- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Another right wing whine dismissed
in story[h=1]Health Law’s Contraceptive Coverage Isn’t Burden on Religion, Court Rules[/h]
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Tuesday handed the Obama administration another victory in its effort to guarantee coverage of contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act, rejecting a challenge by the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, found that the nuns could opt out of a requirement to provide contraceptive coverage under an “accommodation” devised by the administration. The rule does not impose a “substantial burden” on the nuns’ free exercise of religion, the court said.
Four other federal appeals courts — in the District of Columbia, Philadelphia, Chicago and New Orleans — have issued similar decisions upholding the accommodation, which is intended to address the concerns of nonprofit religious organizations that object to providing contraceptive coverage for women enrolled in their health plans.Continue reading the ma
In the decision on Tuesday, Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. called opting out of contraceptive coverage a routine administrative task, “as easy as obtaining a parade permit, filing a simple tax form or registering to vote.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/u...-health-laws-contraceptive-coverage.html?_r=1
Another right wing whine dismissed
It is hardly a "right wing whine". It is quite sad, that you seem totally to lack the training and capacity to appreciate the great Constitutional drama the present shift in definitions of the text such rulings represent. The implications of removing a fundamental right are really exciting intellectually and failing to notice the depths of the dark side.
All that needs to be done is for the business to notify HHS of its' objection. As the judge noted, it's “as easy as obtaining a parade permit, filing a simple tax form or registering to vote.” IOW, no fundamental right has been removed. That claim is nothing but right wing drama-queening
Tax the churches; problem solved. No more free meals.
You are right, that the nuns can opt out and that the opt out is not really very invasive. It is a small or marginal infringement that can, as the necessity of this court case shows, be rather large, if poorly handled. The problematic issue is, however, more with the funds that feed Affordable Care as everyone whose money supports the system is personally involved. There is no opt out there, as far as I know. Or do you know of one?
I would however love to know how requiring people to opt out of something doesn't actually create a burden. I guess the courts don't realize that requires labor to actually do. Oh right, a "substantial burden". I keep forgetting we are dealing with subjective nonsense.
Now that would change the interpretation of the Constitutional text.
I would however love to know how requiring people to opt out of something doesn't actually create a burden. I guess the courts don't realize that requires labor to actually do. Oh right, a "substantial burden". I keep forgetting we are dealing with subjective nonsense.
Who's interpretation?
You are right, that the nuns can opt out and that the opt out is not really very invasive. It is a small or marginal infringement that can, as the necessity of this court case shows, be rather large, if poorly handled. The problematic issue is, however, more with the funds that feed Affordable Care as everyone whose money supports the system is personally involved. There is no opt out there, as far as I know. Or do you know of one?
The payment of taxes raises no constitutional issue and is irrelevant to this issue
It does create a burden. And as the court case demonstrates all too well, it can create a major burden and relatively high costs. What we are seeing is a fundamental shift in Constitutional plates and a number of formally basic rights are under forceful siege driven by the New-Bigots in a number of areas.
Apparently this was an RFRA case, like the Hobby Lobby case, rather than one directly based on the Free Exercise Clause. The RFRA says "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" except when applying the burden both "in furtherance of a compelling government interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest."
This compelling interest test--a form of "strict scrutiny"--was what the Supreme Court had applied in Sherbert v. Verner in 1963, and again in Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972. In Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, the Court had almost eliminated the requirement for government to justify burdens on religious exercise. The RFRA notes this, and it states that its purpose is to restore the compelling interest test and to "guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened."
Here is a link to a fine essay on the Free Exercise Clause, which some people here may find interesting. I do not recommend it to any leftist dim bulbs who may read these forums, though. Sudden exposure to the rational thinking needed to follow the arguments could be very stressful to people who are so unused to it.
Original Intent and The Free Exercise of Religion - Archiving Early America
Now that would change the interpretation of the Constitutional text.
It depends on what issue you are thinking of.
But there is precedent that tax money may not be used in a manner that would mean a breech of religious conscience. It is the reason tax money may not be granted to aid projects that practice or even only promote abortion etc. The reason was explicit.
But, what do you think? What kind of an idea of society do you want? A society where the citizens are not responsible for the actions of their government? Of course they are responsible for the use of their cash. I thought we had seen what happens, when that crude belief reigns.
Actually no it really wouldn't. Seems churches are no longer non-political, and they have their clear representatives in legislatures... the constitution says, "no taxation without representation," so taxing them would be constitutional.
I'm asking you to please not fall for the attempt to derail this thread into a discussion about taxation
People fled Europe to get away from the bloody religious mess that had been going on for centuries...so now we discover that that they fled only to start another bloody mess in America..
Please...free exercising for religion for the individuals isn't what the religious right want. That will never be enough. They want to replace our Republic form of government with some strange theocratically structured government.
To really twist the mind I've been reading about some strange movement going on with "SECULAR MYSTICISM". And that's a mind boggling oxymoron in and of itself.
How can be people believe that god is with them everywhere - and yet cry about being infringed on. God should be taking on all of the issues for those who are loyal and apparently struggling to live in the human world.
Secular government just isn't working out well for a lot of people in the U.S. Some disgruntled forks should try Iran or some of those nations. They'll kill ya if you don't submit. Apparently a lot of folks here would like our government to act in such a similar manner. BELIEVE OR DIE!
I would however love to know how requiring people to opt out of something doesn't actually create a burden. I guess the courts don't realize that requires labor to actually do. Oh right, a "substantial burden". I keep forgetting we are dealing with subjective nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?