1,283 words and no mention of the plaintiffs. Huh. As a long-time journalist, I find that intriguing. Hey Liptak, be a good journo and inform us, will you?
1
Am so tired and angry at how the religious radicals have co-opted the term "person of faith." We atheists have "faith" as deep as any religious believer.
We have faith that our fellow citizens will treat each other with dignity and modern values and not seek to impose ancient belief systems upon the entire nation. That simply requiring the filling out of a form won't provoke a holy war.
The government has bent over backwards to make things palatable for religious organizations that object to providing contraceptive coverage. It has let them off the hook from paying for coverage that every other business entity must provide and shifted the burden to private enterprise.
It makes absolutely no logical sense. But I guess that shouldn't surprise. Most of what the deeply and overtly religious believe makes little sense and seeks to impose their belief system on non-believers.
It's time to end the bullying of the religious radicals and require they conform to modern norms.
We have faith that our fellow citizens will treat each other with dignity and modern values and not seek to impose ancient belief systems upon the entire nation. That simply requiring the filling out of a form won't provoke a holy war.
The government has bent over backwards to make things palatable for religious organizations that object to providing contraceptive coverage. It has let them off the hook from paying for coverage that every other business entity must provide and shifted the burden to private enterprise.
It makes absolutely no logical sense. But I guess that shouldn't surprise. Most of what the deeply and overtly religious believe makes little sense and seeks to impose their belief system on non-believers.
It's time to end the bullying of the religious radicals and require they conform to modern norms.
5
Too many in this country are trying to evolve solutions for non-problems. The supreme Court already ruled on this -offer countless birth control options as part of employee health care options that don't terminate a fertilized egg; stopping fertilization has to be provided as there is no 'murder' that has taken place.
How about fighting the states mandating that doctors have practicing privileges at a hospital? That's worth fighting
Can no one pick battles anymore?
How about fighting the states mandating that doctors have practicing privileges at a hospital? That's worth fighting
Can no one pick battles anymore?
1
The Catholic Church does much good and they represent millions of Americans who value that faith. As such, I see no problem with trying to find some kind of compromise with their odd beliefs about birth control, which are highly illogical and universally ignored by almost all American Catholics. Still, we like them and we don't want to cause them pain, so we try to accommodate.
But filling out a form? You can't fill out a form saying "no we won't pay can you please pay instead?" Is that really worth a lawsuit? Aren't there better things you could spend your money on? This is really what it comes down to, all those important Catholic values like compassion for the poor and commitment to education and openness to immigrants?
In the end, you're not willing to fill out a form? Really?
That's wacked. 98% of American Catholics use birth control. We know you feel the need to ignore this fact and pretend that people are just being chaste with their 2 children, but do you really have to fight a lawsuit just to prove that you can't deal with reality?
But filling out a form? You can't fill out a form saying "no we won't pay can you please pay instead?" Is that really worth a lawsuit? Aren't there better things you could spend your money on? This is really what it comes down to, all those important Catholic values like compassion for the poor and commitment to education and openness to immigrants?
In the end, you're not willing to fill out a form? Really?
That's wacked. 98% of American Catholics use birth control. We know you feel the need to ignore this fact and pretend that people are just being chaste with their 2 children, but do you really have to fight a lawsuit just to prove that you can't deal with reality?
7
Birth control is not a deeply held belief. It's not the trinity, the resurrection, or the divinity of Jesus. The only deeply held beliefs it supports is the belief in men's rights to control women.
6
Where is the separation of church and state? Why is the Supreme Court deciding on some rulings and not others because they fear a deadlock? Should there then be a policy to not decide on rulings until all 9 justices are on the bench.
Why is the Obama administration "'gratified' because the ruling proved it was possible to prioritize health care access while maintaining religious liberty for everyone."?
Let's compare the administration's desire to maintain religious liberty for everyone when it's not on the backs of women/women's healthcare:
1. shops refusing to sell to or have as clients homosexuals
2. gender neutral bathrooms in our schools for transgenders
I am so tired and weary of women being punted. When will people realize that a woman who receives equal pay for equal work and given equal power of self-determination for her body as a man is for his, is free from the chains of poverty.
Her freedom is an inalienable right.
Oh, but that's right, the majority of the country, the last time it was voted upon, didn't want that either. We are still slaves to other people's religious beliefs and the belief that women don't need our legislators, judges or President to be as strong and swift defending our legal rights as they are for homosexuals, transgenders, lesbians, non-whites and aliens.
And please, do not think I am pitting groups against each other. I have supported the rights of people in these "classes" all my life.
Why is the Obama administration "'gratified' because the ruling proved it was possible to prioritize health care access while maintaining religious liberty for everyone."?
Let's compare the administration's desire to maintain religious liberty for everyone when it's not on the backs of women/women's healthcare:
1. shops refusing to sell to or have as clients homosexuals
2. gender neutral bathrooms in our schools for transgenders
I am so tired and weary of women being punted. When will people realize that a woman who receives equal pay for equal work and given equal power of self-determination for her body as a man is for his, is free from the chains of poverty.
Her freedom is an inalienable right.
Oh, but that's right, the majority of the country, the last time it was voted upon, didn't want that either. We are still slaves to other people's religious beliefs and the belief that women don't need our legislators, judges or President to be as strong and swift defending our legal rights as they are for homosexuals, transgenders, lesbians, non-whites and aliens.
And please, do not think I am pitting groups against each other. I have supported the rights of people in these "classes" all my life.
8
This was not a problem until Obama care and then everything was a problem. The backlash came from the Koch network of anti-government organizations and is paying for the lawyers. This is just another way to try to kill it as they pick away at it.
2
Anti-abortion + anti-contraception = anti-sex. I'd suggest these right-wing anti-sex zealots pack their sad little privates in ice and leave the rest of us normal, functioning human beings alone.
12
Neal, I'm glad to leave you alone. Just quit trying to make me pay, through taxes or forced employee benefits, for your or anyone else's abortions, contraception or any other consequences that arise from your sexual choices. This case isn't about pro-choice or anti-anything, it's about legally forcing someone to pay for or provide for you choices even though they disagree with it. Take responsibility for your own choices and pay for your own contraception, then you'll have more credibility to ask folks to leave you alone. It's kind of hypocritical to demand people respect your privacy when your requiring them to pay for it.
6
Interesting, Rupert. I guess maternity care is offensive to you too. One of my four sons and I would have died without maternity care, but who cares about that? That was my lifestyle choice to have a baby, not my husband's employer. How about not having to pay for surgery and medicine for anyone when they choose not to exercise and have heart attacks? That was a lifestyle choice. Too bad for you. The employer disagrees with your slovenly ways. What about kids that get type 2 diabetes? Surely there were lifestyle choices involved in that. Let's not require anyone to pay for their treatment either. People who don't wear a seatbelt and get in a car accident can forget having their ambulance ride to the hospital paid for. They chose not to wear that seatbelt. You decided to hike when there were risks for thunderstorms? That was your stupid decision. My company won't pay a dime of your medical care if you get hurt.
As I see it there are two ways you can do health care in a society. One way is that health care is provided either through employers as a benefit or through the government (as in "we the people" care about each other and collect taxes to provide health care for each other) If health care is provided then what the individual needs is between him/her and the doctor. The other way is that we don't have health care insurance at all. That will make it so only rich people get to go to a doctor. What a nice country this will be then.
As I see it there are two ways you can do health care in a society. One way is that health care is provided either through employers as a benefit or through the government (as in "we the people" care about each other and collect taxes to provide health care for each other) If health care is provided then what the individual needs is between him/her and the doctor. The other way is that we don't have health care insurance at all. That will make it so only rich people get to go to a doctor. What a nice country this will be then.
9
Ah the wisdom of our senatorial leaders. They like punts from the court.
2
I fail to comprehend why there is so much outcry over what the Court did or why this should be compared to the other cases that were deadlocked. The Court said the parties were close enough:
to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans ‘receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage
So why shouldn't the parties finish what they are so close to finishing as that avoids having a court impose a mandate on the parties with both sides being accommodated.
That's the best possible outcome & now we'll see if those claiming a burden on their religious beliefs actually are honestly making that claim or just attempting to construct a barrier to women seeking medical care
to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans ‘receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage
So why shouldn't the parties finish what they are so close to finishing as that avoids having a court impose a mandate on the parties with both sides being accommodated.
That's the best possible outcome & now we'll see if those claiming a burden on their religious beliefs actually are honestly making that claim or just attempting to construct a barrier to women seeking medical care
3
There is no true of religion without without freedom from religion. Many of the people pushing for and trying to expand these so called religious freedom laws will howl when they are used by the many religions that have beliefs counter to their own. The case of these non profits is just the beginning. What will happen when Wiccians and Muslims etc take the same hard stance on their beliefs. As someone once said " Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."
8
this is just more proof that the SC is nothing if not partisan. Waiting for "after the election" is nothing more than a pure admission by congress that it will do all it can to have a partisan court. There is no reason for a SC with nothing but sides based on belief and party affiliation. The final "stop" for enforcing law is now corrupted by the system, like all other branches and areas of government.
I am more of a work somewhere else if you don't want religious beliefs imposed upon you by a religious entity however. Take your argument to a public company.
I am more of a work somewhere else if you don't want religious beliefs imposed upon you by a religious entity however. Take your argument to a public company.
1
This was never an issue until Obamacare was implemented. The White House was split on the HHS Mandate that put this in play. Many advisers to President Obama recommended against it. The current mandate recognizes the conscience rights of churches but not church affiliated organizations. The subsequent compromise initiated by the administration was a step in the right direction but church affiliated organizations still sincerely felt they were acting contrary to their fundamental beliefs. The Supreme Court orders the administration and the religious organizations to craft a solution. Based on briefs filed with the Court both sides believe it's realistic. The overwhelming majority of individuals who are employed by Catholic organizations understand the principles of the Church will guide those organizations.
4
I sincerely hope the zealous groups that wish to deny female employees insurance for contraception also argue that their male employees shouldn't be able to get Viagra under Medicare, which is currently a covered government insurance benefit. Yes, this is an apples to oranges comparison, but both deal with the underlying religious taboo of sex in completely different ways: male sex is encouraged (Viagra is all about male ego) while the consequence of unwanted pregnancy is thrust upon females as a lifetime penalty. This result is one we'd expect to see in a medieval culture, not the first world.
13
Let's place this in a different setting.
If you are running a charity for the poor and downtrodden in a Shiite country where the government insists that all gays be identified to the police so that they can be thrown off the tops of buildings to die on the pavement below, are you STILL insisting that everyone has to toe the line that your elected head of state teaches?
You can't leave because you have been there for ages, and leaders come & go. What do you do?
If you are running a charity for the poor and downtrodden in a Shiite country where the government insists that all gays be identified to the police so that they can be thrown off the tops of buildings to die on the pavement below, are you STILL insisting that everyone has to toe the line that your elected head of state teaches?
You can't leave because you have been there for ages, and leaders come & go. What do you do?
5
That is a different situation entirely. In your scenario someone is going to be killed. We are dealing with birth control here. There are such things as bad laws which usually involve oppressing people or hurting them (like slavery, child labor, and throwing people off of buildings). When there are bad laws that are causing harm then it is absolutely our job as citizens to fight against them and change the law.
It is difficult, however, to see that attempting to provide health care to citizens is a bad law. And yes, health care includes contraception for countries that don't want to be stuck in the 1700s. There are many instances where people died unnecessarily due to lack of access to health care in our country. I would argue that if we care about each other we should fight to change our country so we all have access to health care.
It is interesting that these nuns now choose to protest against contraception rather than having spent years protesting for the government to provide health care to children so no other teenage boy would die of a treatable cancer just before he was going to be the first person in his family to go to college. His family couldn't afford health care. That happened. How kind these nuns are to spend their energy worrying about birth control.
It is difficult, however, to see that attempting to provide health care to citizens is a bad law. And yes, health care includes contraception for countries that don't want to be stuck in the 1700s. There are many instances where people died unnecessarily due to lack of access to health care in our country. I would argue that if we care about each other we should fight to change our country so we all have access to health care.
It is interesting that these nuns now choose to protest against contraception rather than having spent years protesting for the government to provide health care to children so no other teenage boy would die of a treatable cancer just before he was going to be the first person in his family to go to college. His family couldn't afford health care. That happened. How kind these nuns are to spend their energy worrying about birth control.
4
COWARDS. Tell us what your opinion is, in detail.
3
Read it, ChesBay. It's there for all to see...
1
Thank you for the wonderful photo. This says it all. Religious freedom is important for the survival of a nation and these nuns are just standing up for their right to protest at what they feel is an injustice to their faith. Good for them. I wish you lovely sisters all the best in this very important battle. Keep up the fight. This is very important for the future of democracy in our country. They have a tremendous amount of faith which will see them to the end for victory.
5
"Republican senators have said they will not confirm another of Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court nominees." - even if it was Jesus
3
They are agreeing with the statements of Harry Reid, most all Dems who are on the Judiciary Committee, and even Senator Barack Obama.
Democrats prefer not to replace deceased jurists a good years and a half before the next election. Do you know so little of recent American history?
Democrats prefer not to replace deceased jurists a good years and a half before the next election. Do you know so little of recent American history?
3
Article III of the Constitution was an early failure. Monarchs, dictators, and Popes rule for life. Justices should not be allowed to rule for life since the Uninted States has an over abundance of lawyers and law schools compared to the 13 colonies. There should be 12 so a full JURY of oligarchs would decide such trivia as guaranteed by the Constitution. A group of 80-year-old geezers?
.
ONLY in the America that replaced the 50-United States.
.
Boo-Who? The national self-rule experiment failed and can't be fixed except increasing the House of Representatives to one Rep per73K voters instead of one per 770K.
.
Then Article III would be fixed. Let's not debate this failure and cry over spilled milk, but fix the disaster with a simple majority vote to repeal the 1929 Apportionment Act.
.
ONLY in the America that replaced the 50-United States.
.
Boo-Who? The national self-rule experiment failed and can't be fixed except increasing the House of Representatives to one Rep per73K voters instead of one per 770K.
.
Then Article III would be fixed. Let's not debate this failure and cry over spilled milk, but fix the disaster with a simple majority vote to repeal the 1929 Apportionment Act.
There needs to be a more clear division between what is mandatory health care covered by insurance and what is elective health care that is not covered but could be covered if the insured pays a higher premium. We females are responsible for ourselves. Whether we do or don't want children should not be something everyone else pays for. Insurers need to charge more for individuals who drive health insurance rates up by charging more for their expensive elective health care, including contraception and including having babies.
1
When Hillary wins the election and Congress is back in the hands of the Democratic Party, I hope Hillary appoints Bernie Sanders as a Supreme Court Justice to fill Scalia's seat. Won't that be poetic justice for Mitch McConnell and his flock of mean-spirited do-nothings who have thwarted and paralyzed the 3rd branch of government.
8
Where in the Bible does it suggest believers are responsible for the behavior of anyone other than themselves?
8
4 to 4 and a congress that won't do its job.
5
"4 to 4 and a congress that won't do its job."
It was a unanimous 8-0 opinion... Both sides indicated to the Court that they believed a compromise, satisfactory to all concerned, was possible, meaning that there would be need to argue a Constitutional issue since -- if the parties did in fact settle -- there would be no issue.
How can the "low information" left survive? Don't you guys ever research anything?
It was a unanimous 8-0 opinion... Both sides indicated to the Court that they believed a compromise, satisfactory to all concerned, was possible, meaning that there would be need to argue a Constitutional issue since -- if the parties did in fact settle -- there would be no issue.
How can the "low information" left survive? Don't you guys ever research anything?
1
I feel for all you people who have had your country hijacked by medieval celibate pressure groups and their male handlers trying to dictate women's access to health. It's baffling how this is even an issue and absolutely pitiful to see how all these old white men somehow get offended by human rights. But rest assured, you're a little bit behind, but religion will slowly and surely lose power in the US as well, and become something for fringe lunatics, which has already happened in a growing number of countries in the world, leading to less conflict and more happiness.
11
I hope you're right! I lived in Sweden for many years with my husband (he is Swedish) and I thoroughly enjoyed the lack of religion that existed there. When we moved here it was a reverse culture shock for me. People actually still believe this stuff? And they believe it so badly they are willing to shove it down everyone else's throats. In Sweden, if you look at the history of when citizens started getting many more rights and better lives it coincides with religion losing its grip. Society and people always suffer at the hands of religion. Anyone who reads a lot of history knows this. Any social progress that has been made by humans has been in spite of religion not because of it. This is a very unpopular opinion in the USA and the Times may even refuse to print my comment because of this. Everyone is supposed to believe that religion is a good thing. There are good people that are religious, but religion itself is not good for society. I am sure lots of readers will now despise me and consider me an arrogant and intolerant person. All I have to say is read some history. That is all it takes to see how bad religion is.
8
The US may have its problems; but I have traveled the world, and I am very glad to be an American and live in this great country. We can speak our minds without fear of being murdered or imprisoned.
Religion has been hijacked by the left liberal progressives and these fine nuns have had the courage to take on the Obama administration and fight this contraceptive mandate. They are not stopping women from using birth control but do not want to get involved in this process. Many of us support the nuns and want them to win this fight. It is very important for religious freedom and rights in this country. We are all about freedom and freedom of speech. This is truly a great country and millions are very anxious to move here. I could not think of a better place to raise a family.
Religion has been hijacked by the left liberal progressives and these fine nuns have had the courage to take on the Obama administration and fight this contraceptive mandate. They are not stopping women from using birth control but do not want to get involved in this process. Many of us support the nuns and want them to win this fight. It is very important for religious freedom and rights in this country. We are all about freedom and freedom of speech. This is truly a great country and millions are very anxious to move here. I could not think of a better place to raise a family.
2
@Laura
The Little Sisters of the Poor do charitable work or the downtrodden and indigent in thirty-one countries; they maintain twenty-five homes for the needy elderly in the United States alone. Other religious orders, both Catholic and Protestant, run hospitals and perform a countless number of other services beneficial to society.
I don't think one has to be a believer to appreciate their good works.
By the way, isn't the Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, which was established in 1865 by the Sisters of Charity, still the principal HC facility in Santa Fe?
The Little Sisters of the Poor do charitable work or the downtrodden and indigent in thirty-one countries; they maintain twenty-five homes for the needy elderly in the United States alone. Other religious orders, both Catholic and Protestant, run hospitals and perform a countless number of other services beneficial to society.
I don't think one has to be a believer to appreciate their good works.
By the way, isn't the Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, which was established in 1865 by the Sisters of Charity, still the principal HC facility in Santa Fe?
2
The decision is great for democracy. The court is telling folks to think creatively, 'get off your high horse', and find a different solution. The last thing we need now is another decision by the 'king' or panel of 'high lords' who are far from the problem. As a democracy we should be able to find a solution on our own. If we don't start changing our ways we will end up with some form of a autocracy.
3
I'm pretty sure the Justices realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Get ready for a long list of so called "religious" or moral objections. I have a few myself. Can I please have some waivers I can include in my Form 1040 when I pay my taxes?
What's good for the nuns is good for the not nuns.
(But I am a fan of the nuns on the bus).
What's good for the nuns is good for the not nuns.
(But I am a fan of the nuns on the bus).
3
Let us accept the glaring truth. There is an apartheid system in use of contraceptives - gender bias. Men do not want to use as there is a school of thought that their pleasure gets reduced. People boast that they will never undergo a vasectomy surgery,but they can tell their wives to undergo surgery to prevent pregnancies. The top judiciary should be bold enough to take a view instead of passing the buck to lower courts. Why it is shying away from taking a stand? What role does a third person (religious groups) has,as insurance is a contract between two parties. The root cause is men's unwillingness to use contraceptives,and they are hiding behind religious groups.
4
The church doesn't want to help the government provide birth control. If you are bad at analogies this will be over your head. But assume the government limited each family to one child and a doctor didn't want to report births to the government. That's a perfect analogy to what the church wants to do here and is totally reasonable. The church, like the doctor, is entitled to its beliefs and should not be compelled by the government to compromise its beliefs.
3
The government isn't providing birth control. We don't have a nationalized health care system. We have private company middle men providing health care and birth control.
Let's make a different analogy. There are minimum wage laws. The Bible clearly supports slavery. How about those nuns start claiming they shouldn't have to pay people minimum wage. It's against their religion. Now they are having to compromise their beliefs. Does that work for you too?
How about a 30 year old dude wanting to marry a 13 year old girl because his religion tells him that's fine. The government shouldn't trample on his religious freedoms. Is that cool with you?
There is a reason religion should not be mixed up in our laws. And, by the way, the nuns aren't forced to compromise their precious beliefs. They are simply being asked to fill out a piece of paper declaring their religious objection before they tell their employees that as long as they work for the nuns the private company middle men won't pay any portion of birth control.
Let's make a different analogy. There are minimum wage laws. The Bible clearly supports slavery. How about those nuns start claiming they shouldn't have to pay people minimum wage. It's against their religion. Now they are having to compromise their beliefs. Does that work for you too?
How about a 30 year old dude wanting to marry a 13 year old girl because his religion tells him that's fine. The government shouldn't trample on his religious freedoms. Is that cool with you?
There is a reason religion should not be mixed up in our laws. And, by the way, the nuns aren't forced to compromise their precious beliefs. They are simply being asked to fill out a piece of paper declaring their religious objection before they tell their employees that as long as they work for the nuns the private company middle men won't pay any portion of birth control.
6
Laura,
When these women were first employed by the Little Sisters of the Poor, they knew that this Catholic organization held certain religious beliefs. Obamacare was not the law of the land and birth control was not even an issue in their health care plans. If they are unhappy with this policy, they are free to leave this employment and work elsewhere. Problem solved.
When these women were first employed by the Little Sisters of the Poor, they knew that this Catholic organization held certain religious beliefs. Obamacare was not the law of the land and birth control was not even an issue in their health care plans. If they are unhappy with this policy, they are free to leave this employment and work elsewhere. Problem solved.
1
KMW, Likewise these Catholic nuns also know they are operating in the USA, a country of laws. Do they not have to follow the laws just because of their religion? I don't think I need to point out the slippery slope that would lead to. These nuns are free not to have a company or business if the laws offend them so very much. I'm frankly not impressed by the petty things these nuns are offended by. The world is full of starving children and children dying of thirst, girls being honor killed in the Middle East, young boys being raped and the nuns are offended that someone who works for them might get an IUD financed by their health care plans.
Elvis has left the building; the fat lady has sung her song; in hiatus rationality joins sanity; we have entered the Twilight Zone...So, for this occasion - I herewith abdicate all my First Amendment protections and now invite grudgingly, the twisted-sisters of the right to jump the shark and impose objectionably, their unwanted completely, rejected constantly and disdained always, beliefs of a superstitious nature upon me, mine and those around me...
...on second thought and further reflection...No, nay, negative...nope, never, nix!
Their superstitious beliefs, being in my mind invalid anyway, are no better than my superstitious beliefs; furthermore, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights and First Amendment is intended to prevent any one set of beliefs from holding primacy of place - not to elevate one.
...on second thought and further reflection...No, nay, negative...nope, never, nix!
Their superstitious beliefs, being in my mind invalid anyway, are no better than my superstitious beliefs; furthermore, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights and First Amendment is intended to prevent any one set of beliefs from holding primacy of place - not to elevate one.
2
Who knows why nobody considers the situation just crazy. To want or not a child is simply not health condition. The women are perfectly healthy, pregnant or not. So the health system should provide the contraception just to women that can have some problems with their health if they become pregnant. The rest is personal decision of the women and the men involved. Not working obligation or similar. If the government doesn't want the people to have children let them open special funds and give all the affected conterception.
1
Without focusing on the action the court took, it is important to note that there seems to be a broad attack on what were once considered long settled values by the left and an equally strong effort to maintain those values by the right, much to the consternation of ordinary people. We once said we enjoy freedom of religion in this country. Now we want freedom from religion, and people who want to maintain their religious values no longer matter and are even castigated for trying to do so. You can see this same pattern in many of our recent actions regarding marriage and birth gender and other areas as well that do not necessarily implicate religious values per se.
We have clearly lost the ability to respect one another and to compromise our differences.
We have clearly lost the ability to respect one another and to compromise our differences.
2
Birth control medication has also been prescribed by physicians for treating ovarian cysts as well as for other medical conditions.
How can clinical science be contradicted by religious dogma? The United States is purportedly a democratic republic, not a theocracy.
There is no justification for denying women medical care and treatment as well as prescribed medication because of religious objections. None. Never. Ever.
How can clinical science be contradicted by religious dogma? The United States is purportedly a democratic republic, not a theocracy.
There is no justification for denying women medical care and treatment as well as prescribed medication because of religious objections. None. Never. Ever.
6
This case was about whether the religious plaintiffs needed to notify the govt regarding birth control coverage. If the employees did the notifying, there would be no case. Some folks call this a landmark case. I call it stupid.
2
Sometimes compromise means that you are really splitting the baby.
We have glorified the word, "compromise." This is a situation in which there is a "right" and a "wrong," and this Court is too politically-oriented to care about doing the right thing.
Birth Control, made classified as a form of health care, by the Obama Administration, because the state of pregnancy is an illness.
Right.
And some people still thinks it's nuts to theorize that this Administration and the Left are about breaking down society.
Sure.
We have glorified the word, "compromise." This is a situation in which there is a "right" and a "wrong," and this Court is too politically-oriented to care about doing the right thing.
Birth Control, made classified as a form of health care, by the Obama Administration, because the state of pregnancy is an illness.
Right.
And some people still thinks it's nuts to theorize that this Administration and the Left are about breaking down society.
Sure.
1
This case relates to women who are insured by Obamacare provided by fundamentalist employers who refuse to take a simple step related to birth control. I'm guessing that, outside the Bible Belt, hardly anyone is affected. Yet plenty of Northeasterners claim to be persecuted by the church all the time. Here in Phoenix there's an occasional knock on the door by Jehovah's witnesses. That's it. When I lived in NYC, I sure wasn't religiously oppressed. When did all the religious fanatics arrive in NYC and start oppressing everybody?
3
The twisted logic behind the plaintiffs' case, and the willingness of four justices to string along, has resulted in a judicial process and a governmental structure that is now tied up in knots.
The hamstrung Supreme Court has effectively outsourced the job of making law and regulations to the parties in the case - if they can compromise, presumably the court will convert those private agreements into laws that apply to everyone by ordering the executive branch to adjust its regulations accordingly. Congress, controlled by the fainéant Republicans, is out of the picture, and the regulators will be taking orders from a court-imposed mediation.
But what good is the compromise, or the series of the compromises that may be reached in each of the appellate circuits? These plaintiffs didn't accept the compromise solution of Holly Hobby, who didn't accept being excluded from the original compromise for religious institutions. What is to say that there won't be a future wave of plaintiffs who refuse to accept for themselves whatever compromise(s) come out of the current litigation? I suspect the ideologues behind the current cases are already preparing the next one.
Let's restore the fabric of government - a Congress that does its job, a Supreme Court (and lower courts) fully staffed, and a judicial process that sticks to its own knitting rather than outsourcing the regulatory process to private parties.
The hamstrung Supreme Court has effectively outsourced the job of making law and regulations to the parties in the case - if they can compromise, presumably the court will convert those private agreements into laws that apply to everyone by ordering the executive branch to adjust its regulations accordingly. Congress, controlled by the fainéant Republicans, is out of the picture, and the regulators will be taking orders from a court-imposed mediation.
But what good is the compromise, or the series of the compromises that may be reached in each of the appellate circuits? These plaintiffs didn't accept the compromise solution of Holly Hobby, who didn't accept being excluded from the original compromise for religious institutions. What is to say that there won't be a future wave of plaintiffs who refuse to accept for themselves whatever compromise(s) come out of the current litigation? I suspect the ideologues behind the current cases are already preparing the next one.
Let's restore the fabric of government - a Congress that does its job, a Supreme Court (and lower courts) fully staffed, and a judicial process that sticks to its own knitting rather than outsourcing the regulatory process to private parties.
7
Make no mistake. This was inter alia:
-A huge victory for religious liberty.
-Recognition that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required this action (least restrictive imposition)
-A stunning defeat for the Administration. Which fought to the bitter end against even this resolution. Despite SCOTUS's begging for it. And the A concession that it was feasible (See on A's brief on this SCOTUS proposal. And it's argument on it at oral argument)
-A loss in what the Jewish intellectual magazine Commentary rightly called The War Obama Wanted
-At at least a temporary setback in it's war on the Catholic Church and like institutions (One as even cursory research on Google will show had in this instance been opposed significant senior A officials as both unwarranted and unnecessary.)
- Finally: Entirely consistent with what-at least at one time had been- SCOTUS correct judicial philosophy:
To avoid unnecessarily broad decisions in a specific case involving enormous political and even Constitutional like ramifications when it could be resolved on more narrow grounds.
(Course the the Great Constitutional Scholar-he who has dubbed himself the Great Conciliator and The Smartest Guy in the Room- would have none of that.)
-A huge victory for religious liberty.
-Recognition that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required this action (least restrictive imposition)
-A stunning defeat for the Administration. Which fought to the bitter end against even this resolution. Despite SCOTUS's begging for it. And the A concession that it was feasible (See on A's brief on this SCOTUS proposal. And it's argument on it at oral argument)
-A loss in what the Jewish intellectual magazine Commentary rightly called The War Obama Wanted
-At at least a temporary setback in it's war on the Catholic Church and like institutions (One as even cursory research on Google will show had in this instance been opposed significant senior A officials as both unwarranted and unnecessary.)
- Finally: Entirely consistent with what-at least at one time had been- SCOTUS correct judicial philosophy:
To avoid unnecessarily broad decisions in a specific case involving enormous political and even Constitutional like ramifications when it could be resolved on more narrow grounds.
(Course the the Great Constitutional Scholar-he who has dubbed himself the Great Conciliator and The Smartest Guy in the Room- would have none of that.)
5
So many millions of Americans are sick and tired of Republicans' policies and attitudes, that they decided to vote for Trump in order to send them a message, but they don't seem to understand it. I hate to think that again I'll have to vote for the least of the evils, not for somebody I like.
3
Smell the coffee people! The Supreme Court have indeed ruled. They've vacated all appeals courts favoring Obamacare's "accommodation". They've ordered a compromise, meaning the existing "accommodation" isn't one. Priceless! For everything else, well, you know the rest. Access to contraceptives wasn't an issue, isn't it now. Just don't ask religious groups to have anything to do with it/not look away holding their noses in disgust. That right has been affirmed. Time to move on.
2
Just remember that this absurd disarray is exactly what Mitch McConnell wants.
Republicans in 2016 are not fit to govern.
Republicans in 2016 are not fit to govern.
15
Two things. First, to keep the citizenry safe in future, we can't forget the lesson of Scalia's term and how destructive it was to have on the bench someone whose fealty was not to the law but to his own bigotry and wholly partisan politics. The bench was just one more perch from which to do enormous damage on behalf of Scalia's corporate benefactors.
Let's hope future Senates identify and refuse to confirm grossly biased nominees. Enough of judicial activism from the far right.
Second, let this stiffen President Obama's spine. If the Senate is given enough time to fulfill its Constitutional duty, say 120 days, and refuses, then Obama is well within his Constitutional rights to seat Garland on the Court.
I happen to find Garland an appalling pick for a Democratic president to make, but pick him Obama did. He cannot allow the destructive politics of the GOP dictate terms. Nor can he allow a Republican president, if one is elected in 2017, whether that is Trump or Clinton, to usurp his prerogative by nominating someone worse, perhaps far worse.
Let's hope future Senates identify and refuse to confirm grossly biased nominees. Enough of judicial activism from the far right.
Second, let this stiffen President Obama's spine. If the Senate is given enough time to fulfill its Constitutional duty, say 120 days, and refuses, then Obama is well within his Constitutional rights to seat Garland on the Court.
I happen to find Garland an appalling pick for a Democratic president to make, but pick him Obama did. He cannot allow the destructive politics of the GOP dictate terms. Nor can he allow a Republican president, if one is elected in 2017, whether that is Trump or Clinton, to usurp his prerogative by nominating someone worse, perhaps far worse.
4
Ridiculous that this "argument" has even gotten this far. Employers do not own their employees, and religious institutions are no exception. What next? Objection to paying for rehab for alcoholism or drug abuse because those are "sinful behaviors" or paying for invitro- fertilization because that goes "against God" or objection to paying for gastric bypass because gluttony is a sin anyway? Where does it end? What people legally do in the privacy of their personal lives should be of no consequence to an employer. Institutions like this have a fiduciary duty to provide comprehensive insurance to their employees without their own personal agenda of strings or qualifiers attached or they should forfeit the right to be an employer.
11
PJ, where in the Constitution do you find this "fiduciary duty" that private employers have to provide "comprehensive" insurance benefits to their employees. Why do I lose my right to self-determination in how I run my business (including how I spend my money) just because I start a business and employ people who by the way voluntarily and of their own free will chose to work for me. Are you saying citizens retain their rights if they are employees but not if they are employers???
1
All pretense to decorum has been cast aside by the so-called 'greatest deliberative body in the history of the world', the United States Senate. Thanks to Mitch McConnell and his right wing nut job crew congress has been reduced to a collection of quacks unseen since Stalin and his bunch ruled the Soviet Union.
The September 11th attacks of 2001 have produced a weird amalgam of pseudo patriots, nationalists, isolationists, misogynists, xenophobes, and just plain weirdo extremists. The list is long and depressing: Michele Bachmann, Joe Walsh, Allen West, Todd Akin...the list goes on and on. This whole era of American politics (2008 to present) is astonishing in its breadth and depth of unprecedented firsts.
It is no great secret that the Republican right hates this first black president, reasons for which are not least his middle name of 'HUSSEIN.' But the lengths they have gone to to hurt our country, to stymie democracy, to turn American against American, to undermine the very fabric of what we stand for is just simply appalling.
What are these people thinking? And why is it when their front runner is a total piece of garbage they can't decide, as a group, to get behind him or denounce him? Anyone who has been watching in the years since Reagan knows their values aren't values at all. Just empty platitudes. And Trump represents their con artist scam perfectly.
The September 11th attacks of 2001 have produced a weird amalgam of pseudo patriots, nationalists, isolationists, misogynists, xenophobes, and just plain weirdo extremists. The list is long and depressing: Michele Bachmann, Joe Walsh, Allen West, Todd Akin...the list goes on and on. This whole era of American politics (2008 to present) is astonishing in its breadth and depth of unprecedented firsts.
It is no great secret that the Republican right hates this first black president, reasons for which are not least his middle name of 'HUSSEIN.' But the lengths they have gone to to hurt our country, to stymie democracy, to turn American against American, to undermine the very fabric of what we stand for is just simply appalling.
What are these people thinking? And why is it when their front runner is a total piece of garbage they can't decide, as a group, to get behind him or denounce him? Anyone who has been watching in the years since Reagan knows their values aren't values at all. Just empty platitudes. And Trump represents their con artist scam perfectly.
9
These religious zealots are hypocritical when they allow by their vote or other means the continuance of birth deformities, insufferable childhood fatalities due to genetic disease, neglect, abuse, poverty, lack of medical insurance, lead laden water and its repercussions, lack of quality education, etc. You would think they would be in full support of health and human services for all those born without contraception. I say nay.
10
So the religious right doesn't get what it wants and is told to grow up and work with others to come up with a solution. No more absolutism will be countenanced.
5
The court is negligent in their duties, they sent this back down because a 4-4 supreme Court vote doesn't fit the political needs of the current president. It is not the courts job to worry about the effects of their decisions..they are only their to rule on the constitutionality of the case before them
It's called the "contraception mandate". The Obama Administration should stop mandating and begin working toward a compromise. It has not done particularly well with its autocratic over-reaching mandates. They always end in gridlock like this.
It should just leave the nuns alone and reach a compromise.
It should just leave the nuns alone and reach a compromise.
4
To put it bluntly, these religious zealots believe amounts to life begins at erection and ends at birth, and they expect everyone to go along. When it comes to contraception and abortion what any politician, church, or civic authority has to say about it will not alter my view, my rights and my actions ... that there be only two people involved: the doctor/nurse practitioner and the woman. Period.
10
I would like one of these corporations to explain its religious beliefs to me. Will the the corporation's soul be condemned to eternal damnation if it institutes a procedure to fill out a form for the government? Will it have to obtain absolution if it complies with the law? Will its actions weigh heavily on its conscience if it follows federal regulations? None of the corporations I know follow the Golden Rule, or show mercy out of the kindness of their hearts, or follow any of Jesus' teachings.. I've never seen a corporation go to church, or confess its sins. What heaven do corporations believe in? Perhaps one in which there are no longer any regulations to interfere with maximizing their profits?
I guess I'd fail corporate theology, if I ever had to take the course.
I guess I'd fail corporate theology, if I ever had to take the course.
10
These zealots think they are being complicit in providing contraception to their employees by giving notice they are declining to provide such coverage? Obviously, they oppose coverage even being provided by the government or insurance companies. Talk about having religion shoved down your throat. I would be looking for another job.
6
It's my body and my decision. If I decide that I want to use contraceptives my employer has no business interfering with that. That any employer can decide that it's against their religious beliefs to allow me access to a contraceptive, whether it's to prevent pregnancy or for another important medical use means that this employer is imposing their religious beliefs on me.
At this point the GOP, by its obstinate refusal to hold hearings on a legitimate nominee to the Supreme Court, is imposing its belief on all of us, that Obama is no longer president. They are also denying us the right to a complete and functional government. Perhaps we should stop paying them since they don't want a functional government. Our tax dollars are paying the salaries of an entire group of elected officials who have decided for us that the current occupant of the White House is no longer a legitimate president even though he's still, by election and the law of the land, president until January 21, 2017.
It's amazing how abusive the Republicants have become towards Obama and us. I can begin to understand why the cardinals of the Catholic Church were locked into the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope.
At this point the GOP, by its obstinate refusal to hold hearings on a legitimate nominee to the Supreme Court, is imposing its belief on all of us, that Obama is no longer president. They are also denying us the right to a complete and functional government. Perhaps we should stop paying them since they don't want a functional government. Our tax dollars are paying the salaries of an entire group of elected officials who have decided for us that the current occupant of the White House is no longer a legitimate president even though he's still, by election and the law of the land, president until January 21, 2017.
It's amazing how abusive the Republicants have become towards Obama and us. I can begin to understand why the cardinals of the Catholic Church were locked into the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope.
13
It's ridiculous that the Congress continues to receive its significant salary and generous benefits, even while blatantly refusing to do their jobs. Most of us lesser humans must actually perform our assigned tasks to get our paychecks.
6
These nuns are not depriving you of your birth control. You can purchase any quantity you want. They just do not want to have it covered under their health care plans and this is their right. Birth control is relatively inexpensive and should not cause a financial hardship for too many people.
1
"There is no position where people are so immovable as their religious beliefs; but the religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom; they are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these groups on a particular moral issue they complain, they threaten you with the loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly tired of the political preachers across this country telling me that, if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B and C. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume the right to dictate their moral beliefs?
~Barry Goldwater, 1975
~Barry Goldwater, 1975
10
What if we had a Single Payer Health Plan that covered cost-effective preventive Health Services? Yes, like most other countries? We'd have contraception for all Americans who want such services, healthier families and lower health care costs for all! Now that's something to pray for...
11
america is too exceptional to do what those stupid euro socialists do
america always does things better
ask any american
theyll be happy to tell you
america always does things better
ask any american
theyll be happy to tell you
3
Organized Religion is (sadly) a form of organized ignorance. One more example here.
14
@dre:
So true :(
So true :(
5
Why are employers involved in health care decisions at all? What business is it of theirs? Do they own their employees, holding them responsible for following strict moral guidelines? We thought those days are over. If the government provided health care for all there would be no employer involvement or interference.
9
They are involved because of the "contraception mandate." You can thank the Obama Administration for forcing them to become involved despite their religious beliefs.
3
It is none of ANYONE'S business whether a woman uses contraception or not or a man either. We are not living on a sparsely populated planet, needing to keep our numbers up as when many religious texts were written upon which these moral objections are based. Time to evolve with the times and overpopulation we live with.
8
The suit asks the court to establish a state religion. The sole tenet of this religion right not is that it forbids birth control. This is completely against my protection from the establishment of a state religion provided in the United States Constitution. The constitution is exquisitely clear on this point - there is to be no state religion in the United States of America. The phrase "no law" means just that. This is a clear example of an attempt to render my constitutional protection against the establishment of a religion that I choose not to be a part of.
5
Mark Twain:
Not verbatim:
"Religion was born when the first con man met a fool."
USA = LCD
Not verbatim:
"Religion was born when the first con man met a fool."
USA = LCD
9
This is a predominantly catholic court sympathizing with its "coreligionists".
5
I'm starting my own religion and none of you will tell ME what I can or can't do. ha!
1
An elaborate poker game the Supremes are playing. It's disheartening that the justices have seen fit to wait for the election to play out to make a decisive ruling on the subject. The fundamental issue is not about abortion but whether or not corporations are in fact persons that are permitted to have "moral" stances on subjects such as abortion. The answer that our founding fathers gave was clearly no. However, our activist right wing court sees the world quite differently, and thus we are embroiled in a ridiculous discussion of whether or not secular institutions (corporations exist only by statute and are de facto secular) are permitted to be anthropomorphized into entities that are merely extensions of their human shareholders. Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided but no one has the nerve to revisit it, just yet. This issue exists solely because of Hobby Lobby and American women will suffer as a result of it until its overturned.
Our upcoming election will define far more things than a potential bromance between Putin and the Duck.
Our upcoming election will define far more things than a potential bromance between Putin and the Duck.
6
Here's an idea. It's an old idea that was once popular. it's called Live and Let Live.
7
The Little Sisters refuse to say "yes" and they refuse to say "no." They set a new standard of petulance for younger siblings.
16
If the Court by its unanimous decision to send the case back down the line without a ruling in order to avoid a four-four decision really wants to avoid stalemate, they should badger the Senate to give the current nominee
a full hearing and a vote on the full SenTe floor. And agitate the voters to demand from their Republican Senators nothing less.
a full hearing and a vote on the full SenTe floor. And agitate the voters to demand from their Republican Senators nothing less.
6
They never should have taken this case in the first place. 8 out of 9 lower courts sided with the government on this, and they are correct!
17
These are the same people who will freak out when muslims ask for some type of accommodation.
12
I like it. Stop clogging up the Supreme Court with threadbare cases that could have easily been settled if not for the attention hungry religious legal "defense" groups.
10
Shame on the Supreme Court, this should be an easy 8-0 vote. Somehow the rights of women are always asked to be subjugated. This has nothing to do with religion. I have to pay taxes for many, many, many things that go against my religious beliefs. I think the court should strike down even the waiver, all health plans should cover contraception, most people agree that it is good for our society and an important health need. Those in disagreement cannot impose their religious beliefs on the vast majority.
14
Maybe a 4-4 court is a good thing after all. They can just tell everybody, "Go back home and settle this among yourselves like reasonable adults." Maybe the Supremes are tired of being the parents to a bunch of self-centered, argumentative brats.
3
So if religious higher education institutions accept federal financial aid can they can continue to refuse contraception mandate by a federal health care law? Or will the government take away these instructions access to federal student loans?
4
But the petitioners do not want a compromise. they want an unconditional mandate to control the lives of their women workers by denying them contraception coverage.
The return of this case to a lower court is an admission that the Supreme Court can not do its job with an eight member Court. And this failure is a condemnation of the Republican Congress that they did not do their job by ratifying a new Supreme Court Justice.
The return of this case to a lower court is an admission that the Supreme Court can not do its job with an eight member Court. And this failure is a condemnation of the Republican Congress that they did not do their job by ratifying a new Supreme Court Justice.
17
Honestly, it's so ridiculous to claim that the nuns are "controlling" the live of their female workers by not paying for insurance for birth control. Workers are not imprisoned by their employers. We're talking about who pays for insurance coverage for one particular item. Workers remain free to use birth control.
3
There is no reason why women can't get birth control without involving religious employers. This was a stupid case from the start. Both sides preferred litigating to negotiating. The Court has done the right thing here. When parties prefer senseless debate over reasonable negotiation, lock them up in a room until they reach an agreement.
2
Addendum to my previous post: Are employers who are arguing for a religious right to deny coverage for female contraception aware that health insurance covers erectile dysfunction medication for many men well-past the age that they are using the medication for "pro-creation"?
11
The nasty and mean-spirited comments directed at the Catholic Church are really unnecessary. They have every right to hold certain beliefs and tenets just as people have every right not to follow these tenets. They do not want to pay for a product that goes against their teachings and that is their right. They never had any problem with this before Obamacare became law and now they are forced to do something that goes against their Church. I admire their grit and determination and they will fight this tooth and nail until the bitter end. They will win as they have a higher power behind them.
3
and as s pacifist why do I have to pay for wars?
8
"They do not want to pay for a product that goes against their teachings"
Wait a minute -- you just replied to me saying that "you understood very well" that they were NOT being asked to pay for birth control - just to sign a form. Why are you repeating a statement that you know is false?
Wait a minute -- you just replied to me saying that "you understood very well" that they were NOT being asked to pay for birth control - just to sign a form. Why are you repeating a statement that you know is false?
5
But that's exactly the difference, Bob. Unlike a war, the government is not paying for this; if the government were paying, then there would be no problem. The problem here is that the government, rather than paying for birth control for everyone, with tax dollars, is trying to compel private employers to pay for birth control.
2
Lets assume that the Government is required to offer a separate plan for contraceptive coverage. Does that mean the Government also has to offer a separate plan for the 4 types of contraceptives that Hobby Lobby refuses to offer on religious grounds? Oh what a tangled web we weave when we decide to control how others conceive.
6
It's truly amazing to see how much the conservatives have spent on legal fees all for the purpose of opposing President Obama and his efforts to make affordable healthcare available for everyone.
Their endless whining and complaining has done nothing but create a cottage industry for attorneys who relish the pseudo role of protecting the conservatives' so called "religious freedom."
This is surprising given that they were left holding nothing with George W Bush after they worked to get him elected. It's well known that when they went to the White House to collect on GW's promises, he basically dismissed them via Karl Rove. Of course, the following September, all bets were off given the horrible events of the day.
Conservatives, especially the Catholic hierarchy, need to recognize and accept that contraception in all its legal forms is the norm of the day. Women deserve that protection and so does the whole of our society.
Their endless whining and complaining has done nothing but create a cottage industry for attorneys who relish the pseudo role of protecting the conservatives' so called "religious freedom."
This is surprising given that they were left holding nothing with George W Bush after they worked to get him elected. It's well known that when they went to the White House to collect on GW's promises, he basically dismissed them via Karl Rove. Of course, the following September, all bets were off given the horrible events of the day.
Conservatives, especially the Catholic hierarchy, need to recognize and accept that contraception in all its legal forms is the norm of the day. Women deserve that protection and so does the whole of our society.
6
While many here abjure the 4-4 split to send this matter back to the parties to 'work it out,'
hereabouts in conservo-stan,
if Mr Justice Scalia had not been so SELFISH and inconsiderate as to die BEFORE his successor was named and installed --
(hey THERE'S an idea, let us name 3 or 11 or 123 vice-judges, Just In Case
hmm, maybe the Law Clerk's would accede to power, interim, in their order of seniority..., hmmmm....., they write the decisions anyway)--
- - -
so, IF Mr Scalia had decided to stay with us for yet a while longer, shall we speculate on his position here?
I venture to do so, that he would have held for the people- whose name must have been invented by Onion, no REAL litigant could have such a three-hankie name as Little Sisters of The Poor -
and, dear and gentle reader, Mr Justice Scalia would have agreed avec les petites indigentes, je me pense...
= =
and THEN?
- we would STILL have outrage, that 'the Court did not do its job,' but outrage for a different reason, that the Court was unduly influenced by some ism or other
Maybe 'Tony' (to his friends anyway) is laughing at us, I am
SCOTUS does not seem to have been disabled on its many other decisions, just saying
(As an aside, the Court resolves inter- Circuit disputes; so a 4-4 tie means the Law is A in circuits 1-5 and B in 6-9 or however many circuits we have, not THIS case though)
hereabouts in conservo-stan,
if Mr Justice Scalia had not been so SELFISH and inconsiderate as to die BEFORE his successor was named and installed --
(hey THERE'S an idea, let us name 3 or 11 or 123 vice-judges, Just In Case
hmm, maybe the Law Clerk's would accede to power, interim, in their order of seniority..., hmmmm....., they write the decisions anyway)--
- - -
so, IF Mr Scalia had decided to stay with us for yet a while longer, shall we speculate on his position here?
I venture to do so, that he would have held for the people- whose name must have been invented by Onion, no REAL litigant could have such a three-hankie name as Little Sisters of The Poor -
and, dear and gentle reader, Mr Justice Scalia would have agreed avec les petites indigentes, je me pense...
= =
and THEN?
- we would STILL have outrage, that 'the Court did not do its job,' but outrage for a different reason, that the Court was unduly influenced by some ism or other
Maybe 'Tony' (to his friends anyway) is laughing at us, I am
SCOTUS does not seem to have been disabled on its many other decisions, just saying
(As an aside, the Court resolves inter- Circuit disputes; so a 4-4 tie means the Law is A in circuits 1-5 and B in 6-9 or however many circuits we have, not THIS case though)
The division of church and state is no more. These fanatical evangelical religious organizations have been deluding their sheep and sucking money from them for enons. They have become powerful as they have become wealthy. Tax-exempt status to the organization and to the leaders should be eliminated. These people call themselves christians, really? Is all this brouhaha really about contraceptives and abortion? No, it is about power and control over women. All these bible stories were written by men. The rules were made up by men. Please don't tell me this is the word of some GOD. I have had enough of these people pushing their agendas on the rest of us.
11
socialised medicine divorced form your employment would obviate this situation
when will americans ever take th course of least resistance
when will americans ever take th course of least resistance
5
christian scientists dont believe in any medical intervention at all
should they be forced to even provide health care for their employees ?
should they be forced to even provide health care for their employees ?
5
No, Godfrey, they shouldn't. And if you require employer provided insurance you should choose to work for someone other than a Christian Scientist organization. The Constitution protects free exercise of religion, not freedom from religion.
2
Many of these extremist Christian churches and their affiliates routinely violate their tax exempt status by preaching - indeed exhorting their faithful to vote exactly as the priest, minister, etc. dictates. Has anyone forgotten the outrageous Catholic Bishops who denied the sacrament to John Kerry because he is pro choice? It is long past time to put an end to the tax exempt status for all of these churches - which flout their extreme views while extorting the taxpayers in the process. In the meantime - women continue to be subjugated and relegated to 2nd class status, while being denied their private healthcare decisions by a bunch of religious bigots and zealots, hiding behind "corporate" status - and the Republican Party continues to give them succor, piously claiming "religious freedom." If men were forced to seek permission from their employers for Viagra, testosterone, or any other health services, they would be screaming from the rooftops. Women, particularly those with limited financial means, are being forced to adhere to someone else's religion, and denied a fundamental healthcare service. We are not a theocracy in this nation - there should be no place for this medieval denial of healthcare to more than 50% of the population of this country.
16
The Catholic Church is not an extremist Christian Church and they do not tell their flock how to vote. They vote for both Democratic and Republican candidates. Jewish voters tend to vote Democratic and are extremely liberal and progressive. This was in an article a while ago stating this fact in this newspaper.
Our faith has over 1.2 billion members just for your information. They would not agree with your comments which I find very anti-Catholic.
Our faith has over 1.2 billion members just for your information. They would not agree with your comments which I find very anti-Catholic.
2
@KMW,
Thinking that you can speak for 1,2 billion people is just plain delusional, and when doing it you're using one of the most vile and simple rhetorical fallacies in the book. Just so you know, in the part of the world where I currently live an work, another faith based control system is claiming to speak for 1,6 billion people. There's more of them apparently, so I guess we can let their leaders decide how you live your life? And nice that you tried to pull that "we're the privileged majority but we're still victims" ploy as well :) Cheers!
Thinking that you can speak for 1,2 billion people is just plain delusional, and when doing it you're using one of the most vile and simple rhetorical fallacies in the book. Just so you know, in the part of the world where I currently live an work, another faith based control system is claiming to speak for 1,6 billion people. There's more of them apparently, so I guess we can let their leaders decide how you live your life? And nice that you tried to pull that "we're the privileged majority but we're still victims" ploy as well :) Cheers!
3
KMW: You've every right to respond, of course - but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I consider a doctrine which prefers that a desperately ill pregnant woman die, rather than provide a life saving abortion for her, to be extremist. I find a doctrine which systematically stole thousands of infants from unwed mothers for decades, and sent them overseas for adoption, to be extremist. I find a doctrine which permits predator priests to continue to molest children for decades, protecting the church, rather than those children, to be extremist. I admire Pope Francis, whose true populism is to be emulated and expanded - but the Vatican's patriarchal, deeply rooted misogyny is, for me, extremist. I make no pretense of speaking for the Catholics of the world - nor do I pretend to speak for all Jews, your efforts at false equivalencies notwithstanding. I am not anti-Catholic, but I am anti-misogyny, anti-patriarchal subjugation of women, and anti-any religion's effort to turn the nation into a theocracy or to impose their views upon others.
4
The Burwell case is just a giant step in the wrong direction for so may reasons that I cannot believe the the US Supreme Court of the 21st century actually decided it. The "religious right" has perpetrated the greatest religious wrong upon this country imaginable. Throw out the separation of church and state. Do away with the fundamental principle that all people are equal under the law. Interfere with the commerce between citizens, and the private contracts between people and their insurers. Gut the illusion of privacy that was HIPPA -- did you actually believe your medical history, including your prescription history, was private from your employer?!
I have not stepped across the threshold of a Hobby Lobby store since the first Burwell case was initiated; after this second debacle - thanks to their reactionary, un-Christian rectitude - I will never go back.
I have not stepped across the threshold of a Hobby Lobby store since the first Burwell case was initiated; after this second debacle - thanks to their reactionary, un-Christian rectitude - I will never go back.
12
In homage to the old SNL Weekend Update newsflash, Antonin Scalia is still dead. A 4-4 Court may be troublesome, but this case and every one being held over or remanded would have been 5-4 had not God graciously taken the esteemed Justice and medieval Catholic from us.
15
Maybe the compromise is universal healthcare? Whoops, missed that boat, eh?
Seriously, though, the compromise could be for employers to pay into an insurance pool; employees then are able to decide as to what kind of coverage they would prefer.
But to be a bit like the broken record, if employers (and Republicans) had realized that by doing way with employer-paid healthcare benefits, which would have vanished with a single-payer/universal healthcare system in the USA, then they would simply pay their employees more, and those employees could "purchase" healthcare as needed. Moral problems avoided.
Seriously, though, the compromise could be for employers to pay into an insurance pool; employees then are able to decide as to what kind of coverage they would prefer.
But to be a bit like the broken record, if employers (and Republicans) had realized that by doing way with employer-paid healthcare benefits, which would have vanished with a single-payer/universal healthcare system in the USA, then they would simply pay their employees more, and those employees could "purchase" healthcare as needed. Moral problems avoided.
6
If 8 Supreme Court Justices can't reach a solution, how do they expect 8 separate courts to reach a compromise. My thought is if you have 7 courts that side with the Government and 1 court that doesn't then there's your compromise.
3
Another good example of government over reach, and unintended consequences. What is anyone's guess about the roll-up of all the costs involved in moving this issue to the Supreme Court? Little wonder this nation is $18 Trillion in debt. Why do those who are supposed to know the outcome of laws, mindlessly plow ahead with legislation without effort put into quantifying costs and exploring consequences? Is it because the ACA was written by lobbyists, who are motivated, as we know, to act in the best interest of citizens of this country ?
2
We still live in the middle ages, where "biblical" standards supercede fact and evidence. It is pitiful.
16
If religious practice results in someone deciding not to use birth control, that is perfectly alright. But if religious leaders fail to convince their flock, what is the justification for asking the court to promulgate such religious purity? If you can't succeed from the pulpit, you don't get a second chance from the bench. This is madness.
11
OK, so now we have a Congress that can't legislate and a Supreme Court that can't adjudicate. Remind me why we're resentful of an Executive who wants to do things?
14
Another way to avoid 4/4 deadlocks is for congress to do their job! I wish we could stop obsessing over Trump's craziness and discuss real issues like this.
13
Thou shalt not commit adultery. If I'm super religious, what's to say that I don't think an employer should have to pay to cover an antibiotic for someone who contracted a venereal disease while cheating on a spouse? Where does it end? This is ridiculous.
14
The burden, under the first amendment, is on the government dear readers. Women may purchase and use whatever and as much contraception as they like under law. The issue at hand here is can the government, which is limited in its powers under the first amendment, compel the Sisters to participate in paying for contraception under the power of law. The Sisters did not go looking for this fight, the government brought it to them. It is a long standing fact that the Sisters object to contraception on religious grounds. It is shameful that the government took the issue this far. I believe the court, in pushing back for a compromise avoided a ruling in favor of the Sisters; something that should make the NYT readers happy.
2
Not true MKM, either you are willfully misrepresenting or you're ill informed. They were given a way out which would have enabled them to sit on their high patriarchal horses, whilst letting others pay. They refused, because their male handlers didn't want this political quagmire to end. Religion and the power base who benefits and enriches themselves off it is slowly going down the drain, but, they'll fight to restrict the rights of everyone every inch of the way. Wasn't there something about love and respect in that there bronze age nonsense many of you seem to hold so dear?
4
And we worry about ISIS? A male dominated religion dictating hoe women should live their lives.
16
It seems that there is no clear answer to the question which determines whether the government's action in this case (the compulsion of religious employers to provide (all or certain) contraceptives to their female employee) is indeed a substantial burden to religious activity. Moreover, since the threshold consideration of identifying whether the government action is a substantial burden does not have a clear answer, the consideration becomes more susceptible to ideology that brings about partisan outcomes. Taking into consideration that the court is split even at 4-4 (in terms of judicial ideology) and the fact that partisan politics are manifested in the outcomes of judicial ideology (like the methods of statutorial/constitutional interpretation) that are incidentally political, the court probably understands that it is unwise and judicially inefficient to make a decision with almost no precedential value on a case that potentially implicates both RFRA and Obamacare.
A woman who is pregnant and employed--even if she gets paid the same rate as her male coworkers--must take time off for doctors' appointments and giving birth when faced with recurring/unplanned pregnancies, as well as buy child care for her possible other children. How, then, does her income pencil out to "equal pay"? Sure, different budget pots of money, but the employer's insurance plan covering family planning for female employees gets closer to an "equal pay" concept, and, I would suggest, is likely to result in more focused and loyal female employees.
8
God is a figment of man's imagination. It shouldn't have a say in the reality of women.
This is an embarrassment to the supposed intellect of the human race.
This is an embarrassment to the supposed intellect of the human race.
21
If a woman opted for tubal ligation--surgical sterilization -- how would they exempt themselves from having it covered by the insurance they provide? Unless the nursing home run by the Little Sisters of the Poor is financed solely with Church dollars, (no Medicaid, no grants), why would this even be an option? Can you imagine what a decision in favor of the nuns would open the door to? the entire issue is too ridiculous for serious consideration. And I'm a Catholic.
17
Sharia law is an abomination. No one should force their religious beliefs upon others, or punish them for not following prescribed religious laws found in ancient texts. Right?
But if it's the Bible...well, that's DIFFERENT. Everyone in America should have to bow to the will of Christian activists. Right?!
Our collective righteous indignation leaves us blind to our own hypocrisy.
But if it's the Bible...well, that's DIFFERENT. Everyone in America should have to bow to the will of Christian activists. Right?!
Our collective righteous indignation leaves us blind to our own hypocrisy.
29
Isn't it heartwarming to see the highest court in the land, the one which is supposed to define the interpretation of the Constitution and put an end to useless and expensive litigation, being rendered powerless by a group of Republican Senators who refuse to fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities based on personal pique. Surely this isn't what was intended by the "advise and consent clause" of the Constitution. These senators have no objection to the appointee. They simply object to the person (President) who appointed him. But rather that admit their bias, they prefer to hide behind ridiculous calendar issues, leaving issues which affect real people unresolved. So much for the Republicans showing their ability to get things done.
81
These nuns are not against any woman using birth control. They just do not want to have to pay for it within their health plans. That is their right as it goes against their Catholic teaching. The female employees can purchase it on their own and not have the nuns involved.
8
They are NOT being asked to pay for birth control. All they are being asked to do is to FILL OUT A FORM stating that they have a religious objection to it, so that someone else can pay for the birth control. Someone else. Not them. Why is that so hard to understand?
31
So an employer who is a Jehovah's witness can refuse to pay for a health plan that covers blood transfusions? Muslim and Jewish employers can refuse to pay for health coverage for certain vaccines because they contain gelatin derived from pork products? Some Christian groups will refuse to pay for health coverage for some vaccines because their development uses aborted human cells? Will Hindu employers refuse health care coverage for certain vaccines because of the use of bovine tissue? Should Orthodox Jewish employers refuse to pay for health care coverage that occurs on the Sabbath? Where does it end?
10
HT,
I understand very well what is happening. They do not want even to fill out this form as they would still be involved in a round about way which is unacceptable to them. This is their right and they will not give in.
I understand very well what is happening. They do not want even to fill out this form as they would still be involved in a round about way which is unacceptable to them. This is their right and they will not give in.
3
So, when are we going to deny all the white males their aspirin and nitroglycerin tabs when they have their chest pain, because it is against our religion.
Fair is fair.
Fair is fair.
20
Once again, a non-issue is made an issue for votes. This is nothing more than right wing conservatives "reminding" everybody that the country is headed into oblivion and it's all Obama's fault. They will stop at nothing to get anyone they can to hate Obama. Just watch, this, the no-cakes-for-gay-weddings thing, and the bathroom thing will be brought up countless times in the coming puke-fest of an election we have coming. Certain people make sure that big deals are made about these things to keep the fear-mongering machine going. Conservative leaders could care less who is gay and what religious group doesn't like some weird corner of the ACA. They just want their voters riled up to hate the other side.
63
While contraceptives are not always effective, their use at least allows a woman to decide if she wishes to bear another child. She is the on who must carry the child, experience discomfort, and eventually give birth. We then are confronted with another concern:Proper of for the child; financial support; education. Medical concerns belong between doctor and patient. As a blessed mother of six who flushed her birth control pills down the toilet after the birth of three children, I've never made a better decision. My husband was 50 when he helped deliver our fourth baby and 57 when he helped deliver out sixth. He never questioned about the "failure of the pill"! Holding the babies he loved so much, he couldn't care less!
Not everyone is in your position to be able to love and care for so many children. It should be for everyone just as it was for you, a choice for more children or not. I have 2 kids that are the loves of my life. Under different financial circumstances, I would have loved more.
10
I agree with Mark's post. Great for you that you could afford to bring 6 children into the world, and also that you had the desire to be a baby factory so many times.
However, it seems that you're implying that you never told your dear husband that you discontinued taking oral contraceptives, leading him to believe you conceived three times due to some sort of super sperm or something? Isn't that dishonest, just to get more children because YOU wanted them?
Also, I hope you didn't really flush oral contraceptives down your toilet. Those hormones go into the water supply & can't be removed by wastewater treatment plants.
However, it seems that you're implying that you never told your dear husband that you discontinued taking oral contraceptives, leading him to believe you conceived three times due to some sort of super sperm or something? Isn't that dishonest, just to get more children because YOU wanted them?
Also, I hope you didn't really flush oral contraceptives down your toilet. Those hormones go into the water supply & can't be removed by wastewater treatment plants.
10
Not being a lawyer I hesitate to comment but I choose to do so in
the spirit of ignorantia juris neminem excusat (no excuse) therefore:
Is this important Supreme Court decision" limping" along with 8
sitting justices choosing not to decide by passing "the buck"
downwards undermining a class of citizens the right of due
process guaranteed (or not) by The US Constitution & The Bill
of Rights Women's health issues are threatened here by religious
beliefs. Will this decision if not compromised in equal measure
eventually lead (if the highest Court in the US becomes
conservative with appointment of a Chief Justice) to the overturning
of a more liberal court i.e., (1973) Roe vs Wade, a landmark decision
for women? Think I need to go to Law School!
the spirit of ignorantia juris neminem excusat (no excuse) therefore:
Is this important Supreme Court decision" limping" along with 8
sitting justices choosing not to decide by passing "the buck"
downwards undermining a class of citizens the right of due
process guaranteed (or not) by The US Constitution & The Bill
of Rights Women's health issues are threatened here by religious
beliefs. Will this decision if not compromised in equal measure
eventually lead (if the highest Court in the US becomes
conservative with appointment of a Chief Justice) to the overturning
of a more liberal court i.e., (1973) Roe vs Wade, a landmark decision
for women? Think I need to go to Law School!
2
So atheists are forced to carry the Obamacare burdens of religionists? Thanks, Obamacare, for making life as miserable as we knew you would.
The problem is of course not religion: The problem is Obamacare.
The problem is of course not religion: The problem is Obamacare.
3
Nonsense. The problem is religious extremists shoving their beliefs down everyone's throats.
17
Wrong.
You are not forced to work at a company whose owners are religious. You are free to work anywhere you choose. The religious owners are demanding that the state not force them to violate their religious beliefs - they're not forcing their beliefs down your throat, they are demanding that you not force your irreligious beliefs down theirs. You - and the government - are using force; they are trying to be free to believe their beliefs, and you seem to hate that, and you are trying to put lipstick on a pig (Obamacare).
My point is that atheists don't get the same freedom as religionists - all because we don't believe an Ancient Male Heterosexual Sky Fairy exists. You clearly don't believe in the Ancient Male Heterosexual Sky Fairy, but you also want to force your beliefs on everyone. You are just as wrong as the religionists who try to do the same. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
You are not forced to work at a company whose owners are religious. You are free to work anywhere you choose. The religious owners are demanding that the state not force them to violate their religious beliefs - they're not forcing their beliefs down your throat, they are demanding that you not force your irreligious beliefs down theirs. You - and the government - are using force; they are trying to be free to believe their beliefs, and you seem to hate that, and you are trying to put lipstick on a pig (Obamacare).
My point is that atheists don't get the same freedom as religionists - all because we don't believe an Ancient Male Heterosexual Sky Fairy exists. You clearly don't believe in the Ancient Male Heterosexual Sky Fairy, but you also want to force your beliefs on everyone. You are just as wrong as the religionists who try to do the same. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
1
This is wonderful news for the Little Sisters of the Poor and I think their prayers have been answered. These female employees knew the tenets of the Catholic Church upon joining this organization. The nuns do not want to have any part of this contraceptive issue in any way, shape or form. It is their God-given right to fight this as it is their freedom of religion that is at stake. They should not have to violate their consciences and principles and that is exactly what they are being required to do under this health plan. I commend them for their bravery and for remaining strong in this difficult time. It makes me proud to be a Catholic.
4
Not so wonderful news for the nuns. They will have to sign a letter if they do not want to provide insurance. Their claim was turned down in the lower court and that decision stands.
9
I was employed by a Catholic agency in Australia in the early 1990s, working with homeless kids. I taught them how to use condoms, and how to clean syringes. The Jesuits I worked for knew their employees were providing these services, but chose to turn a blind eye as the alternative was to leave these kids unprotected from HIV and other diseases. I commend them for their courage and strength, and for being able to act in the best interest of those they were charged with caring for. It still makes me proud.
4
Actually, margito, that's not what is happening. The SC vacated the lower court ruling. Both the Little Sisters and The Becket Fund are calling this a victory. The ruling says that the government cannot fine the Little Sisters if they refuse to sign the form, so that original "compromise" option is no longer in force.
This is the one of the many problems with the ACA. Too many groups are getting exemptions. Bring on single payer.
This is the one of the many problems with the ACA. Too many groups are getting exemptions. Bring on single payer.
5
A testament to the extreme dysfunction the Republican strategy of denying Obama any power. Shall we allow Christian Scientists to exclude ALL health care?
23
Do the employers refusing to allow health insurance to cover contraception for female employees, based on religious rights, refuse to allow health insurance to cover vasectomies for their male employees?
22
The religious would have everyone live according their narrow, myopic, shame based belief system.
Furthermore, they are irresponsible and if they had it their way, women would just continue having children they cannot care for in an already overpopulated, under-nourished world.
True morality respects a woman's right to use contraception or to not use contraception and to give birth or to not give birth.
Furthermore, they are irresponsible and if they had it their way, women would just continue having children they cannot care for in an already overpopulated, under-nourished world.
True morality respects a woman's right to use contraception or to not use contraception and to give birth or to not give birth.
21
It's a crime that a new judge cannot be appointed, that the country must wait on making important decisions more decisively. The Supreme Court has been kidnapped...by Congress.
20
Sad day for democracy... We live in 2016 and religious groups still think they have control of women and women's health. Apparently they do since The Supreme Court just rolled over and died.
24
How refreshing--work out a compromise! Scalia must be spinning in his grave.
3
Let's be clear here. My Momma explained to me at a very young age, my liberties and rights extend to the end of my nose and do not go one bit further. To my mind, this means religious folks don't have to use contraception but they can't keep anyone else from accessing it. Was Momma wrong?
27
No, your momma was right, but you are wrong. Nobody is preventing anyone from accessing contraception; it is freely available. The issue is whether the government can compel someone who does not believe in contraception, to pay for someone else's contraception.
3
Wrong, the 'paying' part was removed from the equation; so now those who don't 'believe' in contraception want those who believe in it to 'pay' for their sin; for isn't celibacy the ultimate form of .... contraception?
2
GMooG: I don't believe in you, but I still in many ways pay for your choices anyway. Where does it end?
I don't understand how contraception came to be classified as a political issue. It is a medical issue - to be decided upon by the person using the contraception and the medical doctor. If you are morally opposed to contraception, do not use it. I was surprised (but shouldn't have been) to find my husband's Catholic school employer apparently opts-out of contraception coverage through our Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO and won't even cover "birth control" pills prescribed as part of fertility treatments. Talk about adding insult to injury. Can we just let doctors do their jobs and focus on the IMPORTANT political issues at hand, please?
25
I can't get over this "we give up" attitude. Hope for a compromise?
Compromise? Religious fanatics NEVER compromise. That's why buildings get blown up.
Compromise? Religious fanatics NEVER compromise. That's why buildings get blown up.
26
This situation is yet another good reason for us to move to a single payer health care system. The sooner we get employers out of the equation the better.
Frankly employers should have no say what-so-ever in how employees use their compensation be it monetary or in the form of benefits such as health care insurance. It is simply none of the employers business.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the likes of these employers attempting to dictate how their employees use their compensation be those dictates based on politics or superstition. This is neither the age of indentured servitude or slavery nor of the inquisition. Neither oligarchs nor religious sects have any business interfering in the actions of their employees exercising their rights to use their fairly earned compensation for employment as the employees see fit.
Frankly employers should have no say what-so-ever in how employees use their compensation be it monetary or in the form of benefits such as health care insurance. It is simply none of the employers business.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the likes of these employers attempting to dictate how their employees use their compensation be those dictates based on politics or superstition. This is neither the age of indentured servitude or slavery nor of the inquisition. Neither oligarchs nor religious sects have any business interfering in the actions of their employees exercising their rights to use their fairly earned compensation for employment as the employees see fit.
28
Please cc. your comment to Hillary. She now wants to propose people buying into medicare like that will satisfy the need for universal single payer.It won't.
1
Couldn't agree with you more! medicare is not universal single payer health care no matter how much Hilary wants to convince us it is. That is why I am not supporting Secretary Clinton and continue to support Senator Sanders.
2
Tomorrow's headline, today:
Religious groups claim working-out a compromise places an undue burden on the free exercise of their faith.
Religious groups claim working-out a compromise places an undue burden on the free exercise of their faith.
17
Seems to me that from the get-go, old white men hollering about the immorality of providing birth control to women are the same men who faithfully refill their Viagra prescriptions, paid by insurance companies.
30
Amazed how these rich, old, white men can decide to pay for viagra but not for birth control pills.
When did we become a country of men ruling women's rights? Why do these republicans need to control a woman's body? The citizens against pay for birth control remind me if the men in ISIS, who deny women of everything. They are fanatics - I do not understand one iota of common sense of ISIS or the republicans.
When did we become a country of men ruling women's rights? Why do these republicans need to control a woman's body? The citizens against pay for birth control remind me if the men in ISIS, who deny women of everything. They are fanatics - I do not understand one iota of common sense of ISIS or the republicans.
23
When? From the very beginning!
3
This reckless fight under the pseudo exercise of the freedom of religion led primarily by the Catholic Bishops of USA is a weak attempt to remain relevant in today's society. The Christendom is over...It is a different Church based on the Gospel that is emerging. These Bishops with their embarrassingly pompous paraphernalia and those who support them must spend a week in Pakistan to understand what is religious freedom. Controlling sexual lives of the people is de facto controlling people, which the hierarchy of the church always strives to do. Defining woman as an object of sin, and declaring sex as "dirty" is at the root of why women continue to struggle to get equal treatment, whether in the Church or in secular society...
23
"Justices, Seeking Compromise,"
How dare they seek compromise in America today. Everyone, here on the NYT, knows that only the liberal progressive Democratic way is the true and correct way for all things good for America. No compromise, none of the time.
And that ladies and gentlemen is why we have Trump.
How dare they seek compromise in America today. Everyone, here on the NYT, knows that only the liberal progressive Democratic way is the true and correct way for all things good for America. No compromise, none of the time.
And that ladies and gentlemen is why we have Trump.
7
Seems like you're very fixed in your views. The compromise so far has been one sided, the one you disparage.
3
@Tired. I'm going to assume you're not up to date on this court case. The Democratic administration put forth a very reasonable compromise that took the onus of participating in contraceptive coverage away from the offended parties but was met with the kind of "no compromise" pretzel logic that one often finds in Republican circles. As I said, you may not be up on the details of the case but, now that you've been informed, I'm sure you'll change your mind about who is being uncompromising. You wouldn't want to appear hypocritical, would you?
12
Garbo - Fixed in my views, never. Read most of the comments on this or any political article in this paper, my comment is a facetious way of demonstrating how one sided and fixed most of the liberal progressive Democrats are when thinking that there way is the only way.
Oh and no disparagement was meant toward their way of thinking, just an observation.
Oh and no disparagement was meant toward their way of thinking, just an observation.
3
Excellent move, imo, , and hope there'll be more such urgings to lower courts to ask litigants to grow up and and compromise, and refrain from self-righteous 'my way or the highway' tantrums.
5
It still eludes me how providing coverage for contraception impedes employers' free exercise of religion. Nobody's asking them to take contraception or write prescriptions for it. This is beyond frustrating.
I'd like for the NYT and other media to widely publish a list of these employers so the rest of us can stop doing business with them. If the Supreme Court and congress cannot get their act together to protect women's rights, then we should vote with our feet as consumers. Shame them and embarrass them publicly.
I'd like for the NYT and other media to widely publish a list of these employers so the rest of us can stop doing business with them. If the Supreme Court and congress cannot get their act together to protect women's rights, then we should vote with our feet as consumers. Shame them and embarrass them publicly.
26
Yes!
Women...think twice before applying to work for one of these organizations. Do you really want to work in an environment where your employer is controlling your private life?
19
Republicans have sought to strip all government funding from Planned Parenthood on spurious grounds. The compromise here is simple: Do these religious organizations receive any financial support (direct or indirect, tax exemptions, etc.)? If so, that funding should be withdrawn and the organizations can then get the requested contraceptive exemptions from the insurers and the government.
12
Perhaps this decision reflects the "modesty" in judging that Roberts espoused during his confirmation (and echoed by others during their confirmation. If the litigants can work out an accommodation between themselves, it will be much more precise and workable than any "winner-take-all" decision by the court, which will usually lead to mote litigation.
The Court seems to prefer not strike down complex legislation in total, but a legal industry has emerged complete with forum-shopping and states' Attorney Generals that tries to position legal questions into this "winner-take-all" mode for decision by the Supreme Court, thus dragging the Court into this polarized political environment.
Let's see if there are more decisions like this over the next month as the Court clears its docket for their summer recess. Maybe a eight member court offers some advantages in avoiding more polarizing legal confrontations. Wouldn't that be surprising?
The Court seems to prefer not strike down complex legislation in total, but a legal industry has emerged complete with forum-shopping and states' Attorney Generals that tries to position legal questions into this "winner-take-all" mode for decision by the Supreme Court, thus dragging the Court into this polarized political environment.
Let's see if there are more decisions like this over the next month as the Court clears its docket for their summer recess. Maybe a eight member court offers some advantages in avoiding more polarizing legal confrontations. Wouldn't that be surprising?
3
I trust the religious organizations will not be covering Viagra also.
20
The only 'compromise' that religious groups will accept is one that allows them to force others to bend to their beliefs ... preferably with dungeons and red hot irons as enabling tools.
But with that said, the position of the court is reasonable in the fractured climate of the country. People should try harder to work out their differences and not expect a legislated or a judicial solution to every problem. And since the suit was brought by the 'religious overreach' crowd in hopes of weakening their enemies even more ... and that didn't work ... I score this as 'mostly' a victory for my side.
Conservatives in Congress should look on this as one more consequence of their Policy of No with respect to anything that President Obama wants to do.
But with that said, the position of the court is reasonable in the fractured climate of the country. People should try harder to work out their differences and not expect a legislated or a judicial solution to every problem. And since the suit was brought by the 'religious overreach' crowd in hopes of weakening their enemies even more ... and that didn't work ... I score this as 'mostly' a victory for my side.
Conservatives in Congress should look on this as one more consequence of their Policy of No with respect to anything that President Obama wants to do.
45
Through their use of the filibuster, blocking President Obama appointees and Democratic legislation, and now refusing to allow his appointment to the Supreme Court, Republicans have effectively taken away my voice in my country's policies. I voted for President Obama and he won, but somehow Republican legislators have decided that doesn't matter. They've effectively disenfranchised a majority of voters (forget those they won't even allow to register.) The only way to make our vote count again is to elect a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.
24
The Republican Congress inhibits all forward progress on important issues facing the American people and when the President does what he can they cry foul and imperialism (Ceaserism according to Ross). Now the Congress has stalemated the highest court and will now, typically, try to blame the very entity they have hog tied for not doing their job. If the founders had known that one of the checks and balances they brilliantly came up with could be this unpatriotic, they would have provided a cynicism clause in the Constitution.
8
Compromise is a filthy and vulgar word to radical Republican religious right-wing.
Their entire platform of sedition is hellbent on the puritanical, prurient piracy of personal privacy in the name of 'free-dumb'.....(and profit).
Their entire platform of sedition is hellbent on the puritanical, prurient piracy of personal privacy in the name of 'free-dumb'.....(and profit).
20
Great! Women can choose if and when to have a baby, regardless of the religion of their employers. Women in low-wage jobs are the very people who need access to family planning and reproductive care. Employers who want to control the personal aspects of employees lives will have to compromise.
10
This is a case that should never have seen the light of day in even a JP traffic court. It is but another example of religion lubricating the gears of American government with sand and gravel. How many thousands of dollars and hours of time have been spent by both sides arguing for or against a religious stance that interferes with with another's right to not believe in the complainant's religious beliefs. That is the essence of what these cases are about.
19
I guess the “Sisters of the Poor” wouldn’t have jobs unless they kept their employees poor.
Birth Control pills can cost $70/month.
IUD insertion requires placement in a clinical setting by a healthcare professional and it can cost up to $700 for the procedure and the device.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan once famously said that “birth control can be found easily and cheaply at any 7-11.” Gee--well said by this celibate male.
BTW IUDs are NOT abortifacients. It HAD been thought that the IUD kept the embryo from implanting on the uterine wall. ACTUALLY, the chemicals in the IUD kill sperm preventing fertilization.
The idea that non-scientists, people who believe and follow an ancient text are allowed to make medical decisions for their employees is counter-intuitive and just plain wrong!
Birth Control pills can cost $70/month.
IUD insertion requires placement in a clinical setting by a healthcare professional and it can cost up to $700 for the procedure and the device.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan once famously said that “birth control can be found easily and cheaply at any 7-11.” Gee--well said by this celibate male.
BTW IUDs are NOT abortifacients. It HAD been thought that the IUD kept the embryo from implanting on the uterine wall. ACTUALLY, the chemicals in the IUD kill sperm preventing fertilization.
The idea that non-scientists, people who believe and follow an ancient text are allowed to make medical decisions for their employees is counter-intuitive and just plain wrong!
31
Yes, but as Monty Python taught us, "Every sperm is sacred!" ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
2
Whether BC pills can act as abortive measures or not is not entirely resolved yet, but contraception using natural medication is infinitely better than becoming pregnant unwillingly...and seeking an abortion. Opposing BC pills, especially when the one's doing so are men, is so lame and so hypocritical, as if we didn't have more important issues to discuss and resolve. Republicans out there, with religious dogmatism, enough already; live and let live, life is too short for stupid statements, and cruel for the injustice on women's freedom to decide when, if at all, to become pregnant...and not be at men's 'mercy'. Besides, pregnancy does not occur in a vacuum, as we men are willing participants in the pleasure, though less so with the consequences. Let's stop this nonsense. Religion has always been counter to science, as some may think it takes away their so-called authority on matters they are perfectly ignorant of. And belief means not-knowing. Women of the world, unite and settle this nuisance, and make what comes natural and helps you be free, the law of the land. If Congress wants to maintain their arrogance, and make a mountain out of a mole hill, send them packing, you are majority anyway.
12
If we went to a single payer system would these "religious groups" then mind their own business!?
18
Probably not! Because it's not about contraception it's about forcing their belief's on others and making their beliefs and rules the law of the land. I suggest a quick re-reading of history, it's been tried many times. Or one could look at current events where it has been a great success for a few and tragic for the many, mostly woman.
6
Another instance when the lack of patriotism on the part of the GOP...
11
If religious companies and organizations expect accommodations or exceptions, they should pay taxes.
23
Good show. The case should have been thrown out in the county it came up in.
7
The underlying horror of this case is that several GOP justices asked the most ignorant questions about contraception.
They literally has no conception of contraception.
They literally has no conception of contraception.
18
That is because they are all Catholics.
15
were they all men?
2
This is a very smart move by SCOTUS, but I'm still shocked that there are justices who feel an employer’s religious freedom is usurped when employers are required to pay for birth control for employees, as all other employers are required. What's really happening is the employer is being allowed to hoist their religious beliefs onto employees. Why are the employee’s religious beliefs trumped by the employer’s religious beliefs? Because the employer has to spend money? So do all other employers. Because they’re a family owned business? How do nuns qualify as “family owned”? What is the standard for “family owned”? Some justices, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, have made religious freedom a sword. It’s absolutely absurd that employees have to yield to their employers religious beliefs, no matter the type of business.
16
Daydreamer:
"What's really happening is the employer is being allowed to hoist their religious beliefs onto employees."
***
It's fascinating that the same person who insists that a religious adherent must take action that goes against his or her religious beliefs will, in the next breath, complain about someone else's forcing their beliefs onto someone else.
You may not like religious beliefs, that people actually hold them or the people who do hold them. They are protected precisely because of people like yourself.
"What's really happening is the employer is being allowed to hoist their religious beliefs onto employees."
***
It's fascinating that the same person who insists that a religious adherent must take action that goes against his or her religious beliefs will, in the next breath, complain about someone else's forcing their beliefs onto someone else.
You may not like religious beliefs, that people actually hold them or the people who do hold them. They are protected precisely because of people like yourself.
4
I love beliefs, I love people. No one can ever hinder belief or change your beliefs or force you to 'believe' something.
But to act on your own 'beliefs', to prevent someone who does not believe what you believe, from getting what is accepted medical care, is plainly wrong.
But to act on your own 'beliefs', to prevent someone who does not believe what you believe, from getting what is accepted medical care, is plainly wrong.
I don't understand why the Supreme Court could not do what they want lower courts to do.
3
They can, but they won't.
That is the point.
Conservatives and liberals both had nothing to gain in a split decision.
However, a lower court 'negotiated' settlement is a HUGE loss for social conservatives because they won't negotiate, period.
Now they have to and it will be in favor of women having access to birth control.
That is the point.
Conservatives and liberals both had nothing to gain in a split decision.
However, a lower court 'negotiated' settlement is a HUGE loss for social conservatives because they won't negotiate, period.
Now they have to and it will be in favor of women having access to birth control.
6
@polymath
It's actually very simple, unintentionally laid out in the accompanying photo. The Supreme Court ruled that they will have nun of it! Never mind all the creative writing to soften the blow. Fact is, this particular section of Obamacare has been sent back to the design board. If and when it sputters back, religious organizations can just sit back and enjoy the show. Nothing in it for them to do, just like they wanted.
In other words, the religious organizations have won their case. Time to move on.
It's actually very simple, unintentionally laid out in the accompanying photo. The Supreme Court ruled that they will have nun of it! Never mind all the creative writing to soften the blow. Fact is, this particular section of Obamacare has been sent back to the design board. If and when it sputters back, religious organizations can just sit back and enjoy the show. Nothing in it for them to do, just like they wanted.
In other words, the religious organizations have won their case. Time to move on.
2
sometimes folks just will not accept the answer yes. well here we are. now fill out those forms
8
Pierre Trudeau, 1967: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Why is this an issue in 2016? So many, on the American religious right, refuse to leave our bedrooms, our bathrooms, our gynecology appointments. It's our business. Get out!
22
Shaz, It's the State that collects taxes and it was the State that passed Obamacare that required all private businesses to pay for what you want to do in your bedroom. If you want me out of your bedroom, don't argue for the state to require my money, as a taxpayer or employer, be spent on your bedroom activities.
When it comes down to it, would Jesus really say "Ladies, don't use birth control pills?"
I mean, where's the logic?
I mean, where's the logic?
9
Neither would Jesus support the 2nd amendment.
He would likely throw out the gun dealers just as he threw out the tax collectors in the temple.
And the Old Testament god would say that guns have become the 'golden calf' idol.
But don't let theology stand in the way of a nonsensical conservative argument.
He would likely throw out the gun dealers just as he threw out the tax collectors in the temple.
And the Old Testament god would say that guns have become the 'golden calf' idol.
But don't let theology stand in the way of a nonsensical conservative argument.
7
"...even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company" -- This is unfair: Contraceptive coverage lowers the costs to insurers. The organization should pay the rate for a policy without contraceptive coverage, and the employees who opt to invoke that coverage should receive a proportionate rebate for their portion of the health care insurance. Thus the organization will be free of the taint of contraception, but will de facto be encouraging it as this will provide a cost-saving for the employees.
6
Because every human sufferings and conflict, every political discourse, every man-made disasters can be resolved by making more human. I get the logic now. Thanks.
In order to maintain their tax exempt status charitable organizations, religious and otherwise, are required to file various forms, statements and returns with both the federal and state governments giving great detail about their funding, revenue, expenditures, purposes etc.
How is this waiver document any different?
How is this waiver document any different?
14
Using "religion" and "freedom" in the same sentence is an oxymoron. All religions actively and violently oppose even the concept of freedom. Our founders knew that well and insulated our citizens from it's worst excesses.
That's why the country needs a fully functioning Supreme Court with nine justices at all times.
This time next year the Republican Party, if there even is one anymore, will be wondering what just happened as they lose yet another presidential campaign and give back the Senate.
What happened? You didn't do your jobs. American voters don't like that and you're about to find out just how much they don't.
That's why the country needs a fully functioning Supreme Court with nine justices at all times.
This time next year the Republican Party, if there even is one anymore, will be wondering what just happened as they lose yet another presidential campaign and give back the Senate.
What happened? You didn't do your jobs. American voters don't like that and you're about to find out just how much they don't.
17
No good, Lou.
Some religions practice the idea that God gave us "free will." Unfortunately, most people's choices, while using that freedom, hurt other people...and so God or some religions are blamed -- wrongly.
As for the case -- The Court should "decide" all cases like this until they get a 9th justice. I hope Trump reads up on this, because I'm not certain he knows anything about it....
Some religions practice the idea that God gave us "free will." Unfortunately, most people's choices, while using that freedom, hurt other people...and so God or some religions are blamed -- wrongly.
As for the case -- The Court should "decide" all cases like this until they get a 9th justice. I hope Trump reads up on this, because I'm not certain he knows anything about it....
1
Am I missing something? Why is the SC acting like a mediator attempting to bring 2 parties to some sort of accomodation. If the battling entities could have have arrived at an agreement they wouldn't need the courts. This is a constitutional issue, that's what the courts are designed to resolve.
This decision, or lack of an intelligent one, makes even less sense if this case, being returned to a lower court results in a decision that dissatisfies the losing side, then again petitions the SC. That this was a unanimous ruling is more troubling, all 8 geniuses from widely disparate beliefs found common cause.
This decision, or lack of an intelligent one, makes even less sense if this case, being returned to a lower court results in a decision that dissatisfies the losing side, then again petitions the SC. That this was a unanimous ruling is more troubling, all 8 geniuses from widely disparate beliefs found common cause.
4
Highly unusual and I did not think the S Court had the power to do this. In effect, force settlement. Just resolve the case, 4-4, meaning lower court order stands.
3
The core of the opponents' objections: "... would make them complicit in conduct that violated their faith."
Too bad. You live in a civil, secular world. Who's to say that my "conduct" "violates" your "faith"?
Too bad. You live in a civil, secular world. Who's to say that my "conduct" "violates" your "faith"?
16
Agreed .perhaps the folks who own Hobby Lobby, etc. should move to Syria where their views on women would fit right in.
6
The Obama Administration refused to accept a very practical solution, which was the creation of insurance plans without birth control. This would have allowed religious groups to provide insurance but not get involved in birth control.
It was not interested in compromise. Perhaps it will now be.
It was not interested in compromise. Perhaps it will now be.
3
Oh please. As you well know the GOPTP has refused to do that very thing.
8
Disband the court!
It has failed to do its job:
TO DECIDE
It has failed to do its job:
TO DECIDE
3
As I see it, there are several issues here.
There is no way that the Supreme Court (even a court of 9) was going to rule against a group of Catholic nuns who run non-profit nursing homes. It just wasn't going to happen. Argue with me all you like, but the SC wouldn't want to deal with the flak---especially the ones who would get it from their own Catholic families.
The Catholic Church itself is exempt from the provisions of the ACA. However, the government refused to classify the Little Sisters as a "religious employer". To my mind, the suit should have been about that refusal to classify. Catholic nuns are absolutely part of the Church and shouldn't be classified as a non-religious employer.
But the organization who brought the lawsuit had another axe to grind and wound up with this ridiculous argument about how filling out the paperwork violated the religious principles of the Sisters. The Catholic bishops (who have been beating up on Catholic sisters for some time now) were more than happy to support that ridiculous argument because they are still completely against artificial birth control even though most Catholic women use it.
So I blame the bishops much more than the Little Sisters but mostly I blame the stupid administrative decision that exempted the Roman Catholic Church from the ACA but not Roman Catholic sisters.
There is no way that the Supreme Court (even a court of 9) was going to rule against a group of Catholic nuns who run non-profit nursing homes. It just wasn't going to happen. Argue with me all you like, but the SC wouldn't want to deal with the flak---especially the ones who would get it from their own Catholic families.
The Catholic Church itself is exempt from the provisions of the ACA. However, the government refused to classify the Little Sisters as a "religious employer". To my mind, the suit should have been about that refusal to classify. Catholic nuns are absolutely part of the Church and shouldn't be classified as a non-religious employer.
But the organization who brought the lawsuit had another axe to grind and wound up with this ridiculous argument about how filling out the paperwork violated the religious principles of the Sisters. The Catholic bishops (who have been beating up on Catholic sisters for some time now) were more than happy to support that ridiculous argument because they are still completely against artificial birth control even though most Catholic women use it.
So I blame the bishops much more than the Little Sisters but mostly I blame the stupid administrative decision that exempted the Roman Catholic Church from the ACA but not Roman Catholic sisters.
5
I got a compromise right here for ya, Church.
You stay the hell out of politics and my body and you get to keep your tax-exempt status.
Capeche?
You stay the hell out of politics and my body and you get to keep your tax-exempt status.
Capeche?
23
This highly unusual ruling originated in the desperation of the Supreme Court to avoid the abomination of a split decision that would have federal law interpreted differently in different judicial districts.
It emphasizes once again the chaos that has resulted from Republicans flouting the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. GOP senators are forcing the Court to operate at a different number of justices for at least a full Supreme Court term, motivated by their desire to steal a year of SCOTUS picks from President Obama so that a President Trump could then have five years of picks.
It emphasizes once again the chaos that has resulted from Republicans flouting the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. GOP senators are forcing the Court to operate at a different number of justices for at least a full Supreme Court term, motivated by their desire to steal a year of SCOTUS picks from President Obama so that a President Trump could then have five years of picks.
6
Senator McConnell, do your job.
23
The argument is which has a higher priority, your faith or my rights. I am religion-free, and I have just as many rights as any other American. Privledging your beliefs over my Constitutional rights is unconstitutional.
22
This case should have been compromised before it started. Using the court system's resources -- not to mention those of the Federal government and of a charitable organization -- to prove a point is a waste of the public's money.
8
Orthodox Jews have found myriad ways to get around various restrictive parts of their laws regarding the sabbath, for example, hiring 'Sabbath goyim' to press elevator buttons, turn on the cooking stove and the like. I think these Christian church groups could easily hire a Jew or Muslim, or atheist to sign the paperwork in question of their behalf. A simple power of attorney restricted to such matters would do the trick, to appease their delicate consciences.
8
....and the Catholic Church wonders why it's losing so many members...? duh...
20
This is Republican governance at its finest - pouring sand in the gears of government, letting it grind to a halt, then blaming Obama.
21
What year is this?
18
There are so many reasons women use the bc pill than just for birth control. Endometriosis is a major reasons as is unstable physical growth in teenagers.
13
Here's a compromise. Make everything Over-the-Counter and pay out of pocket. Amazon can deliver it with drones if you have Prime.
2
And so we continue down the path of unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? Your problem, not mine; our religious beliefs, concerns and obligations conclude once the decision is made to carry to term. Don't want to get pregnant? Then "just say no." Problem solved.
2
Um, didn't the religious folk already make it abundantly clear that absolutely NO compromise was possible?
I say no more tax exempt status. No more police and fire protection. No more access to public infrastructure. If they want to live in a bubble of "purity" well then let them. Let them pay their way on everything. No more freeloading.
I say no more tax exempt status. No more police and fire protection. No more access to public infrastructure. If they want to live in a bubble of "purity" well then let them. Let them pay their way on everything. No more freeloading.
25
How about we repeal the massive tax exemptions from these religious businesses and use the money to set up a fund for women's health that would pay for contraception and other services for eligible women. Enough already!
18
I wonder how much of the legal fees they're paying to prosecute this suit go towards providing contraceptive coverage for the employees of the law firm?
8
One thing that we should be clear about:
These "Little Sisters" would have no problem signing any such letters
. . . if the result was that their employees would be denied coverage
THEIR OUTRAGE is that after signing that letter, there employees still get the coverage
REALITY-CHECK: providing free contraceptive coverage is cheaper for the insurers than the costs of additional pregnancies & additional insured-children
There should be no additional letters needing to be signed, this should simply be a required election that every employer makes when contracting for providing coverage
The election should require additional cost to cover what is necessary to fund an alternative system for their employees to use, and that should be the end of it.
These "Little Sisters" would have no problem signing any such letters
. . . if the result was that their employees would be denied coverage
THEIR OUTRAGE is that after signing that letter, there employees still get the coverage
REALITY-CHECK: providing free contraceptive coverage is cheaper for the insurers than the costs of additional pregnancies & additional insured-children
There should be no additional letters needing to be signed, this should simply be a required election that every employer makes when contracting for providing coverage
The election should require additional cost to cover what is necessary to fund an alternative system for their employees to use, and that should be the end of it.
5
I spent 5 years in law school, obtaining two degrees, J.D. and LL.M. in tax law. I believe I have some expertise in The Constitution and well as statutory construction. What this case illustrates the continued political effects on a body that was intended to be apolitical as evidenced by the life term. The entire structure of our government has been eroded beyond recognition by a political judiciary and an executive branch that rules by fiat. We are spiraling out of control and headed for the serious consequences that accompany this development. Too few among us understand or even read the founding documents or even The Constitution. Dark clouds are on the horizon.
5
Perhaps you didn't notice that we suffered a 2d American Revolution as a result of the Civil War, and that that nothing in that original Constitution had the same meaning after the 3 Civil War Amendments (13, 14,15).
While I usually disagreed with Justice Scalia, I think his notion of "originalism" was wrong-headed ... sort of like yours.
While I usually disagreed with Justice Scalia, I think his notion of "originalism" was wrong-headed ... sort of like yours.
2
I'm afraid that your headline is misleading. The justices are not seeking compromise. They are merely kicking the can down the road since they are hopelessly deadlocked, but don't want to admit it.
10
Should be renamed The Religious Bigotry Restoration Act.
22
REALITY-CHECK: It is very well known that providing free contraceptive coverage is far cheaper for the insurance companies than the cost of additional pregnancies & resulting number of children that they would have to cover it such 'free' coverage wasn't provided.
Simple solution: Any employer that doesn't want to "pay" for this 'benefit', should simply be allowed to make that as a standard 'choice' when they are negotiating for healthcare plans, and pay an additional markup that reflects what that choice would actually costs
There would be no additional forms that any employer would have to sign, other than those it already has to complete in order to contract with an insurer already.
And at the end of the day, the employees would still get the standard coverage
Simple solution: Any employer that doesn't want to "pay" for this 'benefit', should simply be allowed to make that as a standard 'choice' when they are negotiating for healthcare plans, and pay an additional markup that reflects what that choice would actually costs
There would be no additional forms that any employer would have to sign, other than those it already has to complete in order to contract with an insurer already.
And at the end of the day, the employees would still get the standard coverage
3
That would make sense except the AOA intends the exact opposite: A individual or group with higher medical costs should not be charged more; rather the cost should be spread among everyone else who buys insurance.
I guess I'm just not getting this - I mean the comments decrying the ethical issue purportedly placed before the Little Sisters of the Poor. Little Sisters are running a business, correct? Assuming they can't supply enough nuns (for whom contraception wouldn't be an issue) to cover all available positions, is it permissible for them to hire only observant Catholics who abstain from using artificial birth control? Is a business that's not a church itself, but rather a side business, allowed to discriminate in hiring based on religious preference? I'm just asking.
This would all be moot if we didn't have such a wacky medical insurance delivery system. And, don't get me started on the Scalia replacement fiasco. (I'm still not over nine kids. Wow.)
This would all be moot if we didn't have such a wacky medical insurance delivery system. And, don't get me started on the Scalia replacement fiasco. (I'm still not over nine kids. Wow.)
5
They have no problem covering pregnancy which is more expensive. So your claim has zero merit.
'terri,'
I'm unsure what you are referring to as my 'claim.' Perhaps I could have been more clear in my original post. What I meant to infer was that their nursing home business (as opposed to their religious order itself or the Catholic Church as an entity) appeared to be run as a secular business. Although receiving 501c status, they apparently employ non-Catholic or other non-religious persons as employees, I imagine out of staffing necessity. Their mission may be ultimately spiritual, but in actuality they are providing secular services dispensed by at least some secular staff. Cherry-picking medical services does seem to me to violate medical privacy statutes. I'm assuming they would also advocate against, for instance, tubal ligation for reproductive sterilization, etc.
If the Little Sisters prefer not to advocate for such medications and procedures involving reproduction (which is entirely fine, in my opinion), my only suggestion is that they hire only persons who are observant of their religious dogma and practices. This may then open up the question of hiring practices, however. I admit to not knowing the answer as to whether this would be considered an illegal hiring practice.
Many entry level nursing assistants or janitorial staff may not have the economic resources to seek work at institutions without these reproductive restrictions.
I'm unsure what you are referring to as my 'claim.' Perhaps I could have been more clear in my original post. What I meant to infer was that their nursing home business (as opposed to their religious order itself or the Catholic Church as an entity) appeared to be run as a secular business. Although receiving 501c status, they apparently employ non-Catholic or other non-religious persons as employees, I imagine out of staffing necessity. Their mission may be ultimately spiritual, but in actuality they are providing secular services dispensed by at least some secular staff. Cherry-picking medical services does seem to me to violate medical privacy statutes. I'm assuming they would also advocate against, for instance, tubal ligation for reproductive sterilization, etc.
If the Little Sisters prefer not to advocate for such medications and procedures involving reproduction (which is entirely fine, in my opinion), my only suggestion is that they hire only persons who are observant of their religious dogma and practices. This may then open up the question of hiring practices, however. I admit to not knowing the answer as to whether this would be considered an illegal hiring practice.
Many entry level nursing assistants or janitorial staff may not have the economic resources to seek work at institutions without these reproductive restrictions.
The most obvious point is that the federal government already sought compromise. So now the religious groups seeking relief from a very reasonable solution need to come up with a reasonable alternative as a counter offer. That said, what I don't understand is why these religious groups didn't take the government's offer (sign a form) as a way of promoting their faith rather than interpreting it as a burden. By signing the form that says they will NOT pay for the contraception, they get to scream from the rooftops exactly what their faith means to them. They get to do that and someone else gets to pay for the coverage that particular women (including, ironically, many women of faith) actually want. So a win-win. That's not enough?
70
What about those of us who don't care one iota about the topic itself but are miffed about the entire idea of paying for coverages never to be used?
4
We are the steady firm base upon which the insurance industry lies...more or less quietly paying our premiums for a service that for whatever reasons we don't avail ourselves...
3
o, you use it, alright.The same way you use public education for other people's kids, roads you personally will never drive on, and a standing military even when not going to war.
1
Really? hopefully you will never need your insurance to cover cancer treatments, stroke, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc, etc.
3
We seem to have lost, over the years, a fundamental truth that the populace pays for all kinds of medical coverage they never expect to use such as cardiovascular, diabetic and ulcerated gut diseases. Further, the numbers who never need those particular issues covered would be equivalent to those seeking contraception or abortion coverage. Why should I pay for medical benefits to those with religious scruples suffering health problems that I will never have, just so that they can insure for their health issues but not mine?
Their arguments, and those of the Supreme Court members leaning Right, that their health problems (caused by diet) are an act of God rather than a result of personal choice and therefore more deserving of coverage than contraception and abortion benefits for women also thought to be an act of personal choice, are sour and unsustainable and we will continue to argue point by point with no chance of resolution..
Get back to rational thought and simplicity.
Their arguments, and those of the Supreme Court members leaning Right, that their health problems (caused by diet) are an act of God rather than a result of personal choice and therefore more deserving of coverage than contraception and abortion benefits for women also thought to be an act of personal choice, are sour and unsustainable and we will continue to argue point by point with no chance of resolution..
Get back to rational thought and simplicity.
8
What contraception's has to do with religion is beyond my comprehension. There is only one reason why a religious organization would prohibit their members from using contraception and that is to ensure a steady supply of new worshipers and cash flow. The irrational thought that goes into such a policy is another reason why I do not adhere to or support any religious organization.
15
Ever consider that maybe you don't understand religion that well?
6
rgugliotti understands religion only too well! Is that how you were taught to have a discussion? Just respond that the person doesn't know what they are talking about? I went to Catholic school for 16 years. I understand very well what rgugliotti is getting at! If you are a religious person you have a funny way of showing it. How about practicing some manners?
6
Perhaps some of us understand religion all too well.
8
Can't help but wonder how much money is spent on this anti-woman crusade. Imagine if we actually added up how much this crazy mishmash of health care costs...and then truly compared it to the cost of universal coverage.
11
Employers (especially 'religious' ones who are happy to force their will on everyone in every possible venue, claiming to be speaking for "God") should NOT hold the power over something as vital as healthcare coverage for their employees. It literally can be a life-and-death power.
If this ridiculous case shows nothing else, it shows we need national, non-profit healthcare coverage for everyone.
If this ridiculous case shows nothing else, it shows we need national, non-profit healthcare coverage for everyone.
14
I don't know what the Bible really says on this issue and it does not matter one iota. The Bible says a lot of things that are routinely ignored by or reinterpreted by smart, faithful people. But the notion that some member of a church thinks he or she has some prerogative to force others to live by some interpretation or another seems to be the most non-Christian and misguided idea of all. And don't give me the bit about "it's their money and they shouldn't have to spend it that way." Employment laws don't work like that and this society is built on laws. It's sad that every single justice on that court doesn't see it that way in the 21st Century.
114
mford,
It is not even their money that they are "being forced" to spend! All that is required is a signature advising Health/Burwell that they don't wish to cover contraceptives and the insurance company pays for it. How advising the government that they don't wish to cover these is anything but an affirmation of their religious beliefs is beyond me.
It is not even their money that they are "being forced" to spend! All that is required is a signature advising Health/Burwell that they don't wish to cover contraceptives and the insurance company pays for it. How advising the government that they don't wish to cover these is anything but an affirmation of their religious beliefs is beyond me.
1
It remains very odd that our society continues to tolerate and accommodate, and finance, those in the thrall of mythology-based belief systems. Their seminal literature are like comic books, with magic and flying horses and super-heroes; it is no different than worshiping Aquaman and Super Girl. Let them obey the law of the land, and pay taxes on their income and simply not bother other people when they dress up in silly costumes, kneel in front of statues and light up incense and candles. If your teenagers did this you would be horrified and assume that they are in the thrall of some comic-book cult.
15
I believe you are calling for the elimination of the free exercise clause of the Constitution. That would be very difficult to get through Congress on a 2/3's vote not to mention ratification by 75% of the states.
2
You are referring to the traditions of a couple of billion people! Obviously there is a lot more to the Catholic religion that your depiction. I think that you realize that. Try not to be so bigoted!
1
Compromise, in the 21st century? What a radical idea! What is SCOTUS thinking?
2
Whats the expression, 'Ill be back'. The idea you can have a lower court 'legislate' a solution tells you the judiciary has lost its mind. The idea you can kick back these type cases to the lower court for compromise misses what you go to court for. This all about politics, that being kicking the matter down the road for another Supreme Court session. It should not be lost on anyone that this is a presidential election year, to make a ruling this year would trigger outrage, and both the left and the right. Seems the Court is adopting the Congress's way, do nothing.
6
Well, can you blame the Court? Congress has essentially stuck them with 8 members this term. In cases of deadlock, what are they supposed to do? This is not the Court acting as Congress. This is a symptom of Congress failing to its job and the American people suffering because of it.
3
What I have come to realize is the Supreme Court does not channel founders (try explaining gay rights if you think they do), what they channel is two things- first what their buds who put them in want, and secondly public opinion or what they can get away with.
That is is folks. Anyone who thinks abortion is going away in states like NY or CA is nuts. The Supremes fear the pitchforks as much as anyone in government. They overstepped on Citizens United and will try to walk it back next time they get a chance.
You want to change laws? Change public opinion. The courts will come around, sadly it takes time, but in the age of the internet time is being compressed. They will catch up or visit the pitchfork.
That is is folks. Anyone who thinks abortion is going away in states like NY or CA is nuts. The Supremes fear the pitchforks as much as anyone in government. They overstepped on Citizens United and will try to walk it back next time they get a chance.
You want to change laws? Change public opinion. The courts will come around, sadly it takes time, but in the age of the internet time is being compressed. They will catch up or visit the pitchfork.
1
This is almost the ultimate expression of the theory of nullification that is supported by the "States Rights" supporters who seem to want to return to the Articles of Confederation.
Now organizations and businesses are claiming the right to nullify any federal law they object to.
Can individuals claim that their belief system authorizes them to kill members of their family to protect their honor or kill members of rival families because they disagree, or kill members of other religions because they aren't members of the "right" religion,...?
Organizations operate in the public space and are subject to all public laws be they local, county, state or federal. Yes, they may challenge the overall legality but cannot simply declare themselves exempt by individually nullifying the law in question.
Now organizations and businesses are claiming the right to nullify any federal law they object to.
Can individuals claim that their belief system authorizes them to kill members of their family to protect their honor or kill members of rival families because they disagree, or kill members of other religions because they aren't members of the "right" religion,...?
Organizations operate in the public space and are subject to all public laws be they local, county, state or federal. Yes, they may challenge the overall legality but cannot simply declare themselves exempt by individually nullifying the law in question.
8
The progressive culture war continues unabated. There is no longer room in this country for ideological disagreement. In all cases you will be made to comply, no matter how sincere your objections, because progressive ideologues know better than the rest of us retrogrades.
The question at hand is simply absurd. Forcing a private religious organisation with a sincere religious opposition to birth control and a membership of celibate women is nothing more than the boot of government on the neck of supposedly free citizens.
The question at hand is simply absurd. Forcing a private religious organisation with a sincere religious opposition to birth control and a membership of celibate women is nothing more than the boot of government on the neck of supposedly free citizens.
3
People like to blame Congress, but it is very much the Obama Administration's uncompromising position on birth control coverage that has been at the center of this deadlock.
And, yes, it's absurd, but so is forcing co-ed bathrooms on young Americans and granting work papers to illegal immigrants. This Administration cannot leave soon enough.
And, yes, it's absurd, but so is forcing co-ed bathrooms on young Americans and granting work papers to illegal immigrants. This Administration cannot leave soon enough.
2
OH PLEASE!!! You sound as if you think the nuns will be forced to take birth control pills!
5
Time to eliminate their tax exempt status. Enough already!
16
Contraceptives coverage actually makes health insurance actuarially CHEAPER, because maternal care and dependent care costs go DOWN. So here's a compromise:
Let religious employers offer no-contraceptives plans, but allow covered persons to obtain individual riders that they pay for (a REBATE where covered petitioners share a windfall with insurance companies, independent of the paternalistic and would be meddling employer). Problem solved; For all the employer knows, none of their employees obtain the individual coverage rider and if some have, it's private info out of their nosy sight and clear of their "religious conscience")!
Let religious employers offer no-contraceptives plans, but allow covered persons to obtain individual riders that they pay for (a REBATE where covered petitioners share a windfall with insurance companies, independent of the paternalistic and would be meddling employer). Problem solved; For all the employer knows, none of their employees obtain the individual coverage rider and if some have, it's private info out of their nosy sight and clear of their "religious conscience")!
5
The utter hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in supporting denying women that work for them any sort of access to BC, when they turn a blind eye to catholic woemn using it - when it fact it is the kind of sin that gets you excommunicated.
10
No it doesn't get you excommunicated.
2
It is a mortal sin, beagle. The Pope's Encyclical - July 25, 1968. So yes the woman can be excommuincated. In practice this would mean excommunicating a huge (yuge) swath of what remains of the catholic church. Hence the hypocrisy. Utter hypocrisy.
5
No a woman cannot be excommunicated for practicing birth control, Miriam. A Catholic can only be excommunicated for committing grievous sin. Not following the suggestions of Pope Paul VI's encyclical is not a grievous sin. His encyclical was meant to guide Catholics as part of the Church's magesterium. Every Catholic must examine her own conscience as to whether her action fulfills all of the requirements to make a sin grievous. Obviously, as you write, huge swaths of Catholic women around the globe have decided that practicing birth control does not constitute a grievous sin. Lighten up!
Mitt Romney was wrong then and his pronouncement the corporations are people is wrong now. Corporations have no religion and no moral obligation to follow the tenets of any one religion. When Hobby Lobby refuses to follow the laws of the land based on the religious views of some owners, Hobby Lobby, the business, is violating the law, period! If I am a Catholic who owns a majority interest or even all of a business, my religion is irrelevant as are my moral beliefs. If I have strong racist convictions, I still cannot have my business discriminate...that would violate the law. If I have strong beliefs about abortion, that still doesn't mean my business can do what all other businesses are required by law to do...provide contraceptive insurance to the employees, my personal views notwithstanding. The issue is not a gray area...C'mon Supreme Court, let's get moving.
154
Hobby Lobby has all of their stuff made in sweatshops in a country with forced abortion, explain that. Religion is the oldest and biggest con in the world.
12
1. If there were no people, there would be no corporations. 2. The only reason this current topic is an issue is because health insurance is administered through businesses and corporations. Any ideas for alternative administration of health insurance?
Why is further accommodation needed? Since when is asking for a legal waiver a violation of one's rights? We have rule by law in this country, not by religion--or so I was taught.
18
My religion is strongly opposed to medical treatment of any kind. Why should I be forced to provide medical insurance for my employees?
5
Unless your employees follow the same religion as you, why should they be forced to go along with your religious beliefs? Freedom of religion works both ways, you know.
5
In my opinion the solution to this problem is
1) make health insurance optional and tax-free to all individuals.
OR
2) Adopt a single payer (government) system that offers equal health insurance to all irrespective of wealth or religious beliefs. In this case private insurance should be abolished.
1) make health insurance optional and tax-free to all individuals.
OR
2) Adopt a single payer (government) system that offers equal health insurance to all irrespective of wealth or religious beliefs. In this case private insurance should be abolished.
13
Basically, the SCOTUS has sent out a note saying until further notice, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot fulfill its Constitutional obligations, and would like folks to just work things out among themselves.
Now the judiciary as well as congress will be dysfunctional.
This is of course the inevitable consequence of Republican savants like Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley declaring that the SCOTUS should reflect their own narrow political views and rigid cultural assumptions--or else.
They and people who share their destructive inflexibility must be voted out of office. Since they do not believe in government, let us not detain them in government any longer.
Now the judiciary as well as congress will be dysfunctional.
This is of course the inevitable consequence of Republican savants like Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley declaring that the SCOTUS should reflect their own narrow political views and rigid cultural assumptions--or else.
They and people who share their destructive inflexibility must be voted out of office. Since they do not believe in government, let us not detain them in government any longer.
21
For years now, Congress has stubbornly insisted on remaining closed for business, even sometimes (via Sen. Cruz) trying to close all three branches of government. The Supreme Court, in the face of a personnel crisis created by Congress, seems to be trying its best to keep its own business up and running. Good for them!
45
How about redirecting this energy toward real problems instead of made up ones?
10
This is just the latest reason for "Medicare-for-All" where the public interest removes the constant threat of petty religious-motivated attempts by employers to undermine essential health care for women. Isn't it time for women to be allowed to have the health care they need rather than the health care others with differing religious and political views continually seek to deny? Whether or not a "compromise" can be reached is not relevant in an area where no woman should be forced to compromise. The limitation of contraceptive care results in putting many women in jeopardy of an unwanted pregnancy and then not being able to avail themselves of abortions due to restrictions in many states thus leading to a significant increased risk of death for women giving birth (over 17 times that of an abortion). I fail to see the justice in that.
149
The fundamental human right to choose to continue gestation or abort gestation should be an inalienable human right until the human fetus develops around 12-weeks. This is the future and is honorable as long as there are allowances for serious other cases like in Europe already. Government healthcare is the only honorable future I can see.
Wait till this country has Zika issues. Maybe the petitioners want to set up continuing care for the infant victims?
15
Here is a compromise: Don't let the government destroy religious freedom! After all, NO ONE is forced to work for a Catholic Organization, and only people abusing their power and authority are the Obama administration!
4
Here's another compromise: Don't let religious organizations destroy the separation of church and state. After all, NO ONE should be forced to adhere to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and it is the Catholic Church that is abusing the rights of citizens to equal protection under the Constitution.
22
Religious beliefs are just not important to this president because he is an ideologue. Liberals understand the importance of protecting beliefs, even when they don't agree with them.
Once upon a time, liberal activists fought for the protection of religious beliefs. Today, they're mostly ideologues.
Once upon a time, liberal activists fought for the protection of religious beliefs. Today, they're mostly ideologues.
2
Nonsense, AACNY. Nobody's religious beliefs (except perhaps the belief by some religious folks that they have the right to dictate the beliefs and behavior of others) has been infringed or even remotely threatened here.
"The religious groups said that adhering to their faith would subject them to crushing fines in the tens of millions of dollars."
I think the more accurate sentence would be, "The religious groups said that imposing their religious beliefs on their employees, would...".
Give the right credit - they know how to exploit social wedge issues. It's gay marriage 2000 redux.
I think the more accurate sentence would be, "The religious groups said that imposing their religious beliefs on their employees, would...".
Give the right credit - they know how to exploit social wedge issues. It's gay marriage 2000 redux.
13
These religious zealots who insist on unfettered conception regardless of conditions and circumstances invariably and routinely ignore the fate of the unwanted child committed to a life bound in shallows and miseries absent vital necessities.
125
Honestly, they should be right there to meet every child at kindergarten, to say "This years costs are on us!"
1
Very eloquently put, John!
1
Venezuela's deeply religious leadership even decided that Catholic women could use contraception until the zeka virus is cured. That says it all. it is SENSIBLE to use contraception.
Once again the Court, faced with a 4 - 4 tie due to the deliberate inaction of the GOP Majority Leader and the even more useless GOP Chair of the Judiciary Committee, is forced to punt on an important issue. How long will we tolerate this?
148
What about the Obama Administration's refusal to compromise? It was this Administration that rejected the solution of allowing religious organizations to provide insurance policies without birth control. Instead, the president insisted that they act against their religious beliefs and provide coverage for birth control.
No wonder there was never a resolution of this issue.
No wonder there was never a resolution of this issue.
1
Seems to me that this particular national population will tolerate it as long as Republicans make them do it. Otherwise, people would be demonstrating and promising themselves that they will never vote Republican again.
As long as the GOP is in control of the House and the Senate. An educated electorate would throw 90% of the House members out of office.
Contraception in our culture is a physical, medical problem, at least for women. I believe that how a man or woman decides to solve a physical, medical problem should be solely that man or woman's business with his or her doctor, and no one else should ever be privy to it. Or, contrariwise, why are not all condoms locked up and dispensed with a prescription after much public discussion and soul-searching? What if one of these religious organizations has hired someone who has AIDS. We are not forced to tell a hiring organization every medical condition we have, are we? So how Is that organization going to be involved in decisions on treatment? Would I have to prove I did not contract AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease in order to get coverage in this reveal-all culture we live in? If I need a drug to treat a painful condition, say, endometriosis, and that drug is often used as a contraceptive, does my boss get to weigh in on my choice of treatments? Let us declare that all medical conditions are simply none of anybody else's business. How simple life will be.
128
Employers negotiate insurance for employees beyond that which mandated. When the policy costs go up the insurance company will tell them why citing the cost for care ratio to cost of policy.
One of my customers had her company plan doubled. When she asked why she found out that four of her employees had HIV and were being prescribed very expensive drugs to control it.
Her choices?
Remove the HIV drugs from the formulary.
Pass more costs onto the rest of the employees.
Pay more of the premium cost to keep the cost reasonable for the rest of the employees.
Fire the HIV infected employees.
One of my customers had her company plan doubled. When she asked why she found out that four of her employees had HIV and were being prescribed very expensive drugs to control it.
Her choices?
Remove the HIV drugs from the formulary.
Pass more costs onto the rest of the employees.
Pay more of the premium cost to keep the cost reasonable for the rest of the employees.
Fire the HIV infected employees.
What did she do? In my view, of course, she had no right to know which of her employees had HIV. And firing the HIV-infected employees is surely not legal? We are in a terrible bind on all this. Perhaps it is in just such situations that the government should step in - subsidizing coverage for these hideously expensive drugs. Of course, eventually we the taxpayers end up paying. As we probably should.
Mr. Trump the great misogynist of our time has already sacrificed a woman's right to choose to bring the Christians into the tent. Be very mindful that the next president could choose three supreme court justices and Trump has already said he will bow and select from a pool of very young Scalia minded sycophants.
Think about your daughters and the autonomy you hope for them. The fact that these crazies want to limit the access of every woman that works for them is a step too far. What if the only hospital within 75 miles is Catholic and that is where you work? Does that define every aspect of your life? Why does their freedom of religion Trump my freedom from religion?
Think about your daughters and the autonomy you hope for them. The fact that these crazies want to limit the access of every woman that works for them is a step too far. What if the only hospital within 75 miles is Catholic and that is where you work? Does that define every aspect of your life? Why does their freedom of religion Trump my freedom from religion?
19
As a practicing Catholic and as a woman, this lawsuit on many levels should have never happened. First and foremost is the historical tenet of the separation of Church and State. Next, all individual Americans have rights. One of our rights is for us, not a religious group, to interfere with our choices and what we feel is best for our physical and psychological well-being. Lastly, but just as important, is that this lawsuit put us in danger of a mind-set returning us to the Victorian Age, and I dare say Medieval Catholic Church teaching, that women are second-class citizens who are not capable of intelligent thought. This audacity needs to end. I am embarrassed for the Catholic Church and for other religious institutions which do not follow their own belief of justice for all people.
302
There is nothing 'medieval' about truth.
3
Kathy, don't be a cafeteria Catholic. If you were educated in the Catholic faith, you would know that the objection to contraception is the fact that it doesn't allow for a chance of life, which as Catholics, we are called to be open to in all circumstances.
Also, not sure how feminine intellect has anything to do with this.
Also, not sure how feminine intellect has anything to do with this.
3
Please stop practicing. In this case, practice will not make perfect.
It is time to take health care out of the hands of employers.
34
Our court system, from top to bottom, pushes people to settle. This is an abdication of responsibility.
2
In a large society of people with differing opinions, compromise is necessary. So yes, people have to grow up and "settle".
2
Actually, our current crop of do-nothing GOP reps are the ones responsible of abdicating their duties through their actions, or as is in this case, inactions. Fortunately for everyone in this grand republic of ours, our highest judicial branch has demonstrated enormous wisdom by providing opportunity for further dialogue instead of rushing to a faulty and/or flawed ruling.
1
The crypto-fascist theocrats who brought this suit are "Christianists," the Christian equivalent of Islamists. There's nothing worse than a bossy believer.
24
Sadly, they refuse to follow their own saviour's mandates, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God...", "Judge not..." and "Love thy enemy." In order words, obey both civil and religious laws. Also, although Jesus told his disciples to "spread the good news," he never told them to force conversion upon others or to keep others from sin; instead, he wanted each follower to concentrate on their own soul.
1
How many times does it have to be said?
If you are against abortion don't have one.
If you are against contraception and don't believe in sexual relations except for procreation, don't use contraception.
You are free to exercise any of these options.
But STOP trying to foist your religious convictions and "holier than thou" attitude on the rest of us. This country was founded on Separation of Church and State and your rights don't supersede those of the rest of us, period!
If you are against abortion don't have one.
If you are against contraception and don't believe in sexual relations except for procreation, don't use contraception.
You are free to exercise any of these options.
But STOP trying to foist your religious convictions and "holier than thou" attitude on the rest of us. This country was founded on Separation of Church and State and your rights don't supersede those of the rest of us, period!
53
My father had one word of advice to me when I started on my first job. He said "Son, keep religion out of your workplace. Always remember - your work is worship" . To all those who bring religious beliefs to the workplace and create differences I give them the same advice.
9
The issue is not contraception; the justices are snarling behind closed doors at Mitch McConnell.
6
The fact is that most health insurers will provide contraception to patients without charging for it. The reason: pregnancies are expensive, especially if unwanted. I do see this as religious extremists out a on crusade against Affordable Care. And while I can understand the religious objection to abortion in keeping with a stance against the death penalty, I cannot for the life of me understand an objection to contraception itself (if the faithful abhor promiscuity, perhaps they should admonish their own clergy).
184
That's why insurance companies are including it for free for churches -- because they realize that it saves them money! And yes, this is just an excuse to file a lawsuit against the ACA.
10
" I cannot for the life of me understand an objection to contraception itself"... So you because you can't understand any of the objections to contraception, means that there aren't any good ones?
Roman Catholic priests in the U.S. are no more promiscuous that any other clergy in the U.S. If you are referring to pedophile priests the same statistic is true. 6% of priests are pedophiles. The same rate as the general population. The pedophile priests were allowed to become serial offenders by bishops who looked the other way to protect the institution of the church. That is the real scandal. Please don't paint the good priests( the vast majority) with the same filthy brush as the one used on pedophile priests and their enablers, the cowardly bishops.
Sorry, no. Just NO.
I am sympathetic to religious groups to not want to cover certain treatments for religious reasons. Fine. So file the paperwork that says "I am not covering this for religious reasons".
But they don't even want to do THAT because... why? Because the person will then be able to go get that treatment covered via a private agreement with the insurance company that doesn't involve the religious group.
How, in any way, shape, or form does a religious group have the right to intrude in a private agreement between its employee and the insurance company?
The answer is, it doesn't.
There are no "religious rights" being violated here. NONE.
Religious groups should suck it up and file the paperwork. What happens after that is neither their concern, nor their right to control.
I am sympathetic to religious groups to not want to cover certain treatments for religious reasons. Fine. So file the paperwork that says "I am not covering this for religious reasons".
But they don't even want to do THAT because... why? Because the person will then be able to go get that treatment covered via a private agreement with the insurance company that doesn't involve the religious group.
How, in any way, shape, or form does a religious group have the right to intrude in a private agreement between its employee and the insurance company?
The answer is, it doesn't.
There are no "religious rights" being violated here. NONE.
Religious groups should suck it up and file the paperwork. What happens after that is neither their concern, nor their right to control.
420
Well, so one would think, were one relying on the founding documents of the United States. But the reality is that the USA became a theocracy.
The insurance is being paid for by the employer. The employer before the ACA presented the chosen policy/carrier for the employees with some choice for individual needs.
Do you people not realize that the employers are paying the major part of the policy?
I do not understand where employees get off wanting someone else to subsidize their sex life.
Do you people not realize that the employers are paying the major part of the policy?
I do not understand where employees get off wanting someone else to subsidize their sex life.
Right -- this is one of the strangest contortions of "religious freedom" ever. The effective argument is saying, "Your practice of your way of life offends me." That is not the intent of the First Amendment. Quite to the contrary.
1
So why haven't the Jehovah's Witnesses filed suit to not cover blood transfusions under their health insurance polices? Seems to me that if the church groups can say they won't cover contraception because they don't believe in it, the JW should be able to do the same thing for blood transfusions.
158
Thank you Bill! The United States ought decidedly NOT be a theocracy. Any person of any 'faith' has a right to swing their fists only up to, and not make contact with, another persons' jaw.
Maybe Jehovah Witness and Christian Scientists are not interested in dictating what 'non-believers' can and can't do, nor in forcing their rules and regulations on the public at large. Not every believer is a despot. For some faith / spirituality is what is important, bending others to their will is seen as a most unChristian act.
But, we shall see if this insanity goes viral!
But, we shall see if this insanity goes viral!
The answer is simple: Individual Jehova's Witnesses do not, under any circumstances, accept blood transfusions. The non-Witnesses are free to do what they want. At most this is used as an opening for a discussion of the Bible. They may have a fundamentalist view of the Bible, believe in it, but they do not resort to coercion.
I have friends who are J.W.s, and truly enjoy discussions as they, in contrast to the majority of self-proclaimed Believers, KNOW their Bible.
I have friends who are J.W.s, and truly enjoy discussions as they, in contrast to the majority of self-proclaimed Believers, KNOW their Bible.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is simply proselytizing in another guise.
Every proselytizing religion thinks its Way is the only Way, its Truth the only Truth, and that its duty to God and religion is to impose that Way and Truth on Others.
Kudos to SCOTUS.
Every proselytizing religion thinks its Way is the only Way, its Truth the only Truth, and that its duty to God and religion is to impose that Way and Truth on Others.
Kudos to SCOTUS.
9
that's actually false
1
Has it ever been more obvious that the court has become a politically biased institution. Not having the ninth justice has pitted Liberals and Conservative against each other and forced them to do nothing for each side.
I am hopeful that we can leave it like this for a while longer, maybe forever. It keeps the court form screwing up our country any more than it already has.
I am hopeful that we can leave it like this for a while longer, maybe forever. It keeps the court form screwing up our country any more than it already has.
2
We pay these people to decide, not to kick the can down the road.
The religious fanatics had an easy out, but didn't take it because they wanted to impose their views on society.
This case should have been laughed out of court.
The religious fanatics had an easy out, but didn't take it because they wanted to impose their views on society.
This case should have been laughed out of court.
282
I'm glad extreme religionists were not able to shove their stupid, selfish, religious beliefs on anyone but themselves. If their "faith" is so strong, they should withdraw from business AND public life, in order to practice it.
1
Actually it is the other way around. The government is imposing its views on all including employers that have a viewpoint contrary to the abortion on demand lobby. Don't see a constitutional argument in your comment.
Undue burden, champ?
That's the weak link. The nuns had an easy out, and declined.
They are sooooooooo busted!
That's the weak link. The nuns had an easy out, and declined.
They are sooooooooo busted!
Compromise or what? What does the Court propose to do? Pass legislation? The United States Supreme Court (and any Article III federal court) is without constitutional power to order parties to compromise their differences. The Court of Appeals decision prevails, and common sense and female autonomy get a little more breathing room.
3
The only clear solution is to not offer employer backed health insurance plans if you're a religious group. That solves one problem and the nuns need to stop providing free healthcare to the poor. This is the job of Obamacare and High Deductible Healthcare plans you can get off exchange.
1
In any case, How can we continue to let employers decide the medical care of employees. And keep it going in cases like this one, without even mentioning it as the illogical, unfair basis of the case.
7
The vacancy is all in their heads.
3
Has the Supreme Court become so politicized that it is devoid of all common sense?
Good Lord, this outcome is beyond stupid. The religious right justices are against abortions, yet allow a religious group to deny covering birth control for its employees?
This is a clear case where the constitution was not applied. Birth control is legal, its use should be encouraged and (in my humble opinion) it should be dispensed by our government free of charge to everyone 18 and older (I agree parents should have a say for minors).
There is also a clear constitutional separation of church and state. The right to religious freedom means the right to exercise one's own religious beliefs - NOT the right to impose your personal religious views on others.
I find this depressing...if SCOTUS cannot agree on something as simple and obvious as this, I fear they cannot agree on anything.
Good Lord, this outcome is beyond stupid. The religious right justices are against abortions, yet allow a religious group to deny covering birth control for its employees?
This is a clear case where the constitution was not applied. Birth control is legal, its use should be encouraged and (in my humble opinion) it should be dispensed by our government free of charge to everyone 18 and older (I agree parents should have a say for minors).
There is also a clear constitutional separation of church and state. The right to religious freedom means the right to exercise one's own religious beliefs - NOT the right to impose your personal religious views on others.
I find this depressing...if SCOTUS cannot agree on something as simple and obvious as this, I fear they cannot agree on anything.
14
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016! Remember this is a secular nation and if those who don't like it here, can leave and join the Taliban and ISIS where they will be right at home.
12
So if I'm a Christian who disagrees with our government I can join ISIS and I'll feel right at home? So why then is ISIS beheading countless people like me over seas?
1
The words "God" and "Creator" are in the Declaration of Independence and the first amendment protects religious freedom in this country.
Christians would be murdered at the hands of ISIS.
Christians would be murdered at the hands of ISIS.
Thanks to the Mitch McConnell led Republican Senate. Your refusal to consider a nominated candidate for the Supreme Court has effectively nullified its role as this nation's Court of last resort, unless it is controlled by Justices with your notion of justice. Once again you have shown us how the GOP governs. It does not. It just obstructs. What will happen if Secretary Clinton wins the election? Will you shut down the Court until "the people" choose their President, aka Barack Obama (oops, I forgot, he is no longer President in your eyes!).
216
To Edish,
I agree with your comment except in one respect. Pres. Obama was "never" president in their eyes.
I agree with your comment except in one respect. Pres. Obama was "never" president in their eyes.
5
Edish, It was not until last week that Judge Garland handed in his Judicial Committtee questionnaire, so that even if the Republicans had not indicated that they were not willing to consider Judge Garland, this decision would be delayed or returned at this time.
He NEVER WAS president in their eyes. Not even someone they feltcompelled to be polite to. Jerks.
2
Let's back up a moment. It's it being billed as a Health Care Plan or as a Health Insurance Plan?
For a Health "Care" Plan one could make the case that contraception ought to be included. But it's hard to justify that elective prophylactics need to be included in an Health "Insurance" plan. That's not how 'insurance' works. Insurance is a way to distribute risk or a low-probability event across many people, time, or both. Premiums are based on the probability or a event happening with a time period multiplied by the cost if it happens.
The issue at hand is not one of "insurance". Whether or not contraceptives should be payed for by a given health plan may depend how it is described.
For a Health "Care" Plan one could make the case that contraception ought to be included. But it's hard to justify that elective prophylactics need to be included in an Health "Insurance" plan. That's not how 'insurance' works. Insurance is a way to distribute risk or a low-probability event across many people, time, or both. Premiums are based on the probability or a event happening with a time period multiplied by the cost if it happens.
The issue at hand is not one of "insurance". Whether or not contraceptives should be payed for by a given health plan may depend how it is described.
1
All of this seems so unnecessarily complicated. From the perspective of following one's personal beliefs, just do not do what you believe should not be done. If you oppose abortion, don't have an abortion. If you oppose contraception, don't use it. From the perspective of economics and how costs are shared across insured populations, it is essential that not everyone who buys insurance uses it. Therefore it is a good thing that many people with health insurance don't have abortions or use contraceptives, or have cancer or diabetes or broken legs for that matter.
Buy insurance because that is the financially responsible thing to do, and hope that you will not need all of the benefits that the contract entitles you to receive. You may need treatment for a back injury, someone else may need treatment because he crashed his bicycle, someone else may need contraceptives. It works because we all pay premiums (directly or as part of our compensation at work) and we obtain only the benefits we need and want to receive.
Buy insurance because that is the financially responsible thing to do, and hope that you will not need all of the benefits that the contract entitles you to receive. You may need treatment for a back injury, someone else may need treatment because he crashed his bicycle, someone else may need contraceptives. It works because we all pay premiums (directly or as part of our compensation at work) and we obtain only the benefits we need and want to receive.
5
The objection to the accommodation was, to put it as nicely as possible, horse manure. The contention that by telling the government of their objection to providing coverage that they were complicit in it being offered is just another way of saying that they do not want their employees to have coverage for birth control. Apparently they believe they should just be permitted to offer plans without coverage for contraception and not inform anyone. By doing that, they of course risk that their employees will not be offered free coverage by the insurers, and that is fine by them.
No, filing a form with an objection is clearly not a substantial burden. What this case is about, in truth, is a hissy fit by the religious organizations and a deliberate attempt to interfere with their employees receiving the coverage.
No, filing a form with an objection is clearly not a substantial burden. What this case is about, in truth, is a hissy fit by the religious organizations and a deliberate attempt to interfere with their employees receiving the coverage.
11
What requires the government to be the enforcer of a religious tenet, in this case the RCC's doctrine prohibiting birth control or any other belief not universally held by its citizens?
7
So the religious right (GOP) has no basis to oppose that a requirement of the employee health insurance coverage include contraception to their female employees? Yet, the liberal-wing of the left is quick to scream and label everyone who doesn't embrace ALL cultures and treat each equally.
"...The groups added that they should be entitled to the outright exemption offered to houses of worship like ... mosques..." Not ceding to the mosque exemption could earn a label of being Islamophobic, no?
"...The groups added that they should be entitled to the outright exemption offered to houses of worship like ... mosques..." Not ceding to the mosque exemption could earn a label of being Islamophobic, no?
My own background is Catholic, and yet it seems crazy that anti -abortionists want to block contraceptives. My parents used contraceptives, and most Catholics do. So much time and money spent wrangling over something virtually everyone believes in.
11
Maybe you should learn a little more about what your church actually teaches. Try opening the Catechism sometime.
2
"Try opening a catechism"? In what century are you living? The U.S. Catholic Church stopped using a catechism in the late sixties.
I memorized that catechism as a child. Contraception wasn't in it, my dear. We were exhorted to know, love and serve God. We were advised that the magisterium of the Church should be the guide for us in forming our conscience. At no time were we instructed to blindly follow whatever edict came from the bishop in our city or the Pope in Rome. The important thing that the Church teaches can be summed up in the Apostles Creed. Bishop Burke and his ilk should meditate on it and get out of the road and so should you!
I memorized that catechism as a child. Contraception wasn't in it, my dear. We were exhorted to know, love and serve God. We were advised that the magisterium of the Church should be the guide for us in forming our conscience. At no time were we instructed to blindly follow whatever edict came from the bishop in our city or the Pope in Rome. The important thing that the Church teaches can be summed up in the Apostles Creed. Bishop Burke and his ilk should meditate on it and get out of the road and so should you!
5
"The U.S. Catholic Church stopped using a catechism in the late sixties."
Well the Catechism of the Catholic Church wasn't published until 1992, you're referring to the Baltimore Catechism, dear.
Contraception is mentioned many times in the Catechism. But if you'd prefer not to open the book and read for yourself, at least don't claim to be ignorant and say you didn't know better.
Well the Catechism of the Catholic Church wasn't published until 1992, you're referring to the Baltimore Catechism, dear.
Contraception is mentioned many times in the Catechism. But if you'd prefer not to open the book and read for yourself, at least don't claim to be ignorant and say you didn't know better.
Employees are business associates not congregants. If a church does't like the real world, stay out of business.
14
Catholics should spend more effort on dealing with their epidemic of pedophile priests before they go about trying to litigate their version of morality on to the people who work with them. As an employer, you can negotiate wages and benefits, but sorry you don't have any say when it comes to how the employee chooses to spend their earnings.
14
Individuals have a right to religious freedom. Businesses, in their role as employers, do not. Since most of the Court of Appeals cases have favored the government position, the nondecision by the Supreme Court will put some pressure on the plaintiffs to settle this case.
5
SCOTUS have vacated _all_ appeals court rulings that ruled in favor of the existing "accommodation".
There's nothing more to read into it, it's egg on face for Obamacare. They can wipe and plot for return another day, but would be futile. As of now the religious groups wish to have nothing at all to do with contraception has been validated, what's left are details (yes, that means costs too) for OCare to figure out with insurance companies (whoever's left that is), and non-religious employers.
Speaking of non-religious employers, they're gonna feel very silly now, being the only ones left paying for this "benefit". Serves them right. It never was a religious-only objection, the whole idea of Government forcing free contraceptives through employers was, and still is, ludicrous. But non-religious employers went along anyway, too scared to face non-PC wrath, preferring instead, to paint the issues along religious/conservative lines and collecting easy brownie points from women's groups.
Guess who's laughing loudest now? Yes it's the Church lady, and very soon the insurance companies, who, doubtless, will pass the added costs to employers.
Next time, be careful seeking attaboys and easy moral high ground, it has a way of rolling downhill at double speed.
There's nothing more to read into it, it's egg on face for Obamacare. They can wipe and plot for return another day, but would be futile. As of now the religious groups wish to have nothing at all to do with contraception has been validated, what's left are details (yes, that means costs too) for OCare to figure out with insurance companies (whoever's left that is), and non-religious employers.
Speaking of non-religious employers, they're gonna feel very silly now, being the only ones left paying for this "benefit". Serves them right. It never was a religious-only objection, the whole idea of Government forcing free contraceptives through employers was, and still is, ludicrous. But non-religious employers went along anyway, too scared to face non-PC wrath, preferring instead, to paint the issues along religious/conservative lines and collecting easy brownie points from women's groups.
Guess who's laughing loudest now? Yes it's the Church lady, and very soon the insurance companies, who, doubtless, will pass the added costs to employers.
Next time, be careful seeking attaboys and easy moral high ground, it has a way of rolling downhill at double speed.
4
"Ludicrous"? This is about women's ability to control their health and employment. Face it! Pregnancy doesn't cause MEN to make a choice whether to miss work or endanger their employment advancement.
7
If SCOTUS has vacated all previous appeals court decisions, then we return to the status quo before these (absurd and offensive) cases were brought to court: Employers must inform the government in writing of their religious objections to providing contraceptive care via the insurance they buy for their employees.
From the article: "That alternative, or accommodation, was at issue in the new case. It allowed nonprofit groups like schools and hospitals that were affiliated with religious organizations not to pay for coverage and to avoid fines if they informed their insurers, plan administrators or the government that they wanted an exemption."
The "alternative, or accommodation" is once again in full force, until the lower courts work out a compromise. It doesn't matter that the religious organizations will not have to pay for contraceptive care; they never had to in the first place. However, it is also the case that contraceptive care will be available to all.
From the article: "That alternative, or accommodation, was at issue in the new case. It allowed nonprofit groups like schools and hospitals that were affiliated with religious organizations not to pay for coverage and to avoid fines if they informed their insurers, plan administrators or the government that they wanted an exemption."
The "alternative, or accommodation" is once again in full force, until the lower courts work out a compromise. It doesn't matter that the religious organizations will not have to pay for contraceptive care; they never had to in the first place. However, it is also the case that contraceptive care will be available to all.
5
The Supreme Court did no such thing. They returned the case to the lower court with a suggestion.
3
If you want resolve this issue, remove ALL employers from providing health care. They have no business being the party to provide an individual decision.
Too many times employers are not in position to make rational healthcare decisions, a plumber is a plumber, not a health care provider.
Make my contribution to health care tax- free for all and not just for those in group plan.
Too many times employers are not in position to make rational healthcare decisions, a plumber is a plumber, not a health care provider.
Make my contribution to health care tax- free for all and not just for those in group plan.
8
I wouldn't have imagined a topic like this would excite people so much after the now-split Supreme Court appears to have reached a Solomonic decision. Given that more wars have been fought over religion than anything else, and that we in the U.S. have established the longest-lasting Democracy by separating politics and religion, maybe the world would be more peaceful if every country appointed scholars to form a Supreme Court of the World responsible for preventing war and seeking compromise in all matters, with each country taking an oath to abide by their scholarly decisions. (The U.N. isn't it, nor is The Hague).
2
This is such foolishness.
Various "religions" have all sorts of "beliefs." Permitting any one "religion" to use any one "belief" to deny or obstruct any one human right puts all human rights in peril. Any "religion" could claim any "belief" to deny or obstruct any human right.
No "religion" should be permitted to use any "belief" to deny or obstruct any human right.
Various "religions" have all sorts of "beliefs." Permitting any one "religion" to use any one "belief" to deny or obstruct any one human right puts all human rights in peril. Any "religion" could claim any "belief" to deny or obstruct any human right.
No "religion" should be permitted to use any "belief" to deny or obstruct any human right.
35
The religious sphere should be separate from the business sphere. What this legal debate reveals is a push to impose one's religion on others, not an individual's faith practice.
20
I am fascinated by the machinations of the US healthcare system. Growing up in the UK and Canada, before emigrating to the US, it was so much simpler. The convoluted way this is being presented, is almost laughable. Why is healthcare part of religion? In my view it shouldn't be. Providing health insurance is irrelevant to your religion, if it isn't then aren't you forcing YOUR beliefs on others? Isn't that wrong? Why should my contraception coverage be determined by the owner of the company where I work? It shouldn't. What's next? Deciding which medical procedures are and aren't covered?
45
I have been turned down for a simpler procedure that my HMO decided didn't have enough prior experience. This procedure was being done regularly in other states, but not in mine it seems. It would have been more cost effective and less intrusive for me. Instead, I was forced to have the traditional procedure which included a much longer recovery period.
Right now I am fighting the company that makes a hinge knee that has no nikle since I am off the charts allergic to it. It has to be specially made and the company doesn't make them unless it is cost effective that quarter. Also, my insurance company won't pay for it because they find it too costly. It is a much better solution to fix surgeries that have botched up my leg several times. Evidently, they would rather I amputate it.
Right now I am fighting the company that makes a hinge knee that has no nikle since I am off the charts allergic to it. It has to be specially made and the company doesn't make them unless it is cost effective that quarter. Also, my insurance company won't pay for it because they find it too costly. It is a much better solution to fix surgeries that have botched up my leg several times. Evidently, they would rather I amputate it.
This is so absolutely ridiculous. So tired of religious fanatics and extremists being allowed to dictate women's ability to obtain proper healthcare in this country. It's insane. If you can't follow the laws that govern all other employers, then you should not be allowed to employ people. If your religious beliefs don't allow you to provide the full range of healthcare options available to all people, then you should not be a doctor/nurse or be allowed to run hospitals or other healthcare facilities! My health and dignity should not be at the mercy of your magical thinking and superstitions!
54
@ginny
And I'm so tired of people using the government to destroy anyone they don't like. Maybe you would like to suppress religion altogether?
And I'm so tired of people using the government to destroy anyone they don't like. Maybe you would like to suppress religion altogether?
sounds good. let it begin: the suppression of all religion.
3
Great idea! :)
3
Any religious group, it would seem, has every right to be both for or against any issue that they choose. What they do not have the right to do is to attempt to foist their opinions and beliefs on others, whether employees or not.
Is the civilized world not at "war" with radical Islam and its' adherents over just that issue?
Is the civilized world not at "war" with radical Islam and its' adherents over just that issue?
33
i agree; I take issue with the term "civilized world." Perhaps you could have said "so-called" civilized world!
2
But wouldn't Lewis agree that a Muslim taxi driver has the right to refuse services to people carrying obvious amounts of beverage alcohol, or pork?
If Lewis doesn't, would he put a sign stating that opinion in front of his residence?
If Lewis doesn't, would he put a sign stating that opinion in front of his residence?
Quite right. I stand corrected. "So-called" civilized world is by far more precise.
How about this for a compromise: insurance plans that exclude contraception coverage will be charged an additional $50 per month.
9
A business operating in the public domain is not a church, a religious group, or a religious order. For instance, the Hobby Lobby decision is a travesty on the US Constitution. Since when should employers be empowered to impose the religious beliefs of the owners upon their employees? For instance, let's say this was a business owned by devout Muslim owners - could the employer force women to wear a burqa at work? (With apologies to Muslims)
This is a another non-existent problem made up to challenge Obamacare - nothing more. It's time the Supreme Court tossed this one into the garbage heap of history.
This is a another non-existent problem made up to challenge Obamacare - nothing more. It's time the Supreme Court tossed this one into the garbage heap of history.
83
Not an equal comparison at all. These companies aren't forcing their employees to adhere to certain Christian principles (for example, no sex outside of marriage, must go to church, etc.) they're simply refusing to pay for their employees contraception and instead are telling them to buy that stuff on their own. If those employees have a problem with it, let them take it up with their employer, however the government does not have the right to force these employers to violate THEIR own conscience.
14
Ricky's last word is where he runs into trouble. An actual command on American history would have kept him from making such unwise statements about his political opponents.
This country was religious before it was even a country and the morality of Christianity led the Founders to create such a free place for people to follow their own lives, whether well-prepared or not.
This country was religious before it was even a country and the morality of Christianity led the Founders to create such a free place for people to follow their own lives, whether well-prepared or not.
If the government cannot force employers to provide equality of health care, what makes you think an individual would stand a chance?
5
As another person commented, a single-payer system would solve this (and so many other problems)...if only this country could move toward that solution.
36
You are assuming that one of the compromises in adopting a single payer system would not involve refusal to fund contraception with taxpayer funds. You are more optimistic than I am.
2
Rooms full of Democratic Party loyalists have tried to work this out during the Carter days, the Clinton days, and in 2009. It has never worked out financially, and never will.
The countries that are doing this out of sales and income taxes are dealing their citizens such a crushing blow that their birthrates have been dropping for decades. How would you like a 25% sales tax AND a minimum of 40% tax on your income, Ann?
Wonderfully socialist Vermont tried to work out a single-payer system but, again, it could not be made to work out. Either the doctors or employers would lose so much money that they would have had to leave.
The countries that are doing this out of sales and income taxes are dealing their citizens such a crushing blow that their birthrates have been dropping for decades. How would you like a 25% sales tax AND a minimum of 40% tax on your income, Ann?
Wonderfully socialist Vermont tried to work out a single-payer system but, again, it could not be made to work out. Either the doctors or employers would lose so much money that they would have had to leave.
Too many people who think national health care can't work. Sweden does it. Norway does it. France does it. Germany does it. Britain does it. Do I need to go on? Are we too stupid to do it too? If people want to do it it can be done. The only reason it is not done here is that the health insurance companies are making gobs of cash on us NOT doing it and they lobby our representatives to keep it that way. Those companies are FOR PROFIT, by the way. They make oodles on us keeping our ignorant and uninformed opinion that a national health care system will crash our economy and lead us to the "evils" of communism.
Once again the elephant party of NO is derelict in its duties to vote on a Supreme Court nominee and has squatted down in the path of democracy.
11
These people are so stupid. If you are against birth control on religious grounds, you are basically saying that even married couples should not have sex unless their goal is to make a baby. What?! These people are not living in the real world. One of the most ridiculous cases I've heard in a while.
25
"you are basically saying that even married couples should not have sex unless their goal is to make a baby."
This is the exact teaching of the Catholic church. Sex in its purest form, according to the church, is for procreation, not pleasure. May not be the real world - most religions call man to rise above his 'base' humanity.
I agree, it is silly. But, then, again, I'm not a Catholic.
This is the exact teaching of the Catholic church. Sex in its purest form, according to the church, is for procreation, not pleasure. May not be the real world - most religions call man to rise above his 'base' humanity.
I agree, it is silly. But, then, again, I'm not a Catholic.
5
Whether a sexual act results in conception is God's will. Even if one or more parties is unable to cause conception that too is God's will.
Purposely preventing conception is man's will.
The sisters' and others' argument is clear even if you can't see it.
Purposely preventing conception is man's will.
The sisters' and others' argument is clear even if you can't see it.
NYHUGUENOT,
We see their point. We just think it is ridiculous.
We see their point. We just think it is ridiculous.
10
Access to birth control.
Socialized medicine.
A decent social safety net.
Less impediments to voting.
More gun control.
Better education from youth to college that's easier to access.
More social and economic mobility.
Higher health and happiness ratings.
The rest of the developed world is onto something that the US is not.
We are not as exceptional as we like to think that we are.
Socialized medicine.
A decent social safety net.
Less impediments to voting.
More gun control.
Better education from youth to college that's easier to access.
More social and economic mobility.
Higher health and happiness ratings.
The rest of the developed world is onto something that the US is not.
We are not as exceptional as we like to think that we are.
45
We're exceptional alright, but of late, not in a good way.
8
"We are not as exceptional as we like to think that we are."
Well ... the evidence suggests that we are exceptionally dim-witted.
Well ... the evidence suggests that we are exceptionally dim-witted.
1
"The Court expresses no views..." "...does not decide..." I'm waiting to read interpretations from lawyers but, to me, it looks like the SCOTUS is taking the way of Congress: finding excuses not to do their jobs. So what now?, they will send cases back to courts of appeals for them to decide, until a new justice is appointed?
9
I hope so. Better no decision than wrong decisions. Once the addition of a new justice takes place, correct decisions can occur.
So these people seek to limit a government burden on their religious beliefs by not being made to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. I'd bet anything these people also seek to limit personal liability for their business endeavors by forming LLCs or corporations.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
7
I fail to see any connection between the two issues. Both are about the expression of the corporations desires and both protect them from the violation of conscience.
Oh, a corporation has a conscience? You learn something new every day!
1
The U.S. Constitution's Article Three branch of government, the Supreme Court, has now joined Article One's sorry members, those in the House and Senate, in deciding not to decide, choosing not to choose, and endevoring not to endeavor. Not-governing is the new governing.
While you may argue that in some ways Article Two's current office holder, President Obama, may at times be stretching the constraints of that Article, at least he's trying to fulfill his sworn duty to serve We the People of the United States.
While you may argue that in some ways Article Two's current office holder, President Obama, may at times be stretching the constraints of that Article, at least he's trying to fulfill his sworn duty to serve We the People of the United States.
20
The reason the Supreme Court Justices have to work in avoidance of a 4-4 deadlock is that Senatorial Republicans are denying President Obama's Constitutional right and duty to nominate our highest Judges. Cruz, Rubio et al: do your jobs, let the President do his, and let the Justices do theirs!
30
Is the issue here contraception or the legal and medical fiction imposed by the ACA that children are made only by women and the responsibility only of women? See the preventive care, the reproductive care in the ACA.
If there were someone on the SCOTUS based not in the Mediterranean religions but in the north of Mason-Dixon political-economy that framed the Constitution, I would bet, dollars-to-donuts, s/he would have asked for briefing of whether it is constitutional to impose an Abrahamic/Cult of ISIS fiction of "virgin birth" on a child via the ACA (or otherwise).
The SCOTUS was 5/9 Catholic (6/9 Catholic w/Scalia), 3/9 Jewish (4/9 w/Garland).
The Constitution, particularly its antecedent framing in the Constitutions of Clarendon, Magna Carta, 1689 Bill of Rights, and in framing north of Mason-DIxon in the US (particularly in PA, NJ) was intended to disestablish the legal fictions of the Mediterranean religions.
The legal fiction of the "virgin birth" might be from the first Cult of ISIS, but, in any event, its a very southern thing. It might have been proselytized by Jews and institutionalized by the Holy Roman Empire, but whatever its source, its not the way Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Scots, Welsh looked at things.
Francis Crick of the English Midlands Reformation and Enlightenment-driven effort to discover DNA, making paternity inexpensively provable, liked to joke: "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults, but should never be taught to young children."
If there were someone on the SCOTUS based not in the Mediterranean religions but in the north of Mason-Dixon political-economy that framed the Constitution, I would bet, dollars-to-donuts, s/he would have asked for briefing of whether it is constitutional to impose an Abrahamic/Cult of ISIS fiction of "virgin birth" on a child via the ACA (or otherwise).
The SCOTUS was 5/9 Catholic (6/9 Catholic w/Scalia), 3/9 Jewish (4/9 w/Garland).
The Constitution, particularly its antecedent framing in the Constitutions of Clarendon, Magna Carta, 1689 Bill of Rights, and in framing north of Mason-DIxon in the US (particularly in PA, NJ) was intended to disestablish the legal fictions of the Mediterranean religions.
The legal fiction of the "virgin birth" might be from the first Cult of ISIS, but, in any event, its a very southern thing. It might have been proselytized by Jews and institutionalized by the Holy Roman Empire, but whatever its source, its not the way Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Scots, Welsh looked at things.
Francis Crick of the English Midlands Reformation and Enlightenment-driven effort to discover DNA, making paternity inexpensively provable, liked to joke: "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults, but should never be taught to young children."
10
Religious groups son't see the irony in the fact that they themselves are attempting to force their beliefs on women who might have need for contraceptives. Fringe conservatives and their pseudo-morality.
17
"Religious groups son't see the irony in the fact that they themselves are attempting to force their beliefs on women who might have need for contraceptives."
Well then. Since neither party can be allowed to infringe on the beliefs of the other then the Supreme Court's decision is the right one.
Well then. Since neither party can be allowed to infringe on the beliefs of the other then the Supreme Court's decision is the right one.
1
The answer to all this is really simple. Have the government establish a contraception fund, from general taxation, to pay for everybody's contraception needs, including ED treatment. Think of it this way, the Quakers object to funding war, yet they do not get a pass on paying income taxes. Since the Little Sisters of the Poor do not pay any taxes they will not be paying for anyone's contraception. That would be true for all non profits, which most religious groups fall into. Problem solved.
8
Yet another reason why this election is so critical. Can you imagine if the religious right gets control of the Supreme Court? It would be the end of the US as we know it.
21
"Can you imagine if the religious right gets control of the Supreme Court? It would be the end of the US as we know it."
Control by the Liberals would be the end of the US as we knew it.
Control by the Liberals would be the end of the US as we knew it.
2
It's already not the U.S. as we know it, what with Donald Trump the presumptive Republican nominee.
Well, I wish the gov't would start questioning 'the sincerity or importance of petitioners' religious beliefs.' Because that is the heart of the question. Stop ducking it!
Petitioners are businesses operating in the public sphere. They aren't people.
People have religious beliefs. Businesses are creatures of law that exist to shield the business' owners from personal liability. In exchange for the shield from personal liability, businesses are subject to the law that gives them existence.
Petitioners are businesses operating in the public sphere. They aren't people.
People have religious beliefs. Businesses are creatures of law that exist to shield the business' owners from personal liability. In exchange for the shield from personal liability, businesses are subject to the law that gives them existence.
50
I agree with your sentiment but I think that you are mistaken when you say businesses are not people. The Supreme Court declared a few years ago that businesses are people.
1
Once once again, women are stripped of their rights. I have no doubt the old adage is true, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Forget abortion, women have to pre-select any potential employer just to make sure the employ insurance program they pay into will cover contraception. Is it 2016 or 1952?
34
Jesus said in Matthew 22:21,
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
That's as clear a statement of Separation of Church and State that there is.
If the Supreme Court and the religious right can't stick to the dictates of the First Amendment, then maybe they should try sticking to the dictates of Jesus.
Jesus, unlike Donald Trump, didn't offer Matthew 22:21 as a "suggestion", nor did the authors of the Constitution put the First Amendment as the first amendment because they thought it would look good there.
They put it there because they wanted to limit the role of religion in their new nation to the purely secular.
The sectarian Justices on the Court are a secular abomination and need to be replaced.
Just a "suggestion".
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
That's as clear a statement of Separation of Church and State that there is.
If the Supreme Court and the religious right can't stick to the dictates of the First Amendment, then maybe they should try sticking to the dictates of Jesus.
Jesus, unlike Donald Trump, didn't offer Matthew 22:21 as a "suggestion", nor did the authors of the Constitution put the First Amendment as the first amendment because they thought it would look good there.
They put it there because they wanted to limit the role of religion in their new nation to the purely secular.
The sectarian Justices on the Court are a secular abomination and need to be replaced.
Just a "suggestion".
36
Who cares what Jesus said?...seriously.
5
I'm atheist. But this article isn't on atheism. It's on the manipulation of the laws of this country by religious persons and religious organizations who spit on the laws of this country and how everyone wants to molly-coddle them.
I'm not the only person involved in this discussion. If I were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be completely different.
However, having once been Orthodox Presbyterian, an extreme right-wing system, I recognize that it took me years to work my way out of a misogynistic and racist belief system.
That was largely due to the fact that every nausous part of my religion was fully backed up by the Bible, either from the Old Testament (and why would a Christian even care what the OT said?) or within the NT which gave only a different focus on slavery and those inferior women.
Today there are many people trying to work their way out of ugly religions. They have neither the time nor the resources to research what has gone so wrong in what every person around them is saying, that what they believed to be the highest good is actually a rigged system based on power and that's all it is.
Half of the Supreme Court deems these ugly hierarchies to be superior to the Constitutional concept. Half of this country agrees with them.
But 95% or so haven't a clue that the New Testament demands separation of church and state.
To some that might matter.
It did to me.... seriously.
I'm not the only person involved in this discussion. If I were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be completely different.
However, having once been Orthodox Presbyterian, an extreme right-wing system, I recognize that it took me years to work my way out of a misogynistic and racist belief system.
That was largely due to the fact that every nausous part of my religion was fully backed up by the Bible, either from the Old Testament (and why would a Christian even care what the OT said?) or within the NT which gave only a different focus on slavery and those inferior women.
Today there are many people trying to work their way out of ugly religions. They have neither the time nor the resources to research what has gone so wrong in what every person around them is saying, that what they believed to be the highest good is actually a rigged system based on power and that's all it is.
Half of the Supreme Court deems these ugly hierarchies to be superior to the Constitutional concept. Half of this country agrees with them.
But 95% or so haven't a clue that the New Testament demands separation of church and state.
To some that might matter.
It did to me.... seriously.
3
Presumably, the nuns do, but they don't act like it.
2
Thank you for recognizing this is not just a "Catholic" issue. This involved Presbyterians, Baptists, and Nazarenes as well. Many religious people think that the Federal government is overreaching and infringing on basic deeply held beliefs.
6
It's time churches lost their tax-exempt status. Let them pay taxes like the rest of us (except the 0.1%, of course).
87
This would be the reason for having an odd number of judges...
We have the right not to work for crudbucket employers who would force their superstitions on us and profit off our labor, or even non-profits who promote their missions off our labor. We can work elsewhere. We can ridicule those employers in public for having archaic notions about the place of birth control in society.
Wouldn't separation of church and state mean that entities engaged in public discourse, requiring government licensing and oversight, not be allowed to let superstition trump law and public welfare, which is what contraception is? A chance to improve the public welfare by using science to avoid having children when one's not prepared to parent?
We are still far too tolerant and respectful of superstition to call ourselves a "modern" society.
We have the right not to work for crudbucket employers who would force their superstitions on us and profit off our labor, or even non-profits who promote their missions off our labor. We can work elsewhere. We can ridicule those employers in public for having archaic notions about the place of birth control in society.
Wouldn't separation of church and state mean that entities engaged in public discourse, requiring government licensing and oversight, not be allowed to let superstition trump law and public welfare, which is what contraception is? A chance to improve the public welfare by using science to avoid having children when one's not prepared to parent?
We are still far too tolerant and respectful of superstition to call ourselves a "modern" society.
27
I'm of two minds on this.
I am so sick and tired of religious groups and their constant whining I can barely tolerate another article about their war on secular society.
However, I see the natural outcome here as the government providing birth control for all women. Which is one step closer to government provided healthcare.
So I'm not sure it's a lose/lose.
I am so sick and tired of religious groups and their constant whining I can barely tolerate another article about their war on secular society.
However, I see the natural outcome here as the government providing birth control for all women. Which is one step closer to government provided healthcare.
So I'm not sure it's a lose/lose.
7
The Republicans I thought were know-nothings and stupid. I could'nt be more wrong. They are achieving their goals deviously, in an underhand way. They knew the Supreme Court would be dead-locked 4-4 which would then be sent to the lower courts whose allegiances are well-known. I guess there will be many home-runs for a team made up of totally splintered Republicans.
1
@NI - Except that's not what happened. The Supreme Court asked for new statements from each side, including what compromise might be acceptable. Those statements were provided and the lower court is DIRECTED to find a compromise based on each side's writings as it was clear a compromise was possible. The court was very astute here.
It appears that the federal government can force people to accept self identified transgender individuals using of the bathroom of their choice, but will not allow employers with strong religious beliefs to refuse to provide contraception coverage in the employer paid health plans of their employees. The Constitution has turned upside down. Freedom of religion is now a thing of the past, and switching your sexual identity is as easy as pie.
7
What about my beliefs ? If an employer pays me a salary do they now get to dictate how I spend my money ? Insurance is just a form of compensation, how it is used is between me and my doctor and the employer should have no part of it.
384
Paul, So you're OK with your employer having right of refusal, or denial on how you spend your paycheck?
When you enter the secular business world, you leave your religion at the door of your chosen house of worship, no matter what kind of verbal gymnastics the Supremes conjured in Hobby Lobby. So you'd be OK if you had a Muslim boss who told you you couldn't have a rack of baby back ribs?
Good to know that in your misinterpretation of religious freedom it includes imposing your religion on those who work for you. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
When you enter the secular business world, you leave your religion at the door of your chosen house of worship, no matter what kind of verbal gymnastics the Supremes conjured in Hobby Lobby. So you'd be OK if you had a Muslim boss who told you you couldn't have a rack of baby back ribs?
Good to know that in your misinterpretation of religious freedom it includes imposing your religion on those who work for you. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
25
What about my right to have a normal period? It's about to get a little graphic so I apologize ahead of time, but taking my contraceptive every day isn't to stop pregnancy although if I did currently have a partner that would be a good way to omit any unwanted pregnancy that I am currently not ready for in the least. I didn't have insurance for a long period of time and, on top of that, I was in the middle of getting my Masters (without a job so I didn't exactly have a steady income save for Student Loans) when I started to bleed non-stop for, oh, about two years straight give or take. You're a dude so I know you don't get it, but when gobs of tissues/clots start falling out of you, you don't have money, or insurance, you kinda get freaked out because you know something has to be done about the exhaustion, anemia, and the amount of pads you're buying each week. Surgical intervention wasn't an option.
However, $9 a month for birth control was and it took awhile for it to regulate what was going on, but it worked. What many fail to realize is that a lot of women use birth control to regulate their menstrual cycle. Both my sisters take it to regulate them. My niece takes it. Having issues with menstruation and pregnancy runs in my mother's side of the family, unfortunately. So while everyone is crying that their freedom of religion is being trampled upon, keep in mind that you're trampling on my rights and a lot of other women's right to be healthy individuals.
However, $9 a month for birth control was and it took awhile for it to regulate what was going on, but it worked. What many fail to realize is that a lot of women use birth control to regulate their menstrual cycle. Both my sisters take it to regulate them. My niece takes it. Having issues with menstruation and pregnancy runs in my mother's side of the family, unfortunately. So while everyone is crying that their freedom of religion is being trampled upon, keep in mind that you're trampling on my rights and a lot of other women's right to be healthy individuals.
29
Let us face it, a root canal is far more closely related to health than contraceptives. So why is a root canal not covered and contraception IS?
Democrats have deliberately included contraception in the health mandate in order to bully conservatives.
It does not matter who is right or wrong. Contraception is not expensive. OK, it might be expensive for the poor but so is housing. Is housing also to be included in health care?
It is far better to work on more important things like our crumbling infrastructure for which there is likely to be bipartisan support.
And oh, I am a strong supporter of contraception, have been for sixty years. But I do not think that treading on the beliefs of nuns is a good idea.
Democrats have deliberately included contraception in the health mandate in order to bully conservatives.
It does not matter who is right or wrong. Contraception is not expensive. OK, it might be expensive for the poor but so is housing. Is housing also to be included in health care?
It is far better to work on more important things like our crumbling infrastructure for which there is likely to be bipartisan support.
And oh, I am a strong supporter of contraception, have been for sixty years. But I do not think that treading on the beliefs of nuns is a good idea.
8
thank you, it's nice to see people that may disagree with other's opinions but still respect them and their rights.
Don't forget "that these Nuns appear to think that treading on the beliefs of the employees" is a good idea. We all need to respect others beliefs not just our own.
9
You would see this much differently, Rohit, were you female.
12
The anti-baby left want religious groups to "stay out of their bedrooms" while begging the government to force said religious groups to fund what happens in their bedrooms.
Typical of the left.
Typical of the left.
9
Actually, the left would like religious groups to stay out of politics altogether...as it states in the constitution.
34
it's sad, but true
1
You do understand that the pill is not just used for birth control, right?? Perhaps if you had a menstrual cycle that included such debilitating pain that you couldn't function, and the only way to relieve said pain was to take the pill, then you'd be all for health coverage for medication you would take for legitimate medical reasons. I also have to wonder if your posture would change if the only way you could procure condoms was through a prescription filled by your local pharmacy.
18
Single-payer universal health care would solve this problem by removing the coverage burden from individual employers. That's too simple though, isn't it?
85
Indeed that is the obvious answer to the whole problem.
2
It's time to get employers out of the business of providing health care for employees, and give regular people the freedom to choose their own health plans based on their needs, and not on the basis of companies scrimping on health care to save money at the expense of their employees.
It's not enough that our laws provide religious groups with freedoms that are second to none in the world.
Apparently, certain groups wish to carve out freedoms and exceptions for themselves that supersede the rights of everyone else.
"Why can't we have the right to ignore the rights of others?", they opine.
If you let religious views supersede the law, where will it end?
In a theocracy, that's where.
Apparently, certain groups wish to carve out freedoms and exceptions for themselves that supersede the rights of everyone else.
"Why can't we have the right to ignore the rights of others?", they opine.
If you let religious views supersede the law, where will it end?
In a theocracy, that's where.
109
The sad truth is that we now live in a time where the mere thought of compromise is intolerable to involved parties. This is a direct result of a sense of entitlement among the population, where the only thing someone needs to do in order to obtain it is to demand it.
This antic by SCOTUS seems to be no more than a stopgap until the appointment of the 9th Justice. The involved parties and the lower courts will put on an act and bounce the issue back and forth until then. But until the appointment, I would advise everyone to not hold your breath for a resolution to this.
This antic by SCOTUS seems to be no more than a stopgap until the appointment of the 9th Justice. The involved parties and the lower courts will put on an act and bounce the issue back and forth until then. But until the appointment, I would advise everyone to not hold your breath for a resolution to this.
4
If I was a Quaker and objected to military service because I was a pacifist I assume I would sign a form attesting to that and be excluded from military service. The military would then go and draft someone else to take my place and I would have no voice in that process.
These Little sisters of the Poor are objecting to such an accommodation as they want to have their female employees not to have contraceptive coverage but also prevent their employees from working out a private agreement separate from their coverage to accomodate contraception is the employee wants it.
This is like objecting to your health coverage allowing drug prescriptions to be filled at a pharmacy the sells condoms as the employee might decide to buy some while getting their prescription filled.
These Little sisters of the Poor are objecting to such an accommodation as they want to have their female employees not to have contraceptive coverage but also prevent their employees from working out a private agreement separate from their coverage to accomodate contraception is the employee wants it.
This is like objecting to your health coverage allowing drug prescriptions to be filled at a pharmacy the sells condoms as the employee might decide to buy some while getting their prescription filled.
61
Jesus weeps. I don't recall one sermon of his about contraception, and many exhortations about abiding by earthly laws while caring for the least among us.
4
The Republican war on women continues, why do they want to control the female body, but have no objection at all to funding the endless killing that continues due to our constant warfare. This case has nothing to do with religion, it is only about the repression of women.
73
The United States Supreme Court is derelict in it's duties. The article says, “The court expresses no view on the merits of the cases,” the opinion said. “In particular, the court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened," Wrong answer. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE guaranteed by OUR U.S. Constitution and amendment means that the government cannot interfere with the way one worships - or does not worship- AND religious organizations may not force their beliefs on the rest of the population. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America - DO YOUR JOBS and ENFORCE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE to keep religious beliefs of others out of women's bodies and people's lives. NOW is the time.
178
Why should the Supreme Court be any different from Congress in not doing their duty? If Congress did their duty vis-a-vis the Court vacancy many things could be solved, whether we like the outcome or not.
7
Nonsense. The separation of church and state does not say that individuals within, or working for a church group , hve to agree 100 percent with that group, but have their own rights. It is the right to have a religion and believe and do what yoiu want, not to have a religious overseer mandate life of their employees. That is not even a fine line there, it is something entirely different.
4
It's not that simple. Separation of church and state is only half of the Constitutional requirement. The other half prevents the government from interfering with religious practice. This is what the argument before the Court is about.
1
Absent a fifth vote due to the death of Justice Scalia, conservative justices - and the religious litigants who appeared before them - are forced to accept a compromise in which women's access to birth control through their insurance coverage will not be thwarted. That is a significant set back for conservatives who posited that any means by which the federal government acted to ensure that American women had access to birth control was tantamount to "hijacking" employers' health insurance plans.
But make no mistake, if Republicans are able to appoint the next Supreme Court justices, any such victories will be short lived. We are heading into a very consequential national election, which can significantly determine the direction that the country will take over the next generation.
But make no mistake, if Republicans are able to appoint the next Supreme Court justices, any such victories will be short lived. We are heading into a very consequential national election, which can significantly determine the direction that the country will take over the next generation.
149
One wonders what the outcome would have been with Scalia still on the bench. Probably 5 to 4 in favor of "religious freedom" meaning a right to impose one's religious views on your employees.
92
The so-called compromise that will satisfy the religious groups is really nothing more than a fig leaf for their followers. They will still ultimately responsible for their employee's contraception, but they can tell themselves they aren't because they aren't signing a form. It's a shame that women employees are forced to play a role in this charade and allow the mean-spirited religious organization to think they are winning.
It's still unclear what happens with the Texas law that the circuit court upheld. Did the Court issue a stay of that ruling?
It's still unclear what happens with the Texas law that the circuit court upheld. Did the Court issue a stay of that ruling?
13
Those Sisters if the Poor, providing nursing home services for poor people. That sure fits the description of "mean spirited religious organizations ".
5
@You can only -- And where do you think the money comes from for those nursing home services? The Sisters are accepting Medicaid or Medicare payments no doubt, after they collect any Social Security the person may get. Don't be delusional about religious organizations work.
3
"The so-called compromise that will satisfy the religious groups is really nothing more than a fig leaf for their followers"
Except that the vast, vast majority of American Catholics not only believe they should have access to birth control, they use birth control, too. This has been the case since the 1970s. I don't know what century these nuns are operating from or who they think is applauding them from the pews.
Except that the vast, vast majority of American Catholics not only believe they should have access to birth control, they use birth control, too. This has been the case since the 1970s. I don't know what century these nuns are operating from or who they think is applauding them from the pews.
A question -- stupid perhaps -- for the reporter, Adam Liptak. How do these religious organizations' health insurance plans treat erectile dysfuntion medications for men? I'm simply curious and understand that ED has no bearing on this case about women's contraceptives. But given the flood of advertisements for ED drugs, I just wondered how do these same health plans handle ED drugs? Thank you.
71
ED drugs do not cause abortions...
1
Many insurance policies, and medicare, do not cover ED medications.
2
My health insurance, which is not through a religious employer, fully covers Viagra and other ED drugs, but requires a co-pay for even generic oral contraceptives (grandfathered in, of course). I've talked to several friends in the same situation. I would be surprised if religious organizations were different.
6
I can't even believe this is a "thing" in modern society. The cynicism behind the GOP effort to make something to obviously good for society coupled with their pathetic political obstruction at the expense of a functioning Supreme Court should be enough to get them all voted out of office. Unfortunately, the GOP's generations-long effort to suffocate education spending in the poorer southern region of our great nation has rendered their own electorate incapable of appreciating the harm that is being done. Disgusting.
153
Since religious organizations want government to implement their beliefs on everyone, government should then end their tax exempt status!
379
I completely agree.
4
Yes, Tom, especially since the catholic church is using all their tax-free money - derived from OUR government grants and payments to fund their highly profitable "non-profit" profit - to buy up hospitals and other medical facilities across America and force their religious beliefs on every provider who works with them. According to the article linked below they now own one in six hospital beds in America and the rate is growing daily. Non-profit indeed. It is NOT acceptable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-kaye/pregnancy-is-scary-enough-catho...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-kaye/pregnancy-is-scary-enough-catho...
8
Once again we have religion attempting to impose its values on our secular society. Practice whatever you please however you please in the privacy of you homes and places of worship. No public display, or in this case practice -- France has it right here.
If you wish change, elect followers who will adhere to your dogma and dictates and, if they become a majority, so be it. If not, then you need to accept that too.
If you wish change, elect followers who will adhere to your dogma and dictates and, if they become a majority, so be it. If not, then you need to accept that too.
43
I never understood these religious groups' argument against writing a letter to the government, because it would be tacitly approving contraceptive use. But what if their employee buys contraception with the money they make working for the organization? Isn't that really the same thing as the government providing the money for contraception? I think if they really cared, they should be paying employees entirely in company scrip so that the employees can only buy approved merchandise, lest they be tempted to buy "unapproved" medicines.
81
That's where we're headed...I owe my soul to the company store, gives that line new meaning when churches and the "devoutly religious" are "the company" that owns the store!
5
How do the religious reconcile their refusal to provide birth control options with the possibility that their refusal may result in a child born with deformities or even in a newborn's death? Had they provided such options, neither of those outcomes would have come to pass. By not doing so, their position has, in effect, resulted in a death that would have have come to pass without their intervention that resulted in a woman being forced to give birth to a doomed or deformed child. In the latter instance, could the refusal of the religious result in their being sued for lifetime financial support for having forced a family to care for a handicapped child for its natural life?
33
"How do the religious reconcile their refusal to provide birth control options with the possibility that their refusal may result in a child born with deformities or even in a newborn's death?"
According to those religious groups... "It is God's will."
How is that for a God that takes no responsibility.
According to those religious groups... "It is God's will."
How is that for a God that takes no responsibility.
3
How is it ok to discriminate against the NON-religious?
Employers should only be concerned about the job you do, not in your family planning! this is insanity! I can't believe we are arguing about this (and bathroom usage) in 2016. I am so ashamed of this country sometimes.
Employers should only be concerned about the job you do, not in your family planning! this is insanity! I can't believe we are arguing about this (and bathroom usage) in 2016. I am so ashamed of this country sometimes.
500
Actually, employers shouldn't be the providers of health insurance in the first place. A 'get-around-the-wage-freeze' maneuver that somehow got frozen into our society which should have been scrapped years ago.
10
Exactly, if they only want women who have no need of contraception they should only hire nuns...
7
It really is time for the Northeast to separate from the rest of the U.S. We do not live in the same country or even the same millennium as these 'organizations'.
When a religious organization operates organizations in the public sphere, outside church, they are in the broader society and need to accept that they aren't entitled to make these decisions to deprive individuals of public benefits available to others. Respecting peoples own choice in their healthcare is what is at stake. What happens when a group, decides it doesn't want to pay for health insurance at all because they only believe in the power of prayer? Numerous other scenarios for abuse.
160
That already happens. There are a number of church groups in which members have no insurance at all. People have the right to be members, and the right to do as the "mother" church says to do. I have heard that some of them put money aside to pay for members medical care. Why they differentiate this from insurance, is beyond me.
Yes, but your reference is to a group that uses this in the course of it's membership in the group, as Catholic Church would be able to do for it's janitor, or secretary. But the question is "do they have the right to do that when they operate a nursing home, thrift shop, or social agency/" The answer is no. They hired someone, and it's not a church. It operates in the public sphere.
4
Translation to all involved: tie this up on procedural issues until there's a new Justice then send it back.
20
@Michael - Nope. They directed each party to agree on a compromise solution, which apparently each side has already submitted in writing. The lawsuit was bogus to begin with, a poorly disguised attempt to have contraceptive and related reproductive care removed from employer sponsored healthcare.
Clearly the religious groups refusing to offer contraception to their employees are forcing their religion on these people, even thought the employees may belong to another church or feel that their own church is wrong on this issue. There are two sides the the concept of separation of church and state. Yes, the state should not restrict religious belief except for conduct that is illegal (bigamy, human sacrifice, for example). But religions should also not force their beliefs on the rest of us. I must wonder what these religious groups would do if they suddenly had total control of our government. My guess is that they would make their beliefs the law of the land.
165
but why can't the employees buy birth control on their own? why does their employer have to pay for it, especially if it violates the beliefs of that employer?
2
What if the employer is Christian Scientist and doesn't believe in any medicine other than the power of god? Why can't the employee be required to get medical insurance completely on his or her own out of respect to your employer's beliefs?
Viagra has been covered by Medicaid and Medicare from the moment it was invented and our Congressmen and Senators waxed eloquent over the terrible terrible suffering it would alleviate.. it is decades past that approval, yet contraception coverage is still a battle - inequity much??
Viagra has been covered by Medicaid and Medicare from the moment it was invented and our Congressmen and Senators waxed eloquent over the terrible terrible suffering it would alleviate.. it is decades past that approval, yet contraception coverage is still a battle - inequity much??
12
This is why I have always asked the following question: Why should YOUR religious belief interfere with MY ACCESS to birth control? I especially love those who say birth control supports an "immoral lifestyle". I'm sorry if you consider intimacy with my spouse immoral, but I consider your consumption of meat immoral. However, I don't try to deny you access to meds to lower your cholesterol and blood pressure that is required as a result of your immoral diet.
5
Perhaps the Supreme Court should encourage more of these compromises, even after the 9th seat has been filled. This might discourage these politically-charged lawsuits challenging laws for which they're aren't many real plaintiffs. They're trumped-up cases brought to challenge a law that certain interest groups find objectionable.
52
Ken L - This is a compromise that ALREADY EXISTS in the ACA. This religious group didn't want the compromise originally, that's why they sued. They are no doubt backed financially by extreme right groups that want all reproductive care and contraception removed from all insurance plans.
1
Would these pious employers prefer that these women wind up getting abortions?
272
Trenchant point there Ann!
Of course, their response would be a head in the sand, "They shouldn't be having sex unless they want children!"
Of course, their response would be a head in the sand, "They shouldn't be having sex unless they want children!"
12
no, they would just prefer those employees to purchase their own birth control with their own money and not have the government force the employer to pay for it.
2
Yes - as long as those abortions are never mentioned - that would be fine with them.
1
These are not organizations with principles being infringed upon; rather, these are organizations actively infringing upon their employees' rights as human beings. They ALREADY DO NOT have to pay for contraceptives; they just have to sign a waiver. But the act of signing a waiver was still deemed objectionable to them, and only a total ban on access for their employees would be acceptable.
These religious groups are simply greedy in their effort to push their religious agendas on their employees, and are being nasty toward their employees, contrary to principles for which they supposedly stand.
These religious groups are simply greedy in their effort to push their religious agendas on their employees, and are being nasty toward their employees, contrary to principles for which they supposedly stand.
508
The Little Sisters of the Poor are greedy? They take a vow of poverty and take care of people who are dying.
The problem is the liberal-progressive atheists do not understand or do not care about the importance of this issue for the Catholic faithful.
The US government has an infinite variety of means to provide free contraceptives to anyone who wants them without infringing on the consciences of these nuns.
The problem is the liberal-progressive atheists do not understand or do not care about the importance of this issue for the Catholic faithful.
The US government has an infinite variety of means to provide free contraceptives to anyone who wants them without infringing on the consciences of these nuns.
2
But you are the first to decry these "infinite variety of means" by supporting the defunding of Planned Parenthood and calling such persons who might take advantage of these "free" contraceptives "freeloaders," persons who get "handouts" and other pejoratives. There is no pleasing you people!! It's damned if you do and damned if you don't. More access to contraceptives means LESS ABORTION. Get your act together!
26
Sorry JMBALTIMORE but this is not an issue of great importance to the Catholic faithful. Where have you been for the past 50 years? American and European Catholics have made it abundantly clear over the years that the Church is all wet when it comes to birth control.
The little sisters of the poor have taken vows but that doesn't stop them from being reactionary and narrow minded. These women, like the Church hierarchy, won't be planning a family anytime soon so they should butt out! This is a cynical, political move by people who are getting their marching orders from conservative bishops like Burke.
The little sisters of the poor have taken vows but that doesn't stop them from being reactionary and narrow minded. These women, like the Church hierarchy, won't be planning a family anytime soon so they should butt out! This is a cynical, political move by people who are getting their marching orders from conservative bishops like Burke.
20
Employers should not be required, or even permitted, to furnish or pay for employee insurance, medical or otherwise, nor for employee retirement. Employers and employees should bargain and agree only on wages and working conditions. "Citizen welfare" is the responsibility of the government, and it should be funded by the general tax system: i.e. Medicare and (enhanced) Social Security for all. TAX PROFITS, NOT JOBS!
43
"Hijack" is an inflammatory word and I'm tired of seeing it used in situations that have nothing to do with kidnapping. I wish people would calm down and rationally discuss their differences.
11
Sylvia, I have never had contraception paid for by a health plan. I did not realize that I was being "thrown under the bus" for how come I am still alive (smile)?
I remember buying contraceptives from drug stores when I was a young man, and the main worry was not the cost but the embarrassment of having the utter the word "Trojans".
I remember buying contraceptives from drug stores when I was a young man, and the main worry was not the cost but the embarrassment of having the utter the word "Trojans".
3
Why are some men so ignorant of women's needs? A condom, which is what you consider a contraceptive is NOT what insurance is for. If a woman is to take birth control pills, have an inner uterine implant of some kind, get a contraceptive "ring" or whatever...she has to see a physician...that costs MONEY...and there should be insurance for that and also for the prescription. Men!!
19
My impression of the answers from the litigants to the SCOTUS' proposed compromise was that some agreed, some didn't, and that it was difficult for much of the court to even believe that this compromise could hold.
Given Roberts' answer in NFIB v. Sibelius, it seems very likely that Roberts believes that the circuits which have denied the litigants' claims are as on as fuzzy a grounding as the circuit that upheld it. What better outcome than to allow the States -- those "laboratories of democracy" to decide whether they wish to go with the proposed compromise or not?
Ultimately, the 14th Amendmend question is going to come back to the Court in the form of a reconciliation of different types of compromises implemented by the States. That's good. That's the way the Court should work.
Given Roberts' answer in NFIB v. Sibelius, it seems very likely that Roberts believes that the circuits which have denied the litigants' claims are as on as fuzzy a grounding as the circuit that upheld it. What better outcome than to allow the States -- those "laboratories of democracy" to decide whether they wish to go with the proposed compromise or not?
Ultimately, the 14th Amendmend question is going to come back to the Court in the form of a reconciliation of different types of compromises implemented by the States. That's good. That's the way the Court should work.
4
It's federal legislation, not state. The states aren't paying for it, the employers & employees are in these cases. Under the ACA, all insurers providing plans have to include contraceptive coverage.
You have faile to respond to the fact that the SCOTUS asked the litigants to answer whether they could accept the compromise proposal (suggested by the Little Sisters, originally).
They couldn't agree as a group. What do you want -- Ayatollah-rule? This lets the States decide.
They couldn't agree as a group. What do you want -- Ayatollah-rule? This lets the States decide.
Thank goodness the court is pursuing a compromise. If a religious employer doesn't have to cover contraception, but doesn't even have to inform anyone that they refuse, then the contraception mandate becomes virtually unenforceable.
As a compromise, I recommend developing an easy, transparent, confidential procedure where the employee can directly inform the insurer that he or she will claim the coverage.
As a compromise, I recommend developing an easy, transparent, confidential procedure where the employee can directly inform the insurer that he or she will claim the coverage.
15
The (or at least an) idea going forward is that the insurers will know from the start that one or another religious organization will not offer contraceptive coverage to its employees. It will then fall to the insurers to contact employees separately to inform them how to obtain said coverage according to the ACA's mandates.
To quote from the article: "The religious groups, the court said, quoting their brief, 'have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they "need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception," even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company.'”
To quote from the article: "The religious groups, the court said, quoting their brief, 'have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they "need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception," even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company.'”
These holier-than-thou "religious" institutions want to block women from using contraceptives whenever possible, then they want to condemn poor women for having more babies than they can support.
What they truly want is to outlaw sex unless they can control every aspect of the sexual act and its aftermath. Other than that they want limited government that looks the other way when they abuse children and discriminate against women and anyone else they decide to define as "sinners." Hypocrites.
What they truly want is to outlaw sex unless they can control every aspect of the sexual act and its aftermath. Other than that they want limited government that looks the other way when they abuse children and discriminate against women and anyone else they decide to define as "sinners." Hypocrites.
313
"want to block women from using contraceptives whenever possible,"
They are not "blocking", they are merely saying, "use them if you like, but do not involve us."
These nuns (or anyone else) have never paid for my coffee but I did not accuse them of "blocking" me from drinking coffee.
I have to admire the NYT for their success at salesmanship for they have managed to get enormous numbers of hysterics to read their paper.
They are not "blocking", they are merely saying, "use them if you like, but do not involve us."
These nuns (or anyone else) have never paid for my coffee but I did not accuse them of "blocking" me from drinking coffee.
I have to admire the NYT for their success at salesmanship for they have managed to get enormous numbers of hysterics to read their paper.
7
Rohit, do you or anyone else know if the insurance coverage provided by the nuns includes coverage for Viagra and the like?
7
They just want to be in control, nothing more. What silly rules they pick to enforce have little to do with anything. Condoms illegal? Explain that.
They are going away, only how soon is in question.
They are going away, only how soon is in question.
2
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is just another way of shoving the Bible down the throats of the rest of us. Enough of wasting taxpayer money on this nonsense. Here is a thought, if you don't want to follow the rules give up any federal funds that flow your way and, for religious organizations, your tax-exempt status.
603
More wars in history have been fought over religion than anything else. Seems we haven't learned anything.
5
Sorry it's the Bible they're shoving down your throat: it's dogma of particular church, the Catholic church.
Laws flow from public opinion, faster if the opinion is strongly demonstrated. The Supreme Court is theater, nothing more.
This was already a compromise! Now the conservatives want more. They want to restrict access to contraceptives for poor and middle class women.
240
The religious groups challenging the ACA's provision of contraceptive medical care to women, as a burden on the groups' "religion", failed in the Supreme Court today (Zubik v. Burwell).
The Court unanimously returned the case to the lower court to reach a "compromise", but one that should not affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans have access to contraceptive coverage.
The religious groups and their rightwing allies tried to spin this a victory, but it isn't. They lost in their bid to rip a hole in the ACA's coverage of medical care to women. If and when the case returns to the Court, with any luck at all, there will be a fifth justice appt'd by Clinton, and that will be the end of challenges to Obamacare.
The Court unanimously returned the case to the lower court to reach a "compromise", but one that should not affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans have access to contraceptive coverage.
The religious groups and their rightwing allies tried to spin this a victory, but it isn't. They lost in their bid to rip a hole in the ACA's coverage of medical care to women. If and when the case returns to the Court, with any luck at all, there will be a fifth justice appt'd by Clinton, and that will be the end of challenges to Obamacare.
217
So, so tired of religious groups trying to get into the bedrooms of private citizens. Will this ever end?
412
No, Sonya. It'll just keep on going like a perpetual motion machine.
8
A solution to this issue is to require the churches and religiously affiliated organizations that refuse to cover contraception in their employees' health care insurance plans to pay a larger cost for the insurance. After all, the costs of pregnancy and health care for young children is much greater than the cost of contraceptives. If this cost-based principle were put in place, we would see how long the various organizations adhered to their principles.
33