Boehner gives President Obama an ultimatum

[LSN80]

And we have ourselves political theatre at its worst.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...eptive-rule-if-obama-does-not-reverse-course/

So what is the fuss all about? Under Obama's new Birth Control Policy, which goes into effect on August 1st, the Department of Health and Human Services added to the Affordable Care Act a provision that insurance companies cover certain preventive health services without copays to include contraceptives. Come August 1st, employer-based health care plans must cover contraceptive services without copays. No big deal, right?

Where this blew up is when it involved colleges and universities that are faith-based. Religious nonprofits such as universities and hospitals, which employ and serve people of different beliefs, are now required to provide those same services that your local high school would. There is a Conscience Clause included, where houses of worship that primarily employ people who share the institution’s view are exempt.(Think St. Margaret's of the Apostles) But a Catholic University such as Seton Hill, where I did my graduate studies, is now required to provide these services without copays, come August 1st. The fact of the matter is, schools like these employs those who are the best in their specialties, not those who share the same faith. What does Boehner have to say about this?

"If the president does not reverse the Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend. This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand.”

How is this an attack on religious freedom, exactly? As I stated earlier, in the Conscience Clause that has been added, churches and places of worship are exempt from this. Why? Because their employees share the beliefs of the place of worship. But when Universities and Hospitals hire those of different beliefs than theirs, they hire them for their skill, not their place or type of worship. With this established, why should these employees be held down by the beliefs of the employer? Unless they signed a contract of some kind agreeing to the beliefs implicitly, they shouldn't be. Anyway, Boehner continues:

“In the days ahead, the House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately, through regular order and the appropriate legislative channels. The Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue, should take steps against the rule and “consider all possible options.”

KB and I have talked about this issue before, and the thing that's being completely overlooked is this: Studies have found that over 50% of all women that use birth control medication do so for reasons other than pregnancy preventions, which is the "religious reason" for not using birth control. Some of those reasons? Reducing cramps associated with periods, regulating periods, prevention of menstrual-related migraine headaches and severe pain elsewhere, and.controlling endometriosis, amongst others. Let's look at Bohener's final statement:

"This rule is an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke yesterday, saying this in summation:

This mandate is abhorrent and the Obama administration has crossed a dangerous line.

The White House has responded by saying that in an attempt to stifle some of the backlash, they're willing to work with religious leaders on the issue in order to reach some sort of compromise. They did stand firm that they're not willing to back away from the President's decision, which was made in January. I have no more words other then what I've already written, so over to you.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Harthan]

You've hit the nail on the head here, LSN. If an institution hires people without regard to faith, they should be required to provide them health services without regard to faith. A Catholic University that has employees who are not Catholic cannot expect them to subscribe to Catholic morals, and furthermore cannot expect to be exempt from government legislation requiring them to treat their employees without regard to faith - because they were hired without regard to faith.

I actually question whether churches ought to be exempt, to be honest with you. While obviously the religious personnel share the faith of the church, do the secretaries and administrative personnel? I don't know too much about this. If churches are allowed to mandate that all their employees share a certain faith - and I would support their ability to do so - then this is a non issue, but do churches hire their administrative personnel without regard to faith? If they do, they really ought not to be exempted here.

But to the point at hand, this is a misinterpretation, probably deliberate, intended to stir up an image of Obama as a faithless, godless monster. The legislation is perfectly acceptable. There are numerous reasons to take birth control other than contraception, and a religious institution must be expected to provide reasonable care to its employees, regardless of their religion.

Of course, given his track record, Obama will probably fold on this, like he was with so much else.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I don't quite understand this.

Can someone explain how this changes what is already in place? I'm assuming right now you have to pay for birth control, is the only change that insurance companies are now forced to provide their clients with free birth control? Does this somehow cost a company that provides insurance to it's employees more money? Is it just that people don't want women getting birth control for free? I briefly tried to look it up with no easy explanation.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I look at this from a different angle. It has nothing to do with religious freedom, birth control or anything else Boehner is ranting about. It has to do with politics.

President Obama is a Democrat and the members of the Republican Party are opposed to absolutely anything and everything Obama does because he's a Democrat. This is the latest thing they've latched onto and probably are thrilled to have it fall into their laps because they get to throw religion into the equation., which can always be counted on to whip the "compassionate conservatives" into a frenzy.

Partisan politics has always been prevalent in this country, but in the past, for the most part, the things they went after each other for had to do with actual politics. Today, they're hammering one another on the personal finances of those holding office, extramarital affairs, religion, and anything else they can throw at each other to get their political party in power and get the other guys out.

When the Republicans hold the presidency, the Democrats are doing the same damn thing.

I don't think John Boehner necessarily has any negative beliefs about President Obama's views on religious freedom or birth control in this case. I'm saying his motives lie in a different direction.

 

[Davi323]

You've hit the nail on the head here, LSN. If an institution hires people without regard to faith, they should be required to provide them health services without regard to faith. A Catholic University that has employees who are not Catholic cannot expect them to subscribe to Catholic morals, and furthermore cannot expect to be exempt from government legislation requiring them to treat their employees without regard to faith - because they were hired without regard to faith.

I actually question whether churches ought to be exempt, to be honest with you. While obviously the religious personnel share the faith of the church, do the secretaries and administrative personnel? I don't know too much about this. If churches are allowed to mandate that all their employees share a certain faith - and I would support their ability to do so - then this is a non issue, but do churches hire their administrative personnel without regard to faith? If they do, they really ought not to be exempted here.

But to the point at hand, this is a misinterpretation, probably deliberate, intended to stir up an image of Obama as a faithless, godless monster. The legislation is perfectly acceptable. There are numerous reasons to take birth control other than contraception, and a religious institution must be expected to provide reasonable care to its employees, regardless of their religion.

Of course, given his track record, Obama will probably fold on this, like he was with so much else.

Thi entire comment is complete bullshit. When a non-catholic goes to work at a catholic institution, they are expected to respect the beliefs of that institution, regardless of if they share that belief or not. A catholic university or hospital doesn't alter it's position because of employees. Whether they are catholic or not. If an employee cannot accept the catholic church's position on birth control, they can work somewhere else. Employees don't have to be catholic, but it should be inherently understood that if you voluntarily go to work at any place tied to a religion that is not yours, it should necessarily be expected that certain things can be restricted as it pertains to differences between you and your employer. A catholic university, catholic hospital is still affiliated with the catholic church.

You don't think churches should be exempt? Wha part of the 1st Amendment is so confusing to you? Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Seems pretty obvious. The catholic church has always been against the use of contraception, if Obama demands they MUST cover it in their inurance plans, against the beliefs of the catholic church,that is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.

This isn't about birth control. This is about respecting the 1st Amendment. Obama has demonstrated numerous times that he doesn't give a shit about the Constitution. However, this is a pointless debate. This only applies to Obamacare, and that will be bitchslapped down as unconstitutional this summer by the US Supreme Court anyway, making it entirely moot.

Also, what prevents the catholic church, universities and hospitals from doing what a lot of businesses will do? Namely, drop health coverage entirely? It's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay the fine than to provide health coverage, AND it would mean Obama can't force them to pay for something they teach is a sin.

 

[SalvIsWin]

You don't think churches should be exempt? Wha part of the 1st Amendment is so confusing to you? Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Seems pretty obvious. The catholic church has always been against the use of contraception, if Obama demands they MUST cover it in their inurance plans, against the beliefs of the catholic church,that is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.

This isn't about birth control. This is about respecting the 1st Amendment. Obama has demonstrated numerous times that he doesn't give a shit about the Constitution. However, this is a pointless debate. This only applies to Obamacare, and that will be bitchslapped down as unconstitutional this summer by the US Supreme Court anyway, making it entirely moot.

The government can't prohibit people from exercising their religion, but if that religion infringes upon other rights then it's a judgement call. I don't even understand this issue because all of the articles and such explain the situation as if everyone knows the details. I live in Canada, we don't have to worry about insurance, co-payments, and shit like that, so for me I don't understand what this really means.

That aside, I think it's horseshit that the Catholic Church doesn't want contraceptives or birth control pills covered in their health plans because I think their entire reasoning is flawed. If I had to guess, I would agree with Davi that this probably won't become law and I don't think Obamacare will become law either.

 

[Davi323]

The government can't prohibit people from exercising their religion, but if that religion infringes upon other rights then it's a judgement call. I don't even understand this issue because all of the articles and such explain the situation as if everyone knows the details. I live in Canada, we don't have to worry about insurance, co-payments, and shit like that, so for me I don't understand what this really means.

That aside, I think it's horseshit that the Catholic Church doesn't want contraceptives or birth control pills covered in their health plans because I think their entire reasoning is flawed. If I had to guess, I would agree with Davi that this probably won't become law and I don't think Obamacare will become law either.

Hey, I personally disagree with the catholic church's stance too...I am not a catholic, I am a Protestant. Preconception forms of birth control are perfectly fine, I only object to the postconception types, as I believe at the moment of conception, the child has a soul given to it by God, and should be allowed to live...but that is another discussion.

The problem is that the catholic church does believe that unnatural forms of contraception are immoral and a sin. If we were talking about a public university or hospital, one without religious affiliation, you would correct about the catholic church not being able to infringe on other's rights...but we are talking about privately owned catholic institutions. The 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion MUST be of foremost importance. Like I said before, this isn't really about birth control. That is merely the context. At it's heart, this is a religious freedoms under the 1st Amendment issue. Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Jews, Muslims etc. must be allowed to practice their religions without the government forcing them to pay for things they believe are sinful.

Essentially, they are claiming that Obama is trying to force them to do something he has no Constitutional authority to mandate, as the American Constitution guarantees them the right to practice their faith without governmental interference.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not sure I understand. It appears to me that the Catholic religion, who proudly waives its tax-exempt status in the air anytime it needs to purchase something, is now upset the same government which forgives their taxes are telling them they cannot force their beliefs onto their employees. Is this not the gist of this controversy?

I fail to see how this is an attack on someone's religion. These are businesses, making big money and big profit in many cases. Their insurance should be required to cover the same things all other company insurance covers.

Just on the surface, with very little other knowledge of the subject, I have no problem with Obama's position at all.

as the American Constitution guarantees them the right to practice their faith without governmental interference.

But there's nothing in the Constitution for them to force their faith onto others.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Hey, I personally disagree with the catholic church's stance too...I am not a catholic, I am a Protestant. Preconception forms of birth control are perfectly fine, I only object to the postconception types, as I believe at the moment of conception, the child has a soul given to it by God, and should be allowed to live...but that is another discussion.

The problem is that the catholic church does believe that unnatural forms of contraception are immoral and a sin. If we were talking about a public university or hospital, one without religious affiliation, you would correct about the catholic church not being able to infringe on other's rights...but we are talking about privately owned catholic institutions. The 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion MUST be of foremost importance. Like I said before, this isn't really about birth control. That is merely the context. At it's heart, this is a religious freedoms under the 1st Amendment issue. Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Jews, Muslims etc. must be allowed to practice their religions without the government forcing them to pay for things they believe are sinful.

Essentially, they are claiming that Obama is trying to force them to do something he has no Constitutional authority to mandate, as the American Constitution guarantees them the right to practice their faith without governmental interference.

Do Catholic Hospitals and Universities deny women twelve weeks unpaid leave without termination if that woman has a baby outside of wedlock?

This is just more pandering to the right. The Founders would never find a way to agree on any of these fringe issues and certainly not be able to put something so questionable in to the Constitution. Boehner probably cut a deal somewhere or needs votes on something coming up and is catering to those other Congressmen. He doesn't care at all about this issue.

It's the kind of fake outrage that comes from politicians and sports commentators.

 

[Davi323]

How are they forcing it on anyone? Are their employees forced to work there? Do they lack the ability to find a job in a non-catholic setting? Their non-catholic employees voluntarily chose to work under the umbrella of the catholic church. Further, there are multiple women's clinics and facilities in every major city that would provide the same services for minimal cost, if not completely free. Catholic churches, universities and hospitals are hardly the sole source of contraception, especially when you take into account that they already don't provide those services. Absolutely nothing is being taken away, it's just not being added. HUGE difference. Any employee that wanted contaceptives would have already found alternative means of acquiring it. So, what exactly is being forced?

Let's flip this a sec. Let's say that an ultra right wing bible thumping President tells Jewish and Muslim institutions that they will be required to serve ham, bacon, sausage and other pork products in their cafeterias. Jews and Muslims believe it is unclean. Should he be able to force Jewish and Muslim institutions to serve pork?

Of course not. It would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment to force Jews and Muslims to serve pork. Just like it's a clear violation to force the catholic church to pay for contraceptives it believes are sinful.

To GSB: I have no idea. I am not a catholic, nor do I work for a catholic institution of any kind. I have no idea what their policy is. If I had to guess, I would say that they would probably be legally required to adhere to existing laws regarding that, provided there is no specific religious objection to it. There is a specific religious objection to being forced to pay for contraceptives though.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

My point is that there are specific religious objections to a lot of things. Sex out of wedlock and childbirth out of wedlock being two examples. But best I know they abide by FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act). It seems like a contradiction to pick and choose what parts of your religion you are willing to abide by.

As far as your pork example goes, the absurdity is not the religious objection, the absurdity is the idea that one single food item must be served. Then again if the pork is in bacon form I may support this.

 

[H33LTurn]

I dont understand, if you're not the one performing the abortion, why should it matter? From a Christian standpoint at least, Jesus said not to kill. He didnt say to go on an illogical rant about religious freedom. Churches and places of worhsip are excempt from this. Those people should mind their business. I rather like Mustang Sally's interpretation, it has everything to do with politics. They've been trying to create an idea of separation between Obama and the church so that he doesnt get the religious vote. It has to be, because from a logical standpoint this makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Larry]

This might be a dumb question due to separation of church and state, but what I am interested in knowing is whether or not these Catholic universities and hospitals that would be forced to do this are publicly or privately funded because that would seem to have a great deal of impact on the scenario. I am asking because obviously there are publicly and privately funded universities and hospitals all over, I just don't really know if any of them that have to do with any religion at all are. I know that some around the world are publicly funded I'm just not sure about the U.S.

 

[Slyfox696]

How are they forcing it on anyone? Are their employees forced to work there?

No, but that's not a reasonable argument. "You can only work for us if you're Catholic" is not only discriminatory, it's also not a policy you can support your business with. You HAVE to take people who are not Catholic in order to survive, and with unemployment over 9%, are you telling me an unemployed worker looking to put food on her kid's table should turn down a steady job because her employer will not provide the same benefits all other companies are LEGALLY required to carry?

I'm sorry, but this IS a case of these religious institutions trying to force their beliefs onto others. They're upset because they are businesses (not non-profit businesses either, for the most part) which have to follow the same laws every other business has to follow. They're upset because they think the government is interfering in their business, and yet they have never once complained about their tax exempt status and the amount of money that saves them every year. If you are a for profit business, and especially one receiving government assistance, you have to be willing to follow the laws of that government.

Allow me to turn your argument back on you:

No one is forcing these companies to stay open. They are more than welcome to close their doors and not do anything they feel violates their religious principles. Close down the business or sell it, if you feel this strongly about it.

Let's flip this a sec. Let's say that an ultra right wing bible thumping President tells Jewish and Muslim institutions that they will be required to serve ham, bacon, sausage and other pork products in their cafeterias. Jews and Muslims believe it is unclean. Should he be able to force Jewish and Muslim institutions to serve pork?

Of course not. It would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment to force Jews and Muslims to serve pork. Just like it's a clear violation to force the catholic church to pay for contraceptives it believes are sinful.

But this is completely different than the example you're talking about.

This law is not targeted at religious institutions. This is a national law. The mandate requires ALL employers to cover contraceptives in their insurance policy. And let's not kid ourselves, who is paying the insurance in the first place? Do you think these institutions are putting in their own money for employee insurance? Of course not, insurance is coming out of these workers' checks every month. So it's not like the hospitals are actually paying for it, they are just being compelled to turn over the workers own money so the worker can purchase contraceptives.

There is a specific religious objection to being forced to pay for contraceptives though.

But again, they're not REALLY the ones paying for it, now are they?

This might be a dumb question due to separation of church and state, but what I am interested in knowing is whether or not these Catholic universities and hospitals that would be forced to do this are publicly or privately funded because that would seem to have a great deal of impact on the scenario.

They're probably not publicly funded, but they do receive government benefits, such as tax exempt status, better financing, etc. They receive government benefits, even if they don't receive a check.

 

[Davi323]

No, but that's not a reasonable argument. "You can only work for us if you're Catholic" is not only discriminatory, it's also not a policy you can support your business with. You HAVE to take people who are not Catholic in order to survive, and with unemployment over 9%, are you telling me an unemployed worker looking to put food on her kid's table should turn down a steady job because her employer will not provide the same benefits all other companies are LEGALLY required to carry?

Good thing they aren't saying you have to be Catholic to work there then, huh? All they are saying is that since it is a Catholic institution, and the Catholic church is opposed to all unnatural forms of contraception, that if they accept a job offer there, they shouldn't expect to have birth control covered.

I'm sorry, but this IS a case of these religious institutions trying to force their beliefs onto others. They're upset because they are businesses (not non-profit businesses either, for the most part) which have to follow the same laws every other business has to follow. They're upset because they think the government is interfering in their business, and yet they have never once complained about their tax exempt status and the amount of money that saves them every year. If you are a for profit business, and especially one receiving government assistance, you have to be willing to follow the laws of that government.

My employer has rules. Should I be able to do whatever the hell I want because I disagree with some of them? Or does my employer have a right to lay down a set of rules that I am expected to follow as a condition of my employment? Nobody is saying that an employee can't use birth control, just that a Catholic institution, whether its a church, university or hospital, should not be expected to provide it for them due to their religious beliefs.

Allow me to turn your argument back on you:

No one is forcing these companies to stay open. They are more than welcome to close their doors and not do anything they feel violates their religious principles. Close down the business or sell it, if you feel this strongly about it.

Or like I said before, they can simply do what many other companies will do. Take the $2,000 per employee fine and simply discontinue ALL health insurance plans because it's a hell of a lot cheaper for them to do that than it is spending the 7k-10k they spend on those plans per employee. Not only will that save them a lot of money, but it essentially stops any federal interference in their right to practice their Catholic faith without governmental prohibitions imposed on it. They could essentially say fuck you, Obama, we are cancelling all of them, saving a fortune, AND preventing you from violating our 1st Amendment rights.

This law is not targeted at religious institutions. This is a national law. The mandate requires ALL employers to cover contraceptives in their insurance policy.

The fact that it doesn't exempt religious institutions is why the Catholic church is all up in arms, because it discriminates against their right to practice their faith as they see fit.

And let's not kid ourselves, who is paying the insurance in the first place? Do you think these institutions are putting in their own money for employee insurance? Of course not, insurance is coming out of these workers' checks every month. So it's not like the hospitals are actually paying for it, they are just being compelled to turn over the workers own money so the worker can purchase contraceptives.

Where does the money that pays those workers come from? Do those checks appear out of thin air, or does that money first have to come out of the payroll accounts for their employer? C'mon Sly, this is a ridiculous argument you are making. You know damn well that the money used to pay the wages/salaries of their employees is their money to begin with. The amount deducted from paychecks is only a fraction of the total cost to a company to provide health insurance.

They're probably not publicly funded, but they do receive government benefits, such as tax exempt status, better financing, etc. They receive government benefits, even if they don't receive a check.

So do illegal immigrants, what's your point?

The 1st Amendment is still the 1st Amendment, and compelling a religious entity to fund anything they believe goes directly against their faith is a violation of it. Sorry, but their 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion comes first. He will end up capitulating. He will do what he has continued to do...issue ultimatums, demand things, and then when people complain loud enough, he will issue them a waiver exempting them. Companies are already getting out of Obamacare requirements due to claimed financial hardships, do you SERIOUSLY believe that if he is going to grant waivers for them, that he would refuse to grant waivers to religious organizations? That is a Supreme Court lawsuit just waiting to happen. This is not really a battle that Obama wants to go up to the Supreme Court, he will get his ass kicked. There is plenty of precedent for the Supreme Court to follow in upholding 1st Amendment rights to practice religion, there is no way in hell Obama could win that case.

But, it really won't matter in the end. This summer the Supreme Court will declare Obamacare unconstitutional anyway, and since the dumbass democrats forgot to include a severability clause, when they find any part of it unconstitutional, they will have to declare the entire thing unconstitutional. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all the other idiots will have a lot of egg on their face, Obama will be made to look like a total fool a few months before the election, and won't be able to recover. Obamacare overturned + bad economy + high unemployment = One termer.

 

[Slyfox696]

Good thing they aren't saying you have to be Catholic to work there then, huh?

No, you just have to live your life under Catholic beliefs. You know, having them FORCE their religious views onto you.

All they are saying is that since it is a Catholic institution, and the Catholic church is opposed to all unnatural forms of contraception, that if they accept a job offer there, they shouldn't expect to have birth control covered.

And all I'm saying is the institution isn't the one taking birth control and they're not the ones paying for it, so why should they be exempt?

My employer has rules. Should I be able to do whatever the hell I want because I disagree with some of them? Or does my employer have a right to lay down a set of rules that I am expected to follow as a condition of my employment? Nobody is saying that an employee can't use birth control, just that a Catholic institution, whether its a church, university or hospital, should not be expected to provide it for them due to their religious beliefs.

But they are not providing it. They are merely including it in the insurance policy, insurance which is being paid for by the employee. It's not like they are required to have condoms in a candy dish and any employee can grab one when they want.

Or like I said before, they can simply do what many other companies will do. Take the $2,000 per employee fine and simply discontinue ALL health insurance plans because it's a hell of a lot cheaper for them to do that than it is spending the 7k-10k they spend on those plans per employee. Not only will that save them a lot of money, but it essentially stops any federal interference in their right to practice their Catholic faith without governmental prohibitions imposed on it. They could essentially say fuck you, Obama, we are cancelling all of them, saving a fortune, AND preventing you from violating our 1st Amendment rights.

So then we both agree this is not the government forcing them to do anything against their religious principles.

The fact that it doesn't exempt religious institutions is why the Catholic church is all up in arms, because it discriminates against their right to practice their faith as they see fit.

I'm a Catholic and totally don't give a fuck. The moment the Catholic Church turns back over to the government all the benefits the government provides them, is the moment I'll take their position on this seriously.

Nobody is forcing these people to actually give the contraception. These institutions aren't the ones paying for it. It's just another item which is to be covered under insurance plans all businesses are required to carry.

If Obama was saying that a Catholic hospital HAD to give a birth control pill to anyone who asked, regardless of the reason, then I'd be more inclined to go along with your point. But that's not what is happening here. From the way I read this, all this mandate says is that if an employee wants contraception, he/she can use the money they pay into insurance every paycheck to purchase it.

Where does the money that pays those workers come from? Do those checks appear out of thin air, or does that money first have to come out of the payroll accounts for their employer? C'mon Sly, this is a ridiculous argument you are making. You know damn well that the money used to pay the wages/salaries of their employees is their money to begin with. The amount deducted from paychecks is only a fraction of the total cost to a company to provide health insurance.

No no no, your argument is completely inappropriate.

The institution pays the money to the worker for the job they do. If I'm a janitor, I'm being paid for cleaning toilets. Once I clean the toilet, by law and contract, that money the institution gives me is mine. The money which is then withdrawn for the services I've rendered is also mine. So when they take money out of my check for insurance, it's still MY money which is being taken out of MY check.

I'm sorry, your argument here is completely wrong. Not that I blame you for trying, this particular part of my post was especially damaging to your position.

So do illegal immigrants, what's your point?

That those who receive government benefits have to live by government rules. And if that illegal immigrant is caught, they get deported.

What's your point?

The 1st Amendment is still the 1st Amendment, and compelling a religious entity to fund anything they believe goes directly against their faith is a violation of it.

Actually, it's not.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The government isn't prohibiting any CITIZEN from being able to practice their religion. They are telling a BUSINESS they have to provide insurance to their employees. The Bill of Rights does not apply to businesses/corporations. And since the Catholic people are not the one who would actually sell, prescribe or administer the contraception, no 1st Amendment rights have been violated.

He will end up capitulating.

If this was last year, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But this is an election year, and he knows he's been criticized for giving in. I think that's why he's taken such a strong stance this time.

 

[Davi323]

No, you just have to live your life under Catholic beliefs. You know, having them FORCE their religious views onto you.

No they don't. They are free to acquire birth control by any means they choose. They just have to pay for it out of pocket. They aren't being forced to not use birth control. They still can. It's just on their dime. I want LASIK surgery for my eyes. Neither my health plan or vision plan covers it. Does that mean my employer is forcing me to not get it? Nope. Just means if I want it, I pay for it.

And all I'm saying is the institution isn't the one taking birth control and they're not the ones paying for it, so why should they be exempt?

As I pointed out before, the amount that gets taken out of an employee's paycheck is only a fraction of the total employer contribution. They ARE paying for it, far more than the employee does.

But they are not providing it. They are merely including it in the insurance policy, insurance which is being paid for by the employee. It's not like they are required to have condoms in a candy dish and any employee can grab one when they want.

See above.

So then we both agree this is not the government forcing them to do anything against their religious principles.

Not unless you are willing to concede the point that if the Government isn't forcing them to provide contraception in their health plans because there is an alternative, then the Catholic institutions aren't forcing their employees to do anything either, for the same reason. There are alternative options they can use to still get what they want.

I'm a Catholic and totally don't give a fuck. The moment the Catholic Church turns back over to the government all the benefits the government provides them, is the moment I'll take their position on this seriously.

By that logic, since churches receive tax exemptions as charitable organizations, then the US government has the right to dictate ANYTHING they want as far as churches go, and there is no 1st Amendment protections for them at all. Further, while you are completely destroying the concept of Constitutionally protected rights, lets apply that principle everywhere. Anyone who receives unemployment, welfare, or any other form of governmental assistance has no Constitutional protection. They don't have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to protect them against unreasonable searches and seizures, they don't have the right to a trial by jury, they don't have a right to due process, equal protection, or anything else either. Your logic means that anyone who accepts Government money loses all of their Constitutionally protected rights. If churches lose their protection because they receive financial benefits from the government, than so do individuals.

HELLO TOTALITARIAN STATE!

Nobody is forcing these people to actually give the contraception. These institutions aren't the ones paying for it. It's just another item which is to be covered under insurance plans all businesses are required to carry.

Deja Vu. They are paying for it because they spend far more in health plan contributions than the employee does. This is true about just about every employer provided health coverage ever. You are a teacher, right? Go ask the principal of your school how much the school district puts in to your health plan, then go look at your last pay stub. Compare the amounts.

Your health plan is not paid for by the amount deducted from your paycheck. It's only a relatively small part of the cost. Employers pay a hell of a lot more than that directly.

That those who receive government benefits have to live by government rules. And if that illegal immigrant is caught, they get deported.

I hope you are smart enough to see the inherent fallacy in your statement here...Illegal immigrants, by their very nature, are not living by government rules.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The government isn't prohibiting any CITIZEN from being able to practice their religion. They are telling a BUSINESS they have to provide insurance to their employees. The Bill of Rights does not apply to businesses/corporations. And since the Catholic people are not the one who would actually sell, prescribe or administer the contraception, no 1st Amendment rights have been violated.

I don't see anything there that indicates the 1st Amendment is limited solely to individuals. In fact, the Supreme Court's multiple decisions regarding Corporate Personhood flat out disproves your position. Legally, businesses are considered people, therefore the 1st Amendment applies equally to them.

If this was last year, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But this is an election year, and he knows he's been criticized for giving in. I think that's why he's taken such a strong stance this time.

You mean a strong stance, other than all of the exemptions he has already given other businesses for other reasons. Not to mention the obvious: Do you think it's a wise political move to appear to be hostile towards organized religion? Given the religious makeup of the country, do you really that is such a smart thing to do? He will exempt secular businesses claiming they can't afford it, but he refuses to exempt religious businesses based on their conscientious objections and the exercise of their Constitutionally protected rights? That will certainly play well on TV...

There are quite a few Democrats who think Obama is 100% wrong on this too.

But, again...it's going to be made moot this summer anyway. All the Catholic institutions have to do is wait until the Supreme Court overturns it, and then they will be exactly where they were before.

 

[Slyfox696]

As I pointed out before, the amount that gets taken out of an employee's paycheck is only a fraction of the total employer contribution. They ARE paying for it, far more than the employee does.

But the amount of money which is taken out of an employee's paycheck is enough to cover contraception, or it can be.

Are we really going to start splitting hairs now?

Not unless you are willing to concede the point that if the Government isn't forcing them to provide contraception in their health plans because there is an alternative, then the Catholic institutions aren't forcing their employees to do anything either, for the same reason. There are alternative options they can use to still get what they want.

But YOU'RE the one who is calling foul by the government. If we agree both the employee and the business have options, your entire position in this debate collapses.

By that logic, since churches receive tax exemptions as charitable organizations, then the US government has the right to dictate ANYTHING they want as far as churches go, and there is no 1st Amendment protections for them at all.

I'm okay with that.

Like I said, if the Catholic Church was willing to stop receiving all these benefits, I'd be willing to take their position seriously. But as long as they're willing to be fed by the government, then they have to be willing to abide by mandates which protect their employees.

But this mandate DOESN'T apply to churches. Churches are already exempt, in fact, I believe they are just about the only thing exempt. So your statement has no bearing on this discussion in the first place.

Further, while you are completely destroying the concept of Constitutionally protected rights, lets apply that principle everywhere. Anyone who receives unemployment, welfare, or any other form of governmental assistance has no Constitutional protection. They don't have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to protect them against unreasonable searches and seizures, they don't have the right to a trial by jury, they don't have a right to due process, equal protection, or anything else either. Your logic means that anyone who accepts Government money loses all of their Constitutionally protected rights. If churches lose their protection because they receive financial benefits from the government, than so do individuals.

HELLO TOTALITARIAN STATE!

Except individuals and businesses are not at all the same thing, and the Bill of Rights was created to protect individuals. Combine that with the fact, as I said earlier, these businesses are not paying, selling or administering the contraceptives, you really have no leg to stand on.

Deja Vu. They are paying for it because they spend far more in health plan contributions than the employee does. This is true about just about every employer provided health coverage ever. You are a teacher, right? Go ask the principal of your school how much the school district puts in to your health plan, then go look at your last pay stub. Compare the amounts.

Your health plan is not paid for by the amount deducted from your paycheck. It's only a relatively small part of the cost. Employers pay a hell of a lot more than that directly.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that over the course of the year, these employees will be paying enough money to cover the contraception. Combine that with the fact not every employee will be purchasing contraception, then you can understand how these institutions are not the ones purchasing the contraception.

Oh, and that's not even taking into account the number of women who go on contraceptives for reasons OTHER than to prevent pregnancy, which DON'T violate the Christian beliefs.

I hope you are smart enough to see the inherent fallacy in your statement here...Illegal immigrants, by their very nature, are not living by government rules.

It was your argument, not mine.

I don't see anything there that indicates the 1st Amendment is limited solely to individuals.

The Bill of Rights was created for the sole purpose to protect a citizen against the government infringing upon the citizen's liberties.

In fact, the Supreme Court's multiple decisions regarding Corporate Personhood flat out disproves your position.

Really? You're going to use a 5-4 decision which fell completely upon political party lines in which the majority "represented" the political party who wanted to air a negative video of the other party as your basis?

You'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly leap to my feet to congratulate your argument.

You mean a strong stance, other than all of the exemptions he has already given other businesses for other reasons.

I mean a strong stance on the contraception mandate, which is what we are talking about. You seem to want to turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican issue, and it's not.

 

[Davi323]

He will end up capitulating.

If this was last year, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But this is an election year, and he knows he's been criticized for giving in. I think that's why he's taken such a strong stance this time.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Told ya.

Didn't take very long for Obama to give in, just as I said he would. Instead of forcing the religious institutions to have to cover contraception, now it will fall on the insuring company itself. Good enough. As long as the onus is on the insurer and not the religious institution, no 1st Amendment violation.