Contraceptive mandate could face tough sledding in Supreme Court

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NewEnglandPries said:
Does this have anything to do with “Obamacare?” I thought it was a separate matter? :confused:
Click to expand...
Nope, its all part of Obamacare. HHS issued the order under the implementation of this law that all employers are going to have to include co-payment free provisioning of contraceptives (including abortifacients), no exemptions for religious organizations.
 
Nimzovik said:
I am not so sure… We will see what we see - when we see it. I have faith that Eric Holder will prosecute somebody for objecting…:cool:
Click to expand...
Looks like he’ll be busy for a while trying to explain away Fast & Furious.
 
Right now HHS is like a mountain. But it can be cast into the sea. Let our mustard seed faith grow into a huge tree.
 
I don’t see the Supreme Court overturning a facially neutral law of general application on the grounds that it interferes with the religious beliefs of some. The Court has repeatedly upheld other laws with similar infringments–and it is generally speaking the supposedly conservative Justices that have been most vocal about doing so. This is a completely different situation than the recent case concerning the firing of a Lutheran religious education teacher, which dealt with the breadth of the ministerial exception, which is not implicated by this regulation.

The mostly likely outcome is that after the shouting on both sides dies down, the administration and the Church will arrive at some compromise that allows both sides to declare victory and move on. The law does not take effect for a year to give time for that to happen.
 
The government is allowing the Church a year to decide how to violate its conscience and cooperate with evil.

It’s as if Henry VIII had given the English one year to formally reject the Church.
 
TMC said:
The mostly likely outcome is that after the shouting on both sides dies down, the administration and the Church will arrive at some compromise that allows both sides to declare victory and move on. The law does not take effect for a year to give time for that to happen.
Click to expand...
There is nothing for the Church to compromise. We can not compromise.
 
InLight247 said:
There is nothing for the Church to compromise. We can not compromise.
Click to expand...
Don’t be so sure. There are already similar laws in about half of the states. In some cases the Catholic hospitals and universities have decided that providing insurance coverage is only remote cooperation and have gone along with the law. (Maybe those institutions will change their minds in light of this development.) In some cases the Catholic hospitals and universities have struck deals to provide health insurance without contraception coverage, but to give their employees the money and access to purchase riders on the policies to add that coverage at their choice. I am sure there are other ways to work out a solution, and a resolution will probably be reached.
 
This may be a mute point if the Supreme Court decides that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Oral arguments are in March (I think)
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Nope, its all part of Obamacare. HHS issued the order under the implementation of this law that all employers are going to have to include co-payment free provisioning of contraceptives (including abortifacients), no exemptions for religious organizations.
Click to expand...
Its not true there’s no exemptions for religious organizations. Its just that their definition of “religious organization” is very narrow.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Its not true there’s no exemptions for religious organizations. Its just that their definition of “religious organization” is very narrow.
Click to expand...
THis is what I learned today. Catholic dioceses would not have to pay for health insurance for employees, which covers ABC, but Catholic Colleges, which allow non-Catholics to attend, would.

The reality is, it’s a regulation that no institution religious or not should be forced to pay for.

My guess is that it’s the insurance companies theselves pushing the mandate, because ABC is cheaper than paying for child birth and child care after the baby is born.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
THis is what I learned today. Catholic dioceses would not have to pay for health insurance for employees, which covers ABC, but Catholic Colleges, which allow non-Catholics to attend, would.

The reality is, it’s a regulation that no institution religious or not should be forced to pay for.

My guess is that it’s the insurance companies theselves pushing the mandate, because ABC is cheaper than paying for child birth and child care after the baby is born.

Jim
Click to expand...
That’s it in a nutshell. This is one of the problems with all forms of economics. Greed. You cannot legislate against it. It is found in every economic system from capitalism to communism. Its the sin of avarice, and it is part of mankind’s fallen nature. The solution is not government. The only solution is Jesus Christ.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
That’s it in a nutshell. This is one of the problems with all forms of economics. Greed. You cannot legislate against it. It is found in every economic system from capitalism to communism. Its the sin of avarice, and it is part of mankind’s fallen nature. The solution is not government. The only solution is Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
The problem is the for-profit health-care system we have.

Unfortunately, the same people opposing Obama-Care are the same people who oppose a single payer universal health care system.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The problem is the for-profit health-care system we have.

Unfortunately, the same people opposing Obama-Care are the same people who oppose a single payer universal health care system.

Jim
Click to expand...
Of course, any single payer system would run into the same problem. HHS could mandate what must be covered. Like the current HHS mandate, it could, and would, force Catholic institutions to violate their moral principles.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The problem is the for-profit health-care system we have.

Unfortunately, the same people opposing Obama-Care are the same people who oppose a single payer universal health care system.

Jim
Click to expand...
When you put the decision of payment into the hands of bureaucrats, you have the same problem of avarice. Greed is not only about money, its about power. The problem is not “greedy insurance companies” only, it is also “greedy politicians and bureaucrats”. You would advocate transferring the problem from one group of people to the other at the expense of the people who really matter in the equation…the patient and the doctor. Patients should be allowed to negotiate directly with the person providing the service. I am totally “anti-single payer” or more precisely, I am for single payer…the patient should pay the doctor directly. No government, no insurance.
 
JimG said:
Of course, any single payer system would run into the same problem. HHS could mandate what must be covered. Like the current HHS mandate, it could, and would, force Catholic institutions to violate their moral principles.
Click to expand...
It would run into the same problem on the issue of abortion and birth control, but then, Catholic Institutions as well as other private businesses wouldn’t be paying for health-insurance for their employees.

Bottom line is, if you don’t approve of abortion or birth control, don’t use it.

That’s freedom of choice which the current mandate violates.

Jim
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
When you put the decision of payment into the hands of bureaucrats, you have the same problem of avarice. Greed is not only about money, its about power. The problem is not “greedy insurance companies” only, it is also “greedy politicians and bureaucrats”. You would advocate transferring the problem from one group of people to the other at the expense of the people who really matter in the equation…the patient and the doctor. Patients should be allowed to negotiate directly with the person providing the service. I am totally “anti-single payer” or more precisely, I am for single payer…the patient should pay the doctor directly. No government, no insurance.
Click to expand...
Other countries provide health insurance for their people, and the horror stories about places like Canada, have been proven false.

We’re the only developed country on earth where people go bankrupt over health cost.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Other countries provide health insurance for their people, and the horror stories about places like Canada, have been proven false.

We’re the only developed country on earth where people go bankrupt over health cost.

Jim
Click to expand...
Obamacare does nothing to control costs. Insurance provides coverage. It does nothing to control costs.

If YOU want a government run single payer system, why would you force ME to participate against my will?

Its Tyranny of Benevolence. Tyranny causes more problems than it solves, regardless of the well meaning of the tyrants. And make no mistake, if you want to force me to participate in a system, regardless of how much I can benefit from it, you, sir, are a tyrant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top