Active Users:182 Time:21/09/2017 04:26:44 AM
I do not see how requiring private entities do it instead of the feds is "least restrictive way." Joel Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 12:53:22 AM
In fact, that is pretty much the crux of my argument: That a true PUBLIC healthcare law would avoid this conflict because it would not force private religious institutions to directly finance things their doctrine forbids. The members would indirectly finance it through taxes paid to the feds, which would then be spent on public healthcare that would include contraception (and abortion, incidentally,) but there a mountain of case law has established US citizens lack the Constitutional right to opt out of federal taxes on the grounds it is partly spent on things their religion forbids. That would restrict Catholic hospitals/schools religious freedom much less than forcing them to pay for those things.
I am asking for this is much the same logic saying that Catholic employers should not have to pay for contraception.

Government forcing people to directly finance other people doing things that contradict the first peoples religious beliefs is a First Amendment infringement. Jehovahs Witnesses could reasonably raise the same objection Catholics have, and, in fact, a "public" healthcare mandate whose principal form is PRIVATE employers paying for healthcare makes it almost inevitable that such valid objections will be routine. It is just another fantastic reason we need ACTUAL public healthcare instead of the dogs dinner of "public" healthcare we got.

First Amendments rights are NOT ABSOLUTE!!! Yes it is coercing a person to do something that person doesn't want to do. The government does have a right to do so. Cases that involve the first amendment invoke strict scrutiny (the highest level of judicial review) under strict scrutiny the government has to show that it is serving a "compelling governmental interest" and that it is doing so in the "least restrictive way in possible." Mainting the health and general welfare of a nation is a legitimate government interest (such as paying for contraception and blood transfusions.) There is a law school saying "strict in theory, fatal in fact," but this saying is more of a myth and doesn't hold up under empirical observation, 59% of court cases challenging laws involving religious freedom survive strict scrutiny (link below)

Furthermore you are dead wrong on the legal issues here Joel. 28 of 50 states already require health care plans in their state cover contraception. Some stats (italics is me quoting the below link, parts in parenthesis but no italics are Roland00 talking to make the comment a little more clear)

* 28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA - approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 17 of these states also require coverage of related outpatient services.
* 2 states exclude emergency contraception from the required coverage.
* 1 state excludes minor dependents from coverage.

* 20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate. 8 states have no such provision that permits refusal by some employers or insurers.
(The States are Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin so 8 states that require even churches to fund contraception)
(These remaining numbers are for the 20 states that require contraception but have exceptions. Here are the exceptions)
* 4 states include a “limited” refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so .
* 7 states include a “broader” refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse, but not hospitals.
* 8 states include an “ expansive ” refusal clause that allows religious organizations , including at least some hospitals , to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with moral or religious objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states ex empt insurers in addition to employers.)
* 14 of the 20 states with exemptions require employees to be notified when their health plan does not cover contraceptives.
* 4 states attempt to provide access for employees when their employer refuses to offer contraceptive coverage, generally by allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own, but at the group rate.

So 22 states do not require it at all, and another 20 grant exemptions to some or all religious institutions whose doctrine forbids birth control. How many times has the constitutionality of that specific provision in the other 8 been tested in court?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up - 09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM 1084 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again. - 09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM 283 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor - 10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM 194 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well. - 09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM 407 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources! *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM 299 Views
Is there really such a thing? *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:11:30 PM 221 Views
You lost all credibility in the first line of your post. - 09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM 364 Views
The subject line didn't help. *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:04:11 PM 235 Views
But it added some flair to the discussion! *NM* - 09/02/2012 07:46:47 PM 199 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM 214 Views
It's one thing to have a bias. - 09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM 335 Views
Some would say putting a spotlight on it is more honest. *NM* - 09/02/2012 09:34:17 PM 176 Views
Ah, the Rupert Murdoch School of Objectivity. - 09/02/2012 10:15:57 PM 257 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms. - 09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM 221 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly. - 10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM 1217 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention? - 10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM 1579 Views
If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote. - 10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM 1517 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course. - 11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM 1459 Views
Bullshit. - 11/02/2012 04:29:31 AM 1563 Views
A vote for no one is a vote for more BS. - 11/02/2012 05:55:11 AM 1538 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end. - 10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM 1671 Views
He is already preparing to cave. - 10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM 1611 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said. - 10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM 1491 Views
"And here I thought he was just another politician." - 10/02/2012 01:29:36 PM 1511 Views
Aaaaand you can put your hat back on now: Obama has already caved. - 10/02/2012 04:04:30 PM 1573 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions? - 10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM 285 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. - 10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM 347 Views
Money is not the same as speech! - 10/02/2012 07:20:56 PM 224 Views
No it isn't Joel, empirically you are dead wrong - 10/02/2012 11:24:19 PM 343 Views
I do not see how requiring private entities do it instead of the feds is "least restrictive way." - 11/02/2012 12:53:22 AM 326 Views
Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. Superior Court - 11/02/2012 01:21:46 AM 300 Views
"the Court found that it wasn't a religious organization, it was just a non-profit corporation." - 11/02/2012 01:36:33 AM 219 Views
The situation was identical to the pre obama controversy - 11/02/2012 02:42:57 AM 152 Views
The affiliation is the sticking point. - 11/02/2012 03:41:33 AM 313 Views
One last point - 10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM 321 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes. - 11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM 242 Views
You argument does not make sense - 11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM 265 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency. - 11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM 248 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality - 11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM 331 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM 327 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM 237 Views
In other words, I could. - 11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM 141 Views
Some more points - 11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM 345 Views
Sex is not a necessity either. - 11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM 311 Views
I can't believe you just said that - 11/02/2012 04:30:12 AM 206 Views
The widespread inability to believe that is deeply worrisome. - 11/02/2012 06:33:01 AM 348 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM 350 Views
Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained. - 11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM 291 Views
The polls disagree with you. - 11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM 238 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls. - 11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM 316 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway - 11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 432 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is - 11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM 328 Views
Nossy that was not Joel, that was me - 11/02/2012 01:56:39 PM 365 Views
I know that. - 11/02/2012 03:23:32 PM 370 Views
Understood. - 11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM 327 Views
mmm... - 11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM 303 Views

Reply to Message