officials to protect YOUR INTERESTS OR THEIR INTERESTS?
Have the tax cuts on big corporations made our federal government financially more stable? Did the banks tell you not to take the loans during the housing bubble to protect your bottom line? Did the foreign wars make us safer or just the weapon manufacturers extremely profitable? Has the export of our jobs overseas provided you with better paid gig?
Don’t mess up your healthy body with any medicine that changes your inside chemical balance. Those internal chemicals have been fine-tuned over hundreds thousands years. If you believe that the pharmaceutical companies have achieved better results in few decades, you are very naïve.
Do you really think they would disclose any fact that increase in number of cancers is related to your contraception treatment?
Do they even know it for sure?
More women, by many magnitudes, die of unwanted childbirths than from contraception. If you're worried about your body, you can use methods like a diaphragm or condom to protect yourself from unwanted pregnancy.
4
Yes, in fact, they know--as you would too, if you read the warning labels--pretty much exactly what the side effects of the various contraceptive meods are.
But if you wanna swear off aspirin, antibiotics and antacids, be my guest.
But if you wanna swear off aspirin, antibiotics and antacids, be my guest.
3
Baloney. There is NO evidence that contraceptive use is related to cancer. NONE. The fact that you repeat this lie relieves anyone of having to pay attention to the rest of your largely erroneous comment.
And your version of the "naturalistic" fallacy, where everything natural is good, and intervening in nature is always bad, is just dopey. Those bodies that have been "fine-tuned for hundreds of thousands of years" used to stop working around age 30, before better nutrition and modern medicine started messing with nature. I believe Jethro Tull said it best- He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
And your version of the "naturalistic" fallacy, where everything natural is good, and intervening in nature is always bad, is just dopey. Those bodies that have been "fine-tuned for hundreds of thousands of years" used to stop working around age 30, before better nutrition and modern medicine started messing with nature. I believe Jethro Tull said it best- He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
4
I wish I had a less visceral but more thoughtful reaction to this issue.
I had three maternal relatives that came over on the Mayflower and a large extended paternal family that fled Ireland in the 1850's, both sides trying to escape religious bigotry. I was constantly reminded of those events by my father, a live and let live deeply religious Protestant, because he faced religious bigotry all his life for looking Jewish.
Here we are hundreds of years later, still trying to free ourselves from religious bigotry, potentially, from the highest court in the land. That's just crazy.
I had three maternal relatives that came over on the Mayflower and a large extended paternal family that fled Ireland in the 1850's, both sides trying to escape religious bigotry. I was constantly reminded of those events by my father, a live and let live deeply religious Protestant, because he faced religious bigotry all his life for looking Jewish.
Here we are hundreds of years later, still trying to free ourselves from religious bigotry, potentially, from the highest court in the land. That's just crazy.
313
Part of the problem we face today is linked to those pious pilgrims who fled religious bigotry and then promptly established it on these shores.
The Mayflower and other pilgrims hardly came over here "to escape religious persecution." they came over to CREATE it, being a radical Protestant cult that passed laws requiring their form of worship and began to whip heretics pretty much the minute they set foot in the New World.
Please learn some history.
Please learn some history.
1
MMonck: No Protestant fled Ireland in the 1850s because of religious bigotry. You've been misled. In Ireland then, and in Northern Ireland since then, Protestants were the enemies of religious freedom. The Pilgrims didn't leave England to achieve religious freedom for themselves but for the freedom to impose their religion on others.
1
"People have to pay their taxes, whether they have objections, religious or otherwise, to the wars they thereby help to finance."
Yes. Would Justice Alito allow those who object to war on religious grounds to quit paying taxes that support military invasions? What about deep convictions of atheists and agnostics? Why don't they have similar protections?
When a religious or a religion based organization enters the sphere of secular business, they should be bound by the same laws that other businesses are. Nobody forced Hobby Lobby to open a business.
Separation of church and state is one of the best ideas of our forefathers.
It works.
Yes. Would Justice Alito allow those who object to war on religious grounds to quit paying taxes that support military invasions? What about deep convictions of atheists and agnostics? Why don't they have similar protections?
When a religious or a religion based organization enters the sphere of secular business, they should be bound by the same laws that other businesses are. Nobody forced Hobby Lobby to open a business.
Separation of church and state is one of the best ideas of our forefathers.
It works.
167
You are correct in that separation of church and state is an enlightened concept by our founding fathers. However, it no longer seems to be working since the current crop of religious SCOTUS members are completely ignoring this part of the Constitution. They have no business being in the SCOTUS or in any judicial capacity of any kind since they are activist rogue judges imposing their own narrow religious views on the American people. Shameful.
4
Correct. The Hobby Lobby was a disaster on that basis alone-- it let religion into the workplace.
2
Well, it WILL work, if allowed by the Supremes. These creeps can't age fast enough for me.
2
The most stupid of all laws are those enacted to solve problems that don't even exist. The law that made consumption of peyote illegal was itself an unconstitutional law that represented a breach of the ban against Congress tinkering with rituals of worship in the "nor prohibit free exercise thereof" clause of the first amendment.
The simpler something is, the worse the US Congress screws it up.
The simpler something is, the worse the US Congress screws it up.
7
This is not only a "case too far," as Ms. Greenhouse so capably argues. Every religious "claim" affirmed by this court has been a legal and logical absurdity.
As Ms. Greenhouse notes, the idea of "complicity" is a very dangerous and divisive one. By this court's absurd standard, we could all claim to be forced to be complicit in actions that we find ethically or religiously unappealing. The application of Kant's Categorial Imperative to this line of thinking is instructive. If all citizens made equivalent claims to these claims mounted by religious zealots, we would have no functioning society whatsoever. We would live in a horrid culture of "values" anarchy, where like-minded people would wall themselves off into rabid partisan groups, avoiding taxes, arming themselves, breaking apart public education by enabling vouchers for religious education . . . Oh wait . . . that sounds familiar . . . hmmm . . .
As Ms. Greenhouse notes, the idea of "complicity" is a very dangerous and divisive one. By this court's absurd standard, we could all claim to be forced to be complicit in actions that we find ethically or religiously unappealing. The application of Kant's Categorial Imperative to this line of thinking is instructive. If all citizens made equivalent claims to these claims mounted by religious zealots, we would have no functioning society whatsoever. We would live in a horrid culture of "values" anarchy, where like-minded people would wall themselves off into rabid partisan groups, avoiding taxes, arming themselves, breaking apart public education by enabling vouchers for religious education . . . Oh wait . . . that sounds familiar . . . hmmm . . .
46
Consistently clear in all of these cases and others whose plaintiffs represent religious institutions is that, under whatever guise they don before the Court, their real and fundamental objective is to control the personal decisions of their adherents and of their employees. It's a fact of exquisite importance that, once established, turns the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on its very head. In almost all (perhaps all) cases, the struggle is not one aimed at restoring freedom; rather, it is a struggle aimed at wresting power from the jaws of liberty. What's more, while churches continue their charade of guarding the vessel, woman and their husbands or partners are taking unto themselves the power to plan their own families.
22
SCOTUS' conservative justices who seem to hold the strangest understanding of America I could imagine. Their fantasy state has no racial problems in schools, universities, and voting rights that congressional actions could address, no healthcare needs for the uninsured, insurable, or women that congress can attend to, and no limit to the demands religious believers can ask protection for from giving equality to women. With 3 senior members at about 80 years old, SCOTUS is at a breaking point in regard to race, healthcare, and women's lives. Americans have already lost the traditional concepts of "freedom" for individuals' private lives and found unprecedented freedom of corporations and sects. How does insuring regulation of a menstrual cycle of a baker of wafers harm a church? Not at all. Would 2 or 3 more rightwing justices decide Catholic and evangelical truckers need not touch loads of matzot, Qurans, or Manischevitz because the Founders said so? Mad men make mad law.
231
Muslim cab drivers who refuse some rides, are an example of religious beliefs
there is no Const right to be a can driver
there is no Const right to be a can driver
Relax, everyone. The six Catholics are sure to recuse themselves in any of these cases.
11
I used to think that the religion of an officer holder was irrelevant but now that officer holders see their religion as the dictator of how they will behave in office and what they will expect of others and enforce with laws, am not so sure. Sad isn't it.
Some are more Catholic than the Pope.
1
The very real danger here is that this right-weighted Roberts Court will greedily accept the plaintiffs' argument that a government health plan constitutes an attack upon their "religious freedoms." No sensible person can fathom the ethereal points they insist upon becoming hard and uncompromising law of the land. As is pointed out in this splendid piece, Justice Alito went out of his way to interpret Hobby Lobby on a false and unrelated set of circumstances, none of which granted relief to the victorious plaintiffs unless it was to declare that severe ideology, before the Roberts Court, is the oiled key to unlock the doors for similar complaints by citizens and/or organizations fronting for them that have an agenda having absolutely nothing to do with protection of religious principles. Jesus, warning about the hypocrisy of public prayer, advises us "to go to your closet and pray to your father in secret and he will hear you." The spate of lawsuits now moving through the courts to take down the ACA are like roaches: unwelcome and ever-present and unnecessary.
19
When they can't parse "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" they are far too stupid and/or corrupt to be left on this bench.
25
Steve Bolger: Regarding the SC: Occasionally, while listening to Nina nina Totenberg on NPR reporting on a Supreme Court decision and hearing her quote verbatim (!) what was said in discussion, I have been stunned and appalled at the absurd level of discourse engaged in by some of the judges. It often sounds sophomoric and completely subjective—like children with no critical thinking skills. This is a hugely powerful arm of our government and yet some of the judges exhibit the mental agility and profundity of a teenager "acting out".
63
The Federal Courts have become like the Boehner House, forever debating "de minimis." We're well on the way to becoming a laughing stock like Northern Ireland. I recall a time there when one politician-preacher had children's swings in playground locked up on Sundays. Way to honor the Lord!
11
Make no mistake. This is not about little sisters of the poor or Little Sisters of the Poor. This is a sophisticated step in the massive coordinated war against women being waged in this country. Between 2/3 and 3/4 of "Christian" women in the US regularly use contraception and only 2% of Catholic women rely exclusively on "rhythm". Moreover, millions use contraception exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes.
Keeping women barefoot and pregnant is the goal here and if they can't get in the front door, they will try to get in the back. Or, in the name of religion, claim that it is constitutional to just break in.
Our enemy is devious, patient, dangerous and terrifying. Greenhouse is wise to alert us to this wolf in sheep's clothing! It is the most aching of ironies to remember that the founders of our country came here to escape the same kind of religious persecution we are seeing today. Let's us hope --or pray, if we prefer, that Justice Kennedy delivers us from this evil.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
Keeping women barefoot and pregnant is the goal here and if they can't get in the front door, they will try to get in the back. Or, in the name of religion, claim that it is constitutional to just break in.
Our enemy is devious, patient, dangerous and terrifying. Greenhouse is wise to alert us to this wolf in sheep's clothing! It is the most aching of ironies to remember that the founders of our country came here to escape the same kind of religious persecution we are seeing today. Let's us hope --or pray, if we prefer, that Justice Kennedy delivers us from this evil.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
39
"It is the most aching of ironies to remember that the founders of our country came here to escape the same kind of religious persecution we are seeing today."
No, they didn't. They came here to set up theocracies rather like what Little Sisters and the ayatollahs want. See Massachusetts in the 1600s. A little history, please.
No, they didn't. They came here to set up theocracies rather like what Little Sisters and the ayatollahs want. See Massachusetts in the 1600s. A little history, please.
The problem arises when individuals or groups uses religion as a cover to push an agenda that will do more harm than the actual law.
35
Damon: this is why religion became entwined with the state. Both were run by and for the powerful.
I've never understood why people who are celibate feel the need to dictate to others what their sex lives should or shouldn't entail. Or why those who oppose abortion also oppose using any means to prevent abortion. It really is none of their business.
152
I'm pro-choice, but I do understand the pro-life dilemma. If you truly believe an individual human life begins at conception, then in all good conscience you must accept the proposition that abortion is murder, that it is killing a baby.
There are good scientific and logical reasons not to place the beginning of an individual life at conception, and in fact for most of its history the Christian religion did not so place it. (Though if you read the Scholastics you will find true logic didn't really enter into it; 'reasoning backward from faith, they began with the conclusion forced on them by dogma and then went rummaging around for arguments to buttress it. This led to some pretty laughable results, which could then not be questioned or rebutted without risking the rack, thumbscrew, and stake.)
But IF you posit that life begins at conception, you must oppose abortion; moreover, you must oppose it unconditionally - no rape/incest exception, since basically you would not only be killing a baby but punishing it for its father's crime though the infant itself is blameless, and no exception for severe handicaps, which would be even worse since it would be punishing the individual for a misfortune, not even a crime. Anything less would be morally dishonest.
Fortunately, though, abortion is not terminating an individual life but abandoning a work in progress. Foetus = potential baby; foetus ≠ baby.
There are good scientific and logical reasons not to place the beginning of an individual life at conception, and in fact for most of its history the Christian religion did not so place it. (Though if you read the Scholastics you will find true logic didn't really enter into it; 'reasoning backward from faith, they began with the conclusion forced on them by dogma and then went rummaging around for arguments to buttress it. This led to some pretty laughable results, which could then not be questioned or rebutted without risking the rack, thumbscrew, and stake.)
But IF you posit that life begins at conception, you must oppose abortion; moreover, you must oppose it unconditionally - no rape/incest exception, since basically you would not only be killing a baby but punishing it for its father's crime though the infant itself is blameless, and no exception for severe handicaps, which would be even worse since it would be punishing the individual for a misfortune, not even a crime. Anything less would be morally dishonest.
Fortunately, though, abortion is not terminating an individual life but abandoning a work in progress. Foetus = potential baby; foetus ≠ baby.
1
Each political group uses religion when it helps their cause. Or ignore religion when it hurts the cause.
Same old, same old.
Same old, same old.
13
And every religious group uses politics when it helps their cause, etc… We keep watching the same old movies.
Hobby Lobby was a terrible decision. It actually managed to do exactly what the first amendment is meant to avoid - government making decisions about religion. The Supreme Court actually made a determination about the genuineness of the religious feelings. That means that courts can also decide what religious feelings are not genuine. And it will necessarily mean that some religious beliefs are more protected than others. The case was decided on statutory grounds. Unfortunately, RFRA is in my view, an anti-first amendment case. In seemingly protecting religion, it actually puts it in jeopardy for minority religions. It also rejected the only reasonable solution to religious/secular tensions - everyone must follow neutral laws of general application. This might lead to unhappiness for some people, but, so do many laws that have nothing to do with religion. The protection of religious beliefs are important, but the court and our country is diverging from what has protected it so long and reduced religious tensions in our country to a negligible amount.
46
"The question is whether their arguments go too far, even for the Roberts court."
Really? I think it has been demonstrated that there is no such thing as an absurd conservative argument too far for the Roberts court.
The Roberts court has sullied the reputation and standing of the Supreme Court; SCOTUS has nothing further to lose.
Really? I think it has been demonstrated that there is no such thing as an absurd conservative argument too far for the Roberts court.
The Roberts court has sullied the reputation and standing of the Supreme Court; SCOTUS has nothing further to lose.
33
"Freedom for me, but not for thee."
54
I have a simple solution: Sign the form and then go to confession.
In all seriousness, while I do have some understanding of the theological issues the church is presenting - "washing ones hands" of the whole thing would be, for obvious reasons, something they would have historical reasons to avoid - there is still that long standing practice of somehow side-stepping complicity in terms of the confessional. For everyone other than Catholic priests, having knowledge of who has committed a murder, rape or other crime and doing nothing about it would be considered a violation of moral (and often legal) imperatives.
Were I in their shoes (!) I would be really careful about bringing up issues of the church avoiding complicity. It could lead elsewhere. I suspect that some clever theologian at the Vatican could come up with justification for signing that form. They might want to think this through before they push too hard.
In all seriousness, while I do have some understanding of the theological issues the church is presenting - "washing ones hands" of the whole thing would be, for obvious reasons, something they would have historical reasons to avoid - there is still that long standing practice of somehow side-stepping complicity in terms of the confessional. For everyone other than Catholic priests, having knowledge of who has committed a murder, rape or other crime and doing nothing about it would be considered a violation of moral (and often legal) imperatives.
Were I in their shoes (!) I would be really careful about bringing up issues of the church avoiding complicity. It could lead elsewhere. I suspect that some clever theologian at the Vatican could come up with justification for signing that form. They might want to think this through before they push too hard.
25
What theists refuse to accept is that they must accept without prejudice people who do not believe as they do. The ultimate prejudice is to line people with whom you disagree along a wall and shoot them. That practice is called murder and is not acceptable.
“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in 1993 … was not proposed or seen as an agent of the culture wars.”
I think that Linda Greenhouse doesn’t remember that time correctly. From Ronald Reagan‘s Presidency on, everything was turned into a culture war. The “moral majority” was claimed to want God back in school and government.
RFRA was merely Bill Clinton’s misguided attempt to appease his opponents in a misguided belief that it would somehow buy him their favor or at least lessen their animosity.
That it had the opposite effect of emboldening his opponents could have been anticipated. And today we still pay the price.
I think that Linda Greenhouse doesn’t remember that time correctly. From Ronald Reagan‘s Presidency on, everything was turned into a culture war. The “moral majority” was claimed to want God back in school and government.
RFRA was merely Bill Clinton’s misguided attempt to appease his opponents in a misguided belief that it would somehow buy him their favor or at least lessen their animosity.
That it had the opposite effect of emboldening his opponents could have been anticipated. And today we still pay the price.
113
This stupid law respects establishments of religion. It is blatantly unconstitutional.
16
Hate to have to agree with you because I still feel the Clinton years were some our best. But look at how his appeasement attempts have come to haunt us: elimination of glass-stegal and the enactment of RFRA are perfect bookends.
1
"RFRA was merely Bill Clinton’s misguided attempt to appease his opponents in a misguided belief that it would somehow buy him their favor or at least lessen their animosity."
It was, to my mind, another cowardly cave in by Clinton. Had he kept his pants on he might have found more courage.
It was, to my mind, another cowardly cave in by Clinton. Had he kept his pants on he might have found more courage.
3
Greenhouse is so clear that even I can understand the critical point.
41
Ditto. Extremely well written article!
9
I do believe she has developed an admiring readership. I am among those admirers. Her clarity in stating the issues and her analysis of them are what keep me glued to her columns. Let's start a fan club! (Do they still have those?)
1
“If you think the form used to object to participation is itself a form of participation, I am not sure how we, as a nation, can ever carve out religious exemptions.” (a quoted blogger).
Maybe avoid imposing lifestyle rules on people in the first place. Then people wouldn't have to object to them. Is that thinking too far outside the box?
Or how about allowing the prospective employer simply not to hire the person who wants to use contraception? Also too far outside the box?
You may find these ideas outlandish, and the objections petty, but government intrusion into how people conduct themselves, and that includes people running businesses, needs a hand on the reins.
Maybe avoid imposing lifestyle rules on people in the first place. Then people wouldn't have to object to them. Is that thinking too far outside the box?
Or how about allowing the prospective employer simply not to hire the person who wants to use contraception? Also too far outside the box?
You may find these ideas outlandish, and the objections petty, but government intrusion into how people conduct themselves, and that includes people running businesses, needs a hand on the reins.
4
This view that making it illegal to descriminate against someone else's choice is forcing you to accept their choice simply makes no sense. Not one law makes you approve of another person's choice, it simply underscores the basic principle of rights that has been so forgotten in the US. Your right ends at the point where it infringes on my right. If you have a business in the public space you have no right to force others to your view to do business with you or work for you.
28
Indeed, we like to intrude in on other people lives until they intrude on our own.
6
Is your position that discrimination is acceptable in the public realm? If I disagree with your legally and socially accepted actions I can choose to reject you at any time if I have public company? Yes. That is by definition outlandish.
5
So, if a protestant female minister from a denomination not opposed to birth control or abortion works for the only hospital within 500 miles, one administered by official Catholic owners, she can be denied insurance access to birth control? How is this not religious discrimination? If I am correct some of the Lutheran hospitals have been taken over by Catholic ownership.
I have in my medical directive that I will not accept end of life care from a Catholic or Evangelical doctor inspired by PA scenario with Terry Schavio. Will my religious freedom be honored?
People should ask the justices reflecting their denominations rigid views to recuse themselves. Not clear to me why this is not mandated.
I have in my medical directive that I will not accept end of life care from a Catholic or Evangelical doctor inspired by PA scenario with Terry Schavio. Will my religious freedom be honored?
People should ask the justices reflecting their denominations rigid views to recuse themselves. Not clear to me why this is not mandated.
121
Thank you, Linda, for another crystal-clear exposition - in this case of a very scary Roberts-court possibility down the road.
36
Follow the money...
14
"a religious objection to paying for birth control"
This belief is so anachronistic. I see no reason to sanctify 'sincerely held beliefs' that are paeons to narrow-mindedness and irrationality. Our government ought not to enable depriving employees of benefits just to accommodate spiritual solipsism.
Let the religious have their way only in so far that it does not impact others in any way.
This belief is so anachronistic. I see no reason to sanctify 'sincerely held beliefs' that are paeons to narrow-mindedness and irrationality. Our government ought not to enable depriving employees of benefits just to accommodate spiritual solipsism.
Let the religious have their way only in so far that it does not impact others in any way.
173
Thank you! I worship at the church of separation of church and state.
26
Ms. Greenhouse is a much better person than I am for she manages to keep an objective view of the Supreme Court's actions. I, on the other hand, am convinced that Scalitomas (one word) is salivating at the thought, drooling with anticipation at being able to shove another bone sideways down the throat of those who would separate church and state, and that they will make the justifications up as they go along.
166
agree-- and woe be to us if Jeb Bush is the next nominator in chief of SCOTUS.
5
Or ANY of the other Republican candidates!
4
What a female employee legally and rightfully chooses to do with her own body is neither the decision nor the business of any employer that hires from the public sector.
It might (emphasis) be different if the employer were to extend an offer to compensate that woman (and her spouse) for her limited duty and maternal leave, and for medical costs and transportation, parental costs (including surrogate parenting wages in the event she wasn't ready, willing, or able to perform parental duties), from birth through the child's 20th(?) year (including food, clothing, medical services, school and college, room and board, automobile and fuel, maintenance, insurance, and all other child care costs), plus physical and emotional pain and suffering incentives, payment for loss of professional and other opportunities during all those years, inconvenience fees, and whatever additional remuneration she might reasonably demand for agreeing to do all these things, including catering to the employer's "personal" beliefs and values instead of following her own equally sacred and inviolate beliefs and values, just so the employer could feel better about what that employee did with her own life. Yes, it might be different then. But only if she were to accept the offer.
And that would be as much her exclusive choice as is abortion.
It might (emphasis) be different if the employer were to extend an offer to compensate that woman (and her spouse) for her limited duty and maternal leave, and for medical costs and transportation, parental costs (including surrogate parenting wages in the event she wasn't ready, willing, or able to perform parental duties), from birth through the child's 20th(?) year (including food, clothing, medical services, school and college, room and board, automobile and fuel, maintenance, insurance, and all other child care costs), plus physical and emotional pain and suffering incentives, payment for loss of professional and other opportunities during all those years, inconvenience fees, and whatever additional remuneration she might reasonably demand for agreeing to do all these things, including catering to the employer's "personal" beliefs and values instead of following her own equally sacred and inviolate beliefs and values, just so the employer could feel better about what that employee did with her own life. Yes, it might be different then. But only if she were to accept the offer.
And that would be as much her exclusive choice as is abortion.
34
Pretty much expands on what Barney Frank said:
Conservatives believe life “begins at conception and ends at birth.” http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barney_Frank
Conservatives believe life “begins at conception and ends at birth.” http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barney_Frank
10
Conservatives like to suggest that there is a 'war on religion' in the United States as this country's laws modernize with modernity, but the plain reality is that there is a conservative war on modernity, tolerance, contraception and common sense.
Religion is founded on the fantastic and the unbelievable; it has little to do with reality; that's terrific for those drawn to the fantastical and the unbelievable, but for those of us living in reality, reason, logic, cause and effect are better guiding lights.
'Be fruitful and multiply' is now revealing itself as a demographic and ecological disaster with seven billions humans overpopulating the earth and overwhelming the Earth's limited resources.
Overpopulation of this country and the Earth is placing a 'substantial burden' on survival of many species and the climatic stability of the climate, so it's no stretch to say that lack of basic contraception (and sex education) is a threat to the common good and the public interest.
And of course, religion has been leading the charge in contraception denialism and reproductive ignorance.
It is organized religion that has repeatedly placed a 'substantial burden' on society with its preferential tax exemptions, unholy alliance with 'conservative' politics and general disregard for science and modernity.
Fighting against universal birth control is simply irresponsible and reckless and a failure to steward the Earth.
A massive condom/IUD drop is what the world really needs.
Religion is founded on the fantastic and the unbelievable; it has little to do with reality; that's terrific for those drawn to the fantastical and the unbelievable, but for those of us living in reality, reason, logic, cause and effect are better guiding lights.
'Be fruitful and multiply' is now revealing itself as a demographic and ecological disaster with seven billions humans overpopulating the earth and overwhelming the Earth's limited resources.
Overpopulation of this country and the Earth is placing a 'substantial burden' on survival of many species and the climatic stability of the climate, so it's no stretch to say that lack of basic contraception (and sex education) is a threat to the common good and the public interest.
And of course, religion has been leading the charge in contraception denialism and reproductive ignorance.
It is organized religion that has repeatedly placed a 'substantial burden' on society with its preferential tax exemptions, unholy alliance with 'conservative' politics and general disregard for science and modernity.
Fighting against universal birth control is simply irresponsible and reckless and a failure to steward the Earth.
A massive condom/IUD drop is what the world really needs.
403
"Conservatives like to suggest that there is a 'war on religion' in the United States ... but the plain reality is that there is a conservative war on modernity, tolerance, contraception and common sense."
Thanks, Socrates, I'll be quoting you on this. It is the perfect rephrasing of the idiotic exspousing of the right.
Thanks, Socrates, I'll be quoting you on this. It is the perfect rephrasing of the idiotic exspousing of the right.
37
Well said, thanks! At the end of the day, however, nature doesn't care. Just as dinosaurs and many other life forms became extinct, so shall we, at least if we don't rectify our current "failure to steward the Earth." It's beyond me how the most primal human (or for that matter any living thing - plant or animal) function, viz. reproduction, is so abhorrent to some. Overpopulation will be checked at some point by nature - plague, sweltering heat, diminishing food supplies. you name it. Nature will out.
12
Spirituality existed first.... then people's power issues got involved.
1
This is a phony cause cooked up just in time to bring back wedge issues for the 2016 election by people who are clearly using their own religion as a weapon to infringe on the religious and civil rights of others.
I say NO! and also demand enough with the stupid letters and forms and make these so called employers act like responsible adults in a complicated society. Otherwise, make them use volunteers. They don't deserve to be employers. They're not up to the responsibilities.
I say NO! and also demand enough with the stupid letters and forms and make these so called employers act like responsible adults in a complicated society. Otherwise, make them use volunteers. They don't deserve to be employers. They're not up to the responsibilities.
256
The plaintiffs want to stop their employees from obtaining contraceptives, period. This violates the rights of their employees to their own religious beliefs and practices, which I believe violates federal law.
220
Doesn't the Constitution prohibit the imposition of religious beliefs on others? And shouldn't that apply to entities doing business with the public?
222
I agree. These right wing employers want to hire women (most likely at lower wages), but still adhere to their barefoot and pregnant religious beliefs. It is essentially, as always, men imposing their will on women. Period.
6
It prohibits the government imposing, not the religion itself. That's the beauty of our constitution, keep religion out of government because government has the power.
2
yes it does and it should, but as we see the Constitution means whatever the Court wants it to mean. Obviously the EQual Protection clause is now meaningless. Other countries without that clause have more equal protection of their laws for all people than does the US. Examples --health care and criminal justice.
2
The United States, contrary to the views of many on the religious right, was not founded as a theocracy. It is essentially secular in nature; and hopefully will remain so. It disturbs me greatly to realize that laws such as the 1993 RFRA and court decisions like Hobby Lobby are being used to promote a religious agenda which attempts to establish a class of citizen exempt from generally applicable law.
In this country there is entirely too much emphasis -- and wasted energy -- on protecting the rights of the "faithful." As citizens we are either all equal in our rights and responsibilities, or we are not.
In this country there is entirely too much emphasis -- and wasted energy -- on protecting the rights of the "faithful." As citizens we are either all equal in our rights and responsibilities, or we are not.
321
Those who seek to impose their personal superstitions on the entire populace while adoring Mammon should remember that in the French Revolution, some hereditary aristocrats had to watch while their children were nailed to the walls of their churches. Keep your faith to yourself and be the example you wish to impose by law. Remember: "By their works ye shall know them," not by their edicts.
3
Religious belief is a convenient and comfortable fiction which certainly helps those who are too frightened to accept the otherwise inescapable reality of death. However by virtue of its limitations it is also a destructive fiction which in any reasonable society should have no bearing on social benefits.
Whatever anyone perceives including myself who claims to believe nothing should have no bearing on the way I or any of us as members of the society benefit from our social relationship.
This thought, at least according to my understanding of reason, should be eminently clear and therefore accepted without argument, even discussion. The fact that thought such as this is open to discussion indicates the freedom purported to exist in our society is narrowly limited.
Our society either works for all of us under terms which are not limited by the need to accept belief or it doesn't work as a free and open society.
What can be more clear than this thought?
Whatever anyone perceives including myself who claims to believe nothing should have no bearing on the way I or any of us as members of the society benefit from our social relationship.
This thought, at least according to my understanding of reason, should be eminently clear and therefore accepted without argument, even discussion. The fact that thought such as this is open to discussion indicates the freedom purported to exist in our society is narrowly limited.
Our society either works for all of us under terms which are not limited by the need to accept belief or it doesn't work as a free and open society.
What can be more clear than this thought?
40
One of the issues involved in these cases is the religious freedom of the employees of the plaintiffs. That is, the latter claim to have a right to impose their religious values on their workers, regardless of whether those values conflict with ones held by the people who work for them. Freedom of religion also encompasses freedom from religion. The employees of the "Little Sisters of the Poor" may be non-Catholic individuals of faith, or they may be atheists. In either case, it would involve a gross misinterpretation of the first amendment for SCOTUS to rule that the religious freedom of the plaintiffs trumps that of the workers.
107
Unfortunately, that is exactly what they did in the Hobby Lobby case.
2
Religious freedom is nothing more than code for a desire to unilaterally foist a particular group's religious beliefs on others. I'm not so sure that if the Supreme Court picks up one of these cases that it won't succeed. As the author points out this is a depressingly pro-religion court, with the retrograde Justice Scalia leading the charge in this regard.
70
It does not seem right that so many critical decisions on issues affecting the entire population are decided essentially single-handedly by Justice Kennedy.
Kennedy seems to be a judicial loose cannon, responsible both for marriage equality and Citizens United, for Lawrence v Texas and for the dreadful recent lethal injection decision.
In the present effort by employers to block insurance coverage of contraception, Linda Greenhouse asks, "Will the Roberts court buy it? Or, I suppose, the question might be framed more precisely: Will Justice Kennedy?" It is frightening to think that so much rests on the largely unpredictable, often whimsical-seeming pronouncements of a single unelected individual.
Kennedy seems to be a judicial loose cannon, responsible both for marriage equality and Citizens United, for Lawrence v Texas and for the dreadful recent lethal injection decision.
In the present effort by employers to block insurance coverage of contraception, Linda Greenhouse asks, "Will the Roberts court buy it? Or, I suppose, the question might be framed more precisely: Will Justice Kennedy?" It is frightening to think that so much rests on the largely unpredictable, often whimsical-seeming pronouncements of a single unelected individual.
28
While one might not agree with all of Justice Kennedy's decisions, he is for the most part a reflective and generous man who tries to take into account ordinary, vulnerable human beings when reaching his conclusions about an issue.
Unlike several of his colleagues -- of course one means in particular Scalia and Thomas -- whose narrow-mindedness and malice are breathtaking.
Unlike several of his colleagues -- of course one means in particular Scalia and Thomas -- whose narrow-mindedness and malice are breathtaking.
20
And yet when it comes to protecting the rights and freedoms of women, Kennedy is on the side of Scalia and Thomas. Marriage equality won because it was about "gay" marriage, the right of males to marry -- it certainly rarely included any mention at all of lesbian couples. Kennedy votes with the Church when it comes to women -- we are less than human, with less than human rights; and a parasite inhabiting our body has more rights than we.
3
Oh Dear Ms Greenhouse, I do hope that your conclusion is correct in the eyes of the Supreme Court, whose swing vote is an old man. This is a case too far. Birth control is a right, or should be. A private decision made by only the individual in question. Funny, there never seems to be a 'religious objection' to Viagra, at least I've never heard of it. Wonder why that would be.
155
“Funny, there never seems to be a ‘religious objection' to Viagra, at least I've never heard of it."
I listened to a stand-up comedian who said: “My dad was so religious that he made us boys bury our Kleenex in the back yard.”
I listened to a stand-up comedian who said: “My dad was so religious that he made us boys bury our Kleenex in the back yard.”
3
Those feisty Little sisters of the Poor will not give up this fight (I am rooting for you sisters) nor should they. When the employees were hired by this organization, they knew the tenets of the Catholic Church. If these women want their birth control, they can purchase it from any Planned Parenthood office in their area. They better hurry though as PP may not be around much longer since the scandal involving selling baby body parts has been exposed. Of course, these female employees could also find employment elsewhere where contraception is readily available. I am sure this would not be too difficult for them.
I am proud of these nuns for not giving in to the demands of Obamacare and are staying true to their values and principles for which the Catholic Church holds dearly. Sisters you have many who are on your side.
I am proud of these nuns for not giving in to the demands of Obamacare and are staying true to their values and principles for which the Catholic Church holds dearly. Sisters you have many who are on your side.
5
I'm cool with that BUT no tax exemptions. The group pays property tax, sales tax, income tax, etc etc etc. Religoius groups need to show the strength of their convictions by foregoing government tax and financial benefits- staying untangled. Personally I don't want to have to pay more taxes so they can pay less. That's using my money to promote religious beliefs I strongly disagree with. Can't have it both ways.
27
It the Sisters dont want to take contraceptives that is their right. It ISNT their right to decide what others should do or not. In my opinion it doesnt matter if the prospective employee "knows the tenets of the Catholic Church". The Little Sisters of the Poor isnt "The Church", and they have no control over what an employee does with their compensation for work done - including legal, legitimate healthcare benefits.
What next - nuns forbidding Viagra for single male employees because in their view, as an unmarried male you shouldnt have sex? Or your employer is Hindu, and prevents you from eating hamburgers (using money from your employment agreement) because of HIS religious belief? Absurd and stupid.
What next - nuns forbidding Viagra for single male employees because in their view, as an unmarried male you shouldnt have sex? Or your employer is Hindu, and prevents you from eating hamburgers (using money from your employment agreement) because of HIS religious belief? Absurd and stupid.
20
KMW, please click on the link to the Little Sisters website regarding their hiring practices. The Sisters indeed describe themselves as an equal opportunity employer, and nowhere is there any hint that prospective employees must be Catholics or be prepared to renounce the use of contraceptives. Perhaps the Little Sisters should revise their hiring practices and their website. This kind of dishonesty also goes against the commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness.
11
Would any other civilized country think of depriving a woman of reproductive health rights if she happens to work for an employer with religious objections? Are there many religious people with such objections in other modern nations? And if there were, would their courts ever think of ruling that their interests supersede womens’ rights to contraception?
The US is anachronistic in letting religion rule so much of its politics. And in a country with a Constitution, which pretends such explicit separation of church and state. It’s actually in other countries where this separation is much better realized than here. We have a dominant party, many of whose members want to impose their religious views on us. Even conservative parties abroad don’t push religion and accept contraception and abortion rights.
Ms. Greenhouse, can you write sometime about the attitudes toward this topic in more advanced, civilized countries, where they’ve had generations of universal health care without letting religious objections interfere with womens’ rights?
The US is anachronistic in letting religion rule so much of its politics. And in a country with a Constitution, which pretends such explicit separation of church and state. It’s actually in other countries where this separation is much better realized than here. We have a dominant party, many of whose members want to impose their religious views on us. Even conservative parties abroad don’t push religion and accept contraception and abortion rights.
Ms. Greenhouse, can you write sometime about the attitudes toward this topic in more advanced, civilized countries, where they’ve had generations of universal health care without letting religious objections interfere with womens’ rights?
339
The religious right wing and the extreme GOP (think Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee et al.) are more attuned to want to restrict women from both the right to abortion as a choice and also from access to birth control. They are indeed an American Taliban who view women as a sub-species that are owned first by their fathers and then by their husbands. Unfortunately the old men on SCOTUS share this viewpoint. Americans MUST defeat the radical right wing in 2016 or our country will more closely resemble the Middle East than the once great USA.
8
As Kevin Kruze wrote on his piece in the NYT some months ago, (sorry I don't have the link handy) the American evangelical movement was founded and funded by the industrialists who were worried about FDR's New Deal. The religionists posed the idea to low information citizens that to accept help from the government was somehow "un-Godly".
And the rest is, as they say, History.
And the rest is, as they say, History.
55
There are implicit assumptions in this commonly held point of view that seem rationally grounded but are problematically subjective. On what objective, truly true ground do we judge one society as more advanced or more civilized than another? The answer is that there are no objective grounds- there is sufficient pluralism in what people think is better or worse as to render the answer grey.
More specifically, on the topic of the contraceptive rights of women vs. the right to life of an unborn fetus (the main issue at hand), what are the means by which we ethically compare these rights against one another? The modern-day ethical discussions behind this are complicated, primarily because we have no objective, universally-held standards by which we define when life begins and, even apart from this, how to piece together a hierarchy of rights between the two.
This is an example of the great failure of post-modern relativism today which, apart from irrationally espousing the notion that there can be many truths, also frames secular world-views as non-religious and so less objectionable.
A world view is a world view, whether you define it as a religion or not. They compete, and only one can be true. This is the core problem- separation of church and state cannot be interpreted through the narrow lens of organized religion vs. the state, but has to, in any given society at any given time, be seen as separation of world-views vs. the state.
This freedom cuts all ways.
More specifically, on the topic of the contraceptive rights of women vs. the right to life of an unborn fetus (the main issue at hand), what are the means by which we ethically compare these rights against one another? The modern-day ethical discussions behind this are complicated, primarily because we have no objective, universally-held standards by which we define when life begins and, even apart from this, how to piece together a hierarchy of rights between the two.
This is an example of the great failure of post-modern relativism today which, apart from irrationally espousing the notion that there can be many truths, also frames secular world-views as non-religious and so less objectionable.
A world view is a world view, whether you define it as a religion or not. They compete, and only one can be true. This is the core problem- separation of church and state cannot be interpreted through the narrow lens of organized religion vs. the state, but has to, in any given society at any given time, be seen as separation of world-views vs. the state.
This freedom cuts all ways.
All this legal dancing about religion's rights, rites and insane practices is what has kept this planet at war for thousands of years. Let's treat religions as businesses, which they are, and make them pay taxes like any other businesses. The human mind does not need a Father figure dictating to us how we should act or who we should give our money to. Cleanse the human mind from religious bigotry, madness, and mayhem. As our cosmic genius Stephen Hawking has said: "Religion is fairy tales for adults." Amen.
237
If religious organizations should have to pay taxes, then so should every nonprofit organization. In former times the Catholic Church was responsible for all of the civic functions of modern hospitals, schools, NGOs etc., albeit in markedly less favorable circumstances, and obviously with all the corruption problems that come with. The question is whether we really want to entrust all these functions to the for-profit sector. Maybe life is about nothing more than death and taxes, but I and I think the vast majority of Americans have the right to seek something more.
4
If a church is exempted from paying property taxes then I as a neighbor must pay for the taxes from which they are excused. In other words, my taxes would be less if all of these "non-profits" were required to pay their fair share. I have never understood religious exemptions and what value they afford the commonweal.
8
Religion is then forced on to their children.
3
I know of no other progressive Western democracy where certain employers and legislators are still trying to control women's reproductive health by restricting the right to contraception by excluding it from healthcare plans on religious grounds. In this we are truly an "exceptional" nation and it's nothing to be proud of.
117
Susan, health insurance is paid directly by the state in almost every other Western country, via social security taxes collected from employer and employee. That's a system that would be logistically unfeasable for the United States, which is also exceptional among Western nations in its demographics, economic fundamentals, urban settlement patterns and work ethic. But that's hardly the point. When you can buy oral contraceptives for little more than $20.00 a month or a prophylactic for $0.50 (and you can easily verify that your partner is wearing one, as you darn well had better if you have even the slightest doubt about his conjugal CV), what on Earth are you asking anyone else for?
1
I have no interest in the religious aspects of these arguments, but I will continue to point out at every opportunity that no woman employee of a religious based company is deprived of buying any contraceptives she wishes. It's when we start appropriating other people's money to provide 'free' contraceptives that I do start to question the legitimacy of claims made on this page as to someone's 'rights' being trampled.
And for those who will pile on and say, 'but insurance pays for viagra!' I say first, whose? Mine doesn't, and that stuff's expensive. And second, yours is a specious argument. Viagra corrects a medical condition, something that normally works no longer works properly and the medication helps. How is pregnancy something physiologically wrong in the same way?
And for those who will pile on and say, 'but insurance pays for viagra!' I say first, whose? Mine doesn't, and that stuff's expensive. And second, yours is a specious argument. Viagra corrects a medical condition, something that normally works no longer works properly and the medication helps. How is pregnancy something physiologically wrong in the same way?
@Doug,
With regard to "other people's money...," isn't insurance a cost that the employer figures in. How would that be reflected, do you think, in the total financial structure of the firm? My guess is that this is at least partially, if not completely, reflected by actually paying a lower salary than they otherwise would. I know that this has been true in my experience, and often at hiring time, companies are very explicit about this. So, it's not that clear that it's other people's money.
With regard to "other people's money...," isn't insurance a cost that the employer figures in. How would that be reflected, do you think, in the total financial structure of the firm? My guess is that this is at least partially, if not completely, reflected by actually paying a lower salary than they otherwise would. I know that this has been true in my experience, and often at hiring time, companies are very explicit about this. So, it's not that clear that it's other people's money.
5
These cases are about using the RFRA to force one groups religious belief's on their employees and using the power of the government to do the enforcing. Nothing more.
The concept of state action is that if one takes money from the state one has to abide by state law. Arguably religious tax exemptions ARE taking money from the states and the federal government therefore state and federal law must apply.
As for the original intent of the founders, James Madison had this to say,
"The purpose of the separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
The concept of state action is that if one takes money from the state one has to abide by state law. Arguably religious tax exemptions ARE taking money from the states and the federal government therefore state and federal law must apply.
As for the original intent of the founders, James Madison had this to say,
"The purpose of the separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
75
Well I certainly hope Jehovah's Witnesses can eliminate blood transfusions from their coverage, Scientology run organisations can eliminate medicine etc.
Let us be real, coverage is about the employee not the employer, if they had had the beliefs they claim, their employees would've already been covered - and I do not expect patients to have to disclose to employers what treatment they are undergoing.
This has nothing to do with religion and everything about religion wanting to control even the most intimate relationship a person can have with - doctor patient confidentiality.
Let us be real, coverage is about the employee not the employer, if they had had the beliefs they claim, their employees would've already been covered - and I do not expect patients to have to disclose to employers what treatment they are undergoing.
This has nothing to do with religion and everything about religion wanting to control even the most intimate relationship a person can have with - doctor patient confidentiality.
192
Yes, wait till the Jehovah's Witness physician refuses to transfuse their trauma patient - on the basis of the PHYSICIANS religious belief - and that patient bleeds to death.
What then?
Whose religion?
Whose freedom?
Whose life?
What then?
Whose religion?
Whose freedom?
Whose life?
13
I think you mean Christian Science as opposed to Scientology, which is hardly a religion, but rather a cult.
3
Actually, Nobody in Particular, the Jehovah's Witnesses (I'm an atheist) have been a primary impetus in science developing blood substitutes. Anyone with more brains than a rutabaga could see this would be a necessity anyway, given the unpredictability of a blood supply almost entirely dependent on voluntary donations. Similarly, the conscientious objections of anti-vivisectionists and animal rights advocates have been instrumental in pushing the development of non-animal models for medical and scientific research. (I almost died laughing at the NYT editorial calling for 'more female mice' in experiments - as if the discrepancies in the male/female model were unacceptably wide whereas those of the mouse/human model were minimal. Had I stumbled onto The Onion website?)
1
There is the very precipice of political correctness, with religion or sensitivity to obesity or even with an unsightly mole on someone's nose who makes enough to have it removed ... and then there is the abyss.
We need a serious discussion about religion in this country; and, like many controversial needs, Mr. Obama is too politically correct to lead it. But in this slow amble toward the sunset of his administration, you'd think he'd make an effort.
There is Caesar and there is God. They both have their jobs, and they're different. If you believe in God, then His job is to provide the road to salvation, the map to get there and the fully-furnished ski lodge at the end of that road to which believers aspire; and maybe He has a role in punishing the actively evil, as well, unless He's outsourced THAT unpleasant duty to his first angel. But how humans choose to travel that road, or even whether they bother at all, is between them and God, not between Moe, Larry and Curly.
Caesar keeps the lights on while we're deciding whether or not to travel that road. It's not an easy job. But it's made intolerably difficult when people mistake his job for God's, or vice-versa. I disagree with many of Mr. Obama's policy preferences, but so long as they're lawful he's doing his job by his lights, and that needs to be respected -- even by those who presume to know God's will and believe that they must impose it on others.
Any society that DOESN'T accept this may as well be run by mullahs.
We need a serious discussion about religion in this country; and, like many controversial needs, Mr. Obama is too politically correct to lead it. But in this slow amble toward the sunset of his administration, you'd think he'd make an effort.
There is Caesar and there is God. They both have their jobs, and they're different. If you believe in God, then His job is to provide the road to salvation, the map to get there and the fully-furnished ski lodge at the end of that road to which believers aspire; and maybe He has a role in punishing the actively evil, as well, unless He's outsourced THAT unpleasant duty to his first angel. But how humans choose to travel that road, or even whether they bother at all, is between them and God, not between Moe, Larry and Curly.
Caesar keeps the lights on while we're deciding whether or not to travel that road. It's not an easy job. But it's made intolerably difficult when people mistake his job for God's, or vice-versa. I disagree with many of Mr. Obama's policy preferences, but so long as they're lawful he's doing his job by his lights, and that needs to be respected -- even by those who presume to know God's will and believe that they must impose it on others.
Any society that DOESN'T accept this may as well be run by mullahs.
32
Mr Luettgen, while (might) I agree with you that there needs to be a "serious" discussion about religion in this country, why is that conversation the responsibility of the president?
In a pluralistic society, WHOSE God? For some, WHAT God? Government's job in modern society is to remain neutral. I would suggest the American Christian mullahs do the same. As you say, it is between the religiously-inclined and their God, so stop invoking support from the black robed Moe, Larry and Cruly of the court as an attempt to force modern day Caesar to stop being neutral.
In a pluralistic society, WHOSE God? For some, WHAT God? Government's job in modern society is to remain neutral. I would suggest the American Christian mullahs do the same. As you say, it is between the religiously-inclined and their God, so stop invoking support from the black robed Moe, Larry and Cruly of the court as an attempt to force modern day Caesar to stop being neutral.
18
"God bless you, God bless America" sounds like a dental drill to me.
6
What a great idea, I'm sure the Republicans would happily and respectfully listen to anything the President has to say on the subject and would take it to heart.
4
For those screaming the loudest, 'Religious Freedom" means nothing but their "right" to impose their religious beliefs on others.
But they don't want "Sharia" law. Sure.
But they don't want "Sharia" law. Sure.
377
Absolutely correct. Sharia law is so bad that conservative state governments write laws stating it can not even be mentioned in our system. But being the hypocrites they are, biblical law, is good and necessary. Another hypocrisy is the professed love of the Constitution but refusal to accept the separation of church and state. Our public square and government are meant to be secular. They need to stay that way but are being systemically assaulted and turned into a bastion of religious correctness.
3
In each of these lawsuits, these non-profits with religious affiliations clearly seek to impose the wholly subjective tenets of their religion on others. Hence, they seek not religious liberty, but a right to a de facto religious tyranny over their employees.
When will they realize that the First Amendment guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion? When will they muster the decency to cease portraying themselves as victims when attempting to make others their victims?
When will they realize that the First Amendment guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion? When will they muster the decency to cease portraying themselves as victims when attempting to make others their victims?
692
What does the Constitution have to do with religion? It was a document created during the enlightenment and is only a nuisance not to be taken seriously by religious fundamentalists and the GOP. To the fundamentalists, the only constitution, is the Bible, and to the cherry-pickers of the GOP, both the Bible and the Constitution are tools to manipulate the clueless among us - all for their true God, Profit.
15
Matthew, You correctly ask when will these religious non-profits realize that the First Amendment guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
The answer is clear, they pick and chose whatever fits into their antiquated world view, akin to those who pick and chose from the Second Amendment, arguing that the ones that arm themselves to the teeth are indeed a 'well regulated militia'.
The answer is clear, they pick and chose whatever fits into their antiquated world view, akin to those who pick and chose from the Second Amendment, arguing that the ones that arm themselves to the teeth are indeed a 'well regulated militia'.
13
There are people who truly confuse their own role and conduct with the role and conduct of the person with whom they are interacting. And they usually have so little self-awareness that it is not possible to establish rapport with them and have the conversation about what the situation calls for and who is doing what and whether that's appropriate. In personal interactions it can cause great harm, if we enable it through nationally applicable legal standards we are, in my opinion, letting people with malfunctioning processing foist erroneous results from that processing on the country.
9
This is an example of the pendulum nature of the law. That isn't just some abstract observation, but an effect with real causes.
One cause of the pendulum effect comes from the principle that the Court avoids dicta, meaning deciding principles beyond those required by the specific facts of each case.
The members of the Court KNOW what each other think on the wider questions. They are ready with what they mean to do. They are waiting for the right cases to present the whole of what they know the Court is prepared to do.
An essential in this is that the Court selects its cases, based in large part on what it is now ready to decide, what it thinks needs deciding now.
A second cause is that lawyers read cases as they come down. Each newly announced case inspires many lawyers with many causes to think long and hard about how that could be applied to their own project. Not only is the Court ready for new facts, just the decision calls forth from the legal community a flood of cases with new facts they are trying to fit.
The combination builds up momentum, but then it runs down. The Court reaches the end of what it is prepared to do. The good examples of the facts the Court is ready for have all been used. What is left are the facts that go too far for the Court's internal agreement, things they are unready to agree on just yet.
The pendulum swings in the law. It always has. This is one more example. It too will run down.
So, how much is the Court really ready for now?
One cause of the pendulum effect comes from the principle that the Court avoids dicta, meaning deciding principles beyond those required by the specific facts of each case.
The members of the Court KNOW what each other think on the wider questions. They are ready with what they mean to do. They are waiting for the right cases to present the whole of what they know the Court is prepared to do.
An essential in this is that the Court selects its cases, based in large part on what it is now ready to decide, what it thinks needs deciding now.
A second cause is that lawyers read cases as they come down. Each newly announced case inspires many lawyers with many causes to think long and hard about how that could be applied to their own project. Not only is the Court ready for new facts, just the decision calls forth from the legal community a flood of cases with new facts they are trying to fit.
The combination builds up momentum, but then it runs down. The Court reaches the end of what it is prepared to do. The good examples of the facts the Court is ready for have all been used. What is left are the facts that go too far for the Court's internal agreement, things they are unready to agree on just yet.
The pendulum swings in the law. It always has. This is one more example. It too will run down.
So, how much is the Court really ready for now?
13
With apologies to G & S:
Religion's now a sacred cow
And SCOTUS to all tenets bow
And each pretense
Not making sense
Is reverently viewed,
Wild claims t'will now accommodate
Restricting contraception's fate
Outrageous claims will not abate
Five men have set the mood!
And HobbyLobby's sappy claim
Was viewed with reverence all the same,
Pandora's Box
Lost all its locks
And it's clear who's to blame!
Religion's now a sacred cow
And SCOTUS to all tenets bow
And each pretense
Not making sense
Is reverently viewed,
Wild claims t'will now accommodate
Restricting contraception's fate
Outrageous claims will not abate
Five men have set the mood!
And HobbyLobby's sappy claim
Was viewed with reverence all the same,
Pandora's Box
Lost all its locks
And it's clear who's to blame!
176
I love this guy!
8
Larry, I really look forward to your poems.....
3
G and S indeed. Larry, use your talents as librettist and find a composer to collaborate on a new political musical!
Accommodations that are regressive, self defeating and utterly unconstitutional by anyone's, except religious zealots' and blatant proselytizer's, standards.