It must be difficult for our Supremes to understand the simple statement "Freedom of Religion" is the fundamental essence of our 1 st. Amendment.
16
Justice Scalia once said that he would resign from the court if there were ever a conflict between his duty to uphold the Constitution and his Roman Catholic faith. Of course, such a conflict occurred repeatedly; but if you are part of an activist majority that shreds the Constitution whenever the conflict occurs, it won't occur to you to step down. The court has been hijacked by men without principle. This would be easier to stomach if the hijackers did not claim to be "originalists" and "textualists" -- the only members of the court who respect the Constitution as written. Well, to people who reject the separation of church and state and the establishment clause of the first amendment, the Constitution is only a piece of paper.
18
Didn't the Pope Francis recently say that birth control could be used to prevent pregnancy for those women exposed to the Zika virus in Latin America? Will the Little Sisters allow any woman employee at risk of being raped to obtain birth control (as Pope Paul VI allowed for nuns working in Africa?)
Surely the Little Sisters of the Poor are not suggesting that they are better judges of religious orthodoxy on the issue of birth control than 2 popes.
Surely the Little Sisters of the Poor are not suggesting that they are better judges of religious orthodoxy on the issue of birth control than 2 popes.
12
Many years ago the right used these same religious arguments to show why they refused to serve African Americans. They will do the same now if they get away with this.
18
Why is no one concerned that the Supreme Court is now trying to usurp the rights of Congress to make laws and the President to enforce them when they dip into suggesting a compromise to avoid making a decision. Isn't this a strange circumstance in our "Non-Political" court. Help me understand Ms.Greenhouse.
8
This seems to be a case of SCOTUS Justices unconstitutionally imposing their religion on the rest of the nation through obscure logic that gives their churches privilege over the rest of the population. It seems the same kind of logic might be applied orthodox Jewish organizations for opting out of paying taxes for government organizations that serve non-kosher food to non-Jews (for example, federal prisons) because it would be a sin for the non-Jews to eat it IF they were orthodox Jews. Similar kinds of exceptions can be concocted for any religion.
16
Is the litigation funded by abortion providers who want to make contraception harder to increase their business. God I hate our For profit medial industry.
1
American theocracy is here upon us
15
Apparently the first amendment means nothing to Linda Greenhouse. She completely misses the whole point of RFRA, and this disagreement. People like Ms Greehouse get so blinded by their determination that "equality" trumps anything and everything, that a little thing like religious freedom is allowed to be trampled on. Beware, sooner or later this new cultural and legal approach will eventually trample on something you actually may hold dear, but it will be too late then.
4
Sick of religion.
16
Even moderate, tolerant Christianity is an onerous superstition. Religion is not a solution to anything.
14
Remember, the plaintiffs are the same folks who got hundreds of years years of fun out of arguing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
7
Linda Greenhouse belongs on the Supreme Court. Her grasp of how the Court's decisions affect American society, as well as her ability to explain complex legal issues to non-lawyers, is surpassed by no one.
20
Anyone naive enough to think that a universal health care regimen which depends on employers withholding their employee's contribution will come into the same conflict. Again these sorry organizations which hide behind their mythology will claim that they cannot participate in the withholding, because for any employee pre-menopause that withheld funding could be used for contraceptives.
Clearly the nation is long overdue for a strenuous reiteration of the principle of the Separation of Church and State, preferably in the form of a constitutional amendment.
Any accomodation to these people short of that will only lay the legal groundwork for futher accomadation.
Clearly the nation is long overdue for a strenuous reiteration of the principle of the Separation of Church and State, preferably in the form of a constitutional amendment.
Any accomodation to these people short of that will only lay the legal groundwork for futher accomadation.
8
Enforcing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" on Congress and state legislatures will do the trick all by itself.
3
These Little Sisters of the Poor will never go along with the contraception mandate and many elderly patients may find themselves looking for alternative housing. The nuns said they would be fined 70 million dollars per year which they can least afford. The sisters may have to close these nursing homes due to lack of funds because of this frivolous lawsuit brought against them. Please do the right thing Supreme Court justices and do not make these fine, caring nuns go against their consciences and Catholic values which are very dear to them. Please show your compassion.
3
More lies. The Little Sisters were not sued, they brought a suit. The penalties would not be as much as buying coverage--even limited coverage.
Aside from that, they are just plain lying themselves. The exemption is an accommodation that allows them to avoid furthering coverage for family planning services.
Aside from that, they are just plain lying themselves. The exemption is an accommodation that allows them to avoid furthering coverage for family planning services.
26
KMW - you have to be joking. No one is forcing anyone to take contraception. They are simply providing coverage to the laborers who toil as paid employees of the "Little Sisters"
Sometimes people are forced to work whatever menial job they can get even if it is cleaning bed pans for minimum wage. Those women do not need to be Catholic and have a right to decent insurance.
Shame on you for forcing your religious demands on the most vulnerable of our hard working citizens.
Sometimes people are forced to work whatever menial job they can get even if it is cleaning bed pans for minimum wage. Those women do not need to be Catholic and have a right to decent insurance.
Shame on you for forcing your religious demands on the most vulnerable of our hard working citizens.
10
The Little Sisters of the Poor are the ones who brought the lawsuit. If they want to be in business, they need to follow business regulations.
22
All employers, religious or secular, who offer their employees health insurance should be required to comply with the ACA. They are free to choose not to offer insurance coverage and pay their employees extra (or not) as they wish. They may lose good employees but so be it.
The ideal situation is to uncouple health insurance from the workplace in any case so making exceptions and accomodations only impedes that process.
The ideal situation is to uncouple health insurance from the workplace in any case so making exceptions and accomodations only impedes that process.
13
If any burden is considered "substantial," then essentially the RFRA is more than meaningless as it allows anyone and everyone to claim a burden. At that point, it's clearly in conflict with the First Amendment and should be struck down either as overly broad or just, as I believe, unconstitutional. The very idea that one person's religious beliefs should dictate the health care of another who does not share those beliefs is abhorrent to our very concept of democracy. This is why I join with Bernie Sanders in supporting "Medicare for All" which eliminates these religious middle-men and -women while also substantially cutting costs and red-tape. Over 100 million Americans are already on such a single-payer plan and perhaps it should be available to all, especially women who are increasingly being attacked by religious zealots across the country seeking to deny them access to vital reproductive health care.
22
Justice Stevens was right. The RFRA is unconstitutional. It privileges religious activity over non religious activity. If an employer has a non religious objection to providing birth control he is out of luck. If the Elks club wants to locate its
meeting hall against local zoning regs it is out of luck. If a religious employer is performing a secular function and has employees of different or no religion they should be subject to the same rules as other employers
meeting hall against local zoning regs it is out of luck. If a religious employer is performing a secular function and has employees of different or no religion they should be subject to the same rules as other employers
30
Either that or the Court must decide that "substantial burden" must be an objective test and not whatever a person says it is.
8
It seems to me that Little Sisters of the Poor and other nonprofit religious organizations are objecting to the government plan to free from the requirement to include birth control in their employer health insurance plans are actually doing so because they want to discourage their female employees from using birth control.
A national, single payer health insurance plan would solve the problem.
A national, single payer health insurance plan would solve the problem.
17
Perhaps the Court can rule on whether the sin is mortal or venial.
The Establishment Clause forbids establishing religion, as would the observation of what is a sin by the Court. The enforcement of rules against sin is between a person and her God. God does not need the assistance of the Court to enforce rules against sin.
The Court is too far afield in observing religious rules. Requests to enforce rules against sin should be directed to God, not to the Court. God has more power to enforce them. The Constitution forbids the Court to do so.
The Establishment Clause forbids establishing religion, as would the observation of what is a sin by the Court. The enforcement of rules against sin is between a person and her God. God does not need the assistance of the Court to enforce rules against sin.
The Court is too far afield in observing religious rules. Requests to enforce rules against sin should be directed to God, not to the Court. God has more power to enforce them. The Constitution forbids the Court to do so.
27
The reality is that we, women, have been hijacked by an angry-authoritarian male Supreme Court for a long time. As this article shows, the religious male Supreme Court justices didn't want to listen to any rational argument opposed to their irrational beliefs. Unfortunately, all religions are based on irrational arguments and, hatred towards women. If I am wrong, please, show me which religion out there treat us, women, as equals to men. And, this "issue" happens at the level of the maximum justice institution in this country!
33
Religion is backward
1
Contraception is NOT a sin. Period.
23
Considering "sin" is word without meaning in a secular government.
3
"Contraception is NOT a sin. Period."
It is also NOT a right. Period.
It is also NOT a right. Period.
1
Just another example of how the Republicans give the shaft to the poor and lower middle classes. Like attempts to limit Planned Parenthood's ability to provide family planning, only these most needy groups are affected. The rich and well off can do as they please. How many young families begin life-long struggles because of the beliefs of a small percentage of the population.
16
I want to know what would Jesus do or actually what did Jesus do? He probably used a lambskin condom which is still used today but of course does not protect from sexual acquired diseases. Also I was wondering what size lambskin condom Jesus used? Perhaps the actual condom(s) are in some back storage room at a museum somewhere in the word (probably the British Museum). The US Supreme Court needs to find out where these condoms are and if they find them then rule in favor of the government because this proves that Jesus was a condom user. They should also invalidate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or at least amend it to include Jesus's favorite brand of condom
4
"I want to know what would Jesus do or actually what did Jesus do?"
In my opinion, Jesus would deal with this personally. He would not have the federal government intervene.
In my opinion, Jesus would deal with this personally. He would not have the federal government intervene.
I just can't wrap my brain around their argument. Employee health insurance is a form of compensation. So is cash. Both can be used to purchase contraception. Employers are not paying for the employee's contraception, they are paying for the employee's labor. The employee is then choosing how to spend their own earned compensation.
39
Would this issue ever have arisen if the USA had a conventional single payer national health plan not part f an employment agreement?
13
Why should any company with or without a religious affiliation have to pay for birth control? Just go to your local drug store and buy it yourself. Birth control is not a matter of life or death or rarely so. It is inexpensive and should not cause a hardship. Just eat one less dinner out and see one less movie. Problem solved.
3
Wow. Which planet do you live on? Newsflash, we've got millions of people in the U.S. living in poverty or near poverty and Republicans oppose paying them a living wage. Contraception can be very expensive.
Most forms of contraception require a doctor's visit and oral contraceptives are often used to treat a variety of painful and sometimes very serious medical problems.
Most forms of contraception require a doctor's visit and oral contraceptives are often used to treat a variety of painful and sometimes very serious medical problems.
41
You clearly have a more limited experience with contraception. Let me give you an illustration of how NOT uncomplicated it can be. My husband and I were living hand to mouth; I had already finished school but was making little money; he was still in school. We were responsible. I was on the pill, faithfully so. (And we never went out to dinner or movies.)
Nevertheless, I got pregnant. We were very fortunate to be in a state that provided me with prenatal care (since
my private insurance did not cover any prenatal whatsoever), and we were close to his graduation, at which point out financial situation went from "crisis poor" to "humble." And we had supportive families. Today that child is nearly 12 and has two siblings. How lucky and fortunate we are to be able to shelter, feed, and clothe them!
Contraception can fail. Abstinence may be the only sure thing, but good luck convincing married or committed couples to go that route. IUDs - which I later got, though I had to wait until I had ins. that would cover the $1000 to get it - are highly effective, but again - the cost, and the need for a physician, make it far less accessible. And look at the GOP reaction to that - CO program drastically cuts teen/unplanned pregnancy via free care & IUDs, but they don't like it and cut the funding - increasing the odds of abortions!
Venture out beyond an OTC drugstore shelf so you can see it's not the panacea you claim.
Nevertheless, I got pregnant. We were very fortunate to be in a state that provided me with prenatal care (since
my private insurance did not cover any prenatal whatsoever), and we were close to his graduation, at which point out financial situation went from "crisis poor" to "humble." And we had supportive families. Today that child is nearly 12 and has two siblings. How lucky and fortunate we are to be able to shelter, feed, and clothe them!
Contraception can fail. Abstinence may be the only sure thing, but good luck convincing married or committed couples to go that route. IUDs - which I later got, though I had to wait until I had ins. that would cover the $1000 to get it - are highly effective, but again - the cost, and the need for a physician, make it far less accessible. And look at the GOP reaction to that - CO program drastically cuts teen/unplanned pregnancy via free care & IUDs, but they don't like it and cut the funding - increasing the odds of abortions!
Venture out beyond an OTC drugstore shelf so you can see it's not the panacea you claim.
10
Just eat one less dinner out and see one less movie. Problem solved.
WOW. The empathy of the religious.
WOW. The empathy of the religious.
5
The four male Catholic Supremes seem to be giving evidence that we don't need any more Catholics on the Court! How about an agnostic or atheist to sort of even things out?
33
This is why the next SC Justice appointment is critical. We need to focus on issues that really matter.
13
It's against my religion to kill the innocent but our drone strikes do so with stunning regularity. Can I get a rebate?
27
I've heard a lot of people say things like, "if a woman wants to obtain birth control, she should just find a different employer." While I might choose not to work at Hobby Lobby, if I am a nurse in a small town and Christ Hospital is the only hospital for miles, I may have few if any other options for employment.
People who consider themselves "good Christians" because they discriminate against others in the name of their own religion need to take a little time out to remember what Christ's teachings were all about.
People who consider themselves "good Christians" because they discriminate against others in the name of their own religion need to take a little time out to remember what Christ's teachings were all about.
84
"...take a little time out to remember what Christ's teachings were all about."
_________________
It's so simple, and basically about -- "Love your brothers and sisters." If you do that, all else follows.
Yet, so few "Christians" do that, IMHO. (I'm originally from Texas/Dallas. Seen the problem -- a lot.)
_________________
It's so simple, and basically about -- "Love your brothers and sisters." If you do that, all else follows.
Yet, so few "Christians" do that, IMHO. (I'm originally from Texas/Dallas. Seen the problem -- a lot.)
13
The Council of Tours in the 12th century declared "ecclesia abhors sanguine," essentially that the clergy cannot spill blood, resulting in physicians in church orders not being able to do surgery. Should a religious organization, or any organization for that matter, be able to declare that some part of medical care is immoral, and be be allowed to deny access to surgery for an employee who a licensed healthcare provider believes such a procedure is necessary? Such an action on the part of an employer is both immoral and allows the employer to invade the space rightly occupied only by the healthcare provider and patient. We must not return to the 12th century.
26
What the "Roberts' Court" combined with GOP obstructionism about the necessary nomination to the Court during the final year of the term of a President (who the GOP has tried for over 7 years to de-legitimize) may accomplish is to give added energy to a movement to limit the terms of justices. Lifetime appointments no longer fit the needs of the nation when justices display so much disconnect from reality as "religious beliefs" are what people say they believe "sincerely". At a minimum justices should be required to go through a "re-nomination" process at regular intervals including a "probationary" term where their decisions are closely examined by their peers on Federal Appeals courts. If these 9 people are given the power to affect the daily lives of Americans, then they should be more than "political appointees" with loyalty to an extreme base; they should meet the highest standards of judicial competency.
14
"What the "Roberts' Court" combined with GOP obstructionism..."
Excuse me, but it's been Chief Justice John Roberts who twice has upheld the Affordable Care Act.
Excuse me, but it's been Chief Justice John Roberts who twice has upheld the Affordable Care Act.
2
Oh, all this Sharia law can be so complicated.
49
What about religious freedom for Jewish employees? In Judaism, a husband has an obligation to satisfy his wife's sexual needs. And it is forbidden to "pull out". So it's either use contraception or have a child every year. Contraception is needed in a Jewish marriage. Does religious freedom only apply to employers?
30
Yes, and only to *Christian* employers. At least that's how it seems, especially based upon a cursory glance at the religious affiliation of the objectors and lawsuit filers.
3
And christian employers at that.
1
It only applies to Christian employers, and within that category, conservative Christian ones.
2
Time to repeal RFRA. Also, for any Democrats who are congenitally predisposed to compromise and bipartisanship, this issue should cure them of that predisposition.
You cannot let conservatives get their noses under the tent because they have thousands of lawyers, Judicial Watch, for example, who are paid by 1%ers to do nothing more than come up with these absurd legal theories in an attempt to obtain through judicial legislation what they cannot obtain from duly constituted legislatures.
You cannot let conservatives get their noses under the tent because they have thousands of lawyers, Judicial Watch, for example, who are paid by 1%ers to do nothing more than come up with these absurd legal theories in an attempt to obtain through judicial legislation what they cannot obtain from duly constituted legislatures.
36
It just makes no sense to bawl about inefficient government when one is constantly litigating to complicate everyone's lives with accommodations for faith-based beliefs. What is the real agenda of these "conservatives" who conserve nothing?
33
The agenda? Create sexual misery for as many people as they can create sexual misery for.
3
Exactly! The use of contraceptives is a personal choice on the part of any woman. The government isn't requiring any woman to use contraception.
In fact, the imposition upon a woman's choice in the matter comes from the religious organization itself. That organization is in effect marching into the woman's bedroom and warning her that if she continues to use contraceptives, she is sinning and God will not be pleased. To the religious, that is force majeure... an open threat of the direst kind.
So the religious organization is arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the use of that weapon - the displeasure of God, as interpreted by the church - in any way.
As Justice Sotomayor observes, the ultimate choice is the woman's, not the church's. If the church feels that it has failed to convince all of it's members that heavenly consequences are sufficiently fearsome - which it implicitly admits - don't ask the government to try to help make up for its deficiencies in "messaging"
In fact, the imposition upon a woman's choice in the matter comes from the religious organization itself. That organization is in effect marching into the woman's bedroom and warning her that if she continues to use contraceptives, she is sinning and God will not be pleased. To the religious, that is force majeure... an open threat of the direst kind.
So the religious organization is arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the use of that weapon - the displeasure of God, as interpreted by the church - in any way.
As Justice Sotomayor observes, the ultimate choice is the woman's, not the church's. If the church feels that it has failed to convince all of it's members that heavenly consequences are sufficiently fearsome - which it implicitly admits - don't ask the government to try to help make up for its deficiencies in "messaging"
30
Yet the choice of a photographer or cake maker to not serve a gay or lesbian couple is not allowed, and government has every right to deny said proprietors their freedom of choice, right?
The government is denying the proprietors the right to discriminate based on race, religion or creed. That is an inalienable right. The same holds for the employers who want to make it as difficult as possible for women to access a perfectly legal form of birth control.
6
The religious are all about exclusion. I do not understand how Christians are blind to the fact that Christianity as modeled by Christ in the gospels is inclusive of those cast off by mainstream society- the prostitute, tax collector, the adulteress...but not the gay couple who are probably model citizens in every respect.
12
It seems that justice Kennedy is arguing for the plaintiffs. He's on the wrong side of the bench.
Regarding them accepting a decision that allows them to opt out without saying they're opting out (downright silly if you ask me) I'm not as optimistic as you. The end goal here is to make birth control unavailable. These people believe that an invisible, supernatural creature told their head priest that birth control was evil. Not exactly reasonable people, hmm?
It's some incredibly tortured logic that saying you won't provide something is helping to provide it. We seriously need eight more years with a Democrat in the White House to replace the conservatives with justices who aren't stuck with ideas from 1950 or before.
Regarding them accepting a decision that allows them to opt out without saying they're opting out (downright silly if you ask me) I'm not as optimistic as you. The end goal here is to make birth control unavailable. These people believe that an invisible, supernatural creature told their head priest that birth control was evil. Not exactly reasonable people, hmm?
It's some incredibly tortured logic that saying you won't provide something is helping to provide it. We seriously need eight more years with a Democrat in the White House to replace the conservatives with justices who aren't stuck with ideas from 1950 or before.
28
I had the same reaction -- how does it violate your religious beliefs to publicly declare what your religious beliefs are that you yourself have been proclaiming loudly and forcefully for the past 150 years?
1
i have a deeply felt and practiced religious belief that i have a right to have insurance coverage for contraceptives as well as any and all information pertaining to same.
if the Sisters of the Poor, or any other religiously-affiliated organization, determined that, for example, vaccinations, especially for children, were against their beliefs, what then SCOTUS?
where is the line drawn? when does common sense prevail?
due to the fact that the Plaintiffs in the referenced oral arguments operate entities that are licensed by at least one or various government authorities,
these governmental agencies retain the duty and responsible to support many "rights".
as contraception is presently legal throughout this land, by what constitutional authority does any group have the right to actually and factually deny this service to anyone?
when are those license renewals?
29
To me this is not very complicated. The Catholic Church and its non-profit service organizations are not a contraceptive distribution center in the definition of any law. The Church supports nonmedical contraceptive techniques. The ACA would be better worded not to have the Church make any decision on medical contraceptives distribution.
Church employees and employees of Church related nonprofit service organizations have a Constitutional right to have access to birth control systems of their choice. The Church can only inforce their tenet of birth control through the tenets of their religious practice.
The Church has no control mechanisms of employees not a member of their Church. Therefore it is not rational to make the Church in any decision what-so-ever that would distribute birth control to their employees that are also members of the Catholic Church.
Write the ACA so that the priest's and nun's do not make a decision, while at the same time, offering the method that the insurance companies will have to pay. The insurance companies would know which Church related organizations would be eligible because of the exemption of their Church that is already publicly known.
Church employees and employees of Church related nonprofit service organizations have a Constitutional right to have access to birth control systems of their choice. The Church can only inforce their tenet of birth control through the tenets of their religious practice.
The Church has no control mechanisms of employees not a member of their Church. Therefore it is not rational to make the Church in any decision what-so-ever that would distribute birth control to their employees that are also members of the Catholic Church.
Write the ACA so that the priest's and nun's do not make a decision, while at the same time, offering the method that the insurance companies will have to pay. The insurance companies would know which Church related organizations would be eligible because of the exemption of their Church that is already publicly known.
2
A national single payer health insurance plan would be a more effective solution.
1
On it's face this is Catholics trying to legislate thru the court religious dogma.
Why isn't Ms Greenhouse Obama's Supreme Court nominee?
Why isn't Ms Greenhouse Obama's Supreme Court nominee?
19
Thanks Linda for ANOTHER liberal "double standard(read: hypocrisy)". It's OK fine for liberals to claim a Supreme court "hijacking" but a different story for conservatives.
What about hijacking the truth?
According to Sandra Fluke women must spend "thousand" of dollars to purchase birth control. Yet birth control is "free"(paid for by taxpayers) at any planned parenthood or abortion mill. The problem is, women and their sexual partners must actually deploy the birth control in order to... prevent a birth.
What about hijacking the truth?
According to Sandra Fluke women must spend "thousand" of dollars to purchase birth control. Yet birth control is "free"(paid for by taxpayers) at any planned parenthood or abortion mill. The problem is, women and their sexual partners must actually deploy the birth control in order to... prevent a birth.
3
So you don't see the problem? Hijacking isn't the problem for you, education is.
10
So Ohio and other states aren't hijacking women's health by defunding PP.
If the insurance plan covers birth control, then the taxes paid by the employee and her share of the coverage that comes out of her pay should be allowed to go to the benefits she wants.
If the insurance plan covers birth control, then the taxes paid by the employee and her share of the coverage that comes out of her pay should be allowed to go to the benefits she wants.
5
Actually Matt, the problem lies in personal responsibility(not to be confused with a "micro-aggression").
1
Today Rush Limbaugh mocked folks on the left when he sneered that Republicans are being accused of being more concerned for the UNborn than the born! Unfortunately and sadly it is TRUE! Republicans do want to make abortions impossible to get and in fact that is why Trump's initial statement about "punishing "women for getting an abortion is a clear danger. Roe vs Wade could with a single Supreme Court judge (when 9 is the number) be reversed. As long as organizations do not have to PAY for something they oppose ,it should be permitted.
5
Why is the Supreme Court only worried about the insignificant "burden" on a few employers? What about the Significant BURDEN to thousands of women employees and their families?
35
Couldn't we have a Women's Freedom Restoration Act?
39
Are we still arguing the Scopes Monkey Trial here?
8
That's next year.
3
Do these Catholics also object to purchasing erectile disfunction solutions for men? If not, why not? They create the problem in the first place.
14
Exactly! Cialis and Viagra are advertised constantly, along with a ton of other pharmaceuticals and now even the Cialis commercials make note that the product is covered by most insurance plans!! It fries me to no end!!
10
The real problem is that the plaintiffs don't like sex for fun. That is the position of the Catholic Church and its members on the Court are dutifully obeying the stricture!
13
"Every sperm is sacred every sperm is great.
When a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."
Pope Monty Python
When a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."
Pope Monty Python
9
"“They’re seizing control of our plans, the plans that we are required to provide..."
Yes—REQUIRED. And they're for the benefit of the insured.
You can only have sympathy for this convoluted view if you leave out the intended USER of the plans. Since when would the plan not be "hijacked" if the employer could modify its terms to suit its own religious beliefs but dodge the beliefs, needs, and legal rights of the employee?
Yes—REQUIRED. And they're for the benefit of the insured.
You can only have sympathy for this convoluted view if you leave out the intended USER of the plans. Since when would the plan not be "hijacked" if the employer could modify its terms to suit its own religious beliefs but dodge the beliefs, needs, and legal rights of the employee?
11
Great article, Linda. Thank you *so* much for being around to talk about these things.
10
I see no reason at all why contraception must be part of a health plan imposed on all. First of all, contraception is exceedingly cheap and easily affordable by all, so it's absence from a plan is no burden on anyone. Second, if the Government believes it should pay for contraception anyway, it can easily make it available on a plan that is not mandatory for everyone. The reason why liberals insist on it as part of a mandatory plan is that they want control of the culture.
Contraception isn't cheap and things like the pill are used to treat a variety of painful and sometimes serious medical conditions. What it ultimately comes down to is the fact that another person's medical care is none of your business.
5
What sort of contraception is "exceedingly cheap and available to all"? Condoms? Have you checked out the failure rate? Really effective contraception, like the pill, or IUDs, require access to affordable medical care.
7
I am curious as to whether ACA covers erectile dysfunction drugs.
4
Yes, it does and I don't see the why. No erection = no baby, so clearly it shouldn't have to be paid for either.
2
This situation seems strangely similar to Citizens United. In that case, corporations are found to be "people" and enjoy the rights associated (with the exception of actual voting). And the individual gets drowned out. In this case, substitute "church" for "corporations". Once again, the individual gets the short end of the stick. What about the individual's choice of religion, or no religion, with the associated rights that go with it? Just like Citizens United, the individual is forgotten. When it is the church that dictates governance, that is not religious freedom for me, the individual that the Constitution was written for. It is "we the PEOPLE". Not "we the corporations" or "we the church".
21
It would seem to me the Justices are leap-frogging the essential inquiry in determining if there is in fact a "substantial burden" to the petitioner's exercise of religion: is it a violation of your sincerely held religious belief to state your beliefs?
Any and all proselytizing faiths are thereby quite out of the running, I should think.
All the government is requiring these petitioners to do is to state that it is against their religious beliefs to provide women with contraception. It is absurd for them to argue that whatever the government should do with that information is morally imputed to them. No such moral infection affects the Catholic Church in other respects. If the pastor rails from the pulpit on Sunday that the Church opposes all politicians who would permit abortion, for example, and I take that information and say, "gee, I wasn't going to vote in this election but my knowledge that the Church, with all its influence, is trying to elect anti-abortion hardliners to public office has convinced me to vote for the pro-choice candidate," must the priest who gave the homily confess for the miasma attaching to him and the entire Church because of my vote? Or am I the only sinner who must confess, recite the "Hail Mary" and be forgiven?
In 20 years of Catholic education, this particularly infectious variety of sinfulness was never before proposed to me. Surely that was some errant Jesuit's oversight.
Any and all proselytizing faiths are thereby quite out of the running, I should think.
All the government is requiring these petitioners to do is to state that it is against their religious beliefs to provide women with contraception. It is absurd for them to argue that whatever the government should do with that information is morally imputed to them. No such moral infection affects the Catholic Church in other respects. If the pastor rails from the pulpit on Sunday that the Church opposes all politicians who would permit abortion, for example, and I take that information and say, "gee, I wasn't going to vote in this election but my knowledge that the Church, with all its influence, is trying to elect anti-abortion hardliners to public office has convinced me to vote for the pro-choice candidate," must the priest who gave the homily confess for the miasma attaching to him and the entire Church because of my vote? Or am I the only sinner who must confess, recite the "Hail Mary" and be forgiven?
In 20 years of Catholic education, this particularly infectious variety of sinfulness was never before proposed to me. Surely that was some errant Jesuit's oversight.
5
I think I'll start a church with the core belief that paying taxes to the government is morally wrong. Then forcing me to pay taxes would impose an "undue burden" on on my exercise of my religion, and I get a free ticket to tell the IRS to bug off. Sure, that makes sense.
I thought that the conservatives on the Court were at least intelligent people, even if their values and beliefs were distasteful to me.
I thought that the conservatives on the Court were at least intelligent people, even if their values and beliefs were distasteful to me.
15
I will be your second member.
10
Churches are tax exempt and any tithing (sp?) you might do is tax deductible, this is probably a very easy thing to do without challenging it at the Supreme Court. Though they gave personhood to institutions/corps, there is an argument to be made that these institutions/corps should be taxed at the same rate as a person. This is what happens when you turn yourself inside out to get your way.
2
No, no -- The plaintiffs here don't want to even have to tell the government to bug off - that would be an undue burden.
Employers having a say in their employees' sex life is just creepy. Is that a legal argument?
21
Hmmm..... . If the government is required to accommodate each and every religious belief whether it harms others or not, it is required to allow stoning. I don't think we want to do that.
12
I often wonder, if I claimed Sharia Law prohibited me from offering birth control, would this have the same weight as a Christian group claiming this is burdensome on my religious rights?
10
I don't see how a birth-control-only policy would work. Either you choose to buy birth control products, or you don't, with the exception of other medical circumstances where birth control pills may be required.
What insurance company (in this example Aetna) would offer a policy that would pay out for virtually every subscriber?
What insurance company (in this example Aetna) would offer a policy that would pay out for virtually every subscriber?
3
All of these concerted attacks on the separation of Church and State are of a piece - the establishment of the government as an instrument of (Christian) religious domination. (Note: I and my wife are Christians.)
This is hardly different from the county clerk who tried to use her job as a government employee to force her own religious views down the throats of people who did not share it.
This is not Religious Freedom - it is Religious Tyranny through use of the government's offices.
That a religious organization refuses to notify the government of the nature of their creed in order to prevent other people from dissenting therefrom, and can (possibly) get the government to agree to a 'secret' enforcement of their religious convictions on others who do not share their beliefs is astonishing.
I want to be free from government interference of my choices based on someone else's religious views. I imagine that these people would be very happy with the arrangements in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
They seem to be trying to establish those ideas here.
This is hardly different from the county clerk who tried to use her job as a government employee to force her own religious views down the throats of people who did not share it.
This is not Religious Freedom - it is Religious Tyranny through use of the government's offices.
That a religious organization refuses to notify the government of the nature of their creed in order to prevent other people from dissenting therefrom, and can (possibly) get the government to agree to a 'secret' enforcement of their religious convictions on others who do not share their beliefs is astonishing.
I want to be free from government interference of my choices based on someone else's religious views. I imagine that these people would be very happy with the arrangements in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
They seem to be trying to establish those ideas here.
18
So do Jehova's Witnesses get to exclude coverage that includes blood transfusions? Or is this just another attack on women?
12
Great piece by Linda Greenhouse.
11
Thank you, Ms. Green. As a non-lawyer I appreciate your clarity that brings these legal issues to a point where they are comprehensible to the rest of us. Without you it would just all be some legal mumbo jumbo for lawyers only.
8
I always figure that the way to work through a thorny legal problem is change the context to something a bit more obvious and easier to resolve.
Say the issue was objecting to the use of blood transfusions (there are, I believe, faiths that reject them). Then ask whether an institution claiming religious freedom can have a health plan denying their employees transfusions, even if the employee is of another faith.
Or consider a hypothetical faith that considered it forbidden to treat infections with antibiotics, or forbid x-rays, or setting broken limbs.
Of COURSE the Justices would rule against the faith in those ridiculous circumstances.
Yet only the context is different from the current case. The legal issues are the same and no matter WHAT pretzel logic the 4 use, it comes down to a legal contradiction because THEY are all devout Catholics who follow their church's teachings on contraception.
Say the issue was objecting to the use of blood transfusions (there are, I believe, faiths that reject them). Then ask whether an institution claiming religious freedom can have a health plan denying their employees transfusions, even if the employee is of another faith.
Or consider a hypothetical faith that considered it forbidden to treat infections with antibiotics, or forbid x-rays, or setting broken limbs.
Of COURSE the Justices would rule against the faith in those ridiculous circumstances.
Yet only the context is different from the current case. The legal issues are the same and no matter WHAT pretzel logic the 4 use, it comes down to a legal contradiction because THEY are all devout Catholics who follow their church's teachings on contraception.
8
I think SCOTUS is starting to freak out a bit here. They're at risk of perpetual tied decisions, which are a waste of everyone's time; they're being dragged into disputes manufactured by religious groups determined to impose their views on the country; and they're struggling to stay apolitical. The GOP right wing just keeps chipping away at our fundamental principles. Shame on them.
10
Some of the Sisters surely believe that birth control is ok. Many have a practical view of life. How does the court accommodate them?
4
Ms. Greenhouse, when are you going to admit to yourself that the 4 Republicans on the Supreme Court are republican Party operatives, not Justices or deep legal thinkers?
Like their counter parts on Fox New and AM Talk Radio, they tow the Party Line disregarding law, logic and reality.The Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby decisions were pure Politics dressed in ill fitting legal garments.
They will decide this in favor of the Catholic Church because it will please the conservative Catholics who are part of the ever shrinking Republican Base.
Like their counter parts on Fox New and AM Talk Radio, they tow the Party Line disregarding law, logic and reality.The Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby decisions were pure Politics dressed in ill fitting legal garments.
They will decide this in favor of the Catholic Church because it will please the conservative Catholics who are part of the ever shrinking Republican Base.
10
What about the four Dems who almost always think and vote in lockstep with each other?
If I didn't know better I'd surely think that we're at a tea party hosted by the White Rabbit. The words mean just what I want them to mean... and other fantasies.
7
SCOTUS right-wingers remind me of Animal Farm.
Some Religion is More Equal Than Others....
Why could this reasoning not be used by Christian Scientists to opt out of any and all government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid taxation?
Slippery slope lost on judges with agendas.
Some Religion is More Equal Than Others....
Why could this reasoning not be used by Christian Scientists to opt out of any and all government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid taxation?
Slippery slope lost on judges with agendas.
13
What amazes me, among so many things, are the comments on this article. They are thoughtful and well written. The amazing part is how the writers can express themselves without exploding in outrage. I have thoughts about this issue but am unable to express them coherently. The combination of arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy of the right is infuriating, so infuriating that it is impossible for me to deal with it in a cool manner.
12
What if an employer's "religious faith", in his or her mind, directs them to be opposed to blood transfusions or immunization vaccines for children? It is a very slippery slope. At the core, these cases were about nothing but creating judicial mischief in opposing the ACA, but, also, they are an outrageous religious overreach into peoples lives.
There are theocracies in the world, but America is not supposed to be one of them.
There are theocracies in the world, but America is not supposed to be one of them.
13
If this was a case where guns rights were being denied to an individual instead of birth control the conservatives would not even heat the case!
13
That's a really good point.
6
The Court just did hear a case brought by someone who wanted his gun rights restored after a misdemeanor spouse abuse conviction. It was so compelling to Justice Thomas that he questioned counsel during oral argument. One wondered if his body had been taken over by the ghost of Antonin Scalia, since Thomas is so famously silent in oral argument.
4
"But the religious nonprofits nonetheless insist that even the requirement to notify the government makes them complicit in making birth control available to their employees."
This is blatant over reach on the part of religious conservatives.
It's not simply that they have a problem with being required to provide birth control-- they just flat out don't want ANYONE to use it.
it's not only that they don't trust their own parishioners to follow their faith, it's that they want the legal means to ensure that they do.
And disturbingly enough, they believe they have the legal foundation to prevent it.
Sounds like the dark ages all over again.
This is blatant over reach on the part of religious conservatives.
It's not simply that they have a problem with being required to provide birth control-- they just flat out don't want ANYONE to use it.
it's not only that they don't trust their own parishioners to follow their faith, it's that they want the legal means to ensure that they do.
And disturbingly enough, they believe they have the legal foundation to prevent it.
Sounds like the dark ages all over again.
17
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has caused more trouble than it's worth. Why don't we just repeal it?
8
The Supreme Court is playing with fire. All the nonsense about the will of the founders and intent of the framers is just that.. What sustains laws is public opinion, and just like on civil and gay rights it is shifting on religion. It has shifted on campaign financing, and drugs. Make laws people oppose at your peril guys, there will be a reaction, the electorate will limit your reach.
6
Please, let's have a bit of freedom from religion for all those who really need it.
14
What Ms. Greenhouse misses, to my surprise is that the Supreme Court was hijacked to save Obamacare from the dustbin of unconstitutional acts. I am a Black attorney in Washington DC, and I was here in 2009 when Obamacare was initially sent to Congress. The law was unconstitutional on its face, as written, which is why a Democrat-controlled Congress rammed it through with no support from the GOP. Not because of race. Not because of a vast right wing conspiracy by evil Republicans huddled in a cloak room. Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion WROTE that the ACA, as written was unconstitutional.
And that was where law died, and politics took over.
Every Obama supporter, including the President defended the ACA using POLITICAL rhetoric. We never discussed the legality of the ACA, liberals tasked critics of Obamacare to "take health insurance away from babies and old people" repeatedly. Mr. Obama repeatedly made campaign rally style appearances chastising Republicans for wanting to take health insurance away from people--without mentioning that Obamacare did just that to 12 million Americans who liked their plans but lost them.
So not once, but twice, Obamacare has faced Supreme Court challenges based on law, and twice Obamacare has survived for political reasons. Alone.
Ms. Greenhouse, I respectfully disagree with your column today. The Supreme Court has already been hijacked. By Barack Obama and the far left.
And that was where law died, and politics took over.
Every Obama supporter, including the President defended the ACA using POLITICAL rhetoric. We never discussed the legality of the ACA, liberals tasked critics of Obamacare to "take health insurance away from babies and old people" repeatedly. Mr. Obama repeatedly made campaign rally style appearances chastising Republicans for wanting to take health insurance away from people--without mentioning that Obamacare did just that to 12 million Americans who liked their plans but lost them.
So not once, but twice, Obamacare has faced Supreme Court challenges based on law, and twice Obamacare has survived for political reasons. Alone.
Ms. Greenhouse, I respectfully disagree with your column today. The Supreme Court has already been hijacked. By Barack Obama and the far left.
2
So, exactly what part of the constitution prevents insurance mandates?
4
Gene - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If you can show me where the Constitution delegates the United States to mandate a purchase, I would be most appreciative.
If you can show me where the Constitution delegates the United States to mandate a purchase, I would be most appreciative.
The fact that members of Congress complained, objected, and voted against the ACA doesn't change the fact that it was passed. The fact that people used certain kinds of rhetoric to support it doesn't change the fact that a majority of each house voted for it. It became law. The ACA was not unconstitutional on its face, and the Court, in a valid decision, upheld it. Whining about it or pointlessly bringing up one's race or falsely claiming to be a barrister won't change the fact that the ACA is law.
7
They won't be happy until the Bible supplants the Constitution as the law of the land.
13
Please explain to me how having to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court doesn't pose an undue burden on religious organizations. If even having to identify yourself as opposed to the law makes you complicit in the law, but somehow arguing about the law, which essentially involves making yourself known as a plaintiff, isn't an undue burden...? Ah, the hypocrisy.
5
Thank you, Ms Greenhouse, for a cogent essay on the attempted subversion of the establishment clause of the constitution by the radical religious right.
6
Where were the Little Sisters of the Poor when priests were molesting children? They knew about it. It was an open secret within the church hierarchy, along with priests who made advances to nuns. That didn't seem to have much of an affect on their tender consciences. Oh, of course, men can have sex all they want, but if women are involved, well, pregnancy is the punishment for female pleasure.
11
Aren't these religious nonprofits complicit in providing birth control just by paying their employees? If they know that an employee plans to use birth control and they give that employee money in exchange for work, they are just as complicit as when they provide health insurance in exchange for work. This is where the complicity argument leads.
10
I don't get the "complicit" argument - the fact that human beings are inherently sinful, doesn't that mean that hiring humans makes you complicit in the sins they commit, even if you do not sponsor them yourself? How could you live with yourself?
The fact is, the compensation one provides to one's employees leaves them free to do all sorts of sinful things - be gluttonous, be slothful, and so forth - but that does not make the person paying the compensation complicit. Why should this case be any different?
The fact is, the compensation one provides to one's employees leaves them free to do all sorts of sinful things - be gluttonous, be slothful, and so forth - but that does not make the person paying the compensation complicit. Why should this case be any different?
12
It is inappropriate for the US Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Their job is to determine whether the rule as written conforms to the law, not to re-write it. Justice Kennedy owes it to "end-users" -- aka our precious mothers, daughters, sisters and wives -- to prevent the high-jacking of healthcare for women by these religious zealots.
7
"Their job is to determine whether the rule as written conforms to the law..."
No, the job of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress and signed by the President. All the justices need to keep that in mind.
No, the job of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress and signed by the President. All the justices need to keep that in mind.
2
Actually, the Court must do both. But in this case there is no Constitutionality issue unless the Court wants to revisit whether or not the RFA is Constitutional. I would say that it can only be Constitutional if the Court is allowed to make a determination of whether a given burden is substantial or not and not merely whether or not a citizen believes it to be substantial.
The problem is that the Court believes that taking that on would itself force it to be entangled with religious belief and practice. If that is so, the only thing to do is to strike the RFA.
It is folly to try and find a less restrictive means to avoid reaching the question in this or most cases. The plaintiffs will come back and claim that if they know that every insurer and TPA they can buy coverage from will provide family planning services to their employees, they will continue to contend that they are being made complicit.
The problem is that the Court believes that taking that on would itself force it to be entangled with religious belief and practice. If that is so, the only thing to do is to strike the RFA.
It is folly to try and find a less restrictive means to avoid reaching the question in this or most cases. The plaintiffs will come back and claim that if they know that every insurer and TPA they can buy coverage from will provide family planning services to their employees, they will continue to contend that they are being made complicit.
1
The religious right seems to interpret religious freedom as their freedom to dictate how other people live.
20
This was a foreseeable result of allowing the government to mandate that employers provide acceptable health insurance coverage their employees. Before that mandate, employers could provide the level of insurance they were comfortable with, and employees could decide for themselves if that was acceptable, and if it was not, find work for an employer who offered a better plan. Back in my younger days (when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I turned down a number of jobs when the health plans offered did not meet my needs.
What we need is to allow people choice in their lives, and not have the government insisting that we are too ignorant to decide for ourselves.
What we need is to allow people choice in their lives, and not have the government insisting that we are too ignorant to decide for ourselves.
"What we need is to allow people choice in their lives, and not have the government insisting that we are too ignorant to decide for ourselves."
Liberals use the personal choice argument only when it comes to abortion.
Liberals use the personal choice argument only when it comes to abortion.
You turned down a number of jobs when the health plans didn't meet your needs? How privileged of you. Most of us peasants aren't lucky enough to have so many job offers that we can afford to be so choosy.
4
A fair point, but unless you favor some form of single payer government health plan that will replace employer-provided health insurance, what's the option for the many people who are lucky to find a job at all, much less have the freedom to shop around among "a number of jobs" until they find a health care plan that suits them? I'm glad that you had the freedom to choose among employers based on the quality of the benefits offered, but your distaste for government mandates seems to be blinding you to the fact that for many people that freedom is illusory.
5
Religious freedom must never mean the right to impose your religion on others. That is what the right wants and will never give up on. Originalist that they are, the Constitution was written only to protect their rights and no one else's. It is up to the rest of us to insist that is wrong or accept their warped view of our rights.
9
As a cradle Catholic, I've often been surprised to find that many of my Evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ don't think that Catholics read the Scriptures. We do. So, I'm struck by the Little Sisters' deficiency in their knowledge of The Word.
Jesus Christ is plain in his teaching. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
Following man's law does not make one complicit in disobeying God's law. The matter has already been decided, because it is not a new question. It is a moral conundrum about which Jesus has already given guidance.
I hope that the Little Sisters (who were shown in media photos looking rather gleeful outside the SCOTUS; I hope they enjoyed their moment) have a very good confessor. It appears that, as a body corporate, they suffer from the sin of Pride.
Good luck with that.
Jesus Christ is plain in his teaching. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
Following man's law does not make one complicit in disobeying God's law. The matter has already been decided, because it is not a new question. It is a moral conundrum about which Jesus has already given guidance.
I hope that the Little Sisters (who were shown in media photos looking rather gleeful outside the SCOTUS; I hope they enjoyed their moment) have a very good confessor. It appears that, as a body corporate, they suffer from the sin of Pride.
Good luck with that.
12
It is easier to just finally realize that there are no gods. Free your mind and this all goes away.
3
It looks like Conservatives are moving towards a single payer system for everyone. That would solve this problem.
6
The organizations complain that their religious freedom is diminished by their being put in the position of asking that they be exempted from covering birth control. According to this argument, asking the government for relief is morally objectionable to them. Then how is it that they are now bringing a case before the Supreme Court? Does not that violate their moral right to be left alone? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
9
If I didn't know better I would think that what the Roberts bloc is looking for is contraceptive coverage that would appear by divine intervention--or immaculate conception.
8
Religious freedom must never mean the right to impose your religion on others. That imposition is exactly what the right wants and will never give up on. Originalist that they are, they believe the Constitution was written only to protect their rights and no one else's. It is up to the rest of us to insist that view is wrong or accept their warped vision of our rights.
8
I'm looking forward to the cases that will come soon for protections of the religious freedoms of Muslims, Hindus, and who knows, perhaps even atheists. We've heard much about keeping Sharia law out of American life, but this seems like a direct path for employers to impose Sharia law or any other religious doctrine on their employees. It is painfully clear that the supporters of religious freedom want to believe that religion is synonymous with Christian or Catholic.
10
Since atheists by definition have no religion, we'll be left out in the cold with no rights.
3
They take the name of God in vain. They don't know any more about what God thinks than we do.
2
Well. we can start with the understanding that there are no gods.
Wasn't the original purpose of the RFRA to allow certain native americans to use peyote (a federally controlled substance) in their religious rituals and to enter federally held land to perform those same rituals? Isn't the very definition of Judicial Activism trying to leverage a limited easing of the law intended to accommodate a small group's special needs into this enfranchisement of magical beliefs over the absence of magical beliefs? How can those who hold these same magical beliefs not recuse themselves from a case brought by a group who not only entertain the same magical beliefs but also are known to be agents and authority figures of the belief system in question? What country is this? What century is this?
5
Forcing women to seek a second plan places an undue burden on our right to access contraceptives. Under the Affordable Care Act I enrolled in a plan provided by the insurance company Fidelis Care in NYC. The company deceitfully hid the fact that it is a Catholic plan and does not cover contraceptives (as legally mandated by the Affordable Care Act) from its website and even benefit details. They claimed they had a third party alternative that would provide "seamless" coverage, and all I had to do was present a separate health insurance card at the pharmacy. 5 months and about 65 hours of phone time later, I still had to pay out of pocket each month for my birth control pills, and had to struggle to change plans. I filed a complaint with the NY Attorney General, to no avail. I can't imagine how cumbersome the process would be for low-income women will less ability to navigate the bureaucracy. If the Supreme court rules that Christians are allowed to dictate when and if their employees become pregnant and how many children they have, they should also be forced to pay for the lifetime of caregiving, welfare, supplemental schooling, food stamps, mental health and substance abuse treatment that are all too common costs borne by women who are denied sex education, contraceptives and abortion and are then forced to give birth.
10
But these "people" are not concerned with babies. They are concerned with sex and ensoulment.
4
I'm not clear why asserting this to the to the general public is propounding doctrine but asserting it to the government is complicity. Are they not proud to assert it for any reason to anyone but perhaps especially to a secular government?
3
Any Supreme Court justice that uses their religion to guide their decisions, implies there is no division of church and state.
These distractions are only good for deliberate political agendas, and waste the courts time, and only effectively cause further animosity, and division.
If you don't like something don't buy it, if you are given something you don't like don't use it, this is your constitutional right.
These distractions are only good for deliberate political agendas, and waste the courts time, and only effectively cause further animosity, and division.
If you don't like something don't buy it, if you are given something you don't like don't use it, this is your constitutional right.
6
Let's be honest, the Supreme Court has become the third political branch of government. Everyone knows that and thus the Court has little of the respect it used to have from the American people. Americans expect the Republican/Catholic members to vote in favor of church teachings and the oligarchs, and the Democratic/Jewish members to vote in favor of the people.
5
Stevens is right. THe Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional. It is not an act about "freedom." It is about the power of the religious to impose their beliefs on others.
14
Birth control pills need to be over the counter. It fixes everything.
2
Wrong. There are many variations of the pill out there and taking the wrong one can have serious consequences. Women need medical care for things like this.
OTC drugs aren't often covered by insurance and this would also make it much more expensive.
OTC drugs aren't often covered by insurance and this would also make it much more expensive.
3
Don't adjust your computer screens.
Obama supporters are attacking nuns over their religious beliefs.
Let me repeat that.
Today is March 31, 2016, and Obama supporters are mocking, denigrating and insulting nuns.
In case anybody wonders why I am a registered Republican, please go back and read today's NYT.
Obama supporters are attacking nuns over their religious beliefs.
Let me repeat that.
Today is March 31, 2016, and Obama supporters are mocking, denigrating and insulting nuns.
In case anybody wonders why I am a registered Republican, please go back and read today's NYT.
2
DCBarrister, I've read a number of your posts and have come to the conclusion that you are a nut and a fraud.
13
Clover - Bingo. DC is a troll.
10
I don't wonder why DC is a registered Republican.
I do wonder whether he's registered as a barrister with the Bar Standards Board in the U.K.
I do wonder whether he's registered as a barrister with the Bar Standards Board in the U.K.
2
When I was a child my mother with every good intention told me she would not trust anyone who did not believe in God. This stuck with me until I was middle age & discovered there were charlantens who were religious, & atheists who's handshake was all you needed to close a deal. Obviously, this does not hold true in most cases, & was always a gross generalization.There are good and bad in every group & every religion.The older I get the more intolerant I become for religious fanatics that are constantly trying to impose their beliefs on others, & I have become a Staunch supporter of the separation between Church & State, which one of the reasons I can never support a Republican.Maybe my mother meant Republican & not God when she spoke about trust.
5
It's just hard to imagine that anyone would seriously argue that sending a notice saying they object to providing coverage is a serious burden. Didn't the Court even suggest that as a solution in a previous case because it was not a serious burden?
5
US culture was once vastly enriched by self-organized civic improvement and public education affinity groups. A strong argument can be made that public policy should encourage such affiliations, but its incentives should not depend on religious claims or objectives.
2
A simple solution? Do away with the fine and ask all religious institutions who choose not to comply to advise the government. And for those like the Little Sisters for whom advising the Government icontravenes their beliefs, allow their employees to trigger the response by advising the Government they are being denied access to contraceptives and automatically pass their expenses to the health insurer to pay.
Having said this, we need a contraceptive against the self righteous religious and hypocritical jurists who believe "hijacking" is whatever goes against the beliefs they would impose upon those who believe differently. For shame.
Having said this, we need a contraceptive against the self righteous religious and hypocritical jurists who believe "hijacking" is whatever goes against the beliefs they would impose upon those who believe differently. For shame.
2
A simpler solution? Get the federal government out of health care.
98% of sexually active Catholic women use birth control. Why should the government let the Little Sisters hijack the system to impose a dogma that is irrelevant?
9
These catholic male juistices once again prove their religion is more important than just decisions. How is the governemnt to know what they want fo do if they don't tell them? This amounts to stupidity at the highest level.
5
Any group can claim any exemption if they declare themselves a religion and file a few forms with the IRS. Perhaps a group might claim the right to ignore EPA clear water or air because their religion says they own the earth and can do with it as they please. Perhaps they might claim the right to kill Jews because of religious convictions. These examples may seem extreme and we have laws that protect us from these religious views. That the little sisters claim an exemption from writing a letter on religious grounds and SCOTUS considers it opens the door to a multitude of religious claims and counter claims that the constitution attempted to prevent when it declared the separation of Church and State.
5
An important point is being missed here: the case is essentially about the relationship between worker and employer. Thirty-five years ago, both stood as equals: my work for your pay. But conservatives triumphed in 1980 and the relationship went back in time to the period before the Progressive Era, where the worker was the dependent of the employer.
That's the way conservatives like it: the worker approaches head down and hat in hand, grateful to be employed, puppy-like in appreciation for the benefices of his patron. "Look, a Chistmas turkey!" The employer now snoops at his employees Facebook page, requires urine samples to determine what "his" employer might be up to. And determines that he or she must adhere to the employer's concept of moral behavior. Not his actual practice of it, of course, but what he would like it to be.
Worker's rights has become an oxymoron.
That's the way conservatives like it: the worker approaches head down and hat in hand, grateful to be employed, puppy-like in appreciation for the benefices of his patron. "Look, a Chistmas turkey!" The employer now snoops at his employees Facebook page, requires urine samples to determine what "his" employer might be up to. And determines that he or she must adhere to the employer's concept of moral behavior. Not his actual practice of it, of course, but what he would like it to be.
Worker's rights has become an oxymoron.
12
The term "hijacking" is the fulcrum of Ms. Greenhouse's column, but to add a bit of specificity, what is being hijacked (if the SCOTUS supports the plaintiffs) is America's tradition since its founding to designate -- by law -- a Christian (no, make that Roman Catholic) belief that birth control and contraception are morally wrong.
Justice Kennedy (a Catholic) revealed his bias in his question to the government: "Do you question their (the nuns') belief that they're complicit in the moral wrong?" Not alleged moral wrong, not possibly moral wrong; Kennedy is stating his belief that birth control/contraception is morally wrong. That's the hijacking under way.
Justice Kennedy (a Catholic) revealed his bias in his question to the government: "Do you question their (the nuns') belief that they're complicit in the moral wrong?" Not alleged moral wrong, not possibly moral wrong; Kennedy is stating his belief that birth control/contraception is morally wrong. That's the hijacking under way.
12
The hijacking in this case makes faith-based beliefs in post-mortal damage more important than the real concerns of living people.
3
Single payer would end this whole argument and its accompanying waste of time and effort.
15
It might make this argument moot but it would make health care worse.
That kind of gobbledygook works on Drudge not here. We are educated and intelligent.
The obvious best least restrictive method is single payer for birth control.
3
The government will "hijack our health plans and provide coverage AGAINST OUR WILL." Whose will? The opt out clearly allows them to NOT directly provide contraception coverage. It becomes a matter of the employee's individual beliefs and conscience, as it should be. As a Catholic, I understand the problem for the sisters. But, they have met their moral obligation. If they do not wish to encourage contraception, that's fine, but the opt-out doesn't compel them to provide contraception any more than an employee is compelled to use it. It is a common-sense accomodation. If an employee chooses to use contraception, the sisters are not complicit in that decision, especially if they have already clearly stated their position. Again, as a Catholic, I do not want the ACA gutted in the name of my beliefs. I think that as a country and a faith, we both have an interest in providing decent health care, and that includes allowing employees the right to decide what care they need according to their beliefs.
5
Religion and common sense. Oil and Water.
2
The so called Christian right wing religious zealots never stop in trying to use big government to force their specific religious beliefs on everyone else. I believe the word would be religious tyranny of a small minority.
9
Our forefathers, in a desperate attempt to get away from these oppressive religions in Europe, risked life and limb to immigrate to the U.S. And this is exactly what I do not get about SCOTUS. How can it NOT uphold a law that protects me and my religious belief from these oppressive, outdated religious organizations????
BTW, the Little Sisters are a non-profit. They do benefit from being tax-exempt and probably receive a ton of federal and state money to support their mission. So, they don't mind taking money from us sinners, but they want to dictate to us what should be in our benefits package. How hypocritical is that? IMHO, these churches and other religious nonprofits should have to follow the law of the land or forgo their 501(c)3 status and any federal and state support.
BTW, the Little Sisters are a non-profit. They do benefit from being tax-exempt and probably receive a ton of federal and state money to support their mission. So, they don't mind taking money from us sinners, but they want to dictate to us what should be in our benefits package. How hypocritical is that? IMHO, these churches and other religious nonprofits should have to follow the law of the land or forgo their 501(c)3 status and any federal and state support.
10
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
So underlying this case is how the Court defines "Free Exercise" of religion. Does it simply mean we are free to believe whatever we want about religion? Free to engage in religious rituals?
Or does it mean we are free to hold slaves because it is in the Bible, Philemon? Free to stone the adulteresses (Bible, Koran)? Free to refuse the laws and the Constitution in any way I feel my religion demands? Free to commit jihad, if that is my religious belief?
Have your churches, temples, whatever. Mine are the forests, the mountains, and the sea, Neruda. But as a religion is a community, so our country is a community of communities, of peoples, of states, of opinions, of religions, and of laws, not an Apartheid. Thus our love of country is our love for one another. That is our Commonweal, the true wealth of our nation.
So underlying this case is how the Court defines "Free Exercise" of religion. Does it simply mean we are free to believe whatever we want about religion? Free to engage in religious rituals?
Or does it mean we are free to hold slaves because it is in the Bible, Philemon? Free to stone the adulteresses (Bible, Koran)? Free to refuse the laws and the Constitution in any way I feel my religion demands? Free to commit jihad, if that is my religious belief?
Have your churches, temples, whatever. Mine are the forests, the mountains, and the sea, Neruda. But as a religion is a community, so our country is a community of communities, of peoples, of states, of opinions, of religions, and of laws, not an Apartheid. Thus our love of country is our love for one another. That is our Commonweal, the true wealth of our nation.
3
Isn't a vasectomy a form of (male) birth control and, if so, are these groups objecting to that being covered too? Is this another right wing challenge to women's rights? This seems to me to be even more more compelling than the Viagra argument.
The religious right seems to have "hijacked" the first amendment.
The religious right seems to have "hijacked" the first amendment.
7
Once again, the radical left is attempting to impose its' secularist morality upon the rest of society. If you want birth control and your employer doesn't want to pay for it, I have a great suggestion. Pay for it yourself. Don't make others complicit in your actions. Once again, the left seeks to limit the freedom, whether it be of speech or action, of those with whom it disagrees.
No, I am not Roman Catholic; I am a member of a Protestant denomination. I have no issue with birth control aside from the morning-after pill. But unlike those of you on the left, I will support the freedom of those with whom I disagree.
No, I am not Roman Catholic; I am a member of a Protestant denomination. I have no issue with birth control aside from the morning-after pill. But unlike those of you on the left, I will support the freedom of those with whom I disagree.
1
Why should someone have to pay additional money to satisfy another person's wish to impose their religion on total strangers?
I object to smoking but my money still goes to pay for medical care for smokers, likewise obesity related illnesses etc.
I object to smoking but my money still goes to pay for medical care for smokers, likewise obesity related illnesses etc.
3
Ron Wilson – MOst rational people, right & left, support the freedom of those with whom we disagree. However, at issue is, exactly to what extent does the US Constitution support that freedom, and for whom?
Do you believe that filling out and submitting a form is some kind of coercion, a substantial burden on the Little Sisters?
Are you okay with the SCOTUS giving Little Sisters the right NOT to support the freedom of people of a different, or no, faith? And if so, then why can't everyone have this right?
Do you believe that filling out and submitting a form is some kind of coercion, a substantial burden on the Little Sisters?
Are you okay with the SCOTUS giving Little Sisters the right NOT to support the freedom of people of a different, or no, faith? And if so, then why can't everyone have this right?
3
Sally, the Roman Catholic nuns are not preventing people from buying birth control were their suit to be successful. People would still be able to purchase it for themselves. Granted, they might want to prevent others from buying birth control. That I would have a problem with. I have no qualms about their current actions.
The fundamental problem, and error, is linking medical care financing to employment in the first place, as Milton Friedman pointed out around 2001. Much that is bad flows from that, including this unseemly dispute over perceived conflict between church and state.
To arrive at a comprehensive solution somewhat resembling Medicare or systems in other developed countries would have taken longer and more effort, but legislators might have had the time to read and digest the bill before voting on it, and they might have had time also to take it up with their constituents. iT might also have given us a solution that did not leave out millions of people and did not continue to cost roughly twice as much per person as in many otherwise economically comparable countries.
To arrive at a comprehensive solution somewhat resembling Medicare or systems in other developed countries would have taken longer and more effort, but legislators might have had the time to read and digest the bill before voting on it, and they might have had time also to take it up with their constituents. iT might also have given us a solution that did not leave out millions of people and did not continue to cost roughly twice as much per person as in many otherwise economically comparable countries.
4
I can assure you some religious adherents reading this post have used birth control in violation of their religious tenets. So a more appropriate question should be why are we letting religion hijack government as an enforcement arm of religious faith?
10
Are we unwilling to listen too? The message is very clear to them. "If you're unwilling to pay for killing babies, then you must tell the government to do it on your behalf." That is the message we are very directly sending to people who believe these means of birth control are murder. The options are simple: Brainwash them, coerce them to do something they find grossly immoral, or back off. The first two are contrary to who we, as Americans, are. That leaves the third.
This case isn't about "killing babies." It's about preventing pregnancy.
4
If you're unwilling to pay for killing babies
Well, if that is your starting point then you need go no further. But that is NOT the starting point. There are no babies involved here.
Why are you pro-forced-birth "people" always so poorly informed and SO willing to display your poorly informed selves to the world?
Well, if that is your starting point then you need go no further. But that is NOT the starting point. There are no babies involved here.
Why are you pro-forced-birth "people" always so poorly informed and SO willing to display your poorly informed selves to the world?
4
Hogwash. Birth control doesn't kill babies. Supposedly the Church finds divorce immoral but they're not trying to keep people from getting divorced.
4
Hillary, as a student of History, seems to be reviewing the impact of Senator Elizabeth Warren, after she ousted former (temporary) Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. I'm sure that Harry Reid had a big smile on his face when he advised Mitch Mc Connell that he had appointed the GOP's worst nightmare, newly-elected Sen. Warren, to the Senate Finance Committee. The GOP blocked her to lead the CFPB, so she will now have even more power re: Dodd-Frank.
In that spirit, perhaps a newly-elected President Hillary R. Clinton might replaced President Obama's Nominee, Judge Garland, with the GOP's "Old Friend", former Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
In that spirit, perhaps a newly-elected President Hillary R. Clinton might replaced President Obama's Nominee, Judge Garland, with the GOP's "Old Friend", former Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
“Do you question their belief that they’re complicit in the moral wrong?” Justice Kennedy asked Mr. Verrilli.
“No, we do not,” the solicitor general replied.
“Well, then it seems to me that that’s a substantial burden,” Justice Kennedy said.
Unfortunately, Mr. Verrilli should have said yes. Because, why then are they providing a pay check to employees as they may use it in a moral wrong. Buying contraception on their own, going to a movie on the Sabbath, paying for ED medicine while not married, paying for internet and using social media to spread lies perhaps. Paying divorced couples.
He couldn't of course, but it would have highlighted the hypocrisy of this whole case. If you just assume belief of the plaintiffs and thus it is a burden, you open the entire Pandora's box. Why wouldn't a person sue not to pay taxes as they believe there is a moral wrong of a myriad of things that the government does. Can the SC not see beyond the end of their noses? What a mess they are going to get themselves in.
“No, we do not,” the solicitor general replied.
“Well, then it seems to me that that’s a substantial burden,” Justice Kennedy said.
Unfortunately, Mr. Verrilli should have said yes. Because, why then are they providing a pay check to employees as they may use it in a moral wrong. Buying contraception on their own, going to a movie on the Sabbath, paying for ED medicine while not married, paying for internet and using social media to spread lies perhaps. Paying divorced couples.
He couldn't of course, but it would have highlighted the hypocrisy of this whole case. If you just assume belief of the plaintiffs and thus it is a burden, you open the entire Pandora's box. Why wouldn't a person sue not to pay taxes as they believe there is a moral wrong of a myriad of things that the government does. Can the SC not see beyond the end of their noses? What a mess they are going to get themselves in.
4
It is sad when four highly educated individuals sound like parrots of right wing talking points.
7
@Keith Dow
"It is sad when four highly educated individuals sound like parrots of right wing talking points."
It's even sadder when you realize that they ARE "parrots of right wing talking points".
"It is sad when four highly educated individuals sound like parrots of right wing talking points."
It's even sadder when you realize that they ARE "parrots of right wing talking points".
4
It is interesting that the same people who would not accept that John Kennedy would not be a tool of the Vatican are now in bed with those holding the most backward and primitive views about the rights of women to control their own bodies. (Maybe today there is too much "Vatican control" over the legal and political views of Justices and menbers of the Congress.) These views are consistent with the tradition, ancient and archaic, that women are the property of men, hence any offspring would add to the man's property. What sort of "religion" is allegedly threatened by the provisions under litigation, e, g., so-called "Judeo-Christian," Roman paganism?
On a lighter note, what about a male employee who wants to purchase a prophylactic? Is this covered by the Francisco-Clement appeal? What about a male who wants to have a vasectomy? Is there equal protection?
On a lighter note, what about a male employee who wants to purchase a prophylactic? Is this covered by the Francisco-Clement appeal? What about a male who wants to have a vasectomy? Is there equal protection?
4
Hypocrites. They want government "out of our lives" except where they want it in other people's lives, especially the most private parts of our lives, like our bedrooms and our relationships with out doctors. Arrogant hypocrites.
7
Some right wing zealots are motivated by religion. Some are motivated by money. It is truly a beautiful thing when these zealot-driven motives combine. Then you get a malicious, ruinous supreme court. There is nothing in history even close to this extremism in the liberal tradition.
The "little sisters of the poor?" Really? Lack of separation of church and state may be the ruin of an interesting experiment - democracy. Back to the mediocrity of social systems: feudalism, tribalism, autocracy, anarchy, dictatorships, oligarchy, militarism etc. Name your poison.
The "little sisters of the poor?" Really? Lack of separation of church and state may be the ruin of an interesting experiment - democracy. Back to the mediocrity of social systems: feudalism, tribalism, autocracy, anarchy, dictatorships, oligarchy, militarism etc. Name your poison.
3
The RFRA was passed on a bi-partisan basis through a Congress controlled by Democrats and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
As long as the law was used to get accommodation for the religious practices of Sikhs or Native Americans, liberals thought it was the greatest thing ever. But the minute Christians starting looking to the protections of the law liberals suddenly say RFRA has been "hijacked."
Such an amazing amount of hostility to the majority of religious Americans
As long as the law was used to get accommodation for the religious practices of Sikhs or Native Americans, liberals thought it was the greatest thing ever. But the minute Christians starting looking to the protections of the law liberals suddenly say RFRA has been "hijacked."
Such an amazing amount of hostility to the majority of religious Americans
1
But the ACA was passed by Congress and signed by the President too. Why do the Little Sisters, already exempted from the provision of the law to which they felt like objecting, attack the law again? Why do they seek a special exemption?
1
This case is the perfect example of why health insurance should NOT be tied to employment. We should have a single payer system like every other Western Democracy.
10
I appreciate the conservative's argument regarding this issue. They help make the case for single-payer healthcare. :-)
5
Justice Stevens had it right. Accommodations and exceptions to secular law for any religion is unconstitutional. Let's remember that the way the Constitution is written, the word "establishment" can be interpreted as being either a noun or a verb and either way it is a prohibition against having religious favor or condemnation in our secular law.
2
Left leaning supporters of excessive political correctness hijack the Supreme Court and force SCOTUS to approve gay marriage---a social contract that has no valid basis in biology, history or law and that many honest people of faith believe to be unnatural, abnormal and immoral---all to give special treatment to a small, select group of "victims" with a lot of money and political influence.
That is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
You don't have to be a "victim" or a "minority" to have rights. Everybody has rights even the politically incorrect.
Gay marriage supporters are responsible for the backlash that is Donald Trump. Nobody likes their religious beliefs being stepped on and mocked and valid votes of the people ignored in favor of political correctness run amok. It should not be at all surprising that many "normal" and "average" people are angry and frustrated. Donald Trump is a direct result of that anger.
That is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
You don't have to be a "victim" or a "minority" to have rights. Everybody has rights even the politically incorrect.
Gay marriage supporters are responsible for the backlash that is Donald Trump. Nobody likes their religious beliefs being stepped on and mocked and valid votes of the people ignored in favor of political correctness run amok. It should not be at all surprising that many "normal" and "average" people are angry and frustrated. Donald Trump is a direct result of that anger.
You can believe anything you want, you just can't impose your beliefs on other people. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
5
Catholicism and its edict against birth control is chasing off its congregation. Young women are rejecting these mandates and the church knows it. Justice Sonia Sotomayor brings this fact into stark relief. What is really happening is that the Church wants to stop women from using birth control by using law to do so.
8
Only Religion finds a way to teach us that there can be just and unjust discrimination. What happened to mercy and unconditional love? Why does man have to find way to manipulate people's behavior through religion and thus make God into a bully?
4
Because their god IS a bully. Their god advocates murdering poorly behaved children. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 for example.
2
98% of American catholic women have used use birth control not approved by the church and 82% of American catholic say it is morally acceptable. It is discrimination to impose your immoral standards on others.
6
Here is something I have yet to see addressed which, in my view, is a BIG problem. Oral contraceptive pills are contraceptive only as part of their actions. They are really pills for regulation of the menstrual cycle. Contraception, if you will, is a side-effect of the larger process. Many, many women -- including menarchal adolescent girls and women approaching menopause--take these pills for non-contraceptive purposes: regulation of menstrual flow, treatment of menstrual cramps, treatment for endometriosis, treatment for menstrual migraines, alleviation of symptoms of PMS, etc, etc, etc. Are the Little Sisters of the Poor also exempt from providing coverage for these pills when used for non-contraceptive purposes? When used otherwise, contraceptive benefits are unintended side-effects of the primary treatment (something in Catholic Theology known as the doctrine of double-effect). Who is going to sort out whether women can take these pills for non-contraceptive purposes? Do the nuns get to examine the medical records of all employees to render their own medical opinions.
This is utter nonsense.
This is utter nonsense.
17
As a man, it's a bit of an effort to gin up a whole lot of sympathy in this case, and, I have to admit to a similar feeling of "meh" when the Hobby Lobby decision came down.
Why? Am I opposed to contraceptives?
No, in fact I use them.
However, the ACA specifically prohibits insurance companies from covering male contraceptives or sterilization. Look it up.
So really, if women lose here they'll just be in the same position as men... with, of course, about a billion more contraceptive options available.
Good luck women... If you lose, welcome to the club.
Why? Am I opposed to contraceptives?
No, in fact I use them.
However, the ACA specifically prohibits insurance companies from covering male contraceptives or sterilization. Look it up.
So really, if women lose here they'll just be in the same position as men... with, of course, about a billion more contraceptive options available.
Good luck women... If you lose, welcome to the club.
"The law is what the government says it is" is the same logic supporting the majority opinion in Obergefell mandating recognition of gay marriage in all 50 states. Despite laws to the contrary, 5 "Justices " ruled the "right" to dignity trumped thousands of years of custom and established law. The law isn't what the legislature has written but what we 5 say it is. Hypocrisy at its lowest.
1
If the justices would read the Constitution, that would pretty much solve it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
8
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" - Matthew 22:21. I think this spells it out quite clearly that Caesar, the government, is allowed to make reasonable demands in God's world.
The religious groups are complaining that the government is making them complicit in obtaining birth control prescriptions. Sorry, but the religious groups were already doing that by giving female employees jobs and the wage income to buy it.
The religious groups are complaining that the government is making them complicit in obtaining birth control prescriptions. Sorry, but the religious groups were already doing that by giving female employees jobs and the wage income to buy it.
2
"Sincerely held belief" has been the escape hatch for the Right from any guilt, examination, deliberation, sentence or judgement they want to avoid on any subject for years, to the point of absurdity. The excuse the Bush Administration used to bypass careful evaluation and to view lack of evidence as evidence was "sincerely held belief" that precipitated their recklessness getting into Iraq and then absolved them from responsibility for the tragedy getting out. It was the imaginary territory Karl Rove proposed as the alternative to the "reality-based community". It's the pretend place the anti-vaxxers dwell in when their kids spread measles. It's the fantasy land where evolution is just a theory and climate change is a political conspiracy.
They want it to have parity in law, medicine, education and the day to day business of living, but it cannot and does not exist in reality. There is no place where sincerely held belief changes or obviates a hard fact, and hard facts are what makes the world work. Which makes people like these parasites and free-riders who take advantage of the benefits and advancements made by fact thinkers every day, but who are in their own lives incapable of making those advancements.
If the religious Right actually lived in the world that conformed to their sincerely held beliefs their life expectancy would be cut by half. They'd be treating yellow fever with eye of newt.
They want it to have parity in law, medicine, education and the day to day business of living, but it cannot and does not exist in reality. There is no place where sincerely held belief changes or obviates a hard fact, and hard facts are what makes the world work. Which makes people like these parasites and free-riders who take advantage of the benefits and advancements made by fact thinkers every day, but who are in their own lives incapable of making those advancements.
If the religious Right actually lived in the world that conformed to their sincerely held beliefs their life expectancy would be cut by half. They'd be treating yellow fever with eye of newt.
8
My religion does not support war, but I have to pay the taxes that support it anyway. The price of democracy is that sometimes we have to do things we don't like to do.
11
Would the nuns oppose payment for the immunization of young women against HPV? The pope has recently acknowledged that women with Ziks virus have the right to an abortion. Who is paying the nun's lawyers'? I sense a political not a moral motive. Liberty and justice for all!
6
Barrbara,
Please do not give them any ideas...
Please do not give them any ideas...
2
Before a problem can be solved, its root causes must be identified.
Nice work, Ms. Greenhouse. You have identified the vehicle that America's religious zealots (and that is the word I mean to use: zealots! [dont' be fooled by their soft voices]) have selected to drive right over the rest of us.
I have read virtually every comment posted here--why is what is so obvious to NYT readers (namely, that the conservatives have destroyed much of our constitution lately) so hard for middle America to see for themselves?
Nice work, Ms. Greenhouse. You have identified the vehicle that America's religious zealots (and that is the word I mean to use: zealots! [dont' be fooled by their soft voices]) have selected to drive right over the rest of us.
I have read virtually every comment posted here--why is what is so obvious to NYT readers (namely, that the conservatives have destroyed much of our constitution lately) so hard for middle America to see for themselves?
8
What's happening to America? Atheists and agnostics want to destroy the American Christian churches. And they are aided and abetted by bozo (barack hussein obama) - son of a muslim, supreme court jesters, and democrats.
Atheists say they do not believe in the existence of God nor in the existence of Satan. Atheists are asked how they are able to discern between decent and indecent, between moral and immoral, and between right and wrong when raising a family and little children. Atheists are asked if they depend on the supreme court jesters and man’s laws to provide those answers. Atheists are asked if their parents and families taught them right from wrong. Atheists are asked if their past generations of family histories were founded in Christianity, the Bible, church and God. Their answer is I believe in no one, I am who I am, I answer to no one, and I do what I want to do.
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
Atheists say they do not believe in the existence of God nor in the existence of Satan. Atheists are asked how they are able to discern between decent and indecent, between moral and immoral, and between right and wrong when raising a family and little children. Atheists are asked if they depend on the supreme court jesters and man’s laws to provide those answers. Atheists are asked if their parents and families taught them right from wrong. Atheists are asked if their past generations of family histories were founded in Christianity, the Bible, church and God. Their answer is I believe in no one, I am who I am, I answer to no one, and I do what I want to do.
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
Morality, sir, has nothing to do with religion and in fact, the two are all too often at odds with each other. And Christianity is not the only religion….
4
I had no idea President Obama had more than two parents, or that some of them were Supreme Court "jesters."
You're probably right about atheists not believing in Satan. That makes them different from the late Justice Scalia, who actually believed in the Devil, putting himself at least one step closer to Satan-worship...
You're probably right about atheists not believing in Satan. That makes them different from the late Justice Scalia, who actually believed in the Devil, putting himself at least one step closer to Satan-worship...
2
Correction to my previous comment: I dropped a clause, which should have read that America's long tradtion is not to uphold any specific religious belief or theology.
4
I ask this question as a Black man, a Washington lawyer, a history scholar and most importantly, as an American.
Why is it okay for liberals to hijack the Supreme Court to save the Affordable Healthcare Act (twice), to amend the Constitution without Congress or the States to invent a protected class (Obergefell) and to allow Barack Obama to violate the Constitution by enacting acts of Congress without Congress (EPA, Immigration, etc) and it's not okay for the Supreme Court to be "hijacked" to grant religious freedom to Christians?
Why is it okay for liberals to hijack the Supreme Court to save the Affordable Healthcare Act (twice), to amend the Constitution without Congress or the States to invent a protected class (Obergefell) and to allow Barack Obama to violate the Constitution by enacting acts of Congress without Congress (EPA, Immigration, etc) and it's not okay for the Supreme Court to be "hijacked" to grant religious freedom to Christians?
3
In this case, we argue for a vast reduction and simplification of the law, DCBarrister. We have been wasting an awful lot of time, money, and effort on utter fantasy. Why do you resist?
2
DCBarrister
You're a lawyer (or the more pretentious, barrister, as you like to call it though no one in America does) so you should know that logical fallacy is a false base for your argument or, in your case, another opportunistic opportunity to slag off Obama.
Is your law degree from Trump University?
You're a lawyer (or the more pretentious, barrister, as you like to call it though no one in America does) so you should know that logical fallacy is a false base for your argument or, in your case, another opportunistic opportunity to slag off Obama.
Is your law degree from Trump University?
6
What does being black have to do with any of this? Your endless parroting of your made up personae is getting tedious.
6
In the end the tides win, always. The right is, as always fighting the tides. They always lose, as the world marches towards modernity, with religion's hands locked around liberty's ankle being dragged in the mud.
It's the arc of history, why they always play the part that loses is beyond me, myopic and unwilling to see beyond their arm's reach.
The pity is lives squandered as they fight the light, pointlessly, they always lose.
It's the arc of history, why they always play the part that loses is beyond me, myopic and unwilling to see beyond their arm's reach.
The pity is lives squandered as they fight the light, pointlessly, they always lose.
1
Justice Sotomayor's comment: wouldn't smart religious women, even if insurance policies offered contraception, not use insurance provided contraception put this whole Supreme Court case into perspective for me. Should coffee be banned at Mormon owned supermarkets or condoms at Catholic owned mini-marts? No! Smart Mormons & smart Catholics can make up their own mind as what to buy or not to buy.
3
I'm with Justice Sotomayor all the way - the real issue is that women want contraception. If this case is decided in favor of the religious, women will suffer real harm, again.
5
The First Amendment's freedom of religion does not grant the right to oppress due to one's religion - neither does it grant slander due to freedom of speech or rioting due to freedom of assembly.
3
How ironic that the Little Sisters of the Poor, who presumably have more reason to know of the problems caused by uncontrolled fertility than the rest of us, are so dead set against controlling that fertility.
That's the amazing thing about religion--you believe the stuff men made up and negotiated in a quest for power centuries ago as against the clear evidence right before your eyes. And what a surprise that the heaviest burdens of most religions fall on women!
That's the amazing thing about religion--you believe the stuff men made up and negotiated in a quest for power centuries ago as against the clear evidence right before your eyes. And what a surprise that the heaviest burdens of most religions fall on women!
4
1.) Women, not men, should be in charge of their bodies.
2.) What we do to each other in the name of God often is egregious.
2.) What we do to each other in the name of God often is egregious.
4
What a shame that the Catholic Church, and all other "pro-life" organizations, don't seem to care about the "substantial burden" on society that is bringing a child into the world that no one is prepared/wants to care for. The religious Right's successful blending of evangelical Christianity into politics has ruined the political discourse in this country...
8
The ideological cartwheels the four conservative justices are willing to perform to put a square peg in a round hole is very illuminating. No wonder they don't want cameras in the courtroom. If the American people saw this happening in real time and associated the outrageous statements with the faces, they would find themselves called out for the hypocrites they are.
3
Let's face it, we're ALL complicit in government actions that we deem immoral. We all pay taxes, part of which go to pay for activities we consider immoral. Justice Stevens was right on -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives religious organizations rights and freedoms that none of the rest of us have.
7
This is an interesting test case for just how politically and ideologically motivated the right on the SCOTUS really is. From a legal perspective it is an easy case that should have been dismissed long ago. However, if we have a Court that believes any genuine religious belief trumps any kind of regulation no matter how inconsequential, we are heading down a really bad road. Perhaps it is time to consider impeachment of judges for obvious incompetence and lack of impartial judgment?
5
This is a case that was ushered into the predestined jurisdiction of the late Justice Scalia, unfortunately called away by God, otherwise known as Lady Luck.
4
The "observant" members of the court understand that access to contraceptives will have the disastrous unintended consequence of delaying the date that world population reaches 9 billion.
2
Is the government requiring a 100-page dissertation for these organizations to opt out of contraceptive coverage? No. So, how is bringing this case forward less of a burden than completing a two-page form? It isn't. Oh, but it's the principle of the matter. And what about their employees' principles who have differing views? Those don't seem to count here. Ridiculous
3
If god won't save us from these disgusting theopaths, maybe the Supreme Court will. The Little Sisters of the Rich (sic) need to allow their poor employees to exercise their individual choice over their own bodies and keep their sanctimonious noses out of others' family planning choices.
6
Constitutional? It means whatever these highly opinionated and politically compromised men want it to mean, chief among them Thomas, Alito and the late Scalia. To his ever lasting shame John Roberts has presided over the radicalization and politicization that has greatly diminished the public trust in whether this institution can any longer act dispassionately and objectively on behalf of all citizens.
3
If the petitioners win this case, it may be time for those of us who don't want someone else's religion imposed on us to build a boat and sail back to England.
1
I don't think that religious organizations have the right to make 2nd class citizens out of its employees, regardless of what these organizations believe. We are living the 21st Century, and we need to adapt, all of us. If you don't want to use contraception, don't, but don't deny the right to some one else, who you happen to employ. It's insane and total religious bigotry.
6
Religious exemptions from the application of any law, and I do mean any law, are wrong and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. It's about time this secular democracy stopped forcing the rest of us to live by the rules of various religious groups and to pay for the privilege to boot!
The only hijacking going on here is the hijacking of our government by religious entities. If anyone needs to see what the granting of temporal power to religious groups results in you need look no further than the Middle East or if you prefer read all about the 30 Years war!
The only hijacking going on here is the hijacking of our government by religious entities. If anyone needs to see what the granting of temporal power to religious groups results in you need look no further than the Middle East or if you prefer read all about the 30 Years war!
11
The writer's astute conclusions taken directly from keen observation of the justices' own words, make for a marvelous read. The court stands naked, in this account, given to use of the most trite observations, the commonest of expressions off the street .
John Mortimer's "Rumpole of the Bailey" would be in his element.
John Mortimer's "Rumpole of the Bailey" would be in his element.
4
Continuing to make the most persuasive argument for single payer.
Somebody ask Kennedy if he worked for Christian Scientists, would he forego coverage that included blood transfusions if he was in a car crash?
It's WAY past time to untether health insurance from employment.
Somebody ask Kennedy if he worked for Christian Scientists, would he forego coverage that included blood transfusions if he was in a car crash?
It's WAY past time to untether health insurance from employment.
6
Now that the falsely media designated intellectual genius Scalia is gone it is proper for Greenhouse to illuminate the astonishingly shallow thought processes of others on our highest court.
Scalia was in my book an utter nitwit. When the sum total of his so-called judicial philosophy is laid out what one sees is a petulant child whose decisions were the product of prejudice and petty enthusiasms while his logical rationals were anything but. The man was a hypocrite of the highest order contradicting himself left and right every step of the way. And now we see other justices, in this case Kennedy sitting at the bench behaving like a cartoon character. Do the four on the right even hear themselves? Greenhouse paints himself as the good guy as he tries to accommodate reason through a side door when had he courage he would join the argument stating that there really is not an argument here.
The religious argument is an outright fallacy easily perceived when one carries it out to its natural conclusions. Heck the court could structurally dismantle the entire government with this nonsense. Why is it that the consciousness of a narrow minority carries more weight than the rest of society?
Scalia was in my book an utter nitwit. When the sum total of his so-called judicial philosophy is laid out what one sees is a petulant child whose decisions were the product of prejudice and petty enthusiasms while his logical rationals were anything but. The man was a hypocrite of the highest order contradicting himself left and right every step of the way. And now we see other justices, in this case Kennedy sitting at the bench behaving like a cartoon character. Do the four on the right even hear themselves? Greenhouse paints himself as the good guy as he tries to accommodate reason through a side door when had he courage he would join the argument stating that there really is not an argument here.
The religious argument is an outright fallacy easily perceived when one carries it out to its natural conclusions. Heck the court could structurally dismantle the entire government with this nonsense. Why is it that the consciousness of a narrow minority carries more weight than the rest of society?
6
@CBJ
Great comment and gorgeous dog in your avatar :).
Great comment and gorgeous dog in your avatar :).
2
What's missing is the question of what the employees want. Maybe these companies should poll their employees to see whether they want birth control coverage.
I hope the Little Sisters of the Poor win this battle of religious freedom. They should not have to sacrifice their religious values and go against their consciences. When the female employees went to work at this nursing home, they were well aware of the Catholic tenets that the Church practiced. This should not be a shock to them that they do want to provide contraception in their health insurance. These employees who are upset about this can find employment elsewhere. Please leave these fine nuns in peace.
No matter the outcome of this legal battle before the Supreme Court, these feisty nuns will never agree to pay for contraception which goes against their principles. Good luck sisters and there are those of us who want you to win this vey important case for religious freedom. Remember you have a higher power on your side -- God.
No matter the outcome of this legal battle before the Supreme Court, these feisty nuns will never agree to pay for contraception which goes against their principles. Good luck sisters and there are those of us who want you to win this vey important case for religious freedom. Remember you have a higher power on your side -- God.
1
Ah, but religious freedom is actually (go look at the 1st Amendment) the freedom to worship, gather to worship, as you chose. Not to force others to believe as you do. It also grants the right of freedom of speech, not the right to control the behavior of other people, whether they are employees or not.
Where is it written in the Constitution that, because you pay someone to do work, your beliefs should control their beliefs, much less their bodies?
This is not a case of religious freedom, but of forcing religion on people paid to do work; work that either the nuns cannot do themselves or that they chose not to do themselves.
Where is it written in the Constitution that, because you pay someone to do work, your beliefs should control their beliefs, much less their bodies?
This is not a case of religious freedom, but of forcing religion on people paid to do work; work that either the nuns cannot do themselves or that they chose not to do themselves.
5
I hate to break it to you but the U.S. isn't a theocracy. Worship whatever and whoever you wish but keep your beliefs out of my government and my life.
4
DR,
These nuns are not forcing any of their employees to practice the Catholic faith nor denying them birth control. They just refuse to pay for it as it goes against their religious beliefs. They should not have to forfeit their religious principles and I am sure they will win this very important battle for religious freedom which is under attack today. Good luck Little Sisters of the Poor. You are to be commended for standing firm on this issue. Please do not give in.
These nuns are not forcing any of their employees to practice the Catholic faith nor denying them birth control. They just refuse to pay for it as it goes against their religious beliefs. They should not have to forfeit their religious principles and I am sure they will win this very important battle for religious freedom which is under attack today. Good luck Little Sisters of the Poor. You are to be commended for standing firm on this issue. Please do not give in.
Its really sad that the far right, especially those who influence their policy, are so insistent about invading the bodies of women at the expense of their individual freedoms. On top of that they wrap the invasions in the guise of some form of religion, not much different in my opinion, that what happened in Germany during the second world war.
6
If these powerful, religious men have their way the average woman will be back to barefoot and pregnant status in a decade. It seems many Christian men are jealous of their Muslim counterparts. Why is female moral behavior to be dictated by corporate employers (predominantly men) and religious leaders (predominantly men) in compliance with religious conventions to which adversely affected women do not subscribe? For if they did subscribe, there would be compliance of conscience and no aversion. This is aimed directly at the non-compliant and as such can only be viewed as the American route to shariah type, government sanctioned religious implementation. To the worst of men of this mentality, women are a necessity to satisfy sexual appetites, to facilitate procreation, and to shoulder the blame for the wrath of God. To the best, women are faithful, loving, and compliant baby-making partners. But best or worst, as long as America binds health insurance to employers, any institution that employs women but does not support the right of every woman to birth control views baby making as the prominent role of every woman.
3
Could we jump to the issue of sin.
I am an atheist and think long and hard about my behavior, but let me suspend my disbelief and assume there is a God.
This all powerful God who created the universe, vast galaxies of wonder, he created millions of species on earth, presumably other more interesting and tolerant species on other planets.
I am having a hard time believing that he has nothing better to do than worry about whether woman take birth control pills, and whether a nursing home facility provides it in their coverage. If such a God exists, he needs to get a life.
And why cannot the Sisters of the Poor, check their ego, and realize, nobody really cares about their beliefs, and follow the law.
I am an atheist and think long and hard about my behavior, but let me suspend my disbelief and assume there is a God.
This all powerful God who created the universe, vast galaxies of wonder, he created millions of species on earth, presumably other more interesting and tolerant species on other planets.
I am having a hard time believing that he has nothing better to do than worry about whether woman take birth control pills, and whether a nursing home facility provides it in their coverage. If such a God exists, he needs to get a life.
And why cannot the Sisters of the Poor, check their ego, and realize, nobody really cares about their beliefs, and follow the law.
13
I can't believe we can't even agree that nobody knows what God thinks, and there is no scientific evidence that it thinks at all.
1
When sex, power, and money come in, a bunch of self-righteous older men try to figure out how to control and condemn.
So hypocritical.
So hypocritical.
13
And while we're at it, how about we have a kerfuffle about male enhancements. What is OK about being deluged with TV ads during prime time. The "boys" seem to be exempt from all this judgment and control.
5
Abraham in the Old Testament understood that if a ruler could make his subjects sacrifice their firstborn to him, he would have absolute and total control over their reproductive functions as well as their progeny once and for all. He went to great lengths to abolish the practice of sacrificing children by substituting a newborn with a lamb. He single-handedly liberated all humans from the tyranny and control by anyone over their reproductive attributes. This simple gesture establishes the right of everyone to the sole control of their own existence. president and future.
The right for a woman to have an abortion for whatever reason, has been established in pre-Christian times as, the sole prerogative of the woman in the Judaic tradition. It is obvious that the present Christian clergy is totally ignorant of its own religious writings. Today's church is contradicting itself and even worst, it is trying to bring us back to the time of the pharaohs. The right of a woman to have an abortion is not an option that should be negotiated by ignorant, controlling and regressive men.
The right for a woman to have an abortion for whatever reason, has been established in pre-Christian times as, the sole prerogative of the woman in the Judaic tradition. It is obvious that the present Christian clergy is totally ignorant of its own religious writings. Today's church is contradicting itself and even worst, it is trying to bring us back to the time of the pharaohs. The right of a woman to have an abortion is not an option that should be negotiated by ignorant, controlling and regressive men.
2
Abraham ultimately went into exile to spare his son from the indignity and futility of human sacrifice in a time when kings were believed to be gods. The racket of priests selling sacrificial animals to desperate people to feed themselves on behalf of God ensued.
One should always bear in mind that the legend of the life of rabbi Jesus was reconstructed from hearsay 300 years later by a convention of clerics who had gathered to negotiate a new state religion for the Roman Empire.
One should always bear in mind that the legend of the life of rabbi Jesus was reconstructed from hearsay 300 years later by a convention of clerics who had gathered to negotiate a new state religion for the Roman Empire.
I wonder if the nuns really brought this case to the Court, or if it was more that the bishops are seeking this end around the law.
Most of the nuns I have met over the years didn't really seem all that upset with birth control.
It is too bad that the Catholic justices, with the exception of Sotomayor, are not listening a little closer to their pope.
Most of the nuns I have met over the years didn't really seem all that upset with birth control.
It is too bad that the Catholic justices, with the exception of Sotomayor, are not listening a little closer to their pope.
8
The people funding this litigation donate generously to the plaintiff's causes.
1
Call me crazy, stupid or just naive, but I don't understand how an organization or employer has a religion. People practice religion, but I've never seen an organization worship in church. Never had one next to me in the pews. Sonia Sotomayer hits the nail on the head. "Why don't we assume that if a majority are part of the religion, that they are not going to buy contraceptives?" Again, the nuns shouldn't need birth control, right? Nowhere does the law force them to purchase it.
6
If informing the government you decline to offer contraception coverage is a substantial burden on religious freedom, then the contraception mandate becomes unenforceable and unworkable for all Americans. That immediately fails the test for protecting a compelling government interest.
2
Whatever happened to the principle of "separation of church and state" embodied in our First Amendment? It seems that four conservative Catholic men are letting their religious bias "hijack" the very Constitution they're supposed to be protecting. These are mostly businesses employing and serving the public which include atheists and non-Catholics; they're not places of worship. They are seeking to impose their religious views on others. It's an outrage. The justices should recuse themselves if they cannot divorce their biases from rendering health care to women who do share their religious views.
7
The so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act is nothing but an establishment of religion violative of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I yearn for the day when the "religious" suffer intensely on Earth as well as in the next life.
I yearn for the day when the "religious" suffer intensely on Earth as well as in the next life.
6
Given all the things the government spends money on, why doesn't it subsidize birth control. I am sure the case can be made that unwanted children born into poverty end up costing society far more than subsidizing birth control. I'm all for making birth control free.
6
Reasonable idea, but that would presumably require action by the Republicans in Congress. Fat chance.
4
Under the no so subtle subterfuge of protecting “religious freedom” the extreme, right-wing is determined to hijack the principles of health care for women, because women (those 2nd class citizens) need the protective mantle of males. We males were created to protect those feeble-minded little humans and, in the process, they should reciprocate with open legs. Now, if they were so careless and got impregnated, well tough nooggies. By the way, did I mention that once the product of the sexual act begins to develop inside her body, the little woman has no right to abort for God intended the offspring to born (so says the Book of Legends). And, since SHE was careless I don’t have to do nothing, not even care or feed the newly born. Why not you may ask? Well, cuz I didn’t get myself pregnant…she did. Right hypochristians?
5
The Little Sisters' argument makes me totally crazy. It would only be reasonable under a definition of religious liberty that states that the Sisters have the liberty to make everyone else follow their religion. Their objective is clearly to control other people's lives that would otherwise want contraceptives. The nuns don't have to use contraceptives and aren't being forced to do anything to their own body against their will, but they can't bear to even live in a world where other women have choice. The slippery slope of this 'religious freedom' argument horrifies me.
6
Ms. Greenhouse I have a question regarding something I have not seen mentioned in the coverage of this case. Does the medical plan provide coverage for the surgical procedures of tubal litigation or vasectomy?
4
Contraceptives undoubtedly prevent many abortions, including at least some among the Little Sisters' unmarried female employees. But the Sisters will be happy with nothing less than those employees joining them in celibacy.
7
Time to repeal all tax exemptions for religion. They offend my sincerely-held beliefs, and I cannot be made to pay taxes that in any way supports religion.
8
It is bizarre that the right wing nuts on the court buy into the ridiculous argument by clement. The only explanation is that their religious beliefs override their responsibilities as justices. They should recuse themselves.
8
I am a huge fan of Linda Greenhouse's coverage of the Supreme Court. And I strongly support contraceptive coverage under the ACA. But I cannot understand how this "opt-out" business works other than in name only.
How can anyone be certain that contraceptive coverage is not covertly part of the cost of a business's insurance coverage for its employees? Or won't covertly affect contract negotiations for the following year?
How can anyone be certain that contraceptive coverage is not covertly part of the cost of a business's insurance coverage for its employees? Or won't covertly affect contract negotiations for the following year?
1
I can't believe Kennedy and Roberts are falling for this rubbish. Religious freedom is about what an individual believes, not a corporation, not a school, not a hospital, not any organization that hires employees. A deal with the devil was made in the ACA when an exception was made for churches.
But never mind all that. This is not about religious freedom - this is about violating other Americans rights under the pretext of religious freedom. Just as requiring doctors in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at the nearest hospital isn't about women's health.
The only hijacking going on here is reality by the religious non-profits.
But never mind all that. This is not about religious freedom - this is about violating other Americans rights under the pretext of religious freedom. Just as requiring doctors in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at the nearest hospital isn't about women's health.
The only hijacking going on here is reality by the religious non-profits.
10
I must disagree with one thing you said: "But never mind all that." "that" is precisely the point. Is it me or is the world spinning a lot faster than it used to?
1
Knowing a person who takes oral contraceptives as an aid to combating migraine headaches as I do, it sounds as though our religiously faithful justices are taking a rather myopic, narrow and highly personal view of this matter, and are ending up inadvertently mulling the possibility of dictating details of medical care to citizens.
Can a person be a faithful Catholic and a useful supreme court justice at the same time in a case like this? Perhaps these men should recuse themselves from the case.
Can a person be a faithful Catholic and a useful supreme court justice at the same time in a case like this? Perhaps these men should recuse themselves from the case.
9
The Little Sisters are required to inform the government that their health plans will not provide birth control.
That's it. That's ALL it is. If their imaginations run wild after that and put another interpretation on what they're doing, that's their problem.
This smacks of the previous (outrageous) finding that the morning after pill is an abortifacient if someone imagines it is.
That's it. That's ALL it is. If their imaginations run wild after that and put another interpretation on what they're doing, that's their problem.
This smacks of the previous (outrageous) finding that the morning after pill is an abortifacient if someone imagines it is.
16
No, they're required to direct the government to do something on their behalf that they find murderous.
John - Birth control isn't murder. That should be obvious.
5
And we should all question whether to take them at their word when they say they think birth control is murderous. Somehow I doubt modern American contraceptives are mentioned in the Ten Commandments, the Bible, or whatever other foreign law the Little Sisters are seeking to apply. It's a ridiculous belief that doesn't deserve the credit or the respect of the law.
If a woman meets with her doctor and decides to take an fda approved pill, freely exercising her religion, does that prohibit the Sisters from attending their church, praying, wearing crosses, running businesses, etc. ?
If the Sisters, freely exercising their religion, can interfere with a woman taking said pill, is their religion being established as having authority over women viz a viz the laws of the land?
Once the Sisters can establish what pills a woman can take, what's next?
If the Sisters, freely exercising their religion, can interfere with a woman taking said pill, is their religion being established as having authority over women viz a viz the laws of the land?
Once the Sisters can establish what pills a woman can take, what's next?
10
If Sally works for a company that doesn't offer contraceptive coverage, which she wants, she then contacts her employer's insurance company and tells them that she wants it.
The insurer then verifies Sally's employment and offers her the coverage. Why does the Supreme Court have to waste its time on this issue?
The insurer then verifies Sally's employment and offers her the coverage. Why does the Supreme Court have to waste its time on this issue?
1
Chruch groups can never be satisfied with any decision they disagree with and will quote biblical references to justify any demand no matter how ridiculous. They can never be satisfied with this or any other subject that goes against what they see as "god's will" a vague concept which can never be defined. Insanity incorporated.
4
The only true revolution required in our country is the one that will rid America of all religion. Until we fully and irrevocably separate state and church we will continue to be forced to fight religious incursion into our rights (and legal privacy) as American citizens.
I'm sick to death of the damage the Republican religious right has done in imposing its regressive ideology on us while it invidiously seeps into all aspects of life and governance.
Wake up America, the real enemy is at our door and it's the bible-thumping Republicans who've been egregiously successful in flooding organizations and local and state government with fundamentalist religious groups.
PLEASE vote Democrat in every single election. We cannot let the Republican religious fundamentalists take over our lives.
I'm sick to death of the damage the Republican religious right has done in imposing its regressive ideology on us while it invidiously seeps into all aspects of life and governance.
Wake up America, the real enemy is at our door and it's the bible-thumping Republicans who've been egregiously successful in flooding organizations and local and state government with fundamentalist religious groups.
PLEASE vote Democrat in every single election. We cannot let the Republican religious fundamentalists take over our lives.
5
The case is bogus. The real intent is to thwart and, ultimately, destroy the ACA. Though that is unlikely to happen, the endless attempts by the right wing, religious and otherwise, continue, wasting taxpayer money and diminishing the energy, influence and potential wise counsel of SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court has lost its moorings. To even consider such manipulative cases is to collude with dishonesty.
The Supreme Court has lost its moorings. To even consider such manipulative cases is to collude with dishonesty.
7
Justice Kennedy decides with LGBTQ people, because doing so helps men. But he has a long and ugly history with believing that women are 1) not human beings and 2) not deserving of protection from egregious laws.
Are men being denied equal access to healthcare because they are men? No. Then why are women being denied equal access to healthcare on the sole basis that they are women?
It's time for institutional and religious misogyny to end.
Are men being denied equal access to healthcare because they are men? No. Then why are women being denied equal access to healthcare on the sole basis that they are women?
It's time for institutional and religious misogyny to end.
5
There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country for starters, and these are the same people who are violently against abortion. It's a fact that easy access to birth control reduces abortions. If they don't want birth control or abortions then what do they want? Total control over women.
9
The resolution of this problem is to eliminate the employer from the provision of healthcare. We all deserve medical care independent of the whims and thrift of our employer or their contracted insurance correspondent.
I understand that is not the case before the court, but it's only a matter of time before some part-time employee sues for equal protection.
I understand that is not the case before the court, but it's only a matter of time before some part-time employee sues for equal protection.
5
The christian fanatics would then refuse to pay taxes because it makes them complicit in any health requirements that goes against their beliefs. The true resolution of this problem is to enforce the separation of church and state.
I believe a big start would be to take away tax exemption status from religious institutions. Why should they be exempt when they are nothing more than a profit motive business no different than a retail or service based business. The exemption clause shows government priority and favoritism towards their business.
I believe a big start would be to take away tax exemption status from religious institutions. Why should they be exempt when they are nothing more than a profit motive business no different than a retail or service based business. The exemption clause shows government priority and favoritism towards their business.
4
What I find interesting is how men got left out of the discussion on insurance support for contraception. Condoms are not covered by the ACA as part of insurance. Sure, they can be included in healthcare spending accounts, but not by insurance.
However, aside from abstinence or vasectomy, condoms are the only choice men can make to control their own procreation. Meanwhile we have all sorts of laws that hold men responsible for children they had no intention of conceiving.
We hear so much about women's needs in this matter. But men are not even an afterthought.
However, aside from abstinence or vasectomy, condoms are the only choice men can make to control their own procreation. Meanwhile we have all sorts of laws that hold men responsible for children they had no intention of conceiving.
We hear so much about women's needs in this matter. But men are not even an afterthought.
2
Oh, you poor things. Give me a break. Lobby for condoms to be covered and I'll support it all the way. Men can control procreation by choosing a partner who is in agreement with them about when to have children and they can do their part to make sure that both parties are using contraception.
2
I don't think the argument "...government makes them complicit in making birth control available..." is all that compelling. After all, Catholic pharmacists have been dispensing condoms and other forms of birth control for over a century. I suspect that they may complain privately, but any criticism for their actions is ultimately deflected to the regulations.
2
In the midst of the legal argument, the moral one is lost. On a planet groaning under the weight of a human population that has outstripped the ability of economies to provide more than a subsistence drained of hope, a prime recruitment tool for terrorism, the Catholic Church seeks to boost its numbers by continuing to prohibit contraception. Having left that church in disgust, I eagerly invite excommunication.
6
This idea of not notifying the government seems specious to me. Don't these organizations notify the employee of the religious objections at least out of courtesy? Why do these organizations have control over the religious tolerance of its employees? Whose religious freedom is really being hijacked? When I talk to my evangelical aunt she very much discusses the topic of abortion or contraceptives in terms of the sinful ways of the world they want to root out.
2
Perhaps it is time for atheists to challenge the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and put this nonsensical genie back in the bottle where it belongs. I, as a non believer, am entitled to equal protection under the constitution. My employer should not be allowed to deny me contraception when the law says it must be provided.
8
Nobody is forcing a woman to use birth control pills. It's there if she wants to use it, but so are a lot of other things that she will never use. To me to say an organization does not have to contribute to a health care plan for its employees because it contains some coverage the organization finds objectionable is like saying I am a pacifist and I don't want to pay income taxes because some of the money will be used to fight wars. There is a world of difference between saying a person HAS to do something (take pills) and saying she MAY do something. What percentage of the health insurance premium goes toward birth control coverage anyway? Probably less than 1 per cent. Let the organizations deduct that tiny percentage from their premium payment so they can say they are not paying for something they object to. Even that is going too far, but we must accommodate our religious brethren. They do have votes, you know.
1
The plaintiff's argument lends itself to a classic slippery slope.
I assume that the Little Sisters of the Poor are also against abortion, since that violates catholic tenets. Do they have the right to refuse to pay a female worker if they know she's going to have an abortion? If they think she might have an abortion? If there's any chance that she might have an abortion, at any date, some time in the future? Because surely, by allowing an employee money with which to purchase an abortion, the order would be complicit in a something they consider morally wrong.
This argument is nonsensical on its face.
I assume that the Little Sisters of the Poor are also against abortion, since that violates catholic tenets. Do they have the right to refuse to pay a female worker if they know she's going to have an abortion? If they think she might have an abortion? If there's any chance that she might have an abortion, at any date, some time in the future? Because surely, by allowing an employee money with which to purchase an abortion, the order would be complicit in a something they consider morally wrong.
This argument is nonsensical on its face.
6
It would be so much easier if we could just stop the muscular moralizing about sex, stop trying to pretend that it should not happen, accept that it does, that it always has, and that it always will. God built humans to enjoy it, to crave it, and to need it the same way that a bee goes right at a flower garden in high summer. It's good. It's very good. Men like it. Women like it. Boys and girls find out that they like it before they understand all the consequences of that much fun. When men and women have sex, unless something else intervenes, there will be pregnancies. Often, they are unwanted, and society has to accommodate that. Stop punishing women when that decision must be made. Enough already. Just stop. Cover the expenses with insurance and shut up. If your religion opposes it; pray for all involved, but by all means, butt out. It's not your business.
15
All these arguments made by these employers assume a falsehood: that THEY are paying for the insurance policy. That's economic nonsense. ALL costs incurred by an employer on an employee's behalf are part of their earned compensation package, even though it's not broken down that way. Perhaps we should change the way it's all displayed. Show a worker's total compensation. Break it down into categories like salary/wages, SS payments, Medicare payments, unemployment insurance, workman's comp, and health insurance. This simple change would forever dispel the myth that the employer is paying for anything, and it would underline the fact that all of these line items are actually earned by the employee. If these are shown this way, the argument about who is paying for contraception is resolved and the employer has no say based on its religious beliefs.
3
Sadly, this case is focused on a narrow, apparently technical issue. If plaintiffs win it could be broadly applied so as to codify many kinds of discrimination. In this case, with Hobby Lobby, can 'religion' be used as an excuse by small groups with extreme views to actively deny others their rights. The Church of Bigotry (or Temple or Mosque of Bigotry) must not be empowered to impose its doctrinal views on non-members and non-believers.
Conscientious Objectors must file with their draft board to claim exemption, and so should Catholic organizations that employ others. Can one refuse the Constitutionally required Census on religious grounds? If the Court cannot clearly define Religion, how can it prefer a religious claim over an evident Equal Protection claim?
Arguing this case based on the specific language of the RFRA and the ACA makes it seem that it is about the constitutional right to religious freedom vs an administrative requirement of the ACA. Justice Stevens correctly called for also considering the rights of the 'irreligious'.
Remember that Amendments that come later can supersede previous Amendments, as the 21st supersedes the 18th. The 14th vs the 1st? This case is about Equal Protection vs Religious Freedom, as in 'Are the Little Sisters of the Poor actually an Equal Opportunity Employer?' Given their claim to be able to refuse to comply with a law that still applies to many of their employees whose views differ, I would say they are not.
Conscientious Objectors must file with their draft board to claim exemption, and so should Catholic organizations that employ others. Can one refuse the Constitutionally required Census on religious grounds? If the Court cannot clearly define Religion, how can it prefer a religious claim over an evident Equal Protection claim?
Arguing this case based on the specific language of the RFRA and the ACA makes it seem that it is about the constitutional right to religious freedom vs an administrative requirement of the ACA. Justice Stevens correctly called for also considering the rights of the 'irreligious'.
Remember that Amendments that come later can supersede previous Amendments, as the 21st supersedes the 18th. The 14th vs the 1st? This case is about Equal Protection vs Religious Freedom, as in 'Are the Little Sisters of the Poor actually an Equal Opportunity Employer?' Given their claim to be able to refuse to comply with a law that still applies to many of their employees whose views differ, I would say they are not.
4
Can the Court rule in favor of these plaintiffs without giving respect to the faith based-beliefs underlying their fear of post-mortal damage from complying with uniform business practices legislated by government?
I could be wrong, but that bit at the end sounds like Justice Roberts is so embarrassed by the Republican party refusal to approve any nomination to the Supreme Court by the current President that he is willing to do some weaselling work-around to prevent yet another embarrassing 4 to 4 decision that in effect goes against those very conservatives that are doing the refusing.
1
It will be a sad day indeed when the Little Sisters of the Poor, bless their hearts for their good work, are able to control the sex lives of their non-Catholic employees. Wouldn't this be imposing their religious beliefs on others? And can the opt-out-with-notice provision seriously be considered a substantial burden? The argument seems utterly contrived. Time would be better spent on determining how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.
I quick perusal of Catholic dogma on contraception shows that coitus interruptus is also sinful. Will the Court soon be hearing a case about the Little Sisters need to place monitors in the bedroom to avoid complicity?
I quick perusal of Catholic dogma on contraception shows that coitus interruptus is also sinful. Will the Court soon be hearing a case about the Little Sisters need to place monitors in the bedroom to avoid complicity?
10
while I understand Ms. Greenhouse's feelings on the matter, Her failure to address the specific arguments raised in the briefs filed by the Objectors suggests She is more concerned with critiquing talking points than She is assessing legal arguments. I wouldn't object to the criticism of talking points so much if the article was not presented with a large implication of it being legal analysis. As such Ms. Greenhouse seems to be dishonest with either Her Readers or Herself.
Why can't we just eliminate the employer mandate and let employees buy their own health insurance on whatever terms the employee (not the employer) wants? Isn't that what the exchanges are for?
Given the high deductibles and copays in most employer sponsored plans today, the employee will likely be paying for her own contraception anyone. Let's just take the employer out of the equation entirely.
Given the high deductibles and copays in most employer sponsored plans today, the employee will likely be paying for her own contraception anyone. Let's just take the employer out of the equation entirely.
1
while I understand Ms. Greenhouse's feelings on the matter, Her failure to address by citations the specific arguments raised in the briefs filed by the Objectors suggests She is more concerned with critiquing talking points than She is assessing legal arguments. I wouldn't object to the criticism of talking points so much if the article was not presented with a large implication of it being legal analysis. As such Ms. Greenhouse seems to be dishonest with either Her Readers or Herself.
This might be the most ironic post I've ever read here. Kudos!
2
We can't see the lawn for all the blades of grass around here.
3
We need to return to our roots in our nation's secular constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to practice their religion. Nowhere does it give them the right to impose their religion on others. The plaintiffs in this case seem to be saying that to practice their religion means imposing its requirements on others who do not share that religion. There's a clear boundary line here that's being crossed. (no pun intended).
13
There is an even older and more fundamental issue of law at stake. These plaintiffs have not claimed damages any court can relieve, because the alleged damage won't occur until after they're dead.
1
Linda,
Please post my comment. (I don't believe you've ever posted one comment I've made.)
Christians and the Church are not an appendage (or appendages) to the United States of America; we are an integral part of it. How dare you insinuate that your secular way is the norm and our way is an exception to be asserted "when appropriate"?
You are trying to inculcate artificial birth control as a societal norm. It is not an appropriate norm (it is abnormal).
The author states, "At its core, this case, Zubik v. Burwell, is a case about religion’s role in civil society."
No, the core of this case (and many others) is the sly intent of the secularists in the USA (and the West) to make the religion of secularism the norm in what was founded as a Christian nation (the USA). The secularists are trying to steal the very soul of the USA and turn it into a Satanic nation. That is a game that is as old as the hills (Satan played that game in the Garden of Eden [See Genesis Chapter 3 {in the Holy Bible}]).
' “The whole point of this provision is that you get this care from your regular doctor as part of your regular health care without any barriers,” the solicitor general said.'
Someone needs to make the point that "this care" (assumedly artificial contraceptive "care") is not "regular" nor is it "care". It is merely one of the ways secularists use to defy Almighty God. (Any and all rebellion against Almighty God is sin.)
Please post my comment. (I don't believe you've ever posted one comment I've made.)
Christians and the Church are not an appendage (or appendages) to the United States of America; we are an integral part of it. How dare you insinuate that your secular way is the norm and our way is an exception to be asserted "when appropriate"?
You are trying to inculcate artificial birth control as a societal norm. It is not an appropriate norm (it is abnormal).
The author states, "At its core, this case, Zubik v. Burwell, is a case about religion’s role in civil society."
No, the core of this case (and many others) is the sly intent of the secularists in the USA (and the West) to make the religion of secularism the norm in what was founded as a Christian nation (the USA). The secularists are trying to steal the very soul of the USA and turn it into a Satanic nation. That is a game that is as old as the hills (Satan played that game in the Garden of Eden [See Genesis Chapter 3 {in the Holy Bible}]).
' “The whole point of this provision is that you get this care from your regular doctor as part of your regular health care without any barriers,” the solicitor general said.'
Someone needs to make the point that "this care" (assumedly artificial contraceptive "care") is not "regular" nor is it "care". It is merely one of the ways secularists use to defy Almighty God. (Any and all rebellion against Almighty God is sin.)
You sound very offended.
I will try not to offend you more, so here goes. "Secularism" - whatever that means to you, in not a faith or a belief system. It is an insulation - insulating any religious activities from our governmental institutions.
It is offensive to have a single type of religion push their beliefs into the public, secular sphere. I have as much right to use of the governmental institutions as a citizen as you do. You have no insight into my beliefs (or lack thereof) and should not have to. The government is for, by, and of all of us citizens. It can't be flavored or favored for your beliefs.
I will try not to offend you more, so here goes. "Secularism" - whatever that means to you, in not a faith or a belief system. It is an insulation - insulating any religious activities from our governmental institutions.
It is offensive to have a single type of religion push their beliefs into the public, secular sphere. I have as much right to use of the governmental institutions as a citizen as you do. You have no insight into my beliefs (or lack thereof) and should not have to. The government is for, by, and of all of us citizens. It can't be flavored or favored for your beliefs.
5
Was going to point out that you're factually incorrect about the appropriateness of the birth control norm, but I was dissuaded by the citations to Almighty God there at the end. You sound like someone who will stick to his beliefs, no matter how arbitrary or unreasonable.
How is this anything but a simple administrative question? In order for the government to review compliance with ACA, they have to know which employers are responsible for providing contraception coverage. Those with a religious objection don't have to provide it, and those without a religious objection do. So at some point an employer with a religious objection would have to say, "We object." Otherwise it would fall to bureaucrats to guess--and eventually someone will guess wrong. The simplest way to keep things clear is just to have every employers say whether they have a religious objection.
1
Quite rightly, they get their day in court. On the other hand, in a similar situation some spokesman might get out ahead of the situation. 'We find that we are under legal obligation to violate our conscience by acceding to procedures in violations of our faith. Under the spirit of cooperation with our wider society we will do so, confident that our faith will sustain us despite this loss to us. We continue to thank God for allowing us to be instruments of his love through our work, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.'
2
A separate insurance policy for contraception is not an undue burden on a female employee, but completing a simple form to opt-out of providing insurance coverage IS an undue burden on a religious organization operating a business?
Tell me again how women aren't second-class citizens in the eyes of conservatives.
Tell me again how women aren't second-class citizens in the eyes of conservatives.
6
Why would an Insurance Company charge more for an insutance policy that provides contraceptives? That would be against their own interest. It costs much less to prevent pregnancy than to pay for prenatal and birth care.
6
An honest Catholic priest said at Mass that he had good health insurance, we had good health insurance, and that we should not prevent those not as fortunate as us from getting health insurance. He was talking to ultraConservative Catholics who didn't want Obama or ACA because it provided for birth control. But Catholics are not paying attention to the changes wrought by Pope Benedict who brought them from Pope JPII, and that is, we are all on our own for salvation. We are no longer in this together. Don't the Little Sisters of Mercy get that. They can't possible be complicit in a moral wrong if they are following the latest edicts from Rome. "I believe" has been changed from "We believe" throughout all in the Mass. Redemption is now for " many", not "all" and we are now only "happy" if we are called to the "supper of the lamb" not blessed as we used to be. There are many more examples, but the Little Sisters, or whoever is manipulated them, did not include what JP II created, so they are clearly not "implicit in a moral wrong".
There is far worse than "hijacking" going on with respect to the Supreme Court. The Republicans in the Senate are, in fact, murdering the Supreme Court by refusing to do their constitutional duty to advise and consent on any Obama nominees. Thus far, as most of us could have predicted, they are paying no political price for their unlawful act. (Obama misplayed his hand here; he should have realized the Republicans would never back down, and he should have appointed a highly qualified African-American to the court, which at least would have brought out black voters in droves on Election day.)
Now that the Republicans are seeing what they can get away, what's to say they won't block all of Hillary Cinton's (or perhaps Bernie Sanders') nominees? At some point we could be left with 50% fewer sitting justices on SCOTUS -- or perhaps none at all.
Now that the Republicans are seeing what they can get away, what's to say they won't block all of Hillary Cinton's (or perhaps Bernie Sanders') nominees? At some point we could be left with 50% fewer sitting justices on SCOTUS -- or perhaps none at all.
2
This debate is a repulsive example of intelligent men becoming completely confused, to the point of trying to duck their common sense by having the litigants devise a compromise that will let the judges off the hook by requiring no decision. The explanation for this confusion is beyond understanding.
2
A denial of standing would be quite appropriate in this case, because the plaintiffs have not established that they are damaged in any way the court can relieve.
We have 2,000 years of evidence that the Catholic Church is about promoting sin, be it religious wars, religious persecutions, exploitation of indigenous peoples, witch burning, running a global pedophile ring, and on and on. So to say that they care so much about the "sins" of female employees in a country founded on the separation of church and state seems disingenuous. It is the same ancient misogyny they have always preached: woman is the source of evil in the world and must be suppressed, especially sexually.
The day this law gets overturned will be the day they selectively withhold medical care from men, based exclusively on their gender, (your prostate is large as a sign from God that you have sinned, so we won't help you) or attempt to restrict "sinful" sexual activities of men.
It will never be enough for these religious fanatics to merely live and let live. They are driven to establish the Christian version of sharia law in America.
The day this law gets overturned will be the day they selectively withhold medical care from men, based exclusively on their gender, (your prostate is large as a sign from God that you have sinned, so we won't help you) or attempt to restrict "sinful" sexual activities of men.
It will never be enough for these religious fanatics to merely live and let live. They are driven to establish the Christian version of sharia law in America.
4
Thank God for Linda Greenhouse. And, thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for giving us the details and the insights into this complex issue, where the unthinking and the go-along crowd among the American electorate have made a tacit and unwitting alliance with the extreme right, which includes my cradle faith. If the Roman Catholic hierarchy had put one tenth of their political energy into reducing poverty instead of putting nearly all of it into sexual issues, there would be a lot less poverty. Jesus actually spoke a lot about the poor and the unprotected. Hello!
Voting for women's rights ought to be something 51% of the country could do with their presidential, congressional and, where applicable, senatorial ballots. The religious zealots and their allies are coming soon to a polling place near you. But, so is the alternative, social progress. You decide.
Voting for women's rights ought to be something 51% of the country could do with their presidential, congressional and, where applicable, senatorial ballots. The religious zealots and their allies are coming soon to a polling place near you. But, so is the alternative, social progress. You decide.
3
The Little Sisters of the Poor have dedicated their lives to the service of poor elderly people in the last months of their lives. They say that the contraceptive mandate is an unacceptable burden on their religious beliefs and that the "opt out" is no relief.
The politically- motivated bureaucrats at the Department of HHS say otherwise.
Who are you going to believe? I'll side with the religious sisters every time.
The Obama administration has granted thousands of waivers to employers covering millions of women from the entire ACA. It has many alternative means of providing free contraceptive and abortifacients to any one who wants them. Why is it so intent upon destroying faith-based social service organizations with wildly disproportionate fines?
The politically- motivated bureaucrats at the Department of HHS say otherwise.
Who are you going to believe? I'll side with the religious sisters every time.
The Obama administration has granted thousands of waivers to employers covering millions of women from the entire ACA. It has many alternative means of providing free contraceptive and abortifacients to any one who wants them. Why is it so intent upon destroying faith-based social service organizations with wildly disproportionate fines?
My tax dollars are supposed to pay for services that benefit the U.S. as a whole. Having a religious organization meddle in things like health care violates the separation of Church and State and infringes on my rights as a citizen.
If you want to support a religious organization, make a donation to them but keep your beliefs out of my government and my life.
If you want to support a religious organization, make a donation to them but keep your beliefs out of my government and my life.
2
The Supreme Court justices should read the Constitution. I am outraged that the SC Taliban are continuing to support Christian Shariah law. Employers should not force their religious beliefs on their employees. That is basic civil rights. It is especially a matter of concern when it compromises the health of those employees and when it impacts only one gender.
And honestly, filling out a form is not a big deal. We are not in some primitive time with scribes and magical hieroglyphics. If these religious groups want to force their ideas on their employees with tyranny and theocracy, then no one should ever work for them or interact with them that is not a practicing member of their specific cult. To point out the obvious, if these groups were Wiccan, Druid, Satanists, or Muslim, this would not be an issue.
And honestly, filling out a form is not a big deal. We are not in some primitive time with scribes and magical hieroglyphics. If these religious groups want to force their ideas on their employees with tyranny and theocracy, then no one should ever work for them or interact with them that is not a practicing member of their specific cult. To point out the obvious, if these groups were Wiccan, Druid, Satanists, or Muslim, this would not be an issue.
2
why is this issue only argued from the viewpoint of dissenting employers? Obamacare was legislated for the betterment of employees, not employers. for a significant portion of the workforce contraception is necessary and it's only logical that it should be covered by insurance. i'm truly tired of patriarchal organizations believing they know what's best for women.
2
The truth is that if we had not had Roe v Wade, we would have had a woman president long ago. Note that both Brazil and Argentina, societies more conservative than the US, have had women leaders as have Indonesia and Bangladesh.
When "women's movement" is identified with aggression against the unborn and verbal aggression against men, it is bound to be divisive. And a female candidate will necessarily have to juggle her position. That makes it harder for her to win.
But the four examples I have given show clearly that pro-life women can be leaders of countries.
And oh, Mary Robinson was president of Ireland from 1990 to 1997, more than 20 years before the US will (maybe) have its first female president.
When "women's movement" is identified with aggression against the unborn and verbal aggression against men, it is bound to be divisive. And a female candidate will necessarily have to juggle her position. That makes it harder for her to win.
But the four examples I have given show clearly that pro-life women can be leaders of countries.
And oh, Mary Robinson was president of Ireland from 1990 to 1997, more than 20 years before the US will (maybe) have its first female president.
1
Both Mary Robinson (Ireland), publicly, and Kristina Kirchner (Argentina), in all but name, support legalization of abortion.
Rouseff is absolutely pro-choice but was hemmed in by political reality in Brazil.
Also, and more importantly, note that contraception is heavily restricted and widely taboo and women in general, apart from their female Presidents, are much worse off. And for all this?
The estimated abortion rates in Brazil, Argentina, and Ireland range from 35-50% of all pregnancies.
Rouseff is absolutely pro-choice but was hemmed in by political reality in Brazil.
Also, and more importantly, note that contraception is heavily restricted and widely taboo and women in general, apart from their female Presidents, are much worse off. And for all this?
The estimated abortion rates in Brazil, Argentina, and Ireland range from 35-50% of all pregnancies.
3
The nuns should express their unwillingness to provide contraception as part of their insurance plan and then let the whole "render unto Ceasar" process continue.
Given that Catholics in the US have been mostly ignoring Church teaching about contraception anyway, the overreach in this case is dangerous.
Some worst-case examples:
1 - any religion professing pacifism advised all of their organizations and members to stop paying any federal tax, since our war budget is such a big portion of where the money goes. Taxes in states with the death penalty would also be withheld.
2 - all bible literalists do the same at state and federal level, since so much scientific research, and so much of our educational system, is publicly funded while providing too much evidence against literal interpretation of Genesis.
3 - Catholics also stop funding insurance plans that provide coverage for Viagra - unless the man getting it has a note from his wife that they are attempting to have a child.
Given that Catholics in the US have been mostly ignoring Church teaching about contraception anyway, the overreach in this case is dangerous.
Some worst-case examples:
1 - any religion professing pacifism advised all of their organizations and members to stop paying any federal tax, since our war budget is such a big portion of where the money goes. Taxes in states with the death penalty would also be withheld.
2 - all bible literalists do the same at state and federal level, since so much scientific research, and so much of our educational system, is publicly funded while providing too much evidence against literal interpretation of Genesis.
3 - Catholics also stop funding insurance plans that provide coverage for Viagra - unless the man getting it has a note from his wife that they are attempting to have a child.
Justice Kennedy claimed that requiring the Little Sisters of the Poor to request an exemption constituted a "substantial burden" on the order's free exercise of religion. Yet the RFRA does not permit the government to determine whether an objection is actually part of a religion's practice and rules.
How can one determine the existence of a substantial burden without examining whether the filing of an exemption is actually a regulated activity under some religion's terms? Logically, the Court should examine whether the Sisters have in the past clearly prohibited employment of people or contractors, or healthcare facilities or doctors who use or dispense contraception.
In the absence of that info, the Sisters may have no free exercise question at all -- merely a matter of personal conscience and judgment that has nothing to do with the exercise of any religion.
How can one determine the existence of a substantial burden without examining whether the filing of an exemption is actually a regulated activity under some religion's terms? Logically, the Court should examine whether the Sisters have in the past clearly prohibited employment of people or contractors, or healthcare facilities or doctors who use or dispense contraception.
In the absence of that info, the Sisters may have no free exercise question at all -- merely a matter of personal conscience and judgment that has nothing to do with the exercise of any religion.
The Roman Catholic Church itself gives the Sisters the path to get right with God by confessing their acquiescence to public policy they believe defies what God expects everyone to do and saying the requisite number of rosaries.
2
This seems more like a case against government infringement than birth control. Interesting that those who cry the most against federal government infringement, especially in the not-so-great state of Texas, turn around and use state government infringement in every single issue the conservatives disagree with, such as abortion. The inconsistency of state-government should be a court case.
2
Apparently, female employees of the same religious persuasion cannot be trusted to refuse birth control coverage, much less birth control itself. We must protect these women from themselves by denying them the ability to make their own choice. Once again, second-class citizens.
4
I checked a Quaker website to see what they have to do to get classified as a conscientious objector when registering for the draft. It was lengthy, and it appeared that the burden of proof lay with the individual to convince the draft board that the individual was sincere. It required considerably more effort than sending a note to the government telling them to find someone else to fight our wars.
Did anyone bring this example to the attention of SCOTUS?
Did anyone bring this example to the attention of SCOTUS?
6
That was before the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This case seems to indicate even having to tell the selective service I have a moral objection to war would be an undue burden.
Dear Ms. Greenhouse,
What has been "hijacked" by both liberals and conservatives is freedom of association. The left has hijacked it through every anti-discrimination law ever passed. The right says they love freedom of association but only when it comes to religion. Included with freedom of association is the right to discriminate, and neither side understands how important that is in a free society. Governments cannot discriminate, but individuals can and should be able to. The questions asked by the Supreme Court in this op-ed shows me that even the justices don't fully comprehend this. Until the Democrats and Republicans can have an honest discussion about this, we will continue to see these scenarios.
What has been "hijacked" by both liberals and conservatives is freedom of association. The left has hijacked it through every anti-discrimination law ever passed. The right says they love freedom of association but only when it comes to religion. Included with freedom of association is the right to discriminate, and neither side understands how important that is in a free society. Governments cannot discriminate, but individuals can and should be able to. The questions asked by the Supreme Court in this op-ed shows me that even the justices don't fully comprehend this. Until the Democrats and Republicans can have an honest discussion about this, we will continue to see these scenarios.
The First Amendment does not textually support this. Associative freedom is a construction by the Court. I would not argue that it is an improper inference, any more than the right of privacy (that is a construction of due process rights, freedom from improper search & seizure, etc.). The bigger problem with your case is that all three of the branches of our government have correctly found our Constitution to support anti-discrimination laws. Violate any valid law and - without a good defense - your rights, whatever they may be, end at the courtroom door. Why should individuals not be allowed to improperly discriminate, in general? It's offensive and not conducive to a cohesive world where we have to live together.
1
Let's be clear: RFRA is a statute passed by Congress to pander to the religious right. Bill Clinton should never have signed it and it should be repealed. The Court should go back to the good balance in the First Amendment between the Free Exercise and non-Establishment clauses. It should violate the latter when the former is given too broad a reading; a particular religion may not be established but that shouldn't matter - the point is that American society should be secular without limiting the rights of its citizens' to have "intellectual space" that includes everything from political to religious freedom. But the practice of religions is another thing - it must not in any way, shape or form violate the rights of others, including rights provided through legislation.
4
So let me get this straight. It's less of a burden on religious organizations to sue the Federal Government before the Supreme Court for the right to opt out of opting out of providing birth control than just to opt out of providing birth control?
8
A little off-subject, but my daughter has used oral contraceptives for years, since she was a teenager, to treat acne. Female hormones, especially those of young ones, can wreak havoc with skin. The dermatolagists have a name for it--it largely strikes the chin and up along the cheeks, like a beard. Once she started, her skin cleared up. So, the catholic church and the other religious zealots would likely refuse these woman the right to birth control even where it is not used for birth control, but rather for a legitimate non-birth-control purpose. I am so tired of living in a country that thinks it's advanced, but remains in the pocket of religion.
11
Yep, likewise my niece who uses it to treat a problem that could interfere with her future fertility. Ironically the Church could be making it harder for women to eventually have children.
2
"But the religious nonprofits nonetheless insist that even the requirement to notify the government makes them complicit in making birth control available to their employees."
I agree that this insistence makes no sense. But why fight so much over such issues? Can't we look for ways to provide contraceptives which does not impose any requirement on anyone?
What about global warming? What about sharp inequities in income? What about our enormous national debt? What about the debacle in the Middle East?
Why pick these fights over issues of lower importance?
I agree that this insistence makes no sense. But why fight so much over such issues? Can't we look for ways to provide contraceptives which does not impose any requirement on anyone?
What about global warming? What about sharp inequities in income? What about our enormous national debt? What about the debacle in the Middle East?
Why pick these fights over issues of lower importance?
2
Looking for ways to provide contraception without requiring anything of anyone would be an extremely arduous task, one that would occupy even more of the time that should be spent on more important things than all these stupid lawsuits, and it's likely that it couldn't be achieved. And this IS a major concern - less access to birth control means more unwanted pregnancies and more poverty. Contraception is one of the most important components of a developed society.
4
@Aruna
"Why pick these fights over issues of lower importance?"
Spoken like a true man. No doubt reproductive freedom belongs on the shopping list next to toothpaste and floor wax. It's alarming to know that men (or women) like you still exist in 2016.
"Why pick these fights over issues of lower importance?"
Spoken like a true man. No doubt reproductive freedom belongs on the shopping list next to toothpaste and floor wax. It's alarming to know that men (or women) like you still exist in 2016.
3
If an employee uses her earnings to buy contraceptives, does the employer then have the right to say he should not have to pay her? If he does not, then the employer should have no right to prevent an employee from obtaining contraceptives through the health insurance provided as part of the remunerative package.
It's hard to believe that we are even having this conversation in 2016 in a society that professes to enshrine individual liberty for all without religious coercion.
It's hard to believe that we are even having this conversation in 2016 in a society that professes to enshrine individual liberty for all without religious coercion.
7
If men, rather than women, were the "end users" in need of contraceptives, this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation, let alone a case argued before the Supreme Court. I wonder how many unwanted pregnancies, and how many abortions, have resulted due to men having received insurance-subsidized erectile-dysfunction medication.
5
There is another reason why birth control pills should be included in health plans as a default--it's because there are many other legitimate medical/health reasons why birth control pills are used other than for birth control itself which the church objects to. Examples include uncontrolled bleeding, painful menses, control of symptoms of endometriosis.
4
It seems abundantly clear the the intent of these religious organization plaintifs is not to keep themselves free from moral taint but simply to deny their employees insurance coverage for and thus access to contraception. This is equivalent to the state efforts to enact religious freedom laws which effectively attempt to legalize discrimination against gays under the cloak of religious belief.
3
The First Amendment states, ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” According to the opinion piece, Justice Stevens said that because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gave churches “a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain,” the law amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. However, the Little Sisters of the Poor are not asking for the establishment of Catholicism as the state religion; they are asking to be allowed to freely practice their religion. Stevens wrote, “This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion is forbidden by the First Amendment.” But the First Amendment clearly does prefer religion to irreligion. It states, ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” It makes no such accommodation for the free exercise of moral or ethical precepts that are rooted in humanistic values rather than in religion. Perhaps the Constitution should be amended to put the dictates of conscience on equal footing with religious tenets, or perhaps it should be amended to state laws override moral or religious qualms, but for the moment it provides freedom of religion.
1
" However, the Little Sisters of the Poor are not asking for the establishment of Catholicism as the state religion; they are asking to be allowed to freely practice their religion. " Not true. They _are_ asking to impose their religion on others. Refusing to obey the law by providing health insurance, or by declaring that they will not provide insurance, does not affect their exercise of belief; they are exercising their belief. But it interferes with rights others have under the law, and it defies the rule of law. If they refuse to obey the law because it contravenes their religion, there is plenty of precedent for them to have the sanction of law imposed on them, by going to jail or otherwise.
If the Sisters said they would not fight in a war or pay taxes to support war, and also refused to apply for conscientious objector status, they would be disobeying the law. This is analogous.
he Supreme Court is unfortunately contaminated by religious partisans or this would be clear and easy.
If the Sisters said they would not fight in a war or pay taxes to support war, and also refused to apply for conscientious objector status, they would be disobeying the law. This is analogous.
he Supreme Court is unfortunately contaminated by religious partisans or this would be clear and easy.
2
The Little Sisters don’t prohibit their employees from using contraceptives. They object to being forced to encouraging the practice by complying with the notification requirement. Their employees are free to purchase contraceptives or shop for polices that provide coverage for contraceptives. They probably would go to jail rather than comply.
William Case - Health insurance is part of employee compensation. Employees are free to spend their compensation however they see fit.
1
I must be missing something; "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - the ACA doesn't affect any "establishment of religion," does it? If it did it would be clearly unconstitutional, as it would also be if it paid any attention at all to discussions that use such terms as "sin." As for "free exercise," the opt-out gives employers complete freedom to wash their hands of sin, and their complaints of "complicity" make it crystal clear that their real intention is not simply to control the behavior of their employees, but to interfere in the free exercise of the laws of a secular society.
2
Weirdly, I am starting to believe these cases are aggressively laying the constitutional groundwork for Obamacare's successor - single payer.
Look at the dialogue, it's right there in black and white.
“Is there any accommodation that would be acceptable?” Justice Elena Kagan asked.
“If there was an uber-insurance policy where Aetna was the company that the government picked to provide contraceptive coverage to all women in this country, and we happened to use Aetna, I think we’d probably be fine.”
That is a right wing religious lawyer, arguing in front of the Supreme Court, that single payer is the only acceptable solution to their concerns.
Look at the dialogue, it's right there in black and white.
“Is there any accommodation that would be acceptable?” Justice Elena Kagan asked.
“If there was an uber-insurance policy where Aetna was the company that the government picked to provide contraceptive coverage to all women in this country, and we happened to use Aetna, I think we’d probably be fine.”
That is a right wing religious lawyer, arguing in front of the Supreme Court, that single payer is the only acceptable solution to their concerns.
5
Another excellent, and quite enlightening, column, by Ms. Greenhouse, about a quite complex issue. As a non-attorney, I find it quite interesting that, after all of the time, energy and mental anguish that this whole issue has consumed, there was still some common sense available.
Unfortunately, our whole legal system seems to have been established to require competitiveness, rather than the simple solution. which Justice Kennedy assumedly interjected. Why can't two sets of attorneys--two adversaries--be willing to find the half-loaf solution in the contraceptive hay stack?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Unfortunately, our whole legal system seems to have been established to require competitiveness, rather than the simple solution. which Justice Kennedy assumedly interjected. Why can't two sets of attorneys--two adversaries--be willing to find the half-loaf solution in the contraceptive hay stack?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
Another compelling reason to vote Democratic in Nov. Four practicing catholics making this decision for the ultra conservatives. I consider myself a practicing catholic and abhor the idea of anyone manipulating "separation of church and state." I have four beautiful children and of course birth control was part of our lives. My decision and mine alone. The questions alone from the conservative judges are very telling. They put the burden of accommodation onto the govt. No way! Thank God for Justice Sotomayor!
10
Health care insurance is not something the employer gives to their employees, rather it is part of their total compensation and not much different than any other "benefit", and is mostly a tax dodge. The employer is taking part of the employees compensation, allocating it for health care insurance, and then imposing his religious beliefs on the employee by selecting a plan according to the employer's religious beliefs. I do not understand what this controversy is all about.
6
The contention that simply notifying the government of their religion-based objection, that then frees an employer from having to obtain a health insurance plan that includes contraception coverage, is in fact encouraging the use of contraception, by those of the same religion or anyone else, is ridiculous. Furthermore, it represents the most detestable aspect of many religionists in general, namely their not being content to obey the laws of their own religion, but wanting to force their beliefs on everyone else. Nobody is preventing them from following their religion-based objection, but it is grossly hypocritical and unjust for them to then want the right to force their religious beliefs on others. That is the real hijacking.
7
I think the heart of the argument was stated correctly by Justice Stevens as quoted in the article:
Justice Stevens said that because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gave churches “a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain,” the law amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. “This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion,” he wrote then, “is forbidden by the First Amendment.”
Clearly, if not the entire act itself, the interpretation of it espoused by the religious nonprofits and apparently supported by Justice Roberts is an establishment of a preference for religion over secularism and is therefore clearly unconstitutional.
Personally, I can't even see the moral burden. I don't think these organizations seek to reduce the opportunity for any other sin their members might commit, why is this one special?
Justice Stevens said that because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gave churches “a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain,” the law amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. “This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion,” he wrote then, “is forbidden by the First Amendment.”
Clearly, if not the entire act itself, the interpretation of it espoused by the religious nonprofits and apparently supported by Justice Roberts is an establishment of a preference for religion over secularism and is therefore clearly unconstitutional.
Personally, I can't even see the moral burden. I don't think these organizations seek to reduce the opportunity for any other sin their members might commit, why is this one special?
9
The Senate needs to confirm Supreme Court Justice nominee, Honorable Merrick B. Garland, immediately. We the people believe and act in good faith of our social contract which for generations has maintained our trust and thus our prosperity for all -- which has balanced the power of all by dividing roles where justices interpret the law, legislators write the law, and the executives implement the law, plus we appreciate or at least tolerate freedom of religion as long as it does not violate others' rights.
Congressmen know the process for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch are supposed to use this process while continuing to preform their role as it is defined. They have instead refused to do their job by overstepping their role and usurping judicial function. They act as judges "we refuse to give advice and consent to confirm any Supreme Court Justice because we have a personal mandate that we interpret that wounds the rights of everyone of the U.S. citizens", they tell people to act as executors "let the people decide the future of the Court", they call the Supreme Court Justices "political" or legislators.
Congressmen know the process for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch are supposed to use this process while continuing to preform their role as it is defined. They have instead refused to do their job by overstepping their role and usurping judicial function. They act as judges "we refuse to give advice and consent to confirm any Supreme Court Justice because we have a personal mandate that we interpret that wounds the rights of everyone of the U.S. citizens", they tell people to act as executors "let the people decide the future of the Court", they call the Supreme Court Justices "political" or legislators.
3
The case is a fraud from the start.
Has anyone bothered to inform the Court that the Roman Catholic church these nuns belong to allows even insists that nuns use birth control when they are posted in places where rape is common?
Seems to me that is the end of their argument as what they are actually fighting for is an allowance to selectively discriminate, not to uphold a religious tenet as if it is the very basis of their belief system. That "tenet" is subjectively applied by the hierarchy of the church therefore it cannot have the standing these nuns claim for it.
I think it's petty clear the nuns are working as proxy for the church to expand the religious freedoms allowed for church business's.
There is a simple standard that should apply in all situations where a business owner deals with the general public which is; If you have a religious objection to providing the product or service you sell to the gen public, to particular individuals for any reason then you should not be in that business as that would require that the public be forced to abide by your religion.
Has anyone bothered to inform the Court that the Roman Catholic church these nuns belong to allows even insists that nuns use birth control when they are posted in places where rape is common?
Seems to me that is the end of their argument as what they are actually fighting for is an allowance to selectively discriminate, not to uphold a religious tenet as if it is the very basis of their belief system. That "tenet" is subjectively applied by the hierarchy of the church therefore it cannot have the standing these nuns claim for it.
I think it's petty clear the nuns are working as proxy for the church to expand the religious freedoms allowed for church business's.
There is a simple standard that should apply in all situations where a business owner deals with the general public which is; If you have a religious objection to providing the product or service you sell to the gen public, to particular individuals for any reason then you should not be in that business as that would require that the public be forced to abide by your religion.
2
Here's the thing I don't understand.
I get the argument that Obamacare violates First Amendment religious rights. I don't agree with the argument, by any stretch, but I understand it. It is coherent to contend that the Obamacare statute violates a constitutional right.
I don't get the argument that Obamacare violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA is a statute, just like any other statute - it's not part of the constitution, and it can be re-done or un-done by any subsequent law at any time - and Obamacare is a subsequent law.
Plain and simple, a legislature lacks the power to prohibit itself from enacting future legislation. So even if Obamacare contradicts RFRA, so what? It is not a coherent argument to say that a Congressional statute is invalid because it contradicts a previous Congressional statute.
politicsybyeccehomo.wordpress.com
I get the argument that Obamacare violates First Amendment religious rights. I don't agree with the argument, by any stretch, but I understand it. It is coherent to contend that the Obamacare statute violates a constitutional right.
I don't get the argument that Obamacare violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA is a statute, just like any other statute - it's not part of the constitution, and it can be re-done or un-done by any subsequent law at any time - and Obamacare is a subsequent law.
Plain and simple, a legislature lacks the power to prohibit itself from enacting future legislation. So even if Obamacare contradicts RFRA, so what? It is not a coherent argument to say that a Congressional statute is invalid because it contradicts a previous Congressional statute.
politicsybyeccehomo.wordpress.com
3
There is a Catholic Monastery in Indiana that builds coffins. By that act are they supporting the death penalty? Conforming to employment law by providing a health plan to employees is no different than building coffins. It is part of being an employer.
1
“hijack our health plans and provide the coverage against our will,”
These plans are not the property of the business. They are as Justice Roberts said of the individual mandate a tax on the businesses. They are no more a moral burden on these anti birth control groups than many things that government does with our tax dollars that offend other religious groups.
What is being hijacked here, by these conservative Justices, is the wall separating government from giving preferential treatment to one religion over any other. Many religious groups feel quite as significant a burden as these anti birth controllers. So unless the Court and this country are willing to accommodate all other religious petitioners, this is nothing more than the conservative Judges show their own religious preference.
These plans are not the property of the business. They are as Justice Roberts said of the individual mandate a tax on the businesses. They are no more a moral burden on these anti birth control groups than many things that government does with our tax dollars that offend other religious groups.
What is being hijacked here, by these conservative Justices, is the wall separating government from giving preferential treatment to one religion over any other. Many religious groups feel quite as significant a burden as these anti birth controllers. So unless the Court and this country are willing to accommodate all other religious petitioners, this is nothing more than the conservative Judges show their own religious preference.
1
"Ill-conceived" is an apt, thought understated, description of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). Since the government is not, and should not be, engaged in defining the nature of any individual's religious beliefs there is almost no limit to the nature of the governmental policies that could be accused of placing a burden on the exercise of those beliefs.
This is particularly unfortunate because the Court had, in my view, reached a sensible resolution of this issue under the First Amendment before the enactment of RFRA -- religious beliefs did not excuse compliance with generally applicable governmental policies that did not target religion. The best result would be a recognition by Congress that RFRA was a well-intentioned but unworkable piece of legislation that should be repealed, but that is undoubtedly too much to expect.
This is particularly unfortunate because the Court had, in my view, reached a sensible resolution of this issue under the First Amendment before the enactment of RFRA -- religious beliefs did not excuse compliance with generally applicable governmental policies that did not target religion. The best result would be a recognition by Congress that RFRA was a well-intentioned but unworkable piece of legislation that should be repealed, but that is undoubtedly too much to expect.
1
The majority (the law) says employers must provide the law's version of health insurance or quit providing coverage and pay a fine. The minority (objecting employers) should either comply with the law or pay a fine and quit covering their employees. An objection to ACA based on religion should be no more valid than one based on personal philosophy (as in, I hate being told what to do by the Feds) which is a form of religion to many.
3
My religious belief oppose funding through taxes drones and nuclear weapons and any further funding of Guantanamo. Just as a start. And I shouldn't have to file tax returns because of this -- the government should just intuit my religious objections must be my reason. After all the First Amendment protects this when properly interpreted -- i.e., when I unilaterally interpret it my way. Makes sense, only need to find a billionaire to fund my think tank to publish the research that demonstrate this is obviously so.
2
What's wild about these cases is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in response to a series of Supreme Court decisions (re)affirming the first free exercise case (Reynolds v. US). The standard, perfectly wrought by Justice Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith, is simple, elegant and the only one possible: Laws prohibiting or requiring worship are unconstitutional, laws prohibiting or requiring the physical acts of worship as such are unconstitutional, and neutral laws of general applicability are constitutional.
The RFRA was a mindless, hopelessly unworkable, and partially unconstitutional (City of Boerne v. Flores) overreaction to the right decision by the rightwing of the Supreme Court (dissenting were Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and Bill Brennan, uncharacteristically wrong). Had these statutes come before the Court in the nineties, the outcome would have been different.
The RFRA at its heart commands the Court to apply strict scrutiny in free exercise cases, but not only to regulations and prior statutes-two Congresses, in 1993 and 2003, enacted in quasi-Constitution, binding all subsequent Congresses and trampling several of Scalia's beloved canons of construction. And in carving out broad exemptions for the religious but not the irreligious and to subsequent statutes of general applicability, the RFRA violates both the Equal Protection Clause and the Establishment Clause.
A bad statute before a bad Court makes bad law.
The RFRA was a mindless, hopelessly unworkable, and partially unconstitutional (City of Boerne v. Flores) overreaction to the right decision by the rightwing of the Supreme Court (dissenting were Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and Bill Brennan, uncharacteristically wrong). Had these statutes come before the Court in the nineties, the outcome would have been different.
The RFRA at its heart commands the Court to apply strict scrutiny in free exercise cases, but not only to regulations and prior statutes-two Congresses, in 1993 and 2003, enacted in quasi-Constitution, binding all subsequent Congresses and trampling several of Scalia's beloved canons of construction. And in carving out broad exemptions for the religious but not the irreligious and to subsequent statutes of general applicability, the RFRA violates both the Equal Protection Clause and the Establishment Clause.
A bad statute before a bad Court makes bad law.
2
Cosmos, (I have given up using the "heavens" term because of the huge load of religious baggage it caries.) It is difficult to believe that this kind of ignorance is still going on. There is no real difference between Racism, Sexism, Ageism and discrimination based on various religious beliefs, or any of the other millions of differences that define Humanity. The arguments put forth by in this situation are no different that the arguments that drove the Crusades and hundreds of other mass slaughters. Freedom does not include a right to impose ones personal concepts of god or anything else on anyone else. There are no islands, or states where it is O.K. to have slaves. There are no Public places where it is O.K. to exclude people because of their any of the above.
It is amazing that individuals supposedly as smart as these Justices are to ignorant to get that.
It is amazing that individuals supposedly as smart as these Justices are to ignorant to get that.
I'm waiting for Roberts, Alito et al to rule that Druids do not have to pay a portion of their income taxes attributable to the budget of the US Forest Service because doing so makes them "complicit" in the cutting of trees. That seems like a much more substantial burden on the free exercise of religion than making a Catholic-affiliated nursing home chain say "No" when asked if their insurance plan will include contraception. Or could it be that all religions are equal under the First Amendment, but, in the eyes of certain conservative male Supreme Court justices, some are more equal than others?
2
A good evangelical woman, once asked me "Why did we ever divorce religion from government?" To her mind, religious principles should be "the bedrock" of every aspect of our lives, including the way we govern ourselves.
Well, my answer was that once upon a time, in Christian Europe, religion WAS the bedrock of government, and the result was religious wars, culminating in the Thirty-Years War (1618-1648), which destroyed much of Germany and other lands, and which was ended by the Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty established the principle that the ruler of each state had the right to determine the established religion of his realm, and that accordingly Catholic countries and Protestant ones should not fight wars over religion.
Our country was founded in part by religious dissenters from the established Church of England, but even these dissenters did not form a unified church of their own, but rather a variety of different communions with different teachings. They therefore espoused religious toleration - you worship in your way, and I'll worship in mine. In time they created a secular state, in which religion was a matter of private conscience, and the government should be divorced from enacting any religious practice or belief.
This is a difficult principle to enforce in every particular, as the present issue illustrates. Boston once forbade celebrating Christmas as a "Popish practice." Is a Christmas holiday an imposition of religion on non-Christian citizens?
Well, my answer was that once upon a time, in Christian Europe, religion WAS the bedrock of government, and the result was religious wars, culminating in the Thirty-Years War (1618-1648), which destroyed much of Germany and other lands, and which was ended by the Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty established the principle that the ruler of each state had the right to determine the established religion of his realm, and that accordingly Catholic countries and Protestant ones should not fight wars over religion.
Our country was founded in part by religious dissenters from the established Church of England, but even these dissenters did not form a unified church of their own, but rather a variety of different communions with different teachings. They therefore espoused religious toleration - you worship in your way, and I'll worship in mine. In time they created a secular state, in which religion was a matter of private conscience, and the government should be divorced from enacting any religious practice or belief.
This is a difficult principle to enforce in every particular, as the present issue illustrates. Boston once forbade celebrating Christmas as a "Popish practice." Is a Christmas holiday an imposition of religion on non-Christian citizens?
2
The primary issue at play here is that the government is moving into inappropriate areas and improperly impacting freedom of religious belief. The government's motivations for doing so, are not always clear as is the applicable law. Does the government's desire to help certain women in a hotly contested area take precedence over an employer's sincerely held and otherwise appropriate religious beliefs? Or, does the government simply dislike the employer's religious beliefs and want to oppose them?
This whole issue could be made moot by a very simple change in approach. If an employer does not provide contraception coverage, the worker desiring such coverage would then request coverage from the government which would give notice to the employer's insurer that the government would meet the costs of covering the notifying worker for the requested coverage. If the government believed that the employer were improperly excluding contraceptive coverage, the government could pursue that as it may see fit.
Such a procedure would leave the employer out of it, unless the government chose to challenge the employer's religious beliefs. But that would be another story.
This whole issue could be made moot by a very simple change in approach. If an employer does not provide contraception coverage, the worker desiring such coverage would then request coverage from the government which would give notice to the employer's insurer that the government would meet the costs of covering the notifying worker for the requested coverage. If the government believed that the employer were improperly excluding contraceptive coverage, the government could pursue that as it may see fit.
Such a procedure would leave the employer out of it, unless the government chose to challenge the employer's religious beliefs. But that would be another story.
Here's a thought. The health insurer for the overly-burdened religious organizations should include in the information that insurer provides to the employee a statement that contraceptive coverage is available at no additional premium to the employee. And that the employee only need call a provided "800" number to institute this coverage. This info should be provided directly by mail to the employee's home address so as not to involve the substantially burdened employer in the distrubution of the sinful and offensive distribution of the information. This will allow the Little Sisters to continue to treat their employees Poorly.
1
Fine. I want Viagra, penis pumps, and other male sexual aids excluded from health care plans without notice, and insurers can choose to add it back in if they notice that I left it off. I have a strong philosophical belief that we should let nature take its course on men's virility, and that it is an affront to nature to try to allow men sexual intercourse when their bodies naturally won't. Of course, since most such prescriptions come from urologists, I would also include health services like prostate exams in this list as well. If men want prostate exams, well, that's just too bad. Their health plan won't cover it because I am offended by the idea that they might get it.
If men want such items, they can go to the marketplace and get a second plan with a different doctor/urologist than their regular one to handle this. This isn't a substantial burden, right? It wouldn't impact men's access to health care, right?
If men want such items, they can go to the marketplace and get a second plan with a different doctor/urologist than their regular one to handle this. This isn't a substantial burden, right? It wouldn't impact men's access to health care, right?
3
The argument of the religious organizations is that the act of informing the government of their unwillingness to include contraceptive care under the ACA's legislation they are implicitly compromising their sincerely held religious beliefs.
By that logic if a female employee uses part of her salary to purchase an abortion or contraceptives, why isn't that also a form of unacceptable moral compromise for the religious? The chain of events is hardly distinguishable from the case before the court. Hence, to prevent such compromising activity on the part of employees, shouldn't the religious organizations have the right to control the purposes to which those salaries may be put? Is this absurd? Of course and so is the argument put forward by the religious, to say nothing of those judges who have taken their side.
By that logic if a female employee uses part of her salary to purchase an abortion or contraceptives, why isn't that also a form of unacceptable moral compromise for the religious? The chain of events is hardly distinguishable from the case before the court. Hence, to prevent such compromising activity on the part of employees, shouldn't the religious organizations have the right to control the purposes to which those salaries may be put? Is this absurd? Of course and so is the argument put forward by the religious, to say nothing of those judges who have taken their side.
1
The author chastises one of the plaintiff lawyers who “resorted to a creative euphemism for a female employee who might avail herself of insurance-provided birth control: ‘the end-user.’” However, the lawyer was referring to the health insurance policy and he made the distinction because male employees are nearly as likely as female employees to use employer-provided health insurance policies to pay for contraceptives. The reason is that most employer-provided plans cover employee’s spouses. Justice Sotomayor confuses the issue by referring to “women who don’t adhere to that particular religious tenet.” The Justice Department isn’t trying to force these women take actions that compromise their religious beliefs
I grew up Catholic and, for a year, studied to become a Marist Brother. Yet this absolute prohibition of "artificial" birth control always struck me as something like the use of Latin: it had to be changed for the Church to address the real-life needs of its modern congregation.
Today, the vast majority of Catholics including everyone in my family ignore this part of doctrine. The hold that the Church had on this part of life is broken. Those who continue to retain their connection to Catholicism focus on other aspects of faith that provide more guidance and meaning.
The premise of this case, an augment about a "chain of action" leading to sin (one administrator fills out a form and at some later date some employee uses birth control) is another example of why all of the Catholic religious orders are disappearing from our country. Devout Catholics who once saw religious orders as a way to realize their Christian values reject these expressions of conservative rigidity that serve no one (except the hierarchy) and add nothing to the well being of our communities. What real social benefit could possibly flow form this case?
I'm sure that, if I met them, the Sisters at the center of this case would be admirable: humble, devout, self-sacrificing, kind. But in taking a stand on a vestigial aspect of Catholic life, they are also contributing to the continued erosion of Catholicism as a positive force in American civic life.
Today, the vast majority of Catholics including everyone in my family ignore this part of doctrine. The hold that the Church had on this part of life is broken. Those who continue to retain their connection to Catholicism focus on other aspects of faith that provide more guidance and meaning.
The premise of this case, an augment about a "chain of action" leading to sin (one administrator fills out a form and at some later date some employee uses birth control) is another example of why all of the Catholic religious orders are disappearing from our country. Devout Catholics who once saw religious orders as a way to realize their Christian values reject these expressions of conservative rigidity that serve no one (except the hierarchy) and add nothing to the well being of our communities. What real social benefit could possibly flow form this case?
I'm sure that, if I met them, the Sisters at the center of this case would be admirable: humble, devout, self-sacrificing, kind. But in taking a stand on a vestigial aspect of Catholic life, they are also contributing to the continued erosion of Catholicism as a positive force in American civic life.
Several commentators (all, it seems, knowledgeable women) note that contraceptive medicines have important health promoting functions independent of their use to prevent pregnancies. That is strike one - how can the Little Sisters be complicit without knowing for what purpose the prescribed drug is intended?
All the government asks is that the Little Sisters send a letter stating their religious objections to contraception - a statement of the faith beliefs underlying their reason for a religious exemption. I fail to see how this impinges on their right of free exercise of their beliefs. Strike two.
The decision to use the pharmaceutical product to avoid pregnancy is the moral/ethical judgement of the individual employee covered under the health insurance plan not the employer or the insurer. I fail to see how one party can be complicit in the free independent moral/ethical decision of another individual. It would seem that the Little Sisters as an employer are seeking to substitute their moral/ethical judgment and faith beliefs for those of the insured employee. That would seem to interfere with the free exercise of the employee's religious beliefs. Strike three.
The four coreligionists of the Little Sisters on the United States Supreme Court cannot use the Court to impose their denominational beliefs on others.
All the government asks is that the Little Sisters send a letter stating their religious objections to contraception - a statement of the faith beliefs underlying their reason for a religious exemption. I fail to see how this impinges on their right of free exercise of their beliefs. Strike two.
The decision to use the pharmaceutical product to avoid pregnancy is the moral/ethical judgement of the individual employee covered under the health insurance plan not the employer or the insurer. I fail to see how one party can be complicit in the free independent moral/ethical decision of another individual. It would seem that the Little Sisters as an employer are seeking to substitute their moral/ethical judgment and faith beliefs for those of the insured employee. That would seem to interfere with the free exercise of the employee's religious beliefs. Strike three.
The four coreligionists of the Little Sisters on the United States Supreme Court cannot use the Court to impose their denominational beliefs on others.
3
Has anyone considered the following? Insurance companies send a comprehensive list of all medical services to a company. The company puts a checkmark next to those it *does* wish to provide. No checkmark next to contraceptives means no complicity.
What I just described is the *logical* opposite of what's being offered by the government, and following the laws of logic, it would mean that no religious organization could be against it on the same principal. Insurance companies would implicitly get the information they need and everyone would be happy, right?
The above plan would be good for women and good for society. It would also be good a compromise solution. Of course religious organizations and the far right would still be against it, showing the hollowness and political (not religious) motivation of their arguments before the supreme court.
What I just described is the *logical* opposite of what's being offered by the government, and following the laws of logic, it would mean that no religious organization could be against it on the same principal. Insurance companies would implicitly get the information they need and everyone would be happy, right?
The above plan would be good for women and good for society. It would also be good a compromise solution. Of course religious organizations and the far right would still be against it, showing the hollowness and political (not religious) motivation of their arguments before the supreme court.
1
The plaintiffs' argument is so strange that it's hard to credit. Suppose I tap the shoulder a person waiting for a bus and ask, "Will you give me five dollars to buy condoms?", and the person says, "No, my religion teaches that contraception is immoral." Then I tap the shoulder of the next person in the bus queue and ask the same question, and that person says, "Sure. Here's the money." Under the plaintiffs' argument, the first person is morally complicit in my committing the sin of contraception: by saying "no," he sent me to another avenue where my sinful behavior was enabled. Under this argument, the first person only would avoid complicity by refusing to answer. But isn't that moral equivocation? Catholic teaching has always been against that: "I refuse to take a moral position." It's almost as if the argument is that religion conviction requires me to actively prevent contraception, not just refuse to support it.
The Court could easily end the misery of this perversion of justice by merely denying the plaintiffs the legitimacy of their argument that "opting-out" is the equivalent of consenting to birth control. That is a fictional bridge too far. Giving legal notice has a long history in the law and is not burdensome. If the plaintiffs wish to avail themselves of the exceptions the law provides, then they are required to perform at modest gesture of giving legal notice of their opting-out. I suspect that there are other reasons behind their recalcitrance, not grounded in faith, but let's not hide behind ridiculous contentions that no reasonable person would accept.
1
The definition of "Freedom", is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
"we do have some freedom of choice"
Seems to me there cannot be an answer to any position with respect to the issue at hand, consequently the Supreme Court has no business ruling for or against, since any ruling cannot fully respect and observe our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
The matter should rest where it always has, in the public domain, as in abortion wherein a woman has the absolute right to do as she wishes with her own body, in recognition of our inalienable rights.
This Court is engaged in changing and attempting to destroy the heart and soul of the our Democracy, and if allowed to continue, "Freedom" will cease to be; in fact we are closer than most know, to totalitarianism as is the eventual goal.
The Plutocratic Oligarchy is flexing it's power, and if anyone other than Sanders gains the Presidency, it will be checkmate for our nearly obliterated Democracy.
"we do have some freedom of choice"
Seems to me there cannot be an answer to any position with respect to the issue at hand, consequently the Supreme Court has no business ruling for or against, since any ruling cannot fully respect and observe our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
The matter should rest where it always has, in the public domain, as in abortion wherein a woman has the absolute right to do as she wishes with her own body, in recognition of our inalienable rights.
This Court is engaged in changing and attempting to destroy the heart and soul of the our Democracy, and if allowed to continue, "Freedom" will cease to be; in fact we are closer than most know, to totalitarianism as is the eventual goal.
The Plutocratic Oligarchy is flexing it's power, and if anyone other than Sanders gains the Presidency, it will be checkmate for our nearly obliterated Democracy.
What's missing in the Supreme Court justices' questions are two issues:
First, putting aside the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." Pope Francis hasn't deviated from the Church's prohibition on the use of contraceptives. Therefore, Congress cannot prohibit Catholics from freely exercising their religion by neither using nor facilitating the use by others of contraceptives. All of the Court's right-wing members are Catholic and so would face the risk of papal condemnation, excommunication and worse in the afterlife should they facilitate the use of contraceptives.
Second, health insurers are happy to provide contraceptive coverage without additional cost because prenatal, natal and postnatal care cost a lot more than contraceptives. Therefore, the government's supposed imposition of an additional burden to insurers should a religiously affiliated employer decline to provide contraceptive coverage is bogus. There is no additional burden to the insurer, only a benefit.
The easy solution, accommodating religious dogma with public policy, would be for the government to waive its mandated contraceptive coverage, without the need for any employer notice, in the knowledge that insurers will include contraceptive coverage because it is in their best interest to do so.
First, putting aside the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." Pope Francis hasn't deviated from the Church's prohibition on the use of contraceptives. Therefore, Congress cannot prohibit Catholics from freely exercising their religion by neither using nor facilitating the use by others of contraceptives. All of the Court's right-wing members are Catholic and so would face the risk of papal condemnation, excommunication and worse in the afterlife should they facilitate the use of contraceptives.
Second, health insurers are happy to provide contraceptive coverage without additional cost because prenatal, natal and postnatal care cost a lot more than contraceptives. Therefore, the government's supposed imposition of an additional burden to insurers should a religiously affiliated employer decline to provide contraceptive coverage is bogus. There is no additional burden to the insurer, only a benefit.
The easy solution, accommodating religious dogma with public policy, would be for the government to waive its mandated contraceptive coverage, without the need for any employer notice, in the knowledge that insurers will include contraceptive coverage because it is in their best interest to do so.
The definition of "Freedom", is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
One caveat must always apply, "as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others", which is, as are all rights, enforceable in a court of law.
Seems to me there cannot be an answer to any position with respect to the issue at hand, consequently the Supreme Court has no business ruling for or against, since any ruling cannot fully respect and observe our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
When Justice Scalias' vacant slot is filled, it must be filled by a moderate, for our Court to have any semblance of adherence to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
The matter should rest where it always has, in the public domain, as in abortion wherein a woman has the absolute right to do as she wishes with her own body, in observance of our inalienable rights.
This Court is engaged in changing and attempting to destroy the heart and soul of the our Democracy, and if allowed to continue, "Freedom" will cease to be; in fact we are closer than most know, to the endgame, which is a kind of totalitarianism.
The Plutocratic Oligarchy is flexing it's power, and if anyone other than Sanders gains the Presidency, it will be checkmate for our nearly obliterated Democracy
One caveat must always apply, "as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others", which is, as are all rights, enforceable in a court of law.
Seems to me there cannot be an answer to any position with respect to the issue at hand, consequently the Supreme Court has no business ruling for or against, since any ruling cannot fully respect and observe our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
When Justice Scalias' vacant slot is filled, it must be filled by a moderate, for our Court to have any semblance of adherence to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
The matter should rest where it always has, in the public domain, as in abortion wherein a woman has the absolute right to do as she wishes with her own body, in observance of our inalienable rights.
This Court is engaged in changing and attempting to destroy the heart and soul of the our Democracy, and if allowed to continue, "Freedom" will cease to be; in fact we are closer than most know, to the endgame, which is a kind of totalitarianism.
The Plutocratic Oligarchy is flexing it's power, and if anyone other than Sanders gains the Presidency, it will be checkmate for our nearly obliterated Democracy
1
That RFRA was a big mistake is now evident; ironically, measures that pass by such a huge margin often are (think Gulf of Tonkin). The real issue seems to be the meaning of "free exercise".
The old case of Sherbert v. Verner (1963) concerned a Seventh Day Adventist's right to refuse her employer's demand that she work on a Saturday; something not required when she took the job. The Court ruled that this was a substantial burden on her free exercise rights without a compelling state interest.
In 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court overturned this precedent in the case of two native American employees who used peyote as a sacrament in their religion. Ironically, this opinion was written by Scalia, who later took such a narrow view of RFRA. RFRA was passed in reaction to it.
In each of these cases, the meaning of "free exercise" is clear: a law stood directly against an individual's observance of the basic rules or principles of his religion. In the new cases, Hobby Lobby and Zubik, "free exercise" has been extended from individuals to corporations and it concerns their alleged "right" to dictate rules for people under their power who may have different religious beliefs. Why is it that only the employer's religious beliefs matter? Why is it that they are the only ones potentially burdened by the law?
The groups here are asking for an extraordinary privilege: not to even acknowledge the existence of those who differ. This cannot work in our modern society.
The old case of Sherbert v. Verner (1963) concerned a Seventh Day Adventist's right to refuse her employer's demand that she work on a Saturday; something not required when she took the job. The Court ruled that this was a substantial burden on her free exercise rights without a compelling state interest.
In 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court overturned this precedent in the case of two native American employees who used peyote as a sacrament in their religion. Ironically, this opinion was written by Scalia, who later took such a narrow view of RFRA. RFRA was passed in reaction to it.
In each of these cases, the meaning of "free exercise" is clear: a law stood directly against an individual's observance of the basic rules or principles of his religion. In the new cases, Hobby Lobby and Zubik, "free exercise" has been extended from individuals to corporations and it concerns their alleged "right" to dictate rules for people under their power who may have different religious beliefs. Why is it that only the employer's religious beliefs matter? Why is it that they are the only ones potentially burdened by the law?
The groups here are asking for an extraordinary privilege: not to even acknowledge the existence of those who differ. This cannot work in our modern society.
2
The government requires employers to purchase a plan which, directly or indirectly, pays for contraception. Legal and accounting trickery are beside the point, which is all that the government's workaround is.
The government faces no constraint in offering free contraception to the women of the United States, paid for by taxpayers. They are not free to force employers to participate in a plan which pays for the same. They got on this path by sticking with employer paid health insurance, rather than taxpayer paid. Don't be surprised when citizens put up a fight.
The government faces no constraint in offering free contraception to the women of the United States, paid for by taxpayers. They are not free to force employers to participate in a plan which pays for the same. They got on this path by sticking with employer paid health insurance, rather than taxpayer paid. Don't be surprised when citizens put up a fight.
If people have a religious objection to participating in a health plan that offers contraception coverage, arranged by the government through a work around, why wouldn't they have an objection to taxpayer paid health insurance that does the same thing? The Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid paying for most abortions just for this reason, and there was a lot of last minute shuffling to prevent ACA from being linked to abortion.
The government here takes away the option of contraception-free health care plans on the insurance market, but does not force any employer to pay for contraception directly. The work around was actually suggested by Alito. It is hard to see how the alternative would be better for anyone.
The government here takes away the option of contraception-free health care plans on the insurance market, but does not force any employer to pay for contraception directly. The work around was actually suggested by Alito. It is hard to see how the alternative would be better for anyone.
"the religious nonprofits nonetheless insist that even the requirement to notify the government makes them complicit in making birth control available to their employees".
By this argument the non-profits should not be doing business with any company that provides birth control to its employees. They shouldn't buy, receive donations, or in anyway accept services of any kind from companies or individuals that either use birth control or supply birth control insurance to their employees. Even their tax free status is in question since this status is derived from a government entity that probably provides birth control to it's employees through government insurance.
By this argument the non-profits should not be doing business with any company that provides birth control to its employees. They shouldn't buy, receive donations, or in anyway accept services of any kind from companies or individuals that either use birth control or supply birth control insurance to their employees. Even their tax free status is in question since this status is derived from a government entity that probably provides birth control to it's employees through government insurance.
1
I regret that the solicitor general conceded the point about moral complicity. To my mind, the government has provided these employers a means by which to disavow complicity in the provision of contraception. It is a disavowal that places no additional financial burden on the employer or employee. By their own logic, aren't these employers complicit in the provision of birth control by paying their employees wages that might be used to purchase contraception? Should we allow them to monitor their employees' purchases to avoid such complicity?
This is why employers should not provide health insurance. So can we please phase out this unworkable system, and expand Medicare to everyone, have a single payer, or at least have everyone on the exchanges.
3
As a cradle-Catholic, I have been frustrated throughout my life with the church's obsession and stubbornness with this subject. At least nine out of 10 of female Catholics have used birth control, so let's stop pretending they are acting in the interests of their church members. I would suggest a better use of the time, effort, emotion and resources of those arguing this case: Focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies. There has never been an abortion that did not start out with an unwanted pregnancy. So if the interests for the unborn child are sincere, focus on the unwanted pregnancies. Birth control is the tool that is used by an educated and informed group of people. And there could also be a focus and investment in counseling and a focus on assisting compassionately with birth and adoption processes. But the constant harping on this issue is filled with hypocrisy, stubbornness and antiquated thinking by a male-dominated hierarchy. And they wonder why people are leaving the church!
125
I was born Catholic, and I was lucky, in my time as an alter boy our priests were drunks, they had more interest in the sacramental wine than my loins.
I won't set foot in a Catholic Church, my last visit was my mom's funeral. They will slowly die at their own hand, I know no one under the age of forty with any interest in repressive magical thinking.
The Holy Ghost? What were they thinking?.
I won't set foot in a Catholic Church, my last visit was my mom's funeral. They will slowly die at their own hand, I know no one under the age of forty with any interest in repressive magical thinking.
The Holy Ghost? What were they thinking?.
3
" There has never been an abortion that did not start out with an unwanted pregnancy."
Not so. There have been wanted pregnancies that have ended in abortion for many reasons, for example, when continuing the pregnancy would adversely affect the health of the mother.
Not so. There have been wanted pregnancies that have ended in abortion for many reasons, for example, when continuing the pregnancy would adversely affect the health of the mother.
1
The plaintiff's argument does more than allow institutions to impose a greater burden on women than on themselves by shifting the "burden" from institutions objecting to a little paperwork to individuals--by the way, women--requiring the availability of medical services.
As Greenhouse writes, the plaintiff try to make the law mean what the plaintiff wants it to mean. In doing so, the plaintiff pretends that the burden of paperwork is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs and disregards the burdens which they impose on women, who also have religious or moral convictions of conscience. So the issue seems less a matter of religious or moral conscience than the usual attempt of religious zealots to infringe upon, and to coerce practices, limiting on the rights and respect due others of different religious or moral persuasions. As usual, advocates of religious freedom in such doctrinally driven cases show themselves hypocrites respecting the religious freedom of others.
As Greenhouse writes, the plaintiff try to make the law mean what the plaintiff wants it to mean. In doing so, the plaintiff pretends that the burden of paperwork is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs and disregards the burdens which they impose on women, who also have religious or moral convictions of conscience. So the issue seems less a matter of religious or moral conscience than the usual attempt of religious zealots to infringe upon, and to coerce practices, limiting on the rights and respect due others of different religious or moral persuasions. As usual, advocates of religious freedom in such doctrinally driven cases show themselves hypocrites respecting the religious freedom of others.
84
The best evidence that the hijacking is taking place on the religious right side of the argument is the fact that many insurance plans, including plans used by Catholic colleges, already covered birth control and it was only when that became a part of the new health care law that the religious right lobbyists whipped it up into an issue. I presume the argument would be that in the past they didn't know they were enabling "sinful" practices, but as soon as they did, they felt compelled to protest. In fact, members of the Catholic clergy have never made a secret of their opposition to its use and whether or not they acknowledge it, beyond that, with or without the health care law that accommodates them to the furthest extent possible within its framework, there is nothing they can or have ever been able to do that would guarantee individual compliance to that part of the doctrine or any other.
Removing temptation does not remove desire just as tyranny or censure will never eradicate faith. As history has repeatedly shown, while it is possible to bludgeon people into outwardly obeying mandates of particular religions or sects, it is not possible to dictate hearts and minds and that is great news, not only for non believers or religious minorities, but for people who want to practice their religion. That is the definition of religious freedom within a pluralistic, secular, democratic society.
Removing temptation does not remove desire just as tyranny or censure will never eradicate faith. As history has repeatedly shown, while it is possible to bludgeon people into outwardly obeying mandates of particular religions or sects, it is not possible to dictate hearts and minds and that is great news, not only for non believers or religious minorities, but for people who want to practice their religion. That is the definition of religious freedom within a pluralistic, secular, democratic society.
46
Linda has written an astonishingly incisive article regarding the case and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It is obvious that requiring religious organizations to merely notify the government that they are opting out is not a substantial burden, but they feign being burdened before the Court anyway.
They do so because they simply do not want anyone to have easy access to birth control and want to exercise what power they might have to impair its usage to whatever small degree they can manage. They are not participating in the acquisition of birth control by notifying the government that they are opting out. That is a logically indefensible position. The women who are employed by them would merely be offered a plan that will enable them to get benefits to help them pay for birth control if they choose to do so. But the religious organizations want to deny them even being offered a potential benefit. So the religious organization employer is substituting its own wishes and beliefs for those of its employees who are seeking to hijack the health plans. They are turning reality on its head in order to control the potential conduct of their employees.
In the end, this is not about religion but is instead about power and the desire of the plaintiffs to exercise power while feigning victimhood.
They do so because they simply do not want anyone to have easy access to birth control and want to exercise what power they might have to impair its usage to whatever small degree they can manage. They are not participating in the acquisition of birth control by notifying the government that they are opting out. That is a logically indefensible position. The women who are employed by them would merely be offered a plan that will enable them to get benefits to help them pay for birth control if they choose to do so. But the religious organizations want to deny them even being offered a potential benefit. So the religious organization employer is substituting its own wishes and beliefs for those of its employees who are seeking to hijack the health plans. They are turning reality on its head in order to control the potential conduct of their employees.
In the end, this is not about religion but is instead about power and the desire of the plaintiffs to exercise power while feigning victimhood.
4
If the requirement includes the "least restrictive means" of furthering a compelling governmental interest, and religious organizations are "substantially burdened" by informing the government of anything, then solution is simple:
Single-payer contraception available to all-- paid for by the federal government. The government would be expressly prohibited from requiring anyone to use birth control, so eugenics and religious freedom would not be relevant. There would be no need for separate doctors or clinics.
The U.S. Government has "a compelling interest" in providing *the option* of contraception to women- especially poorer women who may not be able to adequately provide for unwanted children, and therefore would cost the government welfare money.
There is also a statistical correlation (not proven causation yet, to my knowledge) between the gradual drop in overall crime rates in the U.S. since the 90s and widespread availability of birth control in the 60s and 70s. More neglect and fewer economic options for unwanted kids results in more crime. America would have to spend less money on police, court costs and imprisonment for the children who were unplanned and not cared for by their parents adequately.
Of course the logical tactic of the anti-contraception crowd would be to object to having their tax dollars spent to provide an "immoral" service. But our tax dollars are spent every day on an immoral and bloated prison system, just to name one objection of mine.
Single-payer contraception available to all-- paid for by the federal government. The government would be expressly prohibited from requiring anyone to use birth control, so eugenics and religious freedom would not be relevant. There would be no need for separate doctors or clinics.
The U.S. Government has "a compelling interest" in providing *the option* of contraception to women- especially poorer women who may not be able to adequately provide for unwanted children, and therefore would cost the government welfare money.
There is also a statistical correlation (not proven causation yet, to my knowledge) between the gradual drop in overall crime rates in the U.S. since the 90s and widespread availability of birth control in the 60s and 70s. More neglect and fewer economic options for unwanted kids results in more crime. America would have to spend less money on police, court costs and imprisonment for the children who were unplanned and not cared for by their parents adequately.
Of course the logical tactic of the anti-contraception crowd would be to object to having their tax dollars spent to provide an "immoral" service. But our tax dollars are spent every day on an immoral and bloated prison system, just to name one objection of mine.
3
Millions around the world who are persecuted for their religion - whatever that might be - must look askance at Americans who complain their religious liberty is threatened. The ones who have rocks thrown at their heads must think the Americans have rocks in their heads.
16
Yes, once we get religion out of OUR politics and lives we can once again be the envy of the world for our true democracy.
4
The real hijacking is by the catholic church of OUR health care and lives. They are gobbling up hospitals and clinics across America - with the HUGE profits from their supposed "non profit" good works - and forcing all providers in those systems to adhere to non-contraception, non-abortion policies. THAT is hijacking. The article says, "Justice Stevens said that because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gave churches “a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain,” the law amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. “This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion,” he wrote then, “is forbidden by the First Amendment.” Yes it is. It's called separation of church and state. WE must do three things: DEMAND that the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" be immediately overturned, DEMAND that the "Hyde Amendment" that disallows any government dollars from being used for abortion be overturned and DEMAND that an Equal Rights Amendment to OUR Constitution be passed that says, "NO law shall be passed in America that discriminates against women's inalienable right to choose what they do with their own bodies. NOW!
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/is-catholic-church-taking-over-...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/catholic-hospitals-bishops-c...
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/is-catholic-church-taking-over-...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/catholic-hospitals-bishops-c...
36
I bet these companies who are against contraception are against maternity leave too.
12
When asked by Justice Kennedy, “Do you question their belief that they’re complicit in the moral wrong?” the Solicitor General responded, “No, we do not.”
Do not understand that response. The religious nonprofits are no more complicit in an immoral act than a business that sells ladders that can be used in climbing to an upper floor of a home in order to make an illegal entry.
Do not understand that response. The religious nonprofits are no more complicit in an immoral act than a business that sells ladders that can be used in climbing to an upper floor of a home in order to make an illegal entry.
8
By the logic of the Little Sisters of the Poor, they, and everybody else, should be able to opt out of paying personal income tax because it goes toward some government activity to which they object for "religious reasons." Obviously, that is a formula for chaos.
20
I have always responded to those who don't want to pay for "them" and "that" that the true Christians would all be refusing to pay for war and armaments.
1
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a transparent effort to protect private discrimination under the "claim to freedom of religion". Right or wrong, the Supremes extended Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce to that which affects interstate commerce either based on revenue or employee size. The proponents of this "religious freedom are actively seeking to impose tenets of their religious beliefs on their employees and customers. What of their employees' and customers' religious beliefs which conflict. The government is correct limiting this private intrusion to de minimus extent by exempting only small businesses and organizations. Should a redneck owner be permitted to refuse employment or service to blacks because of his perverted religious beliefs?
7
By granting relief to the plaintiffs in this case, the government would ratify the alleged truth of their claim of damages in the future after their deaths.
Let's be clear. The right wing argues that filing a piece of paper
is an "undue burden" but forcing women to trave; 10 hours
to the only clinic is not
The GOP health plan fpr women is a coat hanger and an alley
to bleed to death in. If they survive they might be prosecuted.
is an "undue burden" but forcing women to trave; 10 hours
to the only clinic is not
The GOP health plan fpr women is a coat hanger and an alley
to bleed to death in. If they survive they might be prosecuted.
28
What happens after death is forever. These litigants claim damage to their immortal souls. They bet like Pascal, based on the duration they expect to be suffering in the future.
1
Christians and the Church are not an appendage (or appendages) to the United States of America; we are an integral part of it. How dare you insinuate that your secular way is the norm and our way is an exception to be asserted "when appropriate"?!?!?!
You are trying to inculcate artificial birth control as a societal norm. It is not an appropriate norm (it is abnormal).
The author states, "At its core, this case, Zubik v. Burwell, is a case about religion’s role in civil society."
No, the core of this case (and many others) is the sly intent of the secularists in the USA (and the West) to make the religion of secularism the norm in what was founded as a Christian nation (the USA). The secularists are trying to steal the very soul of the USA and turn it into a Satanic nation. That is a game that is as old as the hills (Satan played that game in the Garden of Eden [See Genesis Chapter 3 {in the Holy Bible}]).
' “The whole point of this provision is that you get this care from your regular doctor as part of your regular health care without any barriers,” the solicitor general said.'
Someone needs to make the point that "this care" (assumedly artificial contraceptive "care") is not "regular" nor is it "care". It is merely one of the ways secularists use to defy Almighty God. (Any and all rebellion against Almighty God is sin.)
You are trying to inculcate artificial birth control as a societal norm. It is not an appropriate norm (it is abnormal).
The author states, "At its core, this case, Zubik v. Burwell, is a case about religion’s role in civil society."
No, the core of this case (and many others) is the sly intent of the secularists in the USA (and the West) to make the religion of secularism the norm in what was founded as a Christian nation (the USA). The secularists are trying to steal the very soul of the USA and turn it into a Satanic nation. That is a game that is as old as the hills (Satan played that game in the Garden of Eden [See Genesis Chapter 3 {in the Holy Bible}]).
' “The whole point of this provision is that you get this care from your regular doctor as part of your regular health care without any barriers,” the solicitor general said.'
Someone needs to make the point that "this care" (assumedly artificial contraceptive "care") is not "regular" nor is it "care". It is merely one of the ways secularists use to defy Almighty God. (Any and all rebellion against Almighty God is sin.)
1
Dear Pastor Page,
Our nation is defined by the Constitution, which the founders designed to avoid having government favor any one religion. The norm of government neutrality toward religion was considered the best choice, to avoid repeating the cruel history of England and other countries where religious wars raged for centuries. The founders understood that believers of one religion might seek to enforce their values on other people, and considered that undesirable for a democracy. I know devout Christians who agree with me that government should not force citizens to behave or think according to any particular religion's values. I am sorry that the conflict of beliefs is a cause of distress for you, but I think such conflict is inevitable in a free democracy where the individual is protected by a legal zone of privacy that the government should not invade.
Kind regards,
Bonnie
Our nation is defined by the Constitution, which the founders designed to avoid having government favor any one religion. The norm of government neutrality toward religion was considered the best choice, to avoid repeating the cruel history of England and other countries where religious wars raged for centuries. The founders understood that believers of one religion might seek to enforce their values on other people, and considered that undesirable for a democracy. I know devout Christians who agree with me that government should not force citizens to behave or think according to any particular religion's values. I am sorry that the conflict of beliefs is a cause of distress for you, but I think such conflict is inevitable in a free democracy where the individual is protected by a legal zone of privacy that the government should not invade.
Kind regards,
Bonnie
3
It's not normal for an animal to grow its population beyond the sustaining capacity of the planet by systematically digging up every fossil fuel deposit that can be detected, produced, and burned either.
You are patently wrong on so many levels. This is not a Christian nation, we are a democratic republic with a capitalistic economic system. Managing reproductive health is a way for women to obtain liberty and happiness in a country that offers few safety nets.
4
Insurance companies automatically providing contraceptive coverage for employees of such religiously-based organizations, without being notified by the employers that they are not going to take part in providing such coverage sure seems a lot like just providing the coverage in the first place.
4
It really doesn't matter. What matters is that this health care bill is destroying the middle class and NO one seems to see it coming or even care. Policy costs are way up. Co-pays way up and then we have to pay the tax to furnish for free the health care others have. They can afford to use theirs. Isn't that nice. The working person can't though. They have to continue to work though.
2
I agree, it sure seems that a single payer system, like Medicare, that cuts out all the for profit health insurance companies and for profit pharmacy benefits management with the ability to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies that are grossly overcharging Americans and spending a fortune on advertising their products would be the best way to drive down health costs.
1
The idea that the required government notification for an "opt out" of coverage for birth control somehow makes the organization "complicit" and is an "undue burden" is not only a complete logical fallacy but also absurd on it's face from a practical, real world perspective.
So we are now required to believe that "checking off a box" or typing a few lines of text is somehow a "burden". In what world?
I guess this just boils down to the fact that the mere "idea" that there are people in the world that don't agree with the Little sisters of the poor about birth control is just too painful for them to bear. It's wrong that they should even have to contemplate such a horrible idea, and the government has to now pretend along with them.
Give me a break. This case is the biggest crock of you know what in the history of the world.
Sounds like Roberts wants to throw the base a bone on this one to make up for his apostasy on upholding the ACA.
Poor Don, has to argue with idiots like this, it would make my head explode.
So we are now required to believe that "checking off a box" or typing a few lines of text is somehow a "burden". In what world?
I guess this just boils down to the fact that the mere "idea" that there are people in the world that don't agree with the Little sisters of the poor about birth control is just too painful for them to bear. It's wrong that they should even have to contemplate such a horrible idea, and the government has to now pretend along with them.
Give me a break. This case is the biggest crock of you know what in the history of the world.
Sounds like Roberts wants to throw the base a bone on this one to make up for his apostasy on upholding the ACA.
Poor Don, has to argue with idiots like this, it would make my head explode.
21
Yeah, I believe his only concern is his legacy--whatever that will be. He started to become concerned that his court would be characterized in the history books for the bakcword, prehistoric body that it is. His ACA decision was the bone he threw, as you point out. When I think of these conservative justices, I think of cases and courts like Plessy v. Ferguson. In my mind, this conservative hack fest of a supreme court is like that.
Apparently, once you've bought into the religious con, every other degrading lie becomes easy. This is not about protecting fetuses but controlling woman. And this from the Supreme Court of the United States.
26
The constitution does not give religion "special rights".
It simply stops the government from favoring one religion over another.
It simply stops the government from favoring one religion over another.
22
Zubik vs. Burwell is just the latest legal iteration of the long-running, finely tuned grievance industry of a diverse array of religious groups who seek to 'transfer' particular scruples and/or doctrinal stances to an entire class of employees. In its hyper-focus on contraceptive services, it also represents the tenacity of religiously-based opposition to what many now consider a fundamental public health care priority, for women and indeed for any modern society. Finally, the deliberations of this SC are taking place amid the flurry of RFRA-driven state legislative actions designed to inhibit the fullest implementation of the court's LGBT marriage decision in Obergefell. As Ms. Greenhouse's analysis clearly shows, the real burden here is borne by women employees categorically denied a specific set of medical services in their primary workplace insurance plan because of a sectarian religious commitment.
18
If SCOTUS, with respect to contraception, accepts the complicity in sin argument of the religious nonprofits, why should they not also embrace the idea that gun dealers, the NRA, and advertisers of guns be considered complicit in the crimes committed with these weapons?
41
'm almost more appalled by the questions coming from the conservative justices than I am by stance of the religious non-profits. Although I disagree with their stance, its understandable. They strive to be pure and without sin, and anything that has to do with birth control stains their purity. Purists are always repulsive, but I get it.
The conservative justices, however, have no such excuse. They live in the real world where considering the legal merits of this case, and not the religious sincerity of the plaintiffs, is the issue. Common sense dictates that a secular society ought not to have to dance around religious people whose purity is so strict that they can't bend even a tiny bit.
I wish the justices would think about the reality that women who decide to use birth control have the right to keep this decision private. Yet compelling them to shop for stand-alone birth control insurance plans makes their decision vastly more public (to clerks handling these plans, if nothing else) than if they quietly choose it from among the things covered in a general health insurance plan.
The justices should dismiss the purist intentions of the religious people and think about working women everywhere.
The conservative justices, however, have no such excuse. They live in the real world where considering the legal merits of this case, and not the religious sincerity of the plaintiffs, is the issue. Common sense dictates that a secular society ought not to have to dance around religious people whose purity is so strict that they can't bend even a tiny bit.
I wish the justices would think about the reality that women who decide to use birth control have the right to keep this decision private. Yet compelling them to shop for stand-alone birth control insurance plans makes their decision vastly more public (to clerks handling these plans, if nothing else) than if they quietly choose it from among the things covered in a general health insurance plan.
The justices should dismiss the purist intentions of the religious people and think about working women everywhere.
26
Do they live in the real world? Scalia never attended his children's soccer games. He chose his media outlets selectively. The justices have a private garage under the court. How is this the real world? I have know a number of Catholic nuns in active orders with much better connections to reality than the male justices.
2
I agree with you but who said that the conservative justices on this court live in the real world. Only Kennedy and Roberts have ever shown that they do - and then rarely.
"Do you question their belief that they’re complicit in the moral wrong?” Justice Kennedy asked Mr. Verrilli.
“No, we do not,” the solicitor general replied.
“Well, then it seems to me that that’s a substantial burden,” Justice Kennedy said.
Why did the Solicitor General concede this point? To me it seems perfectly reasonable to identify this litigation for what it is: a disingenuous attempt to impose religious restrictions on every sphere of employment.
“No, we do not,” the solicitor general replied.
“Well, then it seems to me that that’s a substantial burden,” Justice Kennedy said.
Why did the Solicitor General concede this point? To me it seems perfectly reasonable to identify this litigation for what it is: a disingenuous attempt to impose religious restrictions on every sphere of employment.
34
He conceded the point because, as asked, the question is about the sincerity of their belief. He has no evidence otherwise, so he needs to take them at their word.
The problem lies in Kennedy's response. There are some unspoken assumptions between that a belief is sincere, and that a substantial burden is placed simply by citing such a belief.
Which is why it brings to my mind, the process that we necessarily place on proving conscientious objection in other contexts. As others have pointed out, if simply to have a sincere belief and need to state so, is an unreasonable burden, there is a practically unlimited plethora of consequences that are unreasonable.
The problem lies in Kennedy's response. There are some unspoken assumptions between that a belief is sincere, and that a substantial burden is placed simply by citing such a belief.
Which is why it brings to my mind, the process that we necessarily place on proving conscientious objection in other contexts. As others have pointed out, if simply to have a sincere belief and need to state so, is an unreasonable burden, there is a practically unlimited plethora of consequences that are unreasonable.
11
"impose religious restrictions "
The trouble is that the nuns are not imposing religious restrictions on YOU or on anyone else. They are merely refusing to participate in something which is against their beliefs. So YOU are imposing obligations on them rather than the other way around.
Your position is similar to a hypothetical requirement imposed on Kosher restaurants to serve pork. The restaurant does not have the right to impose its religious beliefs on its customers, does it? If a customer wants to eat pork, it is not the restaurant's business to impose its religious beliefs on the customer.
The point is that people who want to eat pork can go elsewhere and people who want to buy contraceptives can go to a drug store.
When I was a young man, a drug store was where I went to get contraceptives and the idea that nuns might help me with them would have struck me as very odd indeed.
I support contraception and believe that they should be widely and easily available. But humiliating the nuns is not the right way.
The trouble is that the nuns are not imposing religious restrictions on YOU or on anyone else. They are merely refusing to participate in something which is against their beliefs. So YOU are imposing obligations on them rather than the other way around.
Your position is similar to a hypothetical requirement imposed on Kosher restaurants to serve pork. The restaurant does not have the right to impose its religious beliefs on its customers, does it? If a customer wants to eat pork, it is not the restaurant's business to impose its religious beliefs on the customer.
The point is that people who want to eat pork can go elsewhere and people who want to buy contraceptives can go to a drug store.
When I was a young man, a drug store was where I went to get contraceptives and the idea that nuns might help me with them would have struck me as very odd indeed.
I support contraception and believe that they should be widely and easily available. But humiliating the nuns is not the right way.
1
I don't think he needed to concede the point for lack of evidence, when there is no evidence that the religious nonprofits go so far as to litigate in court any other attempt by the organization to reduce the temptation that their employees might encounter due to use of government programs. Use of contraceptives by women seems to be a special sin that needs more than just the tenets of their own organization to protect these female employees from even encountering the temptation to do it. There is no more requirement in the affordable care act for a person to use the contraceptive benefit, than there is for a child to eat a government supported meal at school which contains foods considered sinful by the child's religion. Caveat emptor and let the sinner beware.
1
It's difficult to read these sharp analyses of current legal debates and not think: "Most male Republicans dream of a pretty, bygone land in which women are unprotected, adorable, repeatedly pregnant, modest, and at least a little bit barefoot."
39
This was an extremely difficult column to read, though not for any fault of yours. You are just reporting what went on in the Supreme Court of the United States. The older I get, and I'm getting on, the clearer it becomes to me that religion is indeed the root of all evil.
66
The suggestion that an employer's notifying the government of its religious objection to insurance coverage of anything, places any "substantial burden" upon their religious exercise because it permits employees not sharing their religion not to share it, is absurd and ridiculous. Period.
12
A simplistic question, perhaps, but would it be possible for the government simply to act on the basis that the Sisters have clearly communicated their religiously inspired objection to providing contraceptive coverage for their employees, even though they haven't submitted a form attesting to it?
3
I always thought the first anti-Obamacare case that made it to the Supreme Court should have been that of a private employer who is a Christian Scientist who refused to provide any health insurance coverage at all to his/her employees because Christian Scientists do not believe in doctors.
My guess is there are Christian Scientists who are private employers, but none of them bothered to bring such a case, either because it would make their employees quit en masse and go to an employer that offers health benefits, or because they rightly realized that no one is forcing THEM to go to a doctor, so what's the problem?
But such a case would have really
My guess is there are Christian Scientists who are private employers, but none of them bothered to bring such a case, either because it would make their employees quit en masse and go to an employer that offers health benefits, or because they rightly realized that no one is forcing THEM to go to a doctor, so what's the problem?
But such a case would have really
5
I can only hope that the Supreme Court justices read Linda Greenhouse. Why is it that she seems to have more common/legal sense than several on our high court?
11
Every day that passes further reveals the weasel qualities of WJ Clinton. He played the sax and bit his lip, and so we gave him a pass as he curried favor with those who wouldn't spit on him if he were on fire by signing legislation like this deeply flawed law. As if religious freedom in this country were ever under attack by anyone except those with rival eternal fantasies.
How many who claim to adhere to a "faith" here in America do so because of convenience and family rather than because they believe that hovering just out of view is a creator who like Santa keeps tabs on each of us and will cast us into eternal darkness if we rub him the wrong way? Please.
The aggressively humble are overly represented in Washington. Those of us who believe that there are enough problems here on Earth without inventing more and who can see the Bible as a cool chronicle of a wandering people who really needed cheering up are aghast that our tax dollars support ostentatious cathedrals where smug acolytes can assure each other of their specialness.
And now our courts are clogged with bakers who are so consumed with righteous hatred for gay people that they just can't bring themselves to ice a cake and nuns who usually are the sensible Catholics making a scene about having to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, I mean sign a blasted piece of paper.
Our civil government takes a dive for religion while pretending that it doesn't because it kowtows to all denominations equally.
How many who claim to adhere to a "faith" here in America do so because of convenience and family rather than because they believe that hovering just out of view is a creator who like Santa keeps tabs on each of us and will cast us into eternal darkness if we rub him the wrong way? Please.
The aggressively humble are overly represented in Washington. Those of us who believe that there are enough problems here on Earth without inventing more and who can see the Bible as a cool chronicle of a wandering people who really needed cheering up are aghast that our tax dollars support ostentatious cathedrals where smug acolytes can assure each other of their specialness.
And now our courts are clogged with bakers who are so consumed with righteous hatred for gay people that they just can't bring themselves to ice a cake and nuns who usually are the sensible Catholics making a scene about having to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, I mean sign a blasted piece of paper.
Our civil government takes a dive for religion while pretending that it doesn't because it kowtows to all denominations equally.
17
Greenhouse: "If the government has its way, it will 'hijack our health plans and provide the coverage against our will,' Paul D. Clement, arguing for one group of religious nonprofits, warned the eight justices.
The complaint is that they cannot restrict what is available in their health plans, which is part of the compensation package, for all their employees, regardless of the religious beliefs of the employees.
Should they also be able to decide which workplace health and safety regulations that they wish to observe?
The complaint is that they cannot restrict what is available in their health plans, which is part of the compensation package, for all their employees, regardless of the religious beliefs of the employees.
Should they also be able to decide which workplace health and safety regulations that they wish to observe?
24
It amazes us that "non-profit religious groups" have seemingly endless sums of money to pay lawyers to pursue these pointless suits. Is Franklin Graham, for example, an unpaid servant? Do all of these "non-profits" forgo any luxuries, private jets, high salaries, expensive health insurance benefits, etc.? Many enjoy lax election enforcements to preach politics from the pulpit, while claiming non-partisan affiliations. How much, religiousness is a nation of laws to tolerate?
21
@SJM
"How much, religiousness is a nation of laws to tolerate?"
This is the question. My answer is this: we Americans simply must vote a Democrat into the White House in November so that we can begin the process of swinging the Supreme Court into a more progressive, sane balance.
We simply cannot let the bible thumpers in our country and in the government and court control our lives any longer. Please vote every single Republican out of office. That's how we'll be able to fairly calibrate the intrusion of religion into our lives.
"How much, religiousness is a nation of laws to tolerate?"
This is the question. My answer is this: we Americans simply must vote a Democrat into the White House in November so that we can begin the process of swinging the Supreme Court into a more progressive, sane balance.
We simply cannot let the bible thumpers in our country and in the government and court control our lives any longer. Please vote every single Republican out of office. That's how we'll be able to fairly calibrate the intrusion of religion into our lives.
1
So, if you replace the words "birth control" with "vaccination" or "heart failure" or "melanoma" or "kidney stone"...THEN, how do we view who is being held hostage. Then, how do we view the slippery slope of allowing an organization to over-ride the rights of PEOPLE to obtain medical care. Then the absurdity of the discussion becomes clear. Why do we allow an employer to define what constitutes medicine?
38
For years it has been argued that right-wing extremists were never solely concerned with overturning Roe v Wade. It was the foundational Griswold case they were ultimately going after.
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control and brought the right to privacy to the fore. The Roberts Court has found a back door in this ACA appeal to repudiating Griswold.
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control and brought the right to privacy to the fore. The Roberts Court has found a back door in this ACA appeal to repudiating Griswold.
17
Let's completely remove the Selective Service, then.
Quakers and others who can claim a religious conscientious objector status, being morally complicit for making such a request (which is rather more arduous than the one the Sisters have with regard to the ACA), would need to refrain from even that.
So we must protect them from that by removing the requirement from everybody, else they would have to at least make the motion of identifying themselves.
Right?
Quakers and others who can claim a religious conscientious objector status, being morally complicit for making such a request (which is rather more arduous than the one the Sisters have with regard to the ACA), would need to refrain from even that.
So we must protect them from that by removing the requirement from everybody, else they would have to at least make the motion of identifying themselves.
Right?
52
The practicing Catholic judges on the Supreme Court should have recused themselves from considering this case. They place mystical Catholic Church doctrine above our Constitution. More broadly, where is there separation of church and state when state laws are subject to the approval of the church?
223
That is the same fallacy that was used to try to prevent Kennedy from becoming president.
These judges use their stunted minds to enforce a GOP based conservative political doctrine not mystical religious beliefs. The GOP uses women's bodies as a tool to whip up a reliable number of votes as well as to generate a false moral authority that was stripped away from them by racism and other morally wrong policies they support.
These judges use their stunted minds to enforce a GOP based conservative political doctrine not mystical religious beliefs. The GOP uses women's bodies as a tool to whip up a reliable number of votes as well as to generate a false moral authority that was stripped away from them by racism and other morally wrong policies they support.
We need checks and balances, and term limits on this and all institutions. It's the same problem with police forces, no checks and excesses always occur. History is clear on this. Crystal clear.
By stare decesis, state legislatures are also prohibited the power to convey legal respect to articles of faith.
Sisters of the poor takes government money in form of Medicaid and Medicare. Picking and choosing what they want from the government is hypocritical. Religious freedom should be freedom to practice your religion yourself but NOT impose your beliefs on others, including employees. Particularly, if you are already funded by the U.S. Government.
306
Exactly right. There is no Constitutional right to practice your religion on anyone else. And to take massive amounts of Federal monies from the U.S. government, then you should comply-especially with this menial requirement.
Got an idea: if the Government loses this case wherein the conservatives wish to maintain religious dominance over the government, then the government should simply decide to shift it's monies elsewhere, to non-sectarian vendors. Then see how long this non-sense continues.
Got an idea: if the Government loses this case wherein the conservatives wish to maintain religious dominance over the government, then the government should simply decide to shift it's monies elsewhere, to non-sectarian vendors. Then see how long this non-sense continues.
You're right. Medicaid and Medicare support the Little Sisters' homes for the aged.
We need a Supreme Court that upholds the Constitution and not the religious right's hijacking of the Constitution. "Justice Stevens said that because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gave churches “a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain,” the law amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. “This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion,” he wrote then, “is forbidden by the First Amendment.”
Right On Justice Stevens!
Right On Justice Stevens!
1
And certain Bernie Sanders supporters continue to insist on "Bernie or Bust" political stance, stating that a GOP victory in November is a better outcome than a Dem victory with Hillary at the top of the ticket. A GOP victory in November will mean a GOP tool being appointed to fill Scalia's former seat, followed by the imposition of christian sharia law under the transparent guise of religious freedom, and the end of women's reproductive rights. But go ahead Sanders supporters, get your knickers in a twist, hand the election to the GOP if you can't get your MAN nominated.
72
@Thin, you are conflating a practical reality with a political choice.
Bernie supporters do not believe "a GOP victory in November is a better outcome than a Dem victory with Hillary at the top..."
Rather, politically astute Bernie supporters observe that Bernie supporters skew towards potential voters who often skip elections when they aren't enthusiastic about the candidate at the top of the ticket.
Huge difference.
Elections are won by votes, and preferences don't matter if votes aren't cast. Democrats won with Obama, a figure who generated enthusiasm among potential voters who are unreliable as far as getting to the polls. But Democrats lost with Kerry and Gore, figures who were relatively more qualified to hold the office at the time, but who failed to inspire marginal voters to cast ballots.
It's entirely fair to speculate about the wisdom of nominating a candidate who, regardless of her qualifications, hasn't inspired enthusiasm among the people who - sad to say - can't be relied upon to actually cast a ballot.
Bernie supporters do not believe "a GOP victory in November is a better outcome than a Dem victory with Hillary at the top..."
Rather, politically astute Bernie supporters observe that Bernie supporters skew towards potential voters who often skip elections when they aren't enthusiastic about the candidate at the top of the ticket.
Huge difference.
Elections are won by votes, and preferences don't matter if votes aren't cast. Democrats won with Obama, a figure who generated enthusiasm among potential voters who are unreliable as far as getting to the polls. But Democrats lost with Kerry and Gore, figures who were relatively more qualified to hold the office at the time, but who failed to inspire marginal voters to cast ballots.
It's entirely fair to speculate about the wisdom of nominating a candidate who, regardless of her qualifications, hasn't inspired enthusiasm among the people who - sad to say - can't be relied upon to actually cast a ballot.
1
This – the policy situation, certainly not the angry lecture about it – is why I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton if that's what it comes to. However, browbeating people is not typically the way to win them over.
I so agree. Half a pie is better than none; Bernie supporters who refuse to accept Hillary at all are apparently willing to allow their pique to turn the country over to the madness that is the Republican Party. Certainly reproductive freedom is but one most compelling reason to go with whomever the Dems nominate. Refusing to play at all when you don't get your way is childish and counterproductive. Bernie Sanders has moved Hillary to the left and his supporters have very significant numbers whose viewpoints will HAVE to be considered by Dems going forward. Bernie's people can, and should seek to, influence the outcome of elections in their municipalities and states everywhere they live, just as the Reps have been doing for decades. Either his message will be kept alive and be spread going forward, or it will die if and when his supporters take their ball and go home, and allow these odious Reps to rule the day.
And if another religious group objects to the provision of, say, podiatry, then none shall receive foot care? This is absurd and as noted so clearly, puts the government in the business of favoring the religious over the irreligious (OMG!)
103
We have yet to see if the 4 catholic men would extend the same priviledges to other religions.
Blood donation and transfusion are not practiced by those of the Seventh Day Adventist religion. Imagine.
I really don’t understand why the government, in any way, shape or form, has any type of “religious” law existing? Precisely what is the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” supposed to do, make me become a believer? If I choose to be Atheist, then who has any more right to dictate my beliefs than I do theirs? I, for one, am beyond sick of “Christianity” and all of its rules and regulations based on the words of man.
121
The plaintiffs in the present case claim damages they won't experience until after death. This case has no business before any court. It is 100% frivolous.
2
Having Perpetrated the multiple Crusades, Inquisition's, ten thousand Pogroms and the Holocaust, Christians have somehow morphed into so-called right to lifers?
96
Yes - the only group left to pursue and haunt are women. Those bad, bad people who do not want to breed for 20+ years of their lives. And only women can stop them. Too bad they can't find a way to unite.
2
Like Major Renaud, the Little Sisters are shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover contraception is going on. All that remains is for we citizens to present them with their winnings, that is their tax deductible donations.
More seriously these sisters object to being made "complicit" in (by their lights) immoral behavior by acknowledging its existence. Doubtless in previous centuries they would have demanded relief from recognizing gravity, heliocentric model, or any other personally uncomfortable truth. But of course they still demand the "right" of being nurtured by our tax system and our whole education and employment system.
The relief we should grant these sisters is to seal them in an impenetrable enclave at a medieval technolo level. This is the only way to prevent reality from offending their holy sensibilities.
More seriously these sisters object to being made "complicit" in (by their lights) immoral behavior by acknowledging its existence. Doubtless in previous centuries they would have demanded relief from recognizing gravity, heliocentric model, or any other personally uncomfortable truth. But of course they still demand the "right" of being nurtured by our tax system and our whole education and employment system.
The relief we should grant these sisters is to seal them in an impenetrable enclave at a medieval technolo level. This is the only way to prevent reality from offending their holy sensibilities.
80
Aww, butt hurt much? These people are not for-profit entities. They give their lives for the good of others. Unlike yourself, who sits smugly sniping.
Atheists are a bore. And often rich, and often don't require a God to thank or ask favor of. Too busy golfing. The poor, however, have a great use for God. Deprive them.
Atheists are a bore. And often rich, and often don't require a God to thank or ask favor of. Too busy golfing. The poor, however, have a great use for God. Deprive them.
The Catholics on the court should recuse themselves.
88
"the law amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. “This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion,” he wrote then, “is forbidden by the First Amendment.”"
We give tax exemptions to churches that are a limited establishment of those churches the IRS deems to be "real" churches. Would that conservative Justice take away that tax exemption?
That means we are already on the road to some limited establishment of churches. That alone is not a deal-breaker, not an effective argument setting up a brick wall.
We must look further here into a balance of rights. It is the rights of the Little Sisters to live their religion, vs the rights of others to be free of the religious beliefs of the Little Sisters in their own lives.
The burden here on the Little Sisters is a form they send in with their other paperwork, that just says "no."
The burden on the others is loss of some important medical care.
In that balance, the Little Sisters ought to lose. That is the proper way to view this case.
We give tax exemptions to churches that are a limited establishment of those churches the IRS deems to be "real" churches. Would that conservative Justice take away that tax exemption?
That means we are already on the road to some limited establishment of churches. That alone is not a deal-breaker, not an effective argument setting up a brick wall.
We must look further here into a balance of rights. It is the rights of the Little Sisters to live their religion, vs the rights of others to be free of the religious beliefs of the Little Sisters in their own lives.
The burden here on the Little Sisters is a form they send in with their other paperwork, that just says "no."
The burden on the others is loss of some important medical care.
In that balance, the Little Sisters ought to lose. That is the proper way to view this case.
169
How is the argument advocating religious exemption not a request to evade the First Amendment establishment clause? Are employers super citizens whose rights trump the rights of employees? Do employers have the right to evade taxes as a result of objections to capital punishment, defense spending, or immigration policy?
Should organizations which actively campaign for political causes be tax exempt? Are the grounds for the suit not an exclusion from tax exemption?
Should organizations which actively campaign for political causes be tax exempt? Are the grounds for the suit not an exclusion from tax exemption?
46
Liberals and leftists will interpret legislation, the constitution or anything else in the light that best supports their ideology, too. "The right" is no different in this respect than they are. This is simply part of the American way, where people and political parties and groups are free to advance their own agendas in the political and legal areas. They BOTH do it. This is the way it's SUPPOSED to be!
6
That is not the issue. The issue is and has been for quite some time, that many religions are trying to void secular laws and impose religious laws on our civil society. This has nothing to do with what my opinion is or your is. It has to do with the fact that religion has no place in secular law. Nobody is forcing anybody to do something that is against their religion. To the contrary, religious people are trying to impose their beliefs on people who are not religious.
2
False equivalency! How is the government to know they don't want to provide the coverage if they don't tell them. This is stupidity.
1
Laird you are right. Liberals interpret in light of what best supports their agenda, as do the Right. BUT, the agendas are vastly and substantively different. Getting more people to vote, is one'a agenda. Preventing them from voting is another's. Getting adequate medical care to the needy is one's agenda. Letting them "sink or swim" is another's. Allowing women control of their bodies is one agenda. Taking control of another person's body is the other's. I could go on and on but I hope you get the point. The Equivalency you cite is False. It is not the American way. The right has invented rights whose sole purpose is to deny rights to others. (I personally would be happy not to have to worry about someone's gun going off, even if accidentally, at the RNC, but the NRA seems willing to ignore my right to my own "happiness".)
4
This, and many other cases, rests on the interpretation of very subjective terms. What is a “substantial burden”? Usually it comes down to what a “reasonable” person would consider it to be. But this is circular reasoning because the justices each consider themselves to be reasonable people. I think that most “reasonable” people would consider that writing down the truth in order to accomplish their ends is not a “substantial burden”. I think that “reasonable” people would consider forcing women to drive long distances and/or wait for more than a day to obtain a legal medical procedure to be a “substantial burden”. I think that “reasonable” people would think that offending the religious sensibilities of an organization’s leadership is far less a “substantial burden” than depriving thousands of employees their legal health options. Is a religious person more reasonable than a secular person? Is Roberts more reasonable than Sotomayor? Should the SC insist on a nationwide referendum based on the assumption that more “reasonable” people will actually vote than unreasonable people? Any “reasonable” person has to conclude that RFRA is a terrible law.
70
If the Supreme Court were to hold that the RFRA is interpreted in the manner the most conservative justices suggest, will Quakers and other pacifist religious groups finally be able to stop paying taxes for the military? There could be a very big slippery slope out there. If nothing else, there would be a lot more litigation to discover the limits of the statute.
92
So far they are only extending these exclusive rights to catholics.
1
Yes, but it is even worse than that. It would allow the Lester Maddox's of the world, to get out their pick-axe handles and smack evil-doers, for even existing.
Are we going down a road that leads to some kind of home-grown sharia law?
105
Yes, both the Christian equivalent of sharia and the actual Muslim sharia law, at least as it applies to Muslims or those who might work for conservative Muslim employers. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't apply only to Christians. A Muslim employer who believes any law or regulation violates the principles of conservative Islam could seek legal protection to, for instance, require non-Muslim female employees to wear the hijab to work, lest they offend their boss's modesty.
2
So if these social luddites are required to declare that they think contraceptives are a "sin", that statement alone is a sin?
That makes no sense.
That makes no sense.
48
Once again Linda Greenhouse shows herself to be the most intelligent and clearest writer in the Times stable. The is a magnificent piece of reporting on a highly arcane legal matter that brings the minutiae both into view and illuminates their significance in the lives of real Americans. This is wonderful stuff to read. We are honored to have her in our presence.
245
Linda Greenhouse for the next Supreme Court vacancy. KA
4
There is clearly no burden here. That is it.
73
I wonder if these 'religious-based' organizations cover (forced or otherwise) Viagra or any other male E.D. medications in their existing health plans? Seems to me that it would only be fair to exclude them as well in this debate.
98
And equally fair to exclude coverage for men's vasectomies and women's tubal ligation surgeries.
Actually all male contraceptive coverage is already prohibited by the ACA, including vasectomies. What is funny is that in this battle for women's rights, nobody mentions that they already have better coverage than men.
Why? Using Viagra within a marriage is not contrary to church teachings.
1
When contrasting the oral arguments in this case with those involving the Texas abortion laws, it becomes depressingly clear just how wide the gulf is between the conservative bloc's standard for "substantial burden" upon a religiously affiliated employer versus the standard for "substantial burden" upon a woman seeking a legal medical procedure. Apparently, requesting an organization to sign a piece of paper to relinquish responsibility for a medication taken for numerous other reasons unrelated to contraception qualifies as a terribly egregious burden.
Whereas a poor woman for whom traveling 300 miles, finding accommodation, obtaining child care if needed, being subjected to far more invasive medical procedures than considered best practices for abortion, paying not just for a procedure but also numerous unnecessary related costs, and potentially landing in a subsequent worsening disaster cycle of poverty - well, that appears to be considered hardly a burden at all, judging by the arguments heard in court.
Whereas a poor woman for whom traveling 300 miles, finding accommodation, obtaining child care if needed, being subjected to far more invasive medical procedures than considered best practices for abortion, paying not just for a procedure but also numerous unnecessary related costs, and potentially landing in a subsequent worsening disaster cycle of poverty - well, that appears to be considered hardly a burden at all, judging by the arguments heard in court.
127
What the is REALLY happening is that the religious organizations are Hijacking their employees and the Gov't is trying to free them from the trap of their captors.
47
Whose policy is being "hijacked?" Economists, and particularly conservative economists, argue that health insurance is just another form of salary (compensation) being paid for work performed. They argue that employee wages are lower than they would be if employees took all their salary in cash, and that employees might be better off if they took the cash and used the money as they saw fit.
Ah yes, as the employee saw fit, since of course an employees salary is not considered to belong to the employer and the employer has no say in how it is spent. So why is it that employers have a say in that portion of salary used to buy health insurance? Doesn't that policy really belong to the employee, compensation given in lieu of cash? (And especially since the employer doesn't usually pay the entire premium either.) The employee can decide whether to buy contraceptives with THEIR policy.
Ah yes, as the employee saw fit, since of course an employees salary is not considered to belong to the employer and the employer has no say in how it is spent. So why is it that employers have a say in that portion of salary used to buy health insurance? Doesn't that policy really belong to the employee, compensation given in lieu of cash? (And especially since the employer doesn't usually pay the entire premium either.) The employee can decide whether to buy contraceptives with THEIR policy.
58
Great argument. That would be fun to argue!
1
great way to look at it. And the reason e need to remove health insurance from employment and have national healthcare, like other civilized countries.
1
This argument and the burden on American companies for providing insurance AT ALL making them less competitive internationally are the best reasons why we should have long ago separated employment from medical insurance coverage, most likely through a public option.
An Indian American and a Hindu, I find the subject and the case patently ridiculous and am amazed by the Supreme Court wasting its time on discussing it with a view to give a ruling. India, a country of 1.25 billion people, comprising 1 billion Hindus (about 86%) thinks of the subject as non-issue. Contraception and birth control is an accepted way of life in the entire society that has 11% Muslims, 2% christian and remaining 2% other faiths/sects and religions. China too has accepted birth control forced or voluntary and thus over 40% population of the world is busy improving life for its citizens, investing in literacy for increasing jobs.
11
I remember the times when conservative thinkers complained about judicial activism without defining the term. Conservatives knew what they were talking about: expanding such ideas as privacy and the Establishment Clause. As Sandra Day O'Connor has defined the term, judicial activism is what you call decisions you don't like. Didn't Chief Justice Roberts testify that he was just an umpire, calling strikes and balls according to the rules? The Supreme Court has become a transparently partisan vehicle and can no longer be trusted by a vigilant citizenry to honor Constitutional restraints on their advocacy for deeply held personal preferences. I don't look forward to Donald Trump's judicial nominations, do you?
19
just to complicate matters, what about women who are prescribed oral contraceptives, not to prevent pregnancy, but to regulate irregular or heavy menstruation? Are they no longer entitled to this treatment? I'm a Catholic, but I'm deeply troubled that the Court is even entertaining this malarkey. If secular employer limits female employees access to standard health care based on their personal religious beliefs, they should lose any designation as an equal opportunity employer, as this policy clearly targets only women. Someone needs to bring that suit.
34
Do organizations owned by Christian Scientists have the right to deny medical insurance to their employees? For that matter, would someone who believes that blood transfusions are morally wrong be allowed to withhold that treatment from someone else?
Can a company force employees to sign a "no contraception pledge" before they are hired? Didn't the Catholic Church just admit that they put nuns in the Belgian Congo on birth control because of they were subject to being raped at alarming levels?
I believe the court has already decided that medical decisions are private and to be made between an individual and their doctor.
If you truly want to "save" the Little Sisters from having to shoulder such burdens, we could institute single payer health care. You take the employers out of the equation and let each person take charge of their own life. Somehow I don't think that the opponents of "Obama-care" see that as their "Salvation."
Can a company force employees to sign a "no contraception pledge" before they are hired? Didn't the Catholic Church just admit that they put nuns in the Belgian Congo on birth control because of they were subject to being raped at alarming levels?
I believe the court has already decided that medical decisions are private and to be made between an individual and their doctor.
If you truly want to "save" the Little Sisters from having to shoulder such burdens, we could institute single payer health care. You take the employers out of the equation and let each person take charge of their own life. Somehow I don't think that the opponents of "Obama-care" see that as their "Salvation."
92
Not that the left would ever do such a thing.... Nooo. They are much too morally superior for that!
3
Citation of example of "the left" infringing a restriction based on their beliefs please. You can't because there are not any.
2
I am stunned this is even a conversation being held at the Supreme Court level. My religious beliefs are mine alone and I am not interested in what your religious beliefs are, nor am I interested in having a law enacted that would limit my medical care because YOUR religious beliefs don't align with mine. How on earth can these laws be based in religion , or more specifically geared toward limiting women's rights ? Not your body, not your decision and if you do not believe in birth control , abortion, or the like do not participate in the practice or procedure and if your employer provides insurance that covers these medical options and you don't like it , you go find a new insurance plan .. Unbelievable, what year is this ?? How more women are not outraged by this debate and the dangers it implies is beyond me . I am not interested in the religion anyone else practices or does not practice and nor should my employer..
83
Companies and/or corporations do not have 1st amendment constitutional rights.
In fact the Constitution provides for the regulation of commerce.
When you start a discussion based on a false premise, its all nonsense from there out.
fwa
In fact the Constitution provides for the regulation of commerce.
When you start a discussion based on a false premise, its all nonsense from there out.
fwa
9
If religious organizations want to have a dog in this or any other fight, they should start paying taxes like the rest of us. Its criminal that they have tax exempt status, then wish to have such power over public policy.
47
Perhaps it is time for the little sisters to grow up.
27
The questions that this article states Justice Kennedy posed are outrageous. He sounds more like a judge taken out from the Inquisition, rather than from the SCOTUS!
Of course all people in the world have an ideology, and often a religion, that will be reflected in all decisions they make. But Kennedy should not forget that his job as justice in the SCOTUS is, first and foremost, the common good of all people in the US, regardless of religion, not the preservation of his personal beliefs.
Of course all people in the world have an ideology, and often a religion, that will be reflected in all decisions they make. But Kennedy should not forget that his job as justice in the SCOTUS is, first and foremost, the common good of all people in the US, regardless of religion, not the preservation of his personal beliefs.
16
So Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor have the right to impose their managements' religious beliefs on their employees by interfering with employee insurance coverage while claiming to be an "equal opportunity employer"? The employees have no religious rights in this situation? The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Employers are stopping employees' free exercise rights when the employer-employee relationship has nothing to do with religion.
36
Wait. Making a statement that you object to contraception is a violation of your anti-contraception beliefs? This is truly Orwellian.
18
Has there been any discussion during arguments as to why religious beliefs of employers deserve more protection than religious beliefs of employees? This seems to be related to the free-market absolutist position that "job creating" entrepreneurs should pay lower taxes than ordinary workers.
18
These institutions want to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. That's as clear a violation of the First Amendment as you can find.
24
The religious objection to abortion and contraception is that these constitute murder.
The police and the courts execute, the armed forces kill, under the auspices of our laws and government. The businesses of the supposed religious, the salaries of the religious, are taxed to pay for these services.
Does anyone remember hearing the religious plaintiffs to the current court case complaining or protesting about the police, the courts, the armed forces, as imposing on their religious freedom?
The police and the courts execute, the armed forces kill, under the auspices of our laws and government. The businesses of the supposed religious, the salaries of the religious, are taxed to pay for these services.
Does anyone remember hearing the religious plaintiffs to the current court case complaining or protesting about the police, the courts, the armed forces, as imposing on their religious freedom?
9
Another splendid analysis from Linda Greenhouse.
Gosh. I can't wait for Judge Garland to be confirmed or the next President (Hillary or Berrnie) to set this right. The Republicans incessant drive to impose 5th century morality on all of us must end.
Gosh. I can't wait for Judge Garland to be confirmed or the next President (Hillary or Berrnie) to set this right. The Republicans incessant drive to impose 5th century morality on all of us must end.
17
Why aren't men speaking up for their sex partners? The use of contraceptives to prevent procreation is certainly an advantage to many men. Why are vasectomies covered? When contraceptive pills for men become available, will they be covered by their health insurance? Or is this a case of forcing women to go to their employer and "confess" to need of contraceptives? In what similar situation do men have to do this? It reminds me of when my husband had to sign my university report cards because I was under 21. That was 1956, this is 2016, for goodness sake!
20
The men who wrote the constitution had Samuel Johnson's Dictionary which clearly defined militia as the professional military and arms as weapons of war.
Clearly the right wing is firm in its determination to bring about Orwell's dystopia.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act seems right out of 1984.
Clearly the right wing is firm in its determination to bring about Orwell's dystopia.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act seems right out of 1984.
9
It is out of 1984. But you have to blame the democrats in congress for passing this monstrosity. Too often in recent times, the dems vote for "feel good bipartisan comity," instead of taking brave and necessary stands on laws that have no place in our country. They voted for the Iraq war in lockstep with the GOP rather than ask the tough questions of Bush and his team because they were afraid of appearing "unpatriotic." Different issues I know, but the same motivations: a lack of moral courage.
various aspects of health care and its peovision are incompatible with the sincere religious beliefs of various groups and individuals. some are offended by blood transfusions, some by receiving care on their sabbath. assuming they, too, would be complicit if forced to notify that they don't want to provide coverage that includes those aspects, it means that none of those services can be included in any plan? so the only acceptable plan is one that includes only those kinds of care to which no one objects? huh?
8
suppose that as a technical matter, people got vouchers rather than "coverage". and suppose there were two kinds of voucher, blue which can be used for contraception, and red which cannot. the plaintiffs would object that by forcing i.e. allowing) them to give the red ones to their employees, you'd be violating their religioys freedom by forcing them to implicitly notify (the system as well as the employee) that they don't cover contraception? huh?
6
The government has no business whatsoever giving respect to the public rituals demanded by these worshipers of themselves who bawl that public policy will ruin their afterlives.
14
When judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito go astray and decide they are more interested in being politicians, they cross an ancient ethical line. The result is bad politics and bad law.
In their political fervor and desire to remain darlings of the extreme right, Roberts and Alito have reached a point where they are fine with twisting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act beyond recognition. They are too well-trained in the law not to know that doing so creates an obvious First Amendment problem. They are too political to care.
In their political fervor and desire to remain darlings of the extreme right, Roberts and Alito have reached a point where they are fine with twisting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act beyond recognition. They are too well-trained in the law not to know that doing so creates an obvious First Amendment problem. They are too political to care.
17
For the good of the country, another one of them needs to die!
A very complicated case in terms of morality and the Constitution
Your exercise of your religious beliefs or moral beliefs really do not mean
anything if the Government is the one who has the final power to judge
whether you can exercise them and even if so, to what degree.
Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses and other Pacifists had to assert their right
not to wage War even thought the vast majority thought they should be
drafted and sent off to kill.
Some of those young men refused to co-operate with the Draft Board
in anyway - would not fill in the selective service forms, would not answer
any letters from the draft board etc.
If you think Abortion is murder, why in the world would you co-operate in
anyway with the Government that allows abortions and now, with the
new laxity concerning abortion pills, with anyone procuring such pills on
a medical plan you are forced to support by the Government.
I will not sell you a rope to hang someone, I will not sell you the drugs to
induce death in someone, I will not provide any aid at all to anything that
may lead to the death of a baby in the womb.
Is that so hard to understand ?
If the Little Sisters lose, I hope to God that they refuse to follow the
Court's Order. Let them be arrested and please show them in
the Perp Walk in full habits - chained to each other - as they go before
the Federal Judge to face contempt citations.
i
Your exercise of your religious beliefs or moral beliefs really do not mean
anything if the Government is the one who has the final power to judge
whether you can exercise them and even if so, to what degree.
Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses and other Pacifists had to assert their right
not to wage War even thought the vast majority thought they should be
drafted and sent off to kill.
Some of those young men refused to co-operate with the Draft Board
in anyway - would not fill in the selective service forms, would not answer
any letters from the draft board etc.
If you think Abortion is murder, why in the world would you co-operate in
anyway with the Government that allows abortions and now, with the
new laxity concerning abortion pills, with anyone procuring such pills on
a medical plan you are forced to support by the Government.
I will not sell you a rope to hang someone, I will not sell you the drugs to
induce death in someone, I will not provide any aid at all to anything that
may lead to the death of a baby in the womb.
Is that so hard to understand ?
If the Little Sisters lose, I hope to God that they refuse to follow the
Court's Order. Let them be arrested and please show them in
the Perp Walk in full habits - chained to each other - as they go before
the Federal Judge to face contempt citations.
i
2
Good grief, the religious employers are being asked to fill out a simple form to relieve them of the generally applicable obligation of employers to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees, and that's all. It's filling out a form!!
3
This has nothing to do with engaging in a moral wrong. It is merely the control of woman whom the catholics have always deemed second class citizens. The Supreme Court has always gleefully supported this unconstitutional standard as if there is a giant grandfather clause for catholics to subject woman to unequal protection of the law based upon ancient superstitions parading religious beliefs. You only underscore this reality by pointing out that the Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses and other Pacifists (yeah, like who? Only religious nuts get these extra rights because they claim god is on their side - the biggest lie of them all but I digress) refused to co-operate with the draft. The difference - only men get drafted. They were deemed capable of making up their own minds, participating or not. They did not attempt to have the government prevent the draft board from notifying men of their duty to serve in the military because quite naturally, men are capable of exercising religious discretion but woman, oh those harlots, woman are not. And that was a worse situation because abortion is simply a red herring political football but these "religious" men want to live and exercise their religions, even impose it on other and for this right, the rest of the men should go out and risk their lives for these reprobates of superstition. Everyone of the Catholics on the Supreme Court should be lined up and shot as traitors.
3
"I will not provide any aid at all to anything that
may lead to the death of a baby in the womb."
Then you pretty much have to opt out of modern society with its environmental hazards, human-induced climate change, environmental pollution, industrialized food supply, etc.
Of course, pre-industrial societies had an even worse track record of producing healthy babies.
You've put yourself in quite a box there.
may lead to the death of a baby in the womb."
Then you pretty much have to opt out of modern society with its environmental hazards, human-induced climate change, environmental pollution, industrialized food supply, etc.
Of course, pre-industrial societies had an even worse track record of producing healthy babies.
You've put yourself in quite a box there.
2
- I think the govt should question the sincerity of the belief that informing = participation. Conscientious objectors must state their religious conviction. There's a long tradition in western civilization of religious figures stating their beliefs to support an extra-legal position. None has ever claimed this made them culpable in the act they are refusing to perform!
- If informing is not required, then the provision becomes totally moot and obsolete, because any company can opt-out for any reason - since no reason is required.
- If informing is not required, then the provision becomes totally moot and obsolete, because any company can opt-out for any reason - since no reason is required.
6
Linda Greenhouse, you are one of the jewels of the nytimes. Your pieces on the SCOTUS are consistently outstanding. Many thanks!
Ohhh.... My religion thinks it's a sin for old men - SCOTUS judges and one republican presidential candidate in particular - to use pharmaceuticals to enable an erection. How exactly do I insure that medicare and other government healthcare not pay for their Viagra?
Ohhh.... My religion thinks it's a sin for old men - SCOTUS judges and one republican presidential candidate in particular - to use pharmaceuticals to enable an erection. How exactly do I insure that medicare and other government healthcare not pay for their Viagra?
23
"Once the organization notifies the government of its religious objection to covering birth control, the coverage obligation passes to the organization’s insurance company."
This is the crux of the government's case, and it is utter nonsense. First, the government is requiring the institutions that morally object to birth control to participate in a process the ultimate goal of which is to provide birth control, by requiring them to fill out a form, the purpose of which is to designate the means by which birth control will be provided. Second, the government's argument assumes that the insurance companies will just take a loss on birth control provided. Insurance companies cannot stay in business by providing free services. Someone must pay for the birth control, and insurance companies always pass their costs onto their customers (unless they want to go bankrupt.) The birth control will be effectively paid for by the customers, and the objecting organization remains part of the customer base. Finally, providing birth control has nothing to do with insurance. Insurance, by definition, is for extraordinary expenses that most people cannot afford, so we disperse the expense among all of us. Most people can afford to buy their own birth control. If the government wants to provide the less fortunate with free birth control for policy reasons, then it should just do so, without involving insurance companies and their clients.
This is the crux of the government's case, and it is utter nonsense. First, the government is requiring the institutions that morally object to birth control to participate in a process the ultimate goal of which is to provide birth control, by requiring them to fill out a form, the purpose of which is to designate the means by which birth control will be provided. Second, the government's argument assumes that the insurance companies will just take a loss on birth control provided. Insurance companies cannot stay in business by providing free services. Someone must pay for the birth control, and insurance companies always pass their costs onto their customers (unless they want to go bankrupt.) The birth control will be effectively paid for by the customers, and the objecting organization remains part of the customer base. Finally, providing birth control has nothing to do with insurance. Insurance, by definition, is for extraordinary expenses that most people cannot afford, so we disperse the expense among all of us. Most people can afford to buy their own birth control. If the government wants to provide the less fortunate with free birth control for policy reasons, then it should just do so, without involving insurance companies and their clients.
2
Uhhh . . . the cost of the contraceptive coverage would most likely be paid by you and me, and anyone else who pays taxes, including those who have a religious objection to contraception, so where does it end? Why should taxpayers of other faiths, no faith, or those of the christian faith who do not follow their religion's teachings on contraception (of which there are millions) have to pay their money to insure the employees of the religious businesses who say they object to being "complicit" in provision of the coverage? As an atheist, I strongly object to a single penny of my taxes going to benefit any religious institution. And I have a question for you: What if a wiccan, satanist, or (god forbid) a MUSLIM (woooooooo scary scary!) were to object to a practice christians accept? Would you fight for their right to "religious freedom" too? Just as an aside here, I mention that birth control is not as inexpensive as you might think. Depending on the prescription, it can be quite costly. Example: my daughter has recently been paying $65/month for her prescription. For those living near or below the poverty line, that cost is prohibitive.
4
So, what you are saying is that if I can afford to buy medication that controls my blood pressure or my cholesterol I should pay for it and not take advantage of any coverage offered by the health insurance I'm paying for? Why on earth would I do that?
Secondly, insurance companies are about managing risk, which means managing cost. Birth control, like most preventative medications, saves money for the insurance companies because they do not have to pay for the higher costs of abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, and any medical complications that can arise during those conditions. Even an employer who refuses to allow their healthcare plans to provide contraception benefits from those savings.
I wonder if the Little Sisters of The Poor ever contemplated that sin?
Secondly, insurance companies are about managing risk, which means managing cost. Birth control, like most preventative medications, saves money for the insurance companies because they do not have to pay for the higher costs of abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, and any medical complications that can arise during those conditions. Even an employer who refuses to allow their healthcare plans to provide contraception benefits from those savings.
I wonder if the Little Sisters of The Poor ever contemplated that sin?
So many issues in this post, where to start....
"Second, the government's argument assumes that the insurance companies will just take a loss on birth control provided. . . .The birth control will be effectively paid for by the customers...."
1.) Covering birth control is substantially more cost effective than covering birth, prenatal care, and early childhood care. Thus, ensuring that all covered employees have access to contraceptives results in a net savings.
2.) Employees *do* pay for their coverage. Premiums, yes? I expect that the coverage *I pay for* to ensure my medical needs are met *actually covers my medical needs.*
" Most people can afford to buy their own birth control"
Citation, needed. Did you ever stop to consider that it's made affordable by being covered by insurance? When have you, a man, ever purchased BC?
This whining that stating an objection makes you "complicit in a process" results in an outcome where religious exemptions are unworkable. Consider: an employee does not wish to work serve pork at the meat counter. However, he does not want to tell his employer he objects, because then the employer will ask an atheist to serve pork. So he demands that no pork is sold at all. Reasonable? Didn't think so.
The court can't question the sincerity of a religious belief (BC is wrong). But it can question whether a belief is substantially burdened (filling out a form). If stating an objection is a burden, then no opt-out exemptions are workable.
"Second, the government's argument assumes that the insurance companies will just take a loss on birth control provided. . . .The birth control will be effectively paid for by the customers...."
1.) Covering birth control is substantially more cost effective than covering birth, prenatal care, and early childhood care. Thus, ensuring that all covered employees have access to contraceptives results in a net savings.
2.) Employees *do* pay for their coverage. Premiums, yes? I expect that the coverage *I pay for* to ensure my medical needs are met *actually covers my medical needs.*
" Most people can afford to buy their own birth control"
Citation, needed. Did you ever stop to consider that it's made affordable by being covered by insurance? When have you, a man, ever purchased BC?
This whining that stating an objection makes you "complicit in a process" results in an outcome where religious exemptions are unworkable. Consider: an employee does not wish to work serve pork at the meat counter. However, he does not want to tell his employer he objects, because then the employer will ask an atheist to serve pork. So he demands that no pork is sold at all. Reasonable? Didn't think so.
The court can't question the sincerity of a religious belief (BC is wrong). But it can question whether a belief is substantially burdened (filling out a form). If stating an objection is a burden, then no opt-out exemptions are workable.
2
Obtrusive old white men posing as Justices and making it up as they go along in order to foist their values upon powerless young women of reproductive age.
21
The plaintiffs are attempting to burden their employees with the plaintiffs' religious beliefs.
How is that a protection of religious freedom? That is nothing but an imposition of religious non-freedom on the employees.
While they're deliberating the Justices should elect to re-name it the Religious Freedom Destruction Act.
The only real religious freedom protected by the Constitution is that no one is forced to engage in an activity that might violate their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs are certainly free to not engage in business, period. Business is governed by civil law. Governing business by religious law is one giant step toward Governing the State by religious law, and undermining the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
How is that a protection of religious freedom? That is nothing but an imposition of religious non-freedom on the employees.
While they're deliberating the Justices should elect to re-name it the Religious Freedom Destruction Act.
The only real religious freedom protected by the Constitution is that no one is forced to engage in an activity that might violate their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs are certainly free to not engage in business, period. Business is governed by civil law. Governing business by religious law is one giant step toward Governing the State by religious law, and undermining the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
19
The RFRA is about freedom of religion not religious entitlement. The 5 Conservative Justices's interpretation of religious freedom in Hobby Lobby, perverted the meaning of the Free Exercise clause to include religious discrimination.
17
This. Not only should the disgraceful Hobby Lobby decision be overturned, the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be repealed and declared unconstitutional
Highways, roads, bridges, tunnels and airports were built using the tax dollars of people who have had abortions, or practiced contraception.
This infrastructure was built with the labor of people who have had abortions, or practiced contraception.
I would advise people who believe abortion and contraception are mortal sins to not use highways, roads, bridges, tunnels and airports, as doing so is clearly a risk to their immortal souls.
This infrastructure was built with the labor of people who have had abortions, or practiced contraception.
I would advise people who believe abortion and contraception are mortal sins to not use highways, roads, bridges, tunnels and airports, as doing so is clearly a risk to their immortal souls.
31
I am disgusted at the continued reversal of secular laws in my country not just to accommodate religion, but to establish its tenets as my laws. In a secular democracy, the law of the land comes before your religious laws, no matter what they are. If you cannot or will not stay in business legally, you do not get an exemption - you get out of the business, just like any other business operation. And while we are at it, why are religious groups tax-exempt? It is about time taxpayers stop supporting religion and get those organizations to pay their own way.
40
Linda, thank you for bringing focus to this case. Seems that not even your newspaper understands what this case is about as seen a recent headline: Justices Seem to Seek Compromise in Birth Control Case. No, this case is not about birth control, this is about religious freedom. (Don't worry New York Times, just about every other newspaper got the headline wrong.)
What was most galling in the hearing was Justice Roberts' comment that the Little Sisters were objecting to providing the coverage themselves because, as he said, "They think that complicity is sinful." Wow, and just how did you get through law school with such specious arguments, Justice Roberts?
I could turn that argument around and say exactly the same thing from a different religious perspective. That is, I could argue that I as a Christian we should provide contraceptives to everyone since to not do so is against the principle that we help all, even the poor who cannot afford contraceptives. In other words, Justice Roberts, it would be a sin to ignore the poor. Ahh, but that depends on the definition of sin, doesn't it? And therein lies the rub. By who's definition of sin are we going by?
The justices, as you point out, are stepping into a constitutional quagmire in this case and should do everything possible to avoid it. My larger concern is that we have justices such as Roberts who profess to be "strict constructionists" but are nothing of the sort.
What was most galling in the hearing was Justice Roberts' comment that the Little Sisters were objecting to providing the coverage themselves because, as he said, "They think that complicity is sinful." Wow, and just how did you get through law school with such specious arguments, Justice Roberts?
I could turn that argument around and say exactly the same thing from a different religious perspective. That is, I could argue that I as a Christian we should provide contraceptives to everyone since to not do so is against the principle that we help all, even the poor who cannot afford contraceptives. In other words, Justice Roberts, it would be a sin to ignore the poor. Ahh, but that depends on the definition of sin, doesn't it? And therein lies the rub. By who's definition of sin are we going by?
The justices, as you point out, are stepping into a constitutional quagmire in this case and should do everything possible to avoid it. My larger concern is that we have justices such as Roberts who profess to be "strict constructionists" but are nothing of the sort.
13
I have always been interested in the parallel case of a company owned by a religious pacifist. Can this pacifist claim exemption from paying taxes to support previous and past military expenditures in the federal budget? Further, can this company declare itself religious and refuse to withhold that percent of withholding tax of its employees that goes toward the military budget? Why should Christians who are concerned about abortion and contraception receive special, solicitous treatment from the government, whereas Christians who are concerned about peace be told "tough luck, bud." What happened to equal protection under the law?
13
My question is why should sincerely held religious beliefs be entitled to any more governmental deference than sincerely held secular beliefs? Why is religion preferred over irreligion?
3
Stuff and nonsense.
I'm not so much referring to Greenhouse's analysis, but rather that this is what legal discourse has degenerated to here in America. Greenhouse's piece highlights two of the most intractable problems in America today:
1) An overweening central government that knows no constrains on its ability to overreach. The ACA, poorly drafted and rammed through as a monstrosity of legislation, is the epitome of Washington's excesses and failure.
2) A hyper-partisan, Supreme Court (and Federal judiciary in general) that is more about opining than adjudicating. This is partly driven by point 1 above, but also by the fact that our three branches of government are no longer functioning in a coherent and cohesive manner. Justices are now selected for their views instead of their ability to judge. Thus, the absolutely ridiculous, and shameful, state of the Supreme Court today that all of these justices, except Kennedy, are so predictable that their votes never deviate from their partisan perspective.
And the most damning cause of all this - too many lawyers!
I'm not so much referring to Greenhouse's analysis, but rather that this is what legal discourse has degenerated to here in America. Greenhouse's piece highlights two of the most intractable problems in America today:
1) An overweening central government that knows no constrains on its ability to overreach. The ACA, poorly drafted and rammed through as a monstrosity of legislation, is the epitome of Washington's excesses and failure.
2) A hyper-partisan, Supreme Court (and Federal judiciary in general) that is more about opining than adjudicating. This is partly driven by point 1 above, but also by the fact that our three branches of government are no longer functioning in a coherent and cohesive manner. Justices are now selected for their views instead of their ability to judge. Thus, the absolutely ridiculous, and shameful, state of the Supreme Court today that all of these justices, except Kennedy, are so predictable that their votes never deviate from their partisan perspective.
And the most damning cause of all this - too many lawyers!
1
I agree with you to the extent you say that the ACA is unnecessarily complex. A single-payer health care system would be much simpler, less expensive, and more efficient.
2
That this is a case which turns not on the Constitution but on ideological concerns is self-evident.
Were it being considered purely on its constitutional merits, the resolution would be almost immediately clear. Indeed, I would have been surprised that the Court agreed to hear it.
But, as is the case far more often than to leave us comfortable, it is about the ideological issues being pushed by America's far right and evangelical community---some of which are more anti-Obama and anti-ACA than pro-religious freedom.
This Chief Justice and his conservative cohorts have allowed the highest court in the land to become a potential playground wherein conservatives stand a good chance of getting their unconstitutional but ideological pure policies passed. It is just another institution they have demeaned and from which they have drained what esteem it once held.
My bet? Kennedy goes with the four conservatives and the government establishes a preference for not only religion in general, but one particular religion.
Scary times.
Were it being considered purely on its constitutional merits, the resolution would be almost immediately clear. Indeed, I would have been surprised that the Court agreed to hear it.
But, as is the case far more often than to leave us comfortable, it is about the ideological issues being pushed by America's far right and evangelical community---some of which are more anti-Obama and anti-ACA than pro-religious freedom.
This Chief Justice and his conservative cohorts have allowed the highest court in the land to become a potential playground wherein conservatives stand a good chance of getting their unconstitutional but ideological pure policies passed. It is just another institution they have demeaned and from which they have drained what esteem it once held.
My bet? Kennedy goes with the four conservatives and the government establishes a preference for not only religion in general, but one particular religion.
Scary times.
10
It seems to me that the plaintiffs are trying not only to keep their hands clean of the stain of involvement with their employee's obtaining contraceptive coverage, but also doing their utmost to prevent their employees from obtaining such insurance. What do you think would happen if the plaintiffs got their way and were relieved of the onerous theological 'burden' of notifying the federal government that they were opting out, but the insurance company included on the explanation of the policy that all covered individuals must receive the declaration that, if the employee wished to obtain contraceptive coverage, they should call some phone number or visit some web site, and such coverage would be provided free of charge? I am morally certain that the plaintiffs would declare that distributing such information, or being complicit in the insurance company providing such information, would offend their religious sensibilities. As I proposed above, their real goal is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone to obtain contraceptive coverage.
12
It is astounding, but not atypical, to read so much anti-religious and specifically anti-Catholic vitriol in the NY Time's comments on these matters of freedom of religion and freedom of choice.
The amount of hate and prejudice directed at Catholics and their beliefs in comments on Greenhouse's piece would be vigorously condemned if it were another race or religion being so vilified. Sad and disheartening.
The amount of hate and prejudice directed at Catholics and their beliefs in comments on Greenhouse's piece would be vigorously condemned if it were another race or religion being so vilified. Sad and disheartening.
3
I really think people hate Catholics because Catholics more than any other religion constantly try to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. Its not prejudice, its self defense.
4
I agree that directing hate and prejudice at any group is wrong and it is especially meaningless when directed at a group as large and diverse as Catholics. However, reviewing some recent history can easily explain the hostility. The church has officially opposed almost every progressive movement in modern times. It has been especially hostile to LGBT liberation in every form and has taken every opportunity to oppose it, both openly and underhandedly behind closed doors. The church has opposed women's liberation in many ways, not only on the issue of abortion. The church has been revealed as an international criminal conspiracy in the matter of child abuse, with responsibility and culpability going all the way to the very top echelons. Even a "saint" such as Mother Theresa has been shown to have been very cozy with some of the most foul dictators on the planet as well as having denied gay patients in her AIDS hospices the right to the comfort of their partners. Certainly Catholic Charities does a huge amount of good work but that has not cleaned the tarnish from the church's image, especially the appalling tarnish of wide spread child abuse. Do you then wonder why there is a general tendency to view the church with distrust and disdain?
5
Just imagine how Muslims feel in today's world.
4
As you suggest, what is being hijacked is the US Constitution. I believe, and I may be wrong here, that a majority of US citizens would agree that women should have access to contraceptives. If so, it is not inconceivable, at least in theory, that we will one day implement a government-sponsored program that will directly provide access to contraceptives. (We should have already done so, in the context of universal health care, but that's another story). In that case, would these religious types opt to leave the country, because staying would represent complicity in the use of contraceptives, contrary to their strongly-held religious beliefs? I seriously doubt it. Rather, they would have those who do not share their beliefs either accept their doctrines or leave. Didn't such a situation give rise to the founding of this nation in the first place?
11
I would add that among the majority of US citizens (and resident non-citizens, for that matter) who agree that women should have access to contraceptives are millions of christians who realize that they either do not want or cannot afford a child or another child. Not all christians, indeed not all religious persons of any ilk, follow each and every one of the tenants of their chosen faith, teachings on birth control perhaps being the greatest deviation.
2
I'm missing something. Why should the RFRA passed earlier take precedent over the ACA which came later? A later law should supersede an earlier one. Clearly a later one can repeal an earlier law though not the constitution.
4
I am a little confused about the fuss here. Let me put it in my own words: there is an employer complaining the government is hijacking his insurance plans because he wants to interfere with his employees right to have access to contraception on religious grounds? The government is interfering with a employer interfering with said employees rights to reproductive choice? Or even shorter: we are debating when certain employers can interfere with the reproductive choices of their employees under the guise of religious freedom? My boss gets to decide how easy it is for me to use birth control and " am not directly employed by a church? And if the government requires said employer to notify the government when they are refusing to offer contraceptive coverage, it is a First Amendment infringement for said employer to notify the government they refuse to cover birth control. Really? My wife's boss gets to tell my wife if she can take the pill? Are we really debating freedom here or green lighting bosses run amok?
34
we are debating when certain employers can interfere with the reproductive choices of their employees under the guise of religious freedom?
========================
It's rather odd that the employers who are required by law to pay health insurance are then accused of "interfering" with it. And the other side is accusing the government of "hijacking" their plans. Sounds like spin doctors are working overtime to malign the positions taken by their opponents.
========================
It's rather odd that the employers who are required by law to pay health insurance are then accused of "interfering" with it. And the other side is accusing the government of "hijacking" their plans. Sounds like spin doctors are working overtime to malign the positions taken by their opponents.
1
No, but your employer does have a right to decide what it wants to offer you as compensation. And you have a right to reject that offer and find a better one.
2
jkw - actually this is an employer deciding what you can do with the compensation once you receive it. Does the employer have the right to tell you how to spend your salary? That's what's happening here, and what Hobby Lobby was about, too.
2
Are not the Little Sisters seeking to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees by denying them coverage? Is that not hijacking their employees' beliefs, along with their government-granted right to coverage?
27
By that logic, isn't my employer trying to impose their beliefs on me by not providing a subscription to the NY times?
2
That is no logic at all.
Contrary to Ms. Greenhouse's wishful thinking, the court's actions seem to indicate a concerted effort to gently toss the government's (ludicrous) opt-out requirement. In other words, one of the left-meaning justices appears open to persuasion. Makes sense: a 4-4 ruling would have no impact on the 8th circuit ruling which has already tossed it, except to have it back on the bench in the form of an 8th circuit appeal. Basically, the court is working to avoid that possibility, which a full toss would accomplish.
Now to the merits of the case. Fact is, the word "accommodation" that Ms. Greenhouse and the rest of her flock use, to paint opponents of the law as intolerant, is a joke. What they seek is not accommodation, but validation, worse, an endorsement of a free female contraceptive mecca that Obamacare has introduced in the guise of health care. Free, unlimited, lifetime of contraceptives to all ye tired, poor, female masses, brought to you by Obama and his unwitting tax payers! Just get your reluctant employer to sign the dotted line! If ever you balked at a promiscuous lifestyle, now is the time to ditch it! Sex-away, the protection's on Obama.
Quite frankly, this controversy has nothing at all to do with religion. It's blatant promotion of promiscuous lifestyles at taxpayer cost, by a government, that's quite frankly completely lost it. The good news is SCOTUS appears working on tossing. Let's hope they get there now rather than eventually (8th ckt appeal).
Now to the merits of the case. Fact is, the word "accommodation" that Ms. Greenhouse and the rest of her flock use, to paint opponents of the law as intolerant, is a joke. What they seek is not accommodation, but validation, worse, an endorsement of a free female contraceptive mecca that Obamacare has introduced in the guise of health care. Free, unlimited, lifetime of contraceptives to all ye tired, poor, female masses, brought to you by Obama and his unwitting tax payers! Just get your reluctant employer to sign the dotted line! If ever you balked at a promiscuous lifestyle, now is the time to ditch it! Sex-away, the protection's on Obama.
Quite frankly, this controversy has nothing at all to do with religion. It's blatant promotion of promiscuous lifestyles at taxpayer cost, by a government, that's quite frankly completely lost it. The good news is SCOTUS appears working on tossing. Let's hope they get there now rather than eventually (8th ckt appeal).
4
Since your appear to be opposed to promiscuous life styles, I assume you object to policies that cover vasectomies. Unlike contraceptives, which are sometimes prescribed for health reasons, there is only one reason to have that procedure performed.
5
Oh please. Not everyone who uses birth control is promiscuous. Some are even married!
2
@SouthJerseyGirl
Not really. I'm against incentivizing promiscuous lifestyles, which, effectively, is what free contraceptives for women is doing. Religious organizations have every right to refuse to play along. But it's not just them. All responsible tax payers should be horrified too. Why on earth should anyone be sponsoring someone else's swinging lifestyle? Let them pay for it themselves.
To your specific comment, male contraceptives are not covered by O-Care (and neither should they).
Not really. I'm against incentivizing promiscuous lifestyles, which, effectively, is what free contraceptives for women is doing. Religious organizations have every right to refuse to play along. But it's not just them. All responsible tax payers should be horrified too. Why on earth should anyone be sponsoring someone else's swinging lifestyle? Let them pay for it themselves.
To your specific comment, male contraceptives are not covered by O-Care (and neither should they).
1
It seems to me that the Sisters would want to encourage all non-believers to take birth control. After all, what possible purpose could the prohibition on birth control have other than to encourage more baby believers?
Is that too cynical? I'm sorry. I've read the bible and I didn't walk away thinking that birth control was a sin.
Is that too cynical? I'm sorry. I've read the bible and I didn't walk away thinking that birth control was a sin.
5
Yes, along with all of the othe methods used on children who get their religious instruction from "sisters." I attended one year of parochial school and came away with nightmares, fears that took me years to overcome, what with God being described as a kind of celestial Big Brother just waiting for you to make the smallest mistake and then punish you in the worst ways possible. Get your souls while they are young, defenseless and easily frightened into accepting everything you tell them. That is not religion. That is psychoterror. And those religious fundamentalists and their preachers know exactly how to mess with people's minds.
2
A funny thing happened on the way to using religious beliefs of religious employers to limit the access of their employees who do not share their religious beliefs from access to contraceptives on the basis of an interpretation of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal statute clearly in violation of the 1st amendment. The religious freedom to be "restored" was the destruction of the wall between Church and State.
It is clear that the religious right has been attempting to hijack the 1st amendment for years. Abortion, a constitutional right, would if the religious right had its way be unavailable, even to save the life of the mother; and if she was raped she would have to bare the rapist’s child and the rapist would have parental rights. What does this tell you about the right wing’s respect for women?
These people are angered by women having sex if they are poor or unmarried and their contempt for women who are 50% of Americans knows no bounds and they will say, do or argue anything to have their way. The RFRA is clearly unconstitutional and the full Court should strike it down when President Clinton or Sanders appoints a young liberal Justice to fill Scalia’s seat.
It is clear that the religious right has been attempting to hijack the 1st amendment for years. Abortion, a constitutional right, would if the religious right had its way be unavailable, even to save the life of the mother; and if she was raped she would have to bare the rapist’s child and the rapist would have parental rights. What does this tell you about the right wing’s respect for women?
These people are angered by women having sex if they are poor or unmarried and their contempt for women who are 50% of Americans knows no bounds and they will say, do or argue anything to have their way. The RFRA is clearly unconstitutional and the full Court should strike it down when President Clinton or Sanders appoints a young liberal Justice to fill Scalia’s seat.
9
The objections raised even to giving notice of the intention not to provide legally mandated birth control strike me as absurd, though I suppose that is the kind of irrationality you have to expect from religious extremists. What may bother me even more, however, is calling the justices that support this nonsense "conservatives". Isn't conservatism about having respect for traditions and institutions? The notion that my religious beliefs allow me to deny other people their rights is an idea that would have drawn hoots from the people who wrote the constitution. I wonder how our late, but not necessarily lamented, justice who was given to citing "original intent" would have justified supporting the plaintiffs. It would have been a marvel of twisted logic.
8
At the risk of causing offense, these ideas the religious right expresses and the way they want to run things their own way in all respects and force other citizens into accepting their views remind me of the Sharja system being extolled by Muslim extremists.
When I last checked, America is a DEMOCRACY, not a theocracy, so this tiny minority which, by means of their loudness, their misuse of the Bible and of religion as well as the terror committed against Planned Parenthood clinics or any people who do not share their views should step back, look at themselves critically (If they are even capable of doing so) and finally see whom they have come to resemble.
When I last checked, America is a DEMOCRACY, not a theocracy, so this tiny minority which, by means of their loudness, their misuse of the Bible and of religion as well as the terror committed against Planned Parenthood clinics or any people who do not share their views should step back, look at themselves critically (If they are even capable of doing so) and finally see whom they have come to resemble.
3
Your religious beliefs don't allow you to deny others rights. But declining to fund others "immoral" acts doesn't deprive them of any rights.
2
If there is a war and a draft and a man is called for military service, he can claim conscientious objector (CO) status based on his religious beliefs. He is required to appear before a draft board to explain and document those beliefs. If he is granted CO status, the government will, of course, call up another man in his place to fill the quota of service members they need.
Suppose a man has a religious objection to any form of military service and argues that he should be exempt not just from serving, but even from having to claim CO status, because he believes that the act of making the claim is the first link in a chain of events that leads to the government calling up another man to replace him, which makes him complicit in his replacement’s military service, to which he objects.
Since a man who justifiably claims CO status may not give “self-interest” as a justification, we must grant that his objection to military service extends beyond his own service, to any man’s service.
Would the government accept the argument that requiring a man to appear before a draft board and make a claim for CO status forces him to participate in another man’s military service, and it doesn’t matter if the man called up to replace him doesn’t have an objection to service?
Of course not, because then anyone who is drafted would be allowed to refuse to serve and could not be compelled by the government to make any explanation for their refusal.
Isn't this a fair analogy?
Suppose a man has a religious objection to any form of military service and argues that he should be exempt not just from serving, but even from having to claim CO status, because he believes that the act of making the claim is the first link in a chain of events that leads to the government calling up another man to replace him, which makes him complicit in his replacement’s military service, to which he objects.
Since a man who justifiably claims CO status may not give “self-interest” as a justification, we must grant that his objection to military service extends beyond his own service, to any man’s service.
Would the government accept the argument that requiring a man to appear before a draft board and make a claim for CO status forces him to participate in another man’s military service, and it doesn’t matter if the man called up to replace him doesn’t have an objection to service?
Of course not, because then anyone who is drafted would be allowed to refuse to serve and could not be compelled by the government to make any explanation for their refusal.
Isn't this a fair analogy?
18
It is a good analogy. The draft, like all forms of involuntary servitude. Is immoral.
1
Before the death of Antonin Scalia the Supreme Court of the United States had already been hijacked by six Roman Catholic Justices and three Jewish Justices. There are only five Catholics left and with the nomination of Merrick Garland President Obama is proposing to add a fourth Jew. Only 24% of Americans are Catholic and 2% are Jews. About 52% of Americans are Protestant, 13% are black African American, 10% are agnostic/atheist, 2% are Mormon and 1% are Muslim.
8
Just making sure, you did realize that African American is not a religion, right?
5
If the Supreme Court rules in this case that the Affordable Care Act imposes a "substantial" burden on the free exercise of religion, it will increase the likelihood of more child sexual abuse.
Most states have adopted their own Restoration of Religious Freedom Acts which have identical language about how "substantial burdens" to religion are to be handled. There are a number of cases involving state RFRA's in which the defendant church argued that RFRA shielded religious institutions from liability for the negligent hiring or supervision of a priest. Surprisingly, some state's Supreme Courts have agreed with the Church and barred this type of sexual abuse claims.
But if the Supreme Court now holds that even the minimal impact imposed by the Affordable Care Act is a "substantial " burden it will be a national game changer. While the Supreme Court decision only applies to federal law, it will certainly have persuasive powers on many state courts and their interpretation of their state's RFRA. The inevitable result is that there will be many additional survivors of clergy abuse who are left without a remedy to obtain any compensation for their catastrophic damages.
As "Spotlight" so powerfully showed, litigation was the first thread that began to unravel the priest sex abuse scandal n the Catholic Church.
Most states have adopted their own Restoration of Religious Freedom Acts which have identical language about how "substantial burdens" to religion are to be handled. There are a number of cases involving state RFRA's in which the defendant church argued that RFRA shielded religious institutions from liability for the negligent hiring or supervision of a priest. Surprisingly, some state's Supreme Courts have agreed with the Church and barred this type of sexual abuse claims.
But if the Supreme Court now holds that even the minimal impact imposed by the Affordable Care Act is a "substantial " burden it will be a national game changer. While the Supreme Court decision only applies to federal law, it will certainly have persuasive powers on many state courts and their interpretation of their state's RFRA. The inevitable result is that there will be many additional survivors of clergy abuse who are left without a remedy to obtain any compensation for their catastrophic damages.
As "Spotlight" so powerfully showed, litigation was the first thread that began to unravel the priest sex abuse scandal n the Catholic Church.
8
An attorney who has been in the forefront of defending abused children argues that the putting the Catholic Church in the center is dangerous. 10% of public school children are abused but since the schools cannot be sued it does not get the press.
He also speaks of the hypocrisy of the Globe in this issue. Cf. "The Whole Truth"
He also speaks of the hypocrisy of the Globe in this issue. Cf. "The Whole Truth"
1
If there is any so called hijacking being attempted it is of the separation between church and state.
The Little Sisters of the Poor should speak up for their beliefs, but to impose them on others in their employ carries a ring of slavery, not freedom.
An employer has the responsibility to treat their employees with respect, offer fair wages and, if affordable, social benefits which are for the most part only gained through a large labor pool. To deny benefits on the basis of religious belief while at the same time receiving an exemption from taxation using the same argument should be enough to highlight the absurdity of this argument.
In addition the thought a predisposition with regard to any eventual judgement is held by any member of any court in our judicial system, but especially our Supreme Court, should be unacceptable to every citizen.
In my opinion this indicates a blatant disregard for and ignorance of justice.
As noted in response to an earlier comment justice is not only blind, but also holds a balanced scale. To consider otherwise eviserates the very idea that our system follows even the semblance of law.
The Little Sisters of the Poor should speak up for their beliefs, but to impose them on others in their employ carries a ring of slavery, not freedom.
An employer has the responsibility to treat their employees with respect, offer fair wages and, if affordable, social benefits which are for the most part only gained through a large labor pool. To deny benefits on the basis of religious belief while at the same time receiving an exemption from taxation using the same argument should be enough to highlight the absurdity of this argument.
In addition the thought a predisposition with regard to any eventual judgement is held by any member of any court in our judicial system, but especially our Supreme Court, should be unacceptable to every citizen.
In my opinion this indicates a blatant disregard for and ignorance of justice.
As noted in response to an earlier comment justice is not only blind, but also holds a balanced scale. To consider otherwise eviserates the very idea that our system follows even the semblance of law.
16
The American electorate's distrust of Catholics in JFK's time turns out to be prescient.
12
see, the left actually likes religions that do things which, as actions, correspond with their values. don't want to salute a flag? OK--and it's nice you're a Jehovah's Witness? Oppose war? OK, and being Amish is a plus! Toke some peyote? Well, being an Indian (oh, sorry, "native American") is a nice excuse. But be a Catholic that takes one's faith seriously and does not want to fund abortion pills (which employees presumably can buy with their wages): that's a no-no, offending the Uber-Recht of Roe v. Wade, which brooks no "civil liberty" dissent.
2
Why don't the nuns mind their own business?
12
Because the anti choice, anti contraception people know what is best for all, even those who do not share their fath or beliefs
1
They feel called upon to mission. I know the appropriate Bible verse only in German, so I'll translate: "Thus go forth and make apostles of people of all nations, baptise them in the name of (...) and I'll be with you every day until the end of the system of things." That means to subject everyone else to their form of religious belief, no matter how.
Instead of birth control, let's call it 'hormone treatment', or something similarly neutral. As many have noted, they're used for many other health conditions.
4
So we have Supreme Court justices in favor of violating the most basic tenet of the Constitution? As Justice John Paul Stevens said, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. “This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment.”
If tomorrow soldiers are dispatched throughout the land prohibiting citizens from worshiping according to their chosen religion, then one can argue that our religious liberties are in peril. That is the only right of religion protected in the Constitution. And yet, we have the supposed best of the best on the highest court in the land twisting into pretzels to say otherwise. The court and the rule of law are the only things that got "hijacked" along the way. Rather than thank God, I'll thank blind luck that Scalia is gone.
If tomorrow soldiers are dispatched throughout the land prohibiting citizens from worshiping according to their chosen religion, then one can argue that our religious liberties are in peril. That is the only right of religion protected in the Constitution. And yet, we have the supposed best of the best on the highest court in the land twisting into pretzels to say otherwise. The court and the rule of law are the only things that got "hijacked" along the way. Rather than thank God, I'll thank blind luck that Scalia is gone.
12
The they are trying to establish religious authority against the clear words of the Constitution. Their intent is no different from what the religious authorities do in Saudi Arabia or Iran, or even Israel. No one is preventing them from practicing their religion. It is they who are asserting that their religious scruples govern others who don't share them. This isn't complicated. The Founders must be rolling in their graves.
13
Clearly, the wisest words on this subject are those of Justice Stevens. It is time to bring a case challenging the constitutionality of RFRA directly.
6
This preposterous religious position is like saying you can't be expected to yell "fire" in a burning theatre because you would be enabling the fire department to rescue you.
4
What about pulling a trigger, which could result in someone being struck with a bullet?
1
The opposition to birth control seems to stem from an interpretation of a passage in the Old Testament pertaining to "spilling" of semen. But clearly there are quite a few biblical passages that are not taken seriously in the modern world, including by many who consider the bible to be the direct word of god. For example, avoid clothing woven of two kinds of material... don't eat shellfish... menstruating women and everything they touch is unclean... executions of priest of rival religions... instructions on purchasing slaves... women are to keep silent and subordinate to men... and on and on. So if many bible passages as not seen as serious instructions for the modern world, why is there such concern for the "spilling of semen" and by extension all forms of birth control? Seems to be less than rational.
11
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act contravenes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Hotel Lobby case, ensures that employers can use the RFRA law to prevent women exercising their religious beliefs that favor contraception. Of course women could pay out of their own pocket but this is a substantial burden and is not anywhere near a least restrictive application of the law. (Could we hope that the new case would be an opportunity to declare the RFRA unconstitutional -- or at least self-negating?)
5
If paying for your own birth control is a substantial burden, what about paying your own rent, food, etc? isn't paying for someone else's birth control an even greater burden?
3
jkw - Contraceptives are medical care and are supposed to be covered by health insurance which is part of an employee's compensation package.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Is that really so hard to understand?
How can religious training and belief NOT bias the decisions of judges? Where are the tie breaking secular humanists and atheists unfettered by the superstition?
9
You must mean Protestants, the old variety.
1
"Little Sisters of the Poor." How sweet the name.
Do you think they instigated the lawsuit? Or that other, less sweet forces are behind it?
Do you think they instigated the lawsuit? Or that other, less sweet forces are behind it?
20
I assume the Religious Freedom Restoration Act covers not just one religion but a great many religions. So the Court had better be prepared for a whole lot of exemptions to a whole lot of American secular law once the the dam is broken. Is that really where anyone wants to go?
11
I'm afraid this is exactly where the plaintiffs want to go.
2
Religious preferences in regards to contraception are so lame and out of touch of reality that they seem risible...until we realize there are actual people being stigmatized and made to pay themselves an insurance -covered pill that, for all intent and purpose, is completely legit...except in the eyes of a make-believe faith adamant in imposing its narrow rule. Any religious group that wants to provide health services to a secular community (their choice, no one is pushing the nuns to do so against their will) ought to allow people live their lives as they see fit and proper, and not interfere in preventing an unwanted pregnancy...by denying entirely legal, and safe BC pills, to be dispensed at will. Let us stop being unreasonable, archaic, and quite frankly, obstructive.
24
It is clear that what religious organizations are attempting to do is to gain the widest possible application of what religion entails. Religion is "protected" only to the degree that it deals with the freedom of the organization and its faithfuls to practice without interference the rites involved in their group.
The moment you get out of the church, you enter the social world, whether it is done by nuns, missioners, priests, ministers, acolytes or volunteers. And the social world is ordered by laws which are democratically legislated and which apply to everyone. Any extension of religious protection is contrary to the concept of separation of church and state. That merely saying we are a religious organization and therefore we cannot even say that without being part of contraception is extending religious freedom to absurdity. Moreover I think that the term "religious organization" is wrong. They are "organizations sponsored by religion" and, therefore, are not part of religion in its strict sense.
The moment you get out of the church, you enter the social world, whether it is done by nuns, missioners, priests, ministers, acolytes or volunteers. And the social world is ordered by laws which are democratically legislated and which apply to everyone. Any extension of religious protection is contrary to the concept of separation of church and state. That merely saying we are a religious organization and therefore we cannot even say that without being part of contraception is extending religious freedom to absurdity. Moreover I think that the term "religious organization" is wrong. They are "organizations sponsored by religion" and, therefore, are not part of religion in its strict sense.
23
In Linda Greenhouse's account of the discussions at the Supreme Court -- one sentence stands out . " But the conservative justices never stopped their rethorical attacks long enough to listen"
The highest court in the land, justices refusing to listen to legal arguements as they are presented -- imagine if arch reactionary catholic Scalia were still alive-- the steam roller against women's rights would be in high gear.
More than 50 percent of catholic women use contraceptive birth control.
We live in 2016 not 1816 or even 1916 where women were "property" without rights. All of these " periferal" cases before the court are attempts to chip away at a women right to control her own body.
I'm writing this commentary for my daughter and all the women I've known, loved and admired in my life.
The highest court in the land, justices refusing to listen to legal arguements as they are presented -- imagine if arch reactionary catholic Scalia were still alive-- the steam roller against women's rights would be in high gear.
More than 50 percent of catholic women use contraceptive birth control.
We live in 2016 not 1816 or even 1916 where women were "property" without rights. All of these " periferal" cases before the court are attempts to chip away at a women right to control her own body.
I'm writing this commentary for my daughter and all the women I've known, loved and admired in my life.
22
For some reason, it is customary for U.S. employers to provide health insurance as part of the compensation packages they offer to their employees. This is "compensation". Can you imagine receiving a paycheck from your employer with the stipulation that you can only use it to buy those items to which they have no religious objection?
If this is an infringement of an employer's religious liberty, then it seems logical that healthcare should be provided by the Government.
If this is an infringement of an employer's religious liberty, then it seems logical that healthcare should be provided by the Government.
15
It would be funny if it wasn't serious. The conservative justices are oh so solicitous about burdening these religious plaintiffs but unmoved by the incredible burdens states want to place on women seeking abortions.
30
I can't help the inescapable suspicion that the Catholic males on the court (and recently decised) have lost not only their role of objectivity, but also their sense of objectivity. Do they even realize? It seems this case and others in recent history, like the horrible Hobby Lobby decision, are examples of those same Catholic males justices, aguishing over the potential internal conflict of a fellow Catholic/Christian whom employees people, and yet having no anguish what so ever, over what is at stake for those who do not subscribe to the same "tenets". I truly wonder if their decisions are as influenced by their catholicism, as they are blind to their own utter lack of objectivity. Hilariously Alito referenced how the Hobby Lobby decision couldn't be used to limit other aspects of healthcare for other "sincerely held beliefs" by employees, like refusing to cover blood transfusions by a Jehovah's Witness employer. As if They have the weird outlandish beliefs, but the perfectly normal ones that require favoritism under the law, oh yeah, those just so happens to be mine as well. Gee. whadya know.
11
Is it just me? Or is the act of informing the government of an institutional objection to providing contraception health coverage not a public declaration of religious principle? Call it "taking a stand" for what the religiously-affiliated organization believes is moral and right. How, in any plausible way, would such an act be an abrogation of religious freedom when it looks so much like an affirmation of it?
Please forgive me. I'm a little slow. Notwithstanding the brilliant argumentation of a few brilliant lawyers and justices, the plaintiff's case still seems patently absurd.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Please forgive me. I'm a little slow. Notwithstanding the brilliant argumentation of a few brilliant lawyers and justices, the plaintiff's case still seems patently absurd.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
25
Let me get this straight. Notifying the US Government that your religious preferences prohibit you from including birth control in your insurance coverage is "a substantial burden," but forcing an insurance company to track all of your covered employees because you refuse to cooperate is not such a burden? And that forcing women to find secondary coverage is not a substantial burden on them (or it doesn't matter) because at least you don't have to be involved, is somehow a better solution?
I'd love to hear how Justice Scalia would have reconciled that argument given his "originalist" view of the US Constitution, given that it's pretty clear how important separating church from state was to our founders.
I'd love to hear how Justice Scalia would have reconciled that argument given his "originalist" view of the US Constitution, given that it's pretty clear how important separating church from state was to our founders.
12
Agree with you except for the part about Scalia--I'm so glad we don't have to suffer his malevolent presence on the SCOTUS any longer.
3
As far as I am concerned the religious freedom that is being impinged on is the freedom of the employees to reject the religion that their sick employers are trying to force upon them. There should be no exemptions, including for the employees of actual churches. And for good measure tax the churches. They are businesses pure and simple.
23
The 1st amendment commands almost universal support in theory, but its practice exposes different interpretations of what religious freedom means. In the 1960s, advocates of Bible-reading in public schools claimed that the practice did not interfere with the right of opponents to worship, or not, as they pleased. The SC ruled otherwise, but many Christian groups still maintain that state support of practices associated with their churches would not harm other religious groups or atheists.
The Little Sisters and their allies define religious freedom somewhat differently. They maintain, relying on the 1993 federal law, that any federal act which requires them to pursue a course of action which they believe violates their religious principles automatically undermines their 1st amendment rights. From this perspective, the law's effect on other groups, whose religious values may differ from those of the Little Sisters, should not weigh in the Court's decision.
In both this case, and the one involving Bible-reading, one of the litigants defined religious freedom almost exclusively in terms of their own needs. They either ignored or denied that their opponents adhered to different values, which also enjoyed the protection of the 1st amendment.
Balancing the rights of different groups always presents a difficult dilemma, but the SC cannot succeed in doing so if it accepts the implicit claim of the Little Sisters that their needs take precedence.
The Little Sisters and their allies define religious freedom somewhat differently. They maintain, relying on the 1993 federal law, that any federal act which requires them to pursue a course of action which they believe violates their religious principles automatically undermines their 1st amendment rights. From this perspective, the law's effect on other groups, whose religious values may differ from those of the Little Sisters, should not weigh in the Court's decision.
In both this case, and the one involving Bible-reading, one of the litigants defined religious freedom almost exclusively in terms of their own needs. They either ignored or denied that their opponents adhered to different values, which also enjoyed the protection of the 1st amendment.
Balancing the rights of different groups always presents a difficult dilemma, but the SC cannot succeed in doing so if it accepts the implicit claim of the Little Sisters that their needs take precedence.
193
A simple solution to this would be to remove the tax exemption from those groups who refuse.
22
Linda Greenhouse, you are a national treasure. Please keep your eagle legal eye and your equally perspicacious pen (keyboard?) at work for us.
16
Situations like this make me wish that freedom of religion was more often interpreted to include freedom from religion. I'm all for people believing whatever they'd like to believe, but when those beliefs start to impinge on the lives of others (as they do here), I think a line should be drawn.
22
The Religious Right sued because the Affordable Care Act did not allow them to control their women.
16
The Catholic Church is also, officially, against capital punishment. I suppose this means that if a Catholic witnesses a crime that might lead to the death penalty he/she should be exempt from testifying against the criminal because it would make them complicit in the execution. I know this is ridiculous, but what's the difference between this and what the Little Sisters are arguing?
12
If I obtain health care through the exchange - may I opt out of contraceptive coverage because I do not want my 22 year old daughter to go on the pill? A corporation are just like people, so why should its religious beliefs be more compelling than mine?
And if I may not - then would the equal protection clause imply that the corporation entity should have no greater protection from spiritual umbrage than I?
And if I may not - then would the equal protection clause imply that the corporation entity should have no greater protection from spiritual umbrage than I?
4
What's next? Paying employees in redeemable chits so they can't use their wages on reproductive care? Because health insurance is just another form of compensation, If they're complicit through coverage that may or may not be used for reproductive care, at the employee's discretion, why wouldn't they be complicit through wages used for the same purpose at the employee's discretion?
I don't get it. They do not have a religious right to control what employees buy.
I don't get it. They do not have a religious right to control what employees buy.
22
For the first time in memory, the NYTimes did not include a way to share this wonderful column with others. I suspect Ms. Greenhouse is being demoted and chastised by the oligarchic owner.
America has become a theocracy…with the blessing of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens was right.
America has become a theocracy…with the blessing of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens was right.
15
Everyone of the conservative judges is a practicing Catholic and each of these men have chosen to subvert a Constitution that they swore to uphold in favor of the misogynistic tenets of a religion mired in the Middle Ages.
Women , and/or members of the LBGT coalition , comprise over 50% of our citizenship. Yet, they are demonized by a conservative panel of Roman Catholic males that seem not to understand that we live in a free society , regulated by a Constitution which stipulates in the very first amendment that ours is a government of laws , not to be commingled with the private religious beliefs that each of us are entitled to. This allows each citizen to believe in whatever they wish as long as those beliefs breach no criminal statutes or are imposed upon other citizens that do not share those beliefs.
Conception is a simple biological process in which the male provides several million sperm cells. If one sperm cell fertilizes an ovum , pregnancy occurs. This is hardly a miraculous process , but one in which nature provides plenty of opportunity to perpetuate the species.
That the republican party has chosen to ignore the Constitution as well by catering to religious extremists who comprise maybe 20 % of voters is an abomination. In the red states , misogynistic and hateful legislation has closed down women's health car clinics and deprived all poor people of the health care offered by the ACA.
It is long past time to leave the American bedroom out of our politics.
Women , and/or members of the LBGT coalition , comprise over 50% of our citizenship. Yet, they are demonized by a conservative panel of Roman Catholic males that seem not to understand that we live in a free society , regulated by a Constitution which stipulates in the very first amendment that ours is a government of laws , not to be commingled with the private religious beliefs that each of us are entitled to. This allows each citizen to believe in whatever they wish as long as those beliefs breach no criminal statutes or are imposed upon other citizens that do not share those beliefs.
Conception is a simple biological process in which the male provides several million sperm cells. If one sperm cell fertilizes an ovum , pregnancy occurs. This is hardly a miraculous process , but one in which nature provides plenty of opportunity to perpetuate the species.
That the republican party has chosen to ignore the Constitution as well by catering to religious extremists who comprise maybe 20 % of voters is an abomination. In the red states , misogynistic and hateful legislation has closed down women's health car clinics and deprived all poor people of the health care offered by the ACA.
It is long past time to leave the American bedroom out of our politics.
19
Religious organizations support wars by collecting income tax from their employees, knowing that part of the money will go to pay for the war. If they are seriously pacifist, they must not be forced to support war in this way. But our religious organizations are not seriously pacifist, just seriously something else that we might call wanting to boss people around, generally on God's behalf.
11
What exactly is "opt-out-without-notice?" Wasn't there a quote from the order for briefs saying (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/29/supreme-court-rel...
"[Petitioners] would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the federal government, or to their employees ... At the same time, petitioners' insurance company -- aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds -- would separately notify petitioners' employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage."
How exactly would the petitioners' insurance company become "aware" that coverage is not being provided on religious grounds? By ESP or by Divine notification? Is the Supreme Court going to allow supernatural phenomena to become a controlling factor in US law?
"[Petitioners] would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the federal government, or to their employees ... At the same time, petitioners' insurance company -- aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds -- would separately notify petitioners' employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage."
How exactly would the petitioners' insurance company become "aware" that coverage is not being provided on religious grounds? By ESP or by Divine notification? Is the Supreme Court going to allow supernatural phenomena to become a controlling factor in US law?
12
Thank you, Linda Greenhouse, for telling it like it is and bringing ballast and comment sense to the table.
10
This case before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with religious freedom. It is painfully obvious that these non-profit religious organizations simply want the right to impose their views on others. The Federal government has bent over backward to accommodate them and their beliefs, and they will never be happy, short of imposition of Christian Sharia Law on all of us.
13
So (some) "religious" organisations object to birth control on "religious" grounds. Fine. But what's next? Organ transplant? Amputation? Psychotherapy? Breast implants? Since there is very little restriction on what "religion" really amounts to, or any restriction on what they are allowed to believe as long as it's "sincere", so-called religious organisations can run roughshod over any law they don't like.
13
"Any belief counts, as long as it’s sincere?" The answer to Linda Greenhouse's question is "yes," based on these words in Justice Alito's decision: "It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or
unreasonable." If someone has a sincere religious belief that the earth is flat the Court cannot question it according to Justice Alito. The consequences of his statement are utterly mind-boggling.
unreasonable." If someone has a sincere religious belief that the earth is flat the Court cannot question it according to Justice Alito. The consequences of his statement are utterly mind-boggling.
15
Dick Springer – of course you're right. Athiests, agnostics, Druids, or KKK members are just as sincere in their beliefs. Should the constitution not apply to them as well when they seek exemptions?
This bunch of well-educated, presumably intelligent, justices seem to be having trouble thinking about this issue in larger terms.
This bunch of well-educated, presumably intelligent, justices seem to be having trouble thinking about this issue in larger terms.
2
So essentially the Little Sisters of the Poor would force their religious beliefs on their employees and by application of law allow any religious organization to force their archaic beliefs about reproduction on their female employees? Any mention of vasectomies here? I didn't think so.
And while this is all going on, state legislatures are whittling away at Planned Parenthood, further limiting women's access to reproductive care. Ridiculous.
And while this is all going on, state legislatures are whittling away at Planned Parenthood, further limiting women's access to reproductive care. Ridiculous.
16
Pardon me for being a little obtuse, with no malign intention, but I have a problem identifying the players without a program. On this very important issue, if you please, I only wish that Ms. Greenhouse had been more direct in her identification of the real issues at stake, and the positions (as perceived by her) of the different Justices in regard to the statutes being considered. I read her column several times, but could not accurately discern who is in favor (or opposed) to...what...? If I am personally in favor of women's reproductive rights (which I am), and their full knowledge and consent of the Constitutional legality at stake here (or not), then who on the Court are in agreement with my views? In plain English, who am I rooting for?
1
You root for the government, against the Little Sisters, who want to be exempt from the laws and Constitution of the United States. The justices leaning to the government are Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan.
1
Until women are treated with the respect men are, they will be tethered to a leash.
Men using birth control is not an issue. So why can't women enjoy the same freedom and get the same respect. Women should have the right to choose just as men do. What can be more simple that that?
Men using birth control is not an issue. So why can't women enjoy the same freedom and get the same respect. Women should have the right to choose just as men do. What can be more simple that that?
5
It is pretty clear that to have even gotten this far, ideology is the driving argument.
Benefits are not gifts. They are required compensation, a lot like a minimum wage is required compensation.
How an individual uses that compensation is not the employer's concern; but even so, employers were given an opt out. But somehow, allowing employees to use their compensation legally, even if you are not providing it but only declaring you won't provide it, is still moral complicity.
There is no way to make this argument, or be a Supreme Court Justice and buy this theory without a strong case of ideological blindness.
So, Justice Kennedy, I challenge you to let me be a grown up and determine for myself, without the help of the Little Sisters of the Poor or the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh, what constitutes my health care.
Benefits are not gifts. They are required compensation, a lot like a minimum wage is required compensation.
How an individual uses that compensation is not the employer's concern; but even so, employers were given an opt out. But somehow, allowing employees to use their compensation legally, even if you are not providing it but only declaring you won't provide it, is still moral complicity.
There is no way to make this argument, or be a Supreme Court Justice and buy this theory without a strong case of ideological blindness.
So, Justice Kennedy, I challenge you to let me be a grown up and determine for myself, without the help of the Little Sisters of the Poor or the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh, what constitutes my health care.
405
The real answer is to give employees the money allocated to health insurance and let them buy their own coverage. The idea that employers should be required to provide health insurance for their employees (and therefore decide what is covered) is ludicrous. The sooner we get away from employer provided health insurance the better for everyone.
1
If this is their position, then they should definitely stop paying their employees, because the employee could then take those employer-provided bits of paper (money) and buy contraception with it! Thus making the employer complicit in providing contraception.
2
“Do you question their belief that they’re complicit in the moral wrong?” Justice Kennedy asked Mr. Verrilli.
What exactly is being "complicit" in the "moral wrong" of secular employees obtaining birth control through an employer sponsored health care plan? A health care plan is part of an employee's compensation package, so how is it any more "complicit" than writing the employee a paycheck with which she can buy contraception.
The elephant in the room is that these religiously affiliated organizations want to be able to impose their beliefs on all employees, regardless of affiliation or faith. What they are saying, in effect, is that their religion requires them to actively proselytize, so let them just come out and say that's what they want the law to condone. In other words, to condone actively interfering in the beliefs and rights of others.
What exactly is being "complicit" in the "moral wrong" of secular employees obtaining birth control through an employer sponsored health care plan? A health care plan is part of an employee's compensation package, so how is it any more "complicit" than writing the employee a paycheck with which she can buy contraception.
The elephant in the room is that these religiously affiliated organizations want to be able to impose their beliefs on all employees, regardless of affiliation or faith. What they are saying, in effect, is that their religion requires them to actively proselytize, so let them just come out and say that's what they want the law to condone. In other words, to condone actively interfering in the beliefs and rights of others.
535
Complicity (or cooperation) in moral wrong (or "sin") has many grades. It's always a judgment call. Kennedy's question-- Do you question their belief that they’re complicit in the moral wrong?-- is precisely the one that has to be answered. The Sister's would probably say that asking them to condone in any way contraception is too much cooperation. They operate from a rejection of the idea that there is any right to contraception or abortion-- for them, it amounts to a "right" to murder. Are they being overly scrupulous in terms of their level of cooperation in this moral wrong? Almost certainly. But should we be surprised that women who have taken religious vows want as little to do with the world as possible? The word "secular" emerged precisely in contrast to the kind of community these women have chosen.
Isn't the premise of Justice Kennedy's question itself not respecting the First Amendment? Who says it is a "moral wrong" to use contraception? To accept the premise promotes a particular religious perspective and thus is clearly unconstitutional.
2
And government complicity in the effort you accurately describe, @MH, is clearly establishment of religion, forbidden under the first Amendment.
3
It sounds like the Little Sisters of the Poor want people to read their minds, rather than make them say explictly that they do not agree to pay for women's contraception and abortion services.
If that is their position, why don't they just say so: "Read my mind - No contraception or abortion."
Having said that, the law as written fixes the problem. What is the big deal about that?
(Obviously, the problem is that they DEMAND that their beliefs TRUMP the beliefs of the women they employ.) Pun intended.
If that is their position, why don't they just say so: "Read my mind - No contraception or abortion."
Having said that, the law as written fixes the problem. What is the big deal about that?
(Obviously, the problem is that they DEMAND that their beliefs TRUMP the beliefs of the women they employ.) Pun intended.
8
Referring to the article's statement of former Justice Stevens in the City of Boerne v. Flores, to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act here in the instant case, that would be tantamount to the establishment of religion, prohibited by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Consequently, as the now former Justice Scalia stated the "dead" interpretation of the Constitution that the founders wrote, prohibiting the establishment of a state religion trumps this mere law. To interpret this case in any other way, would be an inappropriate hijacking by the religious right. The Court should employ Scalia's interpretation. Let's not forget that we are supposed to be a democracy, and not a fascist theocracy.
Consequently, as the now former Justice Scalia stated the "dead" interpretation of the Constitution that the founders wrote, prohibiting the establishment of a state religion trumps this mere law. To interpret this case in any other way, would be an inappropriate hijacking by the religious right. The Court should employ Scalia's interpretation. Let's not forget that we are supposed to be a democracy, and not a fascist theocracy.
10
Gobsmacking! Holy Miley Cyrus (the most profane pop star I could call to mind). Yes, that's irrelevant, but how peculiarly dissonant these old men have become in their isolation and assumption of superiority to the common run, the gauntlet of contemporary life through which most of us have to negotiate.
For better or worse, contraceptives have altered the relationship between sex and babies, and these power hungry nuns and high court judges seem to be seeking alternative gratification. It reminds me of supposedly churchly men whose indulgence in pedophilia while censuring more normal relationships between humans demonstrates a sick relationship with self discipline, and the insiders who decided (behind closed doors) that protecting them was more important than protecting their victims.
Power is a terrible aphrodisiac, and I cannot help but think these high priests of conservatism are having an orgy about controlling others, most particularly women and those without money or access to power.
Either they are creating a church of power and control, or they are too stupid to perceive that they are being manipulated by some very selfish people. They appear not to know that their humanity is held in common with the humanity of the rest of us.
For better or worse, contraceptives have altered the relationship between sex and babies, and these power hungry nuns and high court judges seem to be seeking alternative gratification. It reminds me of supposedly churchly men whose indulgence in pedophilia while censuring more normal relationships between humans demonstrates a sick relationship with self discipline, and the insiders who decided (behind closed doors) that protecting them was more important than protecting their victims.
Power is a terrible aphrodisiac, and I cannot help but think these high priests of conservatism are having an orgy about controlling others, most particularly women and those without money or access to power.
Either they are creating a church of power and control, or they are too stupid to perceive that they are being manipulated by some very selfish people. They appear not to know that their humanity is held in common with the humanity of the rest of us.
31
It's really hard for me to believe that in modern day America this case has even come up. It's clear the organizations in question, which are not actual churches, want more then the ability not to have to pay for birth control pills. No, what they want instead is the ability to impose their religious beliefs and rules on their employees of whatever age or religious bent. And that violates the First Amendment.
I thought it interesting we're talking about anti-contraceptives, when these pills do more then prevent pregnancy. They are used also for regulating the hormonal cycle to control the growth of uterine fibroids, a condition from which I was suffered. Would the little sisters of the poor require employees to specifically state the nature of the reason for needing these products? I wonder why that argument didn't come before the court!
The other thing that bugged me here was the admittance by the religious organizations that they are "equal opportunity employers. " That belies the nature of this case, since if religion is not a litmus test for hiring as they state, then why is it their business to impose on employees their Catholic beliefs?
Their employees are not nuns themselves, even if the sisters are acting as if they were.
I thought it interesting we're talking about anti-contraceptives, when these pills do more then prevent pregnancy. They are used also for regulating the hormonal cycle to control the growth of uterine fibroids, a condition from which I was suffered. Would the little sisters of the poor require employees to specifically state the nature of the reason for needing these products? I wonder why that argument didn't come before the court!
The other thing that bugged me here was the admittance by the religious organizations that they are "equal opportunity employers. " That belies the nature of this case, since if religion is not a litmus test for hiring as they state, then why is it their business to impose on employees their Catholic beliefs?
Their employees are not nuns themselves, even if the sisters are acting as if they were.
193
The medical insurance companies will only cover birth control if it is for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. If you need it to control dysmennorhea or PMDD, but you don't have sex, you have to lie and say you are sexually active in order to get the medical insurance company to cover this expensive medicine that costs about $50/month at least.
1
So religion gets special treatment, even though the constitution plainly says they can not.
Maybe the court could explain why if a group of us Atheists banded together, could not get tax exempt status for our property. Why religious groups get such and the rest of us do not, giving them special privileges.
Just because someone believes in some ancient superstition they get special exemptions, but those of us who are more akin to modern science and knowledge do not, is clearly a violation of our rights.
I wait to see if such a case ever get to the court, and of course I know it will be a long wait.
Maybe the court could explain why if a group of us Atheists banded together, could not get tax exempt status for our property. Why religious groups get such and the rest of us do not, giving them special privileges.
Just because someone believes in some ancient superstition they get special exemptions, but those of us who are more akin to modern science and knowledge do not, is clearly a violation of our rights.
I wait to see if such a case ever get to the court, and of course I know it will be a long wait.
107
Despite the newfound popularity with the word “hijacking” when discussing the U.S. Supreme Court, I fail to see any legitimacy in use of that word. When Scalia was alive, five members of the Court hardly were hijacking it, since they represented a majority. And now with only eight justices presently sitting, there’s NO chance to hijack the Court for conservative purposes, since if anything Kennedy gives the liberals an advantage on some issues.
If they split on this issue, then the rulings of lower federal courts remain in place, even if they’re contradictory.
I actually believe that the petitioners in this case by rights should lose, as reserving as much to God rather than Caesar, to me, just doesn’t work in a pluralistic society. I’d hoped that Kennedy would see the light, but it appears he labors in darkness on this disagreement.
But, as Linda asserts, it’s not a hijacking, of the Court or of individual plans.
If they split on this issue, then the rulings of lower federal courts remain in place, even if they’re contradictory.
I actually believe that the petitioners in this case by rights should lose, as reserving as much to God rather than Caesar, to me, just doesn’t work in a pluralistic society. I’d hoped that Kennedy would see the light, but it appears he labors in darkness on this disagreement.
But, as Linda asserts, it’s not a hijacking, of the Court or of individual plans.
5
"If they split on this issue, then the rulings of lower federal courts remain in place, even if they're contradictory."
As you no doubt know, if the lower court rulings prevail, then no legal precedent is set, and such cases can be brought before the court again, and again, and again...until a precedent is set. Now that the judicial activist Scalia is no longer a factor, perhaps the Court will decline in future to hear such cases. I applaud the opinion of Justice Stevens: "“This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion,” he wrote then, “is forbidden by the First Amendment.”"
As you no doubt know, if the lower court rulings prevail, then no legal precedent is set, and such cases can be brought before the court again, and again, and again...until a precedent is set. Now that the judicial activist Scalia is no longer a factor, perhaps the Court will decline in future to hear such cases. I applaud the opinion of Justice Stevens: "“This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion,” he wrote then, “is forbidden by the First Amendment.”"
3
The fact that the term "majority" is used when referring to the makeup of The Supreme Court negates the concept of equality under the law.
A blind justice holding a balanced scale is at odds with this preconception and immediately disavows the idea of impartiality.
A blind justice holding a balanced scale is at odds with this preconception and immediately disavows the idea of impartiality.
2
Miriam:
No final ruling is an inevitability when the Court is split, basically 4-4, and when ideology rules the left every bit as much as it rules the right. That's not a bad thing, it's merely unavoidable. I'm in favor of the Senate confirming Judge Garland, but it doesn't appear to be happening. So, just lay back and enjoy it.
Ian:
The U.S. Supreme Court has never been "blind" in its application of justice for all of its history. And to suggest that a decided preference for liberal and activist outcomes somehow constitutes "blind justice" is absurd.
No final ruling is an inevitability when the Court is split, basically 4-4, and when ideology rules the left every bit as much as it rules the right. That's not a bad thing, it's merely unavoidable. I'm in favor of the Senate confirming Judge Garland, but it doesn't appear to be happening. So, just lay back and enjoy it.
Ian:
The U.S. Supreme Court has never been "blind" in its application of justice for all of its history. And to suggest that a decided preference for liberal and activist outcomes somehow constitutes "blind justice" is absurd.
No surprise here: the right wing of the court is made up of four papists. I'm sure if they had their way they'd force us back to the 14th century and support a law banning contraceptives.
81
George Eliot appears to be the anti-Catholic Paul Blanshard (1892-1980) come back from the grave. Actually, you only have to go back to 20th century Connecticut to find a law banning contraceptives, a law supported by Catholics but enacted as a Protestant initiative in 1879 ("Comstock law"). See the US Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
4
That is probably what Reagan tried to do when he nominated Robert Bork in 1987, which is still a festering affront to conservatives. At least SCOTUS is currently four Catholics, and not five...and Judge Merrick Garland is Jewish, which would finally create some balance in the Court.
3
"they'd force us back to the 14th century and support a law banning contraceptives." The right wingers on the court are actually in a process to do just that.
2
In addition to being used as a method of contraception, birth control medication is often clinically recommended for women with ovarian cysts (polycystic ovarian syndrome), painful menstruation (dysmenhorrhea) and/or heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia); it can be used to counter menstrual migraines, and address painful dermatological issues.
Clearly, there are multiple medically recommended and clinically justified uses for birth control medication. The use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to deprive women of their constitutionally protected right to obtain healthcare insurance coverage outside of their religious employer's domain may as well be used to deny any types of medical interventions objected to by the "religious employer." Is the United States a theocracy? Those advocating a RFRA world "on steroids" would have all of us return to the dystopian world of the Puritans, realistically portrayed by Arthur Miller in his drama, "The Crucible." If these neo-Puritans get their way, the argument of "religious objections" will be used to render constitutional protections null and void for women as well as those without the power or standing to protect their human rights.
What kind of country would permit employers, under the guise of religion, to deny women their necessary medical care, when the Federal Government has created independent avenues unconnected with the religious employer, to ensure that said employer was not involved in the process?
Clearly, there are multiple medically recommended and clinically justified uses for birth control medication. The use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to deprive women of their constitutionally protected right to obtain healthcare insurance coverage outside of their religious employer's domain may as well be used to deny any types of medical interventions objected to by the "religious employer." Is the United States a theocracy? Those advocating a RFRA world "on steroids" would have all of us return to the dystopian world of the Puritans, realistically portrayed by Arthur Miller in his drama, "The Crucible." If these neo-Puritans get their way, the argument of "religious objections" will be used to render constitutional protections null and void for women as well as those without the power or standing to protect their human rights.
What kind of country would permit employers, under the guise of religion, to deny women their necessary medical care, when the Federal Government has created independent avenues unconnected with the religious employer, to ensure that said employer was not involved in the process?
208
We should stop calling it 'birth control' and call it what it is, a hormone supplement (i.e. estrogen).
There are many medical uses for hormone supplements, for both men and women, as you describe.
There are many medical uses for hormone supplements, for both men and women, as you describe.
2
I would add to your list of medical uses for contraception the very real need to sometimes prevent pregnancy for serious health reasons such as treatments that are not compatible with pregnancy or where a woman’s health status is not robust enough to support a healthy pregnancy. It’s an outrage that a woman should have to justify any medical decision to some medieval institution of women who choose to live a celibate life. Why would the court even hear such a case?
1
I am shocked, shocked that the conservative justices are using words like "hijacked" to actually hijack our social and political decisions. They have already gutted the voting rights act. Now our very health is on the line. I guess one day ISIS would look like the moderates in front of GOP.
85
wouldn't this whole issue be neutralized if an employee (not employer) could alert the government that their healthplan was not covering them?
in that manner, an employer with a religious objection would de facto be notifying the government when they decline to cover this benefit.
this whole court argument seems to be a red herring.
Frank
in that manner, an employer with a religious objection would de facto be notifying the government when they decline to cover this benefit.
this whole court argument seems to be a red herring.
Frank
5
Frank, if you look at all the organizations affected (major Catholic universities and hospitals among them), we're talking hundreds of thousands of insured individuals, not just a few thousand or even tens of thousands.
What would it cost us taxpayers for the government to hire enough employees to address all the notifications they would receive?
Given that, say, St John's University in NYC has around 20,000 enrollees, wouldn't it make more sense for a single letter to be written by one of tis deans than for 12-15,000 students to send such letters to the government? (Male students may well have a female dependent on their health insurance.)
This lawsuit is yet another overreach by religious fanatics to impose their will on the general public. The fact that the Catholic Church and its affiliates are increasingly taking control of US hospitals through mergers is equally frightening. Catholic organizations are said to control at least 15% of hospital beds in the US already, although I do not mean to suggest a hidden conspiracy - these are blatant economic decisions.
Many of these merged hospitals retain their former, non-religious names, failing to disclose to patients that they're following Church-approved guidelines requiring the refusal of abortion and contraception services (including even the morning-after pill for rape victims) and ignoring the choices of the dying.
None of this bodes well for a secular society.
What would it cost us taxpayers for the government to hire enough employees to address all the notifications they would receive?
Given that, say, St John's University in NYC has around 20,000 enrollees, wouldn't it make more sense for a single letter to be written by one of tis deans than for 12-15,000 students to send such letters to the government? (Male students may well have a female dependent on their health insurance.)
This lawsuit is yet another overreach by religious fanatics to impose their will on the general public. The fact that the Catholic Church and its affiliates are increasingly taking control of US hospitals through mergers is equally frightening. Catholic organizations are said to control at least 15% of hospital beds in the US already, although I do not mean to suggest a hidden conspiracy - these are blatant economic decisions.
Many of these merged hospitals retain their former, non-religious names, failing to disclose to patients that they're following Church-approved guidelines requiring the refusal of abortion and contraception services (including even the morning-after pill for rape victims) and ignoring the choices of the dying.
None of this bodes well for a secular society.
8
An excellent point, and one that needs more publicity.
Earlier this month, when my mother was admitted to a Catholic nursing home after a stroke, they cut the DNR (do not resuscitate) tag from the hospital off her arm, disregarded the advance directives we had placed in her file, and insisted that in a foggy and non-communicative state, she choose one of their four options.
When she looked completely blank at the language of the form, the nurse yelled at her: "Do you want to die????". Of course my mom shook her head "no".
So there it was--full resuscitation and medical care to the nth degree. What was the point of the lawyer's drafting of documents? They have the documents on file, but which "directive" do you think they will follow if she has further problems?
Earlier this month, when my mother was admitted to a Catholic nursing home after a stroke, they cut the DNR (do not resuscitate) tag from the hospital off her arm, disregarded the advance directives we had placed in her file, and insisted that in a foggy and non-communicative state, she choose one of their four options.
When she looked completely blank at the language of the form, the nurse yelled at her: "Do you want to die????". Of course my mom shook her head "no".
So there it was--full resuscitation and medical care to the nth degree. What was the point of the lawyer's drafting of documents? They have the documents on file, but which "directive" do you think they will follow if she has further problems?
4
The Right is, yet once again, wrong.
79
This is so stupid. What if the employee goes home and buys porn or some other perceived vice? Will the employer fire them? Dock their pay?
22
I beseech the court to rename the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the Religious Narcissism Restoration Act to properly reflect its newfound sensibility granting carte blanche to exemptions from reality, taxes and respect for others.
'“Is there any accommodation that would be acceptable?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Mr. Francisco.
The lawyer’s answer....offered one exception: “If there was an uber-insurance policy where Aetna was the company that the government picked to provide contraceptive coverage to all women in this country, and we happened to use Aetna, I think we’d probably be fine.”'
There's another unmentioned and better exception, Counselor.
Make that uber-insurance policy singe-payer, taxpayer-financed healthcare, and thereby solve America's dual catastrophes of corporate-extortion of healthcare and religious-extortion of healthcare.
Let's kill two birds with one stone and send the religious and corporate obstructionists back to the rocks they crawled out under from.
Let the religionistas retreat to their houses of hatred and conjure other imagined slights from reality and modernity.
I think we'll call it the Religious Frivolous Lawsuit Act.
What a lovely parting gift to America's deranged and dying religious right.
'“Is there any accommodation that would be acceptable?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Mr. Francisco.
The lawyer’s answer....offered one exception: “If there was an uber-insurance policy where Aetna was the company that the government picked to provide contraceptive coverage to all women in this country, and we happened to use Aetna, I think we’d probably be fine.”'
There's another unmentioned and better exception, Counselor.
Make that uber-insurance policy singe-payer, taxpayer-financed healthcare, and thereby solve America's dual catastrophes of corporate-extortion of healthcare and religious-extortion of healthcare.
Let's kill two birds with one stone and send the religious and corporate obstructionists back to the rocks they crawled out under from.
Let the religionistas retreat to their houses of hatred and conjure other imagined slights from reality and modernity.
I think we'll call it the Religious Frivolous Lawsuit Act.
What a lovely parting gift to America's deranged and dying religious right.
508
This entire case is such a sham. If the nuns are so worried about committing a "sin" (which is ludicrous since that is the VERY reason Jesus died - to PAY IN FULL for all our sins) then why are they not worried about covering erectile dysfunction medication for unmarried men since the Ten Commandments clearly state that committing adultery is a sin? If they are really "sincere" in their beliefs then surely this would be of GREAT concern for them.
375
Great explication by Greehouse of the utterly ridiculous lengths the right wing mandarins on SCOTUS will go to further eviscerate womens' control over their reproductive rights while at the same time further complicating I.e. weakening the provisions of the ACA.
This would have been a double barreled win for the good Catholic boys on the Court but for the death of Darth Scalia.
There is no "burden" within the meaning of the federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, by religious organizations having to perform the ministerial function of giving an opt out notice. Thus there is no need to even get to a strict scrutiny analysis, which usually means certain invalidation of the law being challenged.
This is an attempted political decision by a nakedly right wing activist Court which has no regard for precedent, the rules of statutory construction or, apparently for that matter, the the legitimacy of the Court. See,e.g., Citizens United, Shelby County, Hobby Lobby et al. Only this time they don't have the horse power to carry it out.
I'll take a 4/4 split affirming all the consolidated cases until ethical jurists are in the majority once again on the Court when Hillary or Bernie are in office and the Democrats are in control of the Senate once again after the GOP as we know it goes down the tubes in November.
This would have been a double barreled win for the good Catholic boys on the Court but for the death of Darth Scalia.
There is no "burden" within the meaning of the federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, by religious organizations having to perform the ministerial function of giving an opt out notice. Thus there is no need to even get to a strict scrutiny analysis, which usually means certain invalidation of the law being challenged.
This is an attempted political decision by a nakedly right wing activist Court which has no regard for precedent, the rules of statutory construction or, apparently for that matter, the the legitimacy of the Court. See,e.g., Citizens United, Shelby County, Hobby Lobby et al. Only this time they don't have the horse power to carry it out.
I'll take a 4/4 split affirming all the consolidated cases until ethical jurists are in the majority once again on the Court when Hillary or Bernie are in office and the Democrats are in control of the Senate once again after the GOP as we know it goes down the tubes in November.
82
296 days until further discussion, from both sides, really takes place.
3
Please get religion out of government
549
No please about it. GET RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT. It's a U.S. Constitutional guarantee.
8
It should be, guess the justices have never really understood the first amendment. Religions should not be tax exempt, which certainly constitutes: "respecting an establishment of religion"
2
If we agree that contraception is a legitimate part of healthcare, the logical extension of the plaintiff's argument is absurd: If a Jehovah's witness owns a company, are they obligated to pay for blood transfusions? Receiving blood products is sinful, no? Are these for-profit companies spared from paying taxes that fund the parts of medicaid that fund contraception? Single payer just keeps sounding better.
147
Suppose the obligation was flipped. Suppose that companies that provide birth control were required to notify the government and their insurance company that they were providing birth control, companies not providing birth control had no reporting obligations, and insurance companies and the government were required to provide birth control for the employees of non-notifying companies. The government and the insurance companies would have the information they need, and no action would be required of non-participating companies. No required action means no grounds for complaint!
5
Barbara...that would place an unreasonable burden on the 99% of the companies and entities that do provide birth control coverage 'to report' that fact simply to accommodate a few religious entities stuck in the 4th century.
Religion, it turns out, is an unreasonable burden on reality.
Religion, it turns out, is an unreasonable burden on reality.
168
That's a right good idee! (Although it should not be necessary.)
These religious groups would still object, They very simply do not want women to have control over their bodies. And contraception does that, at least in part.
31
What about women who need the BC pill for other reasons (like Endometriosis) than simply a safeguard to present pregnancy?
http://www.webmd.com/women/endometriosis/endometriosis-treatment-overview
http://www.webmd.com/women/endometriosis/endometriosis-treatment-overview
38
"The Four." I propose that this terminology be adopted until Hell, or Mitch McConnell (whichever comes first) freezes over.
31
"until Hell, or Mitch McConnell (whichever comes first) freezes over."
I think the two terms are synonymous.
I think the two terms are synonymous.
11
Another terrifically insightful column from Ms. Greenhouse. MY take-away from all this is that the death of Scalia and the resulting threat of affirming lower court rulings (most of which, I wager, will lean towards the liberal end of the spectrum) has greatly diminished Kennedy's influence AND has shown that a 4-4 split is FAR BETTER than the previous incarnation that included the recently deceased justice whose convoluted interpretation of the Constitution did as much harm to the lives of millions of Americans as any other person in this country. Until a progressive voice of reason can be confirmed to replace Scalia, I say: LONG LIVE THE 4-4 SPLIT!
128
I'm willing to be that the plaintiffs will still have a problem with the court's suggestion of an "opt-out-without-notice." They will argue that even though they will not have to say or do anything, it will still intrude on their religious beliefs because the act of providing any health insurance at all will then allow women to obtain contraceptives.
52
Just curious...If I have a c-section and want a tubal ligation before closure, if I have "religious" insurance, that can't happen?
41
Well, let's start with the fact that if you're in a Catholic-controlled hospital (and they now control something like 15%+ of all beds in the US, even in hospitals with "non-religious" names), you can't have any sterilzation procedure no matter what your insurance.
If you're anywhere else and you have "religious" insurance, you're probably also out of luck, although I'm less certain of that - it's the kind of thing you need to check on with your insurere beforehand.
The growing control of hospitals by affiliates of the Catholic Church through hospital mergers is particularly worrying - the insurance you have isn't going to matter. Make sure you're clear about the hospital's policies before choosing to give birth there (or going there to die, as well - Catholic hospitals may refuse to honor patient directives in right-to-die states).
If you're anywhere else and you have "religious" insurance, you're probably also out of luck, although I'm less certain of that - it's the kind of thing you need to check on with your insurere beforehand.
The growing control of hospitals by affiliates of the Catholic Church through hospital mergers is particularly worrying - the insurance you have isn't going to matter. Make sure you're clear about the hospital's policies before choosing to give birth there (or going there to die, as well - Catholic hospitals may refuse to honor patient directives in right-to-die states).
16
That is the precise point. The Court is broadening the scope of what a religious group can declare they cannot provide under the Religious Freedom act, and widening the scope of the definition of a religious organization (Hobby Lobby is hardly a monastery.)
Each decision builds a base for the next case: tubal ligation, blood transfusions, mental health care... All could be ruled t be something an employer need not provide.
Each decision builds a base for the next case: tubal ligation, blood transfusions, mental health care... All could be ruled t be something an employer need not provide.
16
Really? Finally the question surfaces after all these years. "Why does the governmental preference for one religion overrule all others?" Who's religious freedom or irreligious freedom is more important or moral than another?
87
This isn't "religion," it's oppression posing as "religion." But, then again, in GOPland language has been perverted to its very opposite, and the Constitution becomes Kleenex.
155
Oppression posing as religion? Religion is based upon oppression.
15
Following the logic of this case, line-item religious exemptions for every possible federal expenditure must be added to our personal tax returns.
63
Yes, Eben, and tax-free status be revoked and ALL religious income be taxed at 50%. Retroactive to at least the Hyde Amendment.
8
Eben Spinoza – agreed, but then mustn't there also be a line-item exemption for the irreligious too? Must one declare membership in specific religion in order to qualify?
Many atheists and agnostics have objections to things our tax dollars support that are just as sincere and major as any religionist's, but they do not get to take advantage of these exemptions.
Justice Stevens pointed out that these exemptions are unconstitutional in that they may be used exclusively by one group, but are not available to anyone else. Hard to disagree with his thinking.
Many atheists and agnostics have objections to things our tax dollars support that are just as sincere and major as any religionist's, but they do not get to take advantage of these exemptions.
Justice Stevens pointed out that these exemptions are unconstitutional in that they may be used exclusively by one group, but are not available to anyone else. Hard to disagree with his thinking.
6
Unlike the solicitor general, I do not believe the nuns are being honest. This is a tactic. They are not afraid of committing sin. Before Cardinal Dolan's "religious liberty" campaign, which had as its purpose the promotion of his career, many Catholic institutions had contraceptive coverage. I am aware of a Catholic hospital that administered the morning after pill following rape. Conservative Catholics, including nuns who still wear habits to disguise their sex, are upset about modernization. They are attempting an end run, hoping to deprive Catholic and nonCatholic women of birth control, even though most Catholics use birth control.
314
It's the dying gasp of a corporation bent on survival. Religion is obsolete, they are making buggy whips in the age of space travel. They can't retool, so they are hoping for a save from the courts. It won't help, very few people want buggy whips today, in advanced countries. There is still a big market in the Mideast, go there.
5
"Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. seemed to assume, against all evidence, that a new form of contraception-only insurance could magically come into existence and could adequately meet the needs of the women who work for the objecting employers."
Their question(s) demonstrate(s) a basic ignorance of how insurance works. Insurance plans use the premiums of healthy policy-holders to cover the costs of the sick ones. If every policy-holder gets sick, the plan ultimately runs out of money. A "contraceptives-only" plan would, by its nature, go bottoms-up immediately, since EVERY woman would use the service. There wouldn't be any non-users to susidize the users.
Their question(s) demonstrate(s) a basic ignorance of how insurance works. Insurance plans use the premiums of healthy policy-holders to cover the costs of the sick ones. If every policy-holder gets sick, the plan ultimately runs out of money. A "contraceptives-only" plan would, by its nature, go bottoms-up immediately, since EVERY woman would use the service. There wouldn't be any non-users to susidize the users.
111
The so called Religious Restoration Act - another mess to deal with from the Triangulator in Chief, Bill Clinton.
This represents one more reason I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary. Those two (you always get both of them) sucked up to the religious right in 1993 and we are still bearing the consequences of their lack of conviction or moral courage. Without fail, they bend to whichever way the wind is blowing.
This represents one more reason I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary. Those two (you always get both of them) sucked up to the religious right in 1993 and we are still bearing the consequences of their lack of conviction or moral courage. Without fail, they bend to whichever way the wind is blowing.
16
The you would be hard pressed to vote for anyone. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed the Senate 97 - 3 and the House by voice vote. Nobody in the House asked for a roll call vote and that includes Bernie Sanders.
As Linda Greenhouse says, nobody thought the Act would be interpreted in such a perverse way.
This is just another baseless attack on Hillary.
As Linda Greenhouse says, nobody thought the Act would be interpreted in such a perverse way.
This is just another baseless attack on Hillary.
24
The Act was supported by Democrats and Republicans.
7
Well whom do you propose instead ? Trump who now wants to punish women and doctors for legal abortions or Cruz who wants women in burquas and subservient to their husbands. If a Republican gets in it's game over
For women's rights and health care to boot.
Yes the Religious Restoration Act is bogus but all we can do now is try to move forward.
For women's rights and health care to boot.
Yes the Religious Restoration Act is bogus but all we can do now is try to move forward.
20
Two questions:
1. Why five Catholic Supreme Court justices? (That's bizarre.)
2. Why shouldn't judge, who's a practicing Catholic (or Muslim, or, for that matter, Pagan), recuse himself or herself from a case involving religious belief?
1. Why five Catholic Supreme Court justices? (That's bizarre.)
2. Why shouldn't judge, who's a practicing Catholic (or Muslim, or, for that matter, Pagan), recuse himself or herself from a case involving religious belief?
193
Is it any more bizarre that the other three justices are all Jewish?!
Do you actually believe that the Catholic justices should be doing as Kennedy had to when he was running for president and, in order to appease Protestant Americans, had to avow that he wouldn't be taking directions from the Pope?!
Do you actually believe that the Catholic justices should be doing as Kennedy had to when he was running for president and, in order to appease Protestant Americans, had to avow that he wouldn't be taking directions from the Pope?!
5
These cases that attack SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE should not be HEARD. The Chief Justice - in this case catholic corporate Roberts - decides which cases to hear. They should not be heard. Then no one would have to recuse themselves.
3
Thomas Paine Redux: Thanks for reminding us. Do people remember the big deal it was when the first Jew (Arthur Goldberg) was nominated to sit on the Supreme Court? And how recent that was, in historical terms--we must be near the 50th anniversary.
2
It never fails to amaze me how members of Congress, of whom law is the most common educational and professional background, with the complicity of both appellate and Supreme Court Justices, can read the Constitution on the subject of religion and, year after year, attempt to subvert the intent of the founders by passing laws directly conflicting with the First Amendment.
As a refresher: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Nowhere is it even implied that by allowing the "free exercise" of one religion, the government or the law may condone or can allow any imposition on another religious organization...or a non-religious organization, for that matter. Yet that is exactly what is at stake here.
As a refresher: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Nowhere is it even implied that by allowing the "free exercise" of one religion, the government or the law may condone or can allow any imposition on another religious organization...or a non-religious organization, for that matter. Yet that is exactly what is at stake here.
265
Subverting the intent of the founders is one of the main things you learn in law school. (I'm a retired attorney.)
9
I had sort of figured that was the case, Tom. I appreciate your candid confirmation.
Glen
Glen
2
Why don't we all just be good Jesuits and challenge the premise on which the four Justices base their "hijacking" conclusion. How can the Government hijack from the employer an insurance policy that is part of the employee's compensation package? Seems like it is the employee's insurance policy once activated, not the employers. If the religiously-affiliated employee opted, as it can, to offer a "flex-benefit" cash payment to its employees with which buy their own insurance, do the employers contend that the employees should be barred from using this part of their compensation package to cover contraceptives because the cash implicates them in - or is that just their next case?
67
I'm not sure it's wise to offer a kind of "voucher" equivalent. Gets complicated fast, particularly if the recipient is short of cash. Better to take practical measures to ensure the service remains a service in my opinion, though it's an interesting thought experiment.
7
tr connelly: Why stop there? I won't be surprised if the next case argues that employers' religious beliefs protect them from paying their employees at all, since employees could use their wages to commit sins.
6
tr connelly – better solution: let's have Medicare for ALL. Take employers out of the insurance equation. Problem(s) solved!
2
It's a bit infuriating that everyone assumes oral contraception use is a sin in the first place. In fact, oral contraception is used not just to let women have lots of unprotected sex. It is also needed for other purposes. For example to relieve highly painful periods. Its use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 50% for women at high risk (VERY IMPORTANT!). Does no one ever bother to point out to the objectors that it is none of their business WHY women need birth control but that many do and that decision should fully be the right and under the control of themselves and their doctor - not their employer? What about the discriminatory aspect? I can't think of a single other drug for MEN that is treated in this patriarchal manner. It seems all about forcing control of womens' behavior to an extreme and should be illegal. After all, they aren't also comlaining about coverage for Viagra? Which is purely needed for sexual gratification, unlike oral contraception. Infuriating this even got to the Supreme Court. Religious organizations like these are fanatics and should be ashamed of their role in subjugating women in this country.
699
Those who consider any kind of contraception a sin, are prisoners to ancient religious tenets whose purpose os to make them slaves to the church.
The basic rule of the Roman Catholic Church is that sex is only for procreation, and sex for other purposes is sinful. The church leaders know that people would have ex, and procreation be damned, but they wanted and stil do want them to feel guily about it.
That bring them to confession to ask pardon for their sinful ways. Other Christian churches employ much the same technique, I can not think of one that preaches "Have sex for fun." So the followers go to church to pray for forgiveness for their imagined sins, which are manufactured by their church, and of course as the old song goes, "Bringing in the Sheep." (Sheaves). According to Christian religion, we are born with original sin. Even a newborn is born with sin. Now what did that baby do to have sin, well getting born obviously. Convince people they have committed so sin, and you can make it better by rattling a few bones, beating on a drum, or sprinkling some water about, and they are in your grip.
Open a drive in church and god will reward you with alms, and even air conditioned dog houses.
Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!
The basic rule of the Roman Catholic Church is that sex is only for procreation, and sex for other purposes is sinful. The church leaders know that people would have ex, and procreation be damned, but they wanted and stil do want them to feel guily about it.
That bring them to confession to ask pardon for their sinful ways. Other Christian churches employ much the same technique, I can not think of one that preaches "Have sex for fun." So the followers go to church to pray for forgiveness for their imagined sins, which are manufactured by their church, and of course as the old song goes, "Bringing in the Sheep." (Sheaves). According to Christian religion, we are born with original sin. Even a newborn is born with sin. Now what did that baby do to have sin, well getting born obviously. Convince people they have committed so sin, and you can make it better by rattling a few bones, beating on a drum, or sprinkling some water about, and they are in your grip.
Open a drive in church and god will reward you with alms, and even air conditioned dog houses.
Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!
26
Thanks David Underwood; here's the music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuKsq5RGuI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuKsq5RGuI
7
Lisa, I don't think it's accurate to suggest "everyone assumes oral contraception use is a sin in the first place." I suspect most Americans would disagree with that statement. Consider that a majority even of Catholic women (though not 99% as has sometimes been asserted) have used birth control at some point in their lives in contravention of their Church's teaching on the subject (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98.... A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Associate in 2014 found that about 70% of those interviewed supported the idea that employers should be required to provide contraceptive coverage. Rates of agreement were higher for women, people with children under 18 in the home, blacks and Hispanics. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1864818
8
Time to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and start suing for relief from societal obligations that offend my religious beliefs!
90
Remember Stanley Kramer's movie, "Judgment at Nuremberg" -- a story about the judiciary being complicit in the policies of a regime. It's not a happy story. Burt Lancaster was brilliant as Dr. Ernst Janning.
16
But the American right wing is some 70 years out of date, and is trying to turn the United States into the sort of regime it fought against, turning our magnificent Constitution into its Cotonelle.
13
When Justice Kennedy snapped, "that’s why it’s necessary to hijack the plans!”, it seemed to me an outburst borne of a frustration that he does realize this is a case where he should be voting with the liberals but doesn't want to.
21
and belies his objectivity
1
"hijack"
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass"
We know Republicans make their own history for their own ideological reasons. We also know Republicans deny proven science for their own ideological reasons.
Why should it be surprising that Republicans make their own meaning to common words for their own ideological reasons?
Newspeak?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass"
We know Republicans make their own history for their own ideological reasons. We also know Republicans deny proven science for their own ideological reasons.
Why should it be surprising that Republicans make their own meaning to common words for their own ideological reasons?
Newspeak?
200
Newtspeak! It started with Gingrich's GOPAC memo and his thesarus of defamation against Democrats.
8
I'm all for religious freedom. It's part of the bedrock of our system. But the religious right is pushing their case to such extremes, and so often, that there's bound to be a reaction coming from those who believe that this religious overreach is anathema to a functioning democratic civil society. I know that I no longer feel even an ounce of sympathy for them, so disingenuous is their cause.
426
"I'm all for religious freedom. It's part of the bedrock of our system."
Well, I'm not for religious freedom, and no, it is decidedly not a bedrock of our system. Religious freedom is a smokescreen as Ms. Greenhouse points out here. The religious right is doing everything it can to assert its idiosyncratic morality on others--this is decidedly not religious freedom.
No, the "bedrock" of our system is secularism based on universal Enlightenment values. The United States, as a social union, is entirely neutral when it comes to religion that will create the mess we have today. If you allow religion into the "system" you will fall into a dangerous slippery slope.
First, what is a religion? Jehovah's Witness? Christian Science? Mormonism? Scientology? The Spaghetti Monster? All of these social groupings have their own distinctive morality, the Mormons with their racism and penchant for polygamy, the Christian Scientists who reject modern medicine, and heaven knows what those Spaghetti Monsters are into.
The answer is simple: if the nuns are against birth control, then great, more power to them in this open democracy. But fundamentally the laws of this country cannot allow them to force their idiosyncratic, no eccentric, morality onto others who do not believe in their idiosyncratic religious ways, any more than the Mormons can force me to accept polygamy or the Christian Scientists rejection of medicine. And I dread what those pesky Spaghetti Monsters will force on us...
Well, I'm not for religious freedom, and no, it is decidedly not a bedrock of our system. Religious freedom is a smokescreen as Ms. Greenhouse points out here. The religious right is doing everything it can to assert its idiosyncratic morality on others--this is decidedly not religious freedom.
No, the "bedrock" of our system is secularism based on universal Enlightenment values. The United States, as a social union, is entirely neutral when it comes to religion that will create the mess we have today. If you allow religion into the "system" you will fall into a dangerous slippery slope.
First, what is a religion? Jehovah's Witness? Christian Science? Mormonism? Scientology? The Spaghetti Monster? All of these social groupings have their own distinctive morality, the Mormons with their racism and penchant for polygamy, the Christian Scientists who reject modern medicine, and heaven knows what those Spaghetti Monsters are into.
The answer is simple: if the nuns are against birth control, then great, more power to them in this open democracy. But fundamentally the laws of this country cannot allow them to force their idiosyncratic, no eccentric, morality onto others who do not believe in their idiosyncratic religious ways, any more than the Mormons can force me to accept polygamy or the Christian Scientists rejection of medicine. And I dread what those pesky Spaghetti Monsters will force on us...
297
I believe Jeffrey Waingrow meant what most of us think when we say "religious freedom". It is for religious organizations to be free from government interference in their worship and for the rest of us to be free FROM religious interference.
8
Until recently, it was well accepted that religious freedom means the government can neither prevent you from practicing nor require you to practice religion. It has also been well accepted that when you enter into commerce, you are required to take all comers. A landlord, an employer, and a business owner cannot refuse to rent to, employ, and sell to people whose beliefs and practices might violate the business owner's religion - or lack thereof.
But today's right wing wants to allow discrimination in commerce in the guise of expanding religious rights of business owners. If Catholics can refuse to provide health insurance to employees that covers birth control, then Quakers can refuse to cover war injuries; Jehovah's Witnesses can refuse to cover blood transfusions; and Scientologists can refuse to cover psychiatric treatment.
And the right is not confining its discriminatory drive to employee health insurance. Today's right wants to allow bakers to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples, for instance.
This logic leads to a complete breakdown of public commerce. It raises the possibility of religiously segregated commerce, where customers can't simply walk into stores and expect service, but instead have to pass religious tests to be allowed to order pizza.
And it could get a lot more serious than birth control and wedding cakes - the logic of the argument reaches to employment, housing, and indeed all commerce.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
But today's right wing wants to allow discrimination in commerce in the guise of expanding religious rights of business owners. If Catholics can refuse to provide health insurance to employees that covers birth control, then Quakers can refuse to cover war injuries; Jehovah's Witnesses can refuse to cover blood transfusions; and Scientologists can refuse to cover psychiatric treatment.
And the right is not confining its discriminatory drive to employee health insurance. Today's right wants to allow bakers to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples, for instance.
This logic leads to a complete breakdown of public commerce. It raises the possibility of religiously segregated commerce, where customers can't simply walk into stores and expect service, but instead have to pass religious tests to be allowed to order pizza.
And it could get a lot more serious than birth control and wedding cakes - the logic of the argument reaches to employment, housing, and indeed all commerce.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
15