The Upcoming Court Battle Over the HHS Mandate

[JimG]

“But if you’re an employer in America today, as I am, your signature can make you complicit in a grave evil, thanks to the burden the Obama administration has placed upon groups like mine when it comes to the objectionable “services” we are asked to cover in the health insurance plans we offer our employees.”

–Fr. Frank Pavone

The Upcoming Court Battle Over the HHS Mandate

 

[RCIAGraduate]

If abortion was such a private matter, it shouldn’t have to be imposed on unwilling parties. Many people are supportive of required coverage for maternal care and mental health services but this is too far.

 

[JimG]

If abortion was such a private matter, it shouldn’t have to be imposed on unwilling parties. Many people are supportive of required coverage for maternal care and mental health services but this is too far.

The HHS mandate does not currently mandate that abortion be provided at no copay. It does require that employers provide coverage for contraceptives with no copay, including contraceptive medications whose effect may be abortifacient. Hobby Lobby objected to providing this coverage, and was successful in their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The HHS also mandates that the Little Sisters of the Poor, and Priests for Life, and others provide such coverage, which violates their religious tenets. They are faced with either denying their religious beliefs by providing such coverage of facing massive fines.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I condemn the use of abortifacient contraception, by any woman who is sexually active, as a type of abortion. Therefore, I am against any legal requirement that compels employers to cooperate with this gravely immoral act in any way.

But some Catholics claim that abortifacient contraception is justified whenever the purpose is to treat any medical disorder, and that the woman does not need to refrain from sex while taking the medication. If that is so, then how do they justify denying payment for abortifacient contraception under the HHS Mandate? Shouldn’t they approve of abortifacients for a medical purpose, and only refuse to pay when the person has a contraceptive intention?

I think the HHS Mandate controversy may prompt a clarification from the Church that a woman using abortifacient contraception to treat a medical disorder must refrain from sexual relations to avoid the possibility of break-through ovulation and an abortifacient effect.

 

[JimG]

I condemn the use of abortifacient contraception, by any woman who is sexually active, as a type of abortion. Therefore, I am against any legal requirement that compels employers to cooperate with this gravely immoral act in any way.

But some Catholics claim that abortifacient contraception is justified whenever the purpose is to treat any medical disorder, and that the woman does not need to refrain from sex while taking the medication. If that is so, then how do they justify denying payment for abortifacient contraception under the HHS Mandate? Shouldn’t they approve of abortifacients for a medical purpose, and only refuse to pay when the person has a contraceptive intention?

I think the HHS Mandate controversy may prompt a clarification from the Church that a woman using abortifacient contraception to treat a medical disorder must refrain from sexual relations to avoid the possibility of break-othrough ovulation and an abortifacient effect.

In the Hobby Lobby case, it was specifically the provision of the abortifacient pills to which they objected. However, they were eventually successful in being exempted from the entire mandate, not just a portion of it. Catholic objectors such as Little Sisters of the Poor and Priests for Life, object to providing routine artificial contraception of any kind as a part of the mandate. The mandate does not make distinctions between medical necessity and routine contraceptive use. Catholic employers without an exemption have the option of violating Church teaching or paying fines which will put them out of business.

 

[JimG]

The Little Sisters of the Poor are Headed to the Supreme Court

thelittlesistersofthepoor.com/#littlesisters

 

[JPUSC]

No more reason to fight the HHS Mandate.

Pope Francis suggested, and it was confirmed by the Vatican and a Conference of Catholic Bishops, that contraception could be permissible in certain cases of emergency or gravity.

If that is so, then people should have access to them.

“Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil.”

Pope Francis

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.”

Pope Francis

“The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi

"He however usefully called attention to two important moral precepts: First, there may be circumstances that invite a re-evaluation of the judgment on artificial means of contraception; second, the prodding of conscience should always be heeded, as long as every effort is made to form conscience properly.

These positions are not in any way new. They have always formed part of Catholic moral theology and belong to the treasury of the Church’s heritage in health-care ethics."

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

cbcpwebsite.com/Messages/zika.html

They aren’t referring to NFP either since NFP doesn’t prevent the spread of disease.

 

[JimG]

Contraceptives are widely available. They are available in the U.S. nearly everywhere from multiple sources. It is not up to the government to mandate the provision by every employer in the nation. In fact, many employers are exempt from the HHS mandate, big companies such as Exxon, Visa, and others. So why lay this mandate on those who are objecgors in conscience? Hobby Lobby is already exempt, as a result of the Supreme Court win. Why should Priests for Life and Little Sisters of the Poor be subjected to huge fines for declining to carry contraceptive coverage? Should the same rule not apply to Exxon and Visa?

 

[kozlosap]

I condemn the use of abortifacient contraception, by any woman who is sexually active, as a type of abortion. Therefore, I am against any legal requirement that compels employers to cooperate with this gravely immoral act in any way.

But some Catholics claim that abortifacient contraception is justified whenever the purpose is to treat any medical disorder, and that the woman does not need to refrain from sex while taking the medication. If that is so, then how do they justify denying payment for abortifacient contraception under the HHS Mandate? Shouldn’t they approve of abortifacients for a medical purpose, and only refuse to pay when the person has a contraceptive intention?

I think the HHS Mandate controversy may prompt a clarification from the Church that a woman using abortifacient contraception to treat a medical disorder must refrain from sexual relations to avoid the possibility of break-through ovulation and an abortifacient effect.

I read yesterday that the male PILL is on schedule to be available in the next five years. I can just imagine how men will make their pill any different than women when it comes to using it.

 

[anon67074017]

We need to win this victory again at the Supreme Court. We already won it once. I have lost a lot of faith in the Supreme Court recently though. I think they will probably rule against us.

 

[JimG]

We need to win this victory again at the Supreme Court. We already won it once. I have lost a lot of faith in the Supreme Court recently though. I think they will probably rule against us.

With Scalia gone, the protections for religious liberty required by the first amendment are in some doubt. Still, the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby on religious liberty on the same issue of the HHS mandate.

 

[_Abyssinia]

As the following article reports, cooperations like Visa, Chevron and Pepsi are excempt from the HHS mandate but the Little Sisters of the Poor are not. I’m curious how the Obama administration would respond as to why.

 

[JimG]

As the following article reports, cooperations like Visa, Chevron and Pepsi are excempt from the HHS mandate but the Little Sisters of the Poor are not. I’m curious howthe Obama administration would respond as to why.

It would seem that he has no desire to punish Visa, Chevron, and Pepsi, but I think he would like to drive the Little Sisters of the Poor out of business or make them renounce their religion.

 

[Upgrade25]

No more reason to fight the HHS Mandate.

Pope Francis suggested, and it was confirmed by the Vatican and a Conference of Catholic Bishops, that contraception could be permissible in certain cases of emergency or gravity.

If that is so, then people should have access to them.

They aren’t referring to NFP either since NFP doesn’t prevent the spread of disease.

Was the Pope speaking ex cathedra? Were the bishops infallible in that statement?
You have to be…

 

[JPUSC]

Was the Pope speaking ex cathedra? Were the bishops infallible in that statement?
You have to be…

The bishops claim that “these positions are not in any way new. They have always formed part of Catholic moral theology and belong to the treasury of the Church’s heritage in health-care ethics,” and they know far better than I.

 

[Upgrade25]

The bishops claim that “these positions are not in any way new. They have always formed part of Catholic moral theology and belong to the treasury of the Church’s heritage in health-care ethics,” and they know far better than I.

So if the bishops say something it makes it true. Sounds antithetical to that quote you have in your signature.