Appeals Court Denies Notre Dame’s Challenge to Health Law’s Contraception Mandate

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
A federal court again denied the University of Notre Dame’s challenge to the health law’s contraception provision, saying a compromise arrangement offered by the Obama administration appears adequate to meet the Catholic institution’s religious objections to covering birth control for students and staff.
Click to expand...
Notre Dame has been fighting the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most employers include contraception in health plans with no out-of-pocket costs, arguing that the federal government is forcing it to violate its beliefs. The Indiana university also has argued its concerns aren’t satisfied by the Obama administration’s alternative arrangement, under which an employer with a religious objection can state its conflict and have its insurer administrate contraceptive coverage.
Click to expand...
In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said the university hadn’t done enough to show it is entitled to a preliminary injunction that would allow it to opt out of the requirements while it continued to fight them. Instead, the court indicated it believed the administration had hit the right balance in addressing the university’s concerns.
Click to expand...
wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-denies-notre-dames-challenge-to-health-laws-contraception-mandate-1432076071
 
My belief is such that since I understand contraceptives are sometimes prescribed for health reasons, that they should be covered. But I also understand the faithful Catholic’s objection. So I tend to agree with the court about the Obama Administration’s compromise. Religious freedom must be a 2 way street and sometimes, while maybe not perfect for either side, there must be compromise. As I fail to see how it would be religious freedom if only Catholic religious freedom is protected. But for those whose beliefs are that contraceptives should be covered in healthcare plans are not protected.
 
Sy_Noe said:
My belief is such that since I understand contraceptives are sometimes prescribed for health reasons, that they should be covered. But I also understand the faithful Catholic’s objection. So I tend to agree with the court about the Obama Administration’s compromise. Religious freedom must be a 2 way street and sometimes, while maybe not perfect for either side, there must be compromise. As I fail to see how it would be religious freedom if only Catholic religious freedom is protected. But for those whose beliefs are that contraceptives should be covered in healthcare plans are not protected.
Click to expand...
Notre Dame basically voice the same concern that Little Sisters of the Poor do.
The Obama Administration has offered several modifications to provide for religious exemptions, but Notre Dame and other religious organizations have contended that in order for them to get the exemption they would have to sign a form making them complicit in providing contraception for employees. Notre Dame contends that the “accomodation” actually forces it to “identify and contract with a third party willing to provide the very services Notre Dame deems objectionable.”
Click to expand...
m.aleteia.org/en/politics/article/notre-dame-weighs-options-in-light-of-latest-contraception-coverage-ruling-5889608495661056
 
The Obama Administration has offered several modifications to provide for religious exemptions, but Notre Dame and other religious organizations have contended that in order for them to get the exemption they would have to sign a form making them complicit in providing contraception for employees. Notre Dame contends that the “accomodation” actually forces it to “identify and contract with a third party willing to provide the very services Notre Dame deems objectionable.”
Click to expand...
m.aleteia.org/en/politics/article/notre-dame-weighs-options-in-light-of-latest-contraception-coverage-ruling-5889608495661056
 
Sy_Noe said:
My belief is such that since I understand contraceptives are sometimes prescribed for health reasons, that they should be covered. But I also understand the faithful Catholic’s objection. So I tend to agree with the court about the Obama Administration’s compromise. Religious freedom must be a 2 way street and sometimes, while maybe not perfect for either side, there must be compromise. As I fail to see how it would be religious freedom if only Catholic religious freedom is protected. But for those whose beliefs are that contraceptives should be covered in healthcare plans are not protected.
Click to expand...
Notre Dame did cover contraception for their employees for health reasons. Just not for purposes of birth control. So that was never relevant to the suit.
 
Havard said:
Notre Dame did cover contraception for their employees for health reasons. Just not for purposes of birth control. So that was never relevant to the suit.
Click to expand...
And how would Notre Dame know whether an employee was taking contraception for health reasons or for purposes of birth control unless they knew what was going on between a doctor and patient? Shouldn’t a patient’s medical records and conversations with their doctor be protected information to which Notre Dame should not have any access?
 
Thorolfr said:
And how would Notre Dame know whether an employee was taking contraception for health reasons or for purposes of birth control unless they knew what was going on between a doctor and patient? Shouldn’t a patient’s medical records and conversations with their doctor be protected information to which Notre Dame should not have any access?
Click to expand...
I am not sure this has changed now because of the ACA but regarding the University and ‘university employees:’
Covers oral contraceptives if for the “correction of existing pathologies of the reproductive system" (with letter from physician establishing medical necessity), but otherwise excludes coverage for oral contraceptives and contraceptive devices unless “specifically requested by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than contraception.” (Plan Summary 2010).
Click to expand...
nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/final_catholic_institutions_that_provide_contraceptive_coverage.pdf
 
I think the court got this one right. The problem with Notre Dame’s current position is that they won the right not to be involved in the procurement of contraceptives. But they are now asking the court to order that the companies that insure their employees and students not be allowed to provide free contraceptives to any of their employees or students. That seems like an over reach.
 
Following Hobby Lobby, the Department of Health and Human Services last August finalized two regulatory accommodations for nonprofits that object to providing contraceptive coverage through their health plan. The rules require the nonprofit to notify the agency that it is opting out of providing contraceptive coverage, thereby authorizing its health insurer or third-party administrator to provide the coverage at no cost to the employer.
Click to expand...
Attorneys for Notre Dame argue that that the South Bend, Indiana, Roman Catholic college — and other institutions with religious affiliations or deeply held beliefs — should have no direct or indirect role in providing benefits that it finds objectionable on religious grounds, regardless of which entity funds the benefits.
Click to expand...
businessinsurance.com/article/20150315/NEWS03/303159977/supreme-court-ruling-supports-notre-dames-objections-totags=%7C62%7C74%7C75%7C79%7C307%7C329%7C27

They have basically the same problem as Little Sisters of the Poor. Priests for Life also got their case denied this week, and Priests for Life president Fr Pavone thinks the case will be going to the Supreme Court: priestsforlife.org/blog/index.php/fr-pavone-we-are-going-to-the-supreme-court-priests-for-life-case-likely-to-be-first-to-be-heard-on-merits
 
TMC said:
I think the court got this one right. The problem with Notre Dame’s current position is that they won the right not to be involved in the procurement of contraceptives. But they are now asking the court to order that the companies that insure their employees and students not be allowed to provide free contraceptives to any of their employees or students. That seems like an over reach.
Click to expand...
Considering that ND contract with that insurer they should have the right to negotiate the terms of that contract. Mandates, such as this one, deny ND the right to contract to contract with companies for the procurement of contraceptives. The overreach is on the part of the government, not ND.
 
Havard,

Not to derail, but love your avi!

90Domer (now 1990Domer)
 
While this wouldn’t solve the problem, the fact ND employees, who are, after all, employees of a Catholic university, are requesting contraceptive coverage through their health plan should perhaps be a primary concern for ND.

It seems to me it is the practice of contraception that violates Humanae Vitae and not provisions of health care plans that become beyond the control of ND.
 
TMC said:
I think the court got this one right. The problem with Notre Dame’s current position is that they won the right not to be involved in the procurement of contraceptives. But they are now asking the court to order that the companies that insure their employees and students not be allowed to** provide free contraceptives **to any of their employees or students. That seems like an over reach.
Click to expand...
Because there is no such thing as “free” contraceptives. Those contraceptives would be paid for by the money ND sends to the insurance company. Insurance companies don’t have a magic money tree that they can harvest to pay for “free” contraceptives.

Any claim that these would be “free” is simply accounting tricks.
 
"The Obama Administration has offered several modifications to provide for religious exemptions, but Notre Dame and other religious organizations have contended that in order for them to get the exemption they would have to sign a form making them complicit in providing contraception for employees. Notre Dame contends that the “accomodation” actually forces it to “identify and contract with a third party willing to provide the very services Notre Dame deems objectionable.”

And now we see the evil that will come from Obamacare.

And to think, many in the Church supported and encouraged the passage of this evil law…
 
zz912 said:
"The Obama Administration has offered several modifications to provide for religious exemptions, but Notre Dame and other religious organizations have contended that in order for them to get the exemption they would have to sign a form making them complicit in providing contraception for employees. Notre Dame contends that the “accomodation” actually forces it to “identify and contract with a third party willing to provide the very services Notre Dame deems objectionable.”

And now we see the evil that will come from Obamacare.

And to think, many in the Church supported and encouraged the passage of this evil law…
Click to expand...
The way I see it this is the source of the evil. If the Supreme Court rules this is federal law, what are Catholics institutions to do? The fault is then not ND’s. Not really. But ND and others should first oppose it as far as possible. It obviously concerns freedom of religion, and if the courts refuse to recognize the Bill of Rights, then it is what it is. We can only go from there, while making clear it has become the reality in the U.S.
 
Thomas_White said:
The way I see it this is the source of the evil. If the Supreme Court rules this is federal law, what are Catholics institutions to do? The fault is then not ND’s. Not really. But ND and others should first oppose it as far as possible. It obviously concerns freedom of religion, and if the courts refuse to recognize the Bill of Rights, then it is what it is. We can only go from there, while making clear it has become the reality in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Jesus did say something didn’t he about rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s? We all often have to pay for things demanded by our government that we don’t want to pay for.
 
Thorolfr said:
Jesus did say something didn’t he about rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s? We all often have to pay for things demanded by our government that we don’t want to pay for.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true, and it was about the Jews having to pay taxes to the Roman Empire. It was also in the territory of the Temple where talk of this subject was forbidden under Roman law. This is why Jesus would refer to them as hypocrites. Why he chose to do it in the way he did is not necessarily so clear.

Nevertheless, it is why (the major issue of religious freedom aside) if ND must ultimately provide health care coverage for contraception, the fault is not ND’s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top