Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 09:04AM

"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a last-ditch plea from Catholic groups Tuesday night to block a birth control mandate in the new health care law for religious organizations, just hours before it was to have gone into effect."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/31/22128010-supreme-court-halts-contraception-mandate-for-religious-groups?lite

Justice Sotomayor oversees the 10th Circuit -- the battleground for Utah's same sex marriage challenge.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 02:07PM

A few random thoughts about this.

It's not enough for Catholics to have protection of the right not to use birth control. They want the right to keep the choice away from others.

Notice the particular nuns who made the request are of an order of Catholic nuns in Colorado, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Nuns and aged people don't need birth control but they want to make sure they don't allow others the opportunity. (Of course I realize those nuns were part of a much larger movement that isn't just about nuns and aged.)

So, I have mixed thoughts on this..

I think this is more about the money but they are insisting it is a matter of their beliefs. I'm not buying that because Catholics themselves make it very clear they believe they can do what they want anyway.

I do understand the importance to all of us that we should not have to be forced to do things against our morals. I don't know the solution to this because we can't let everyone start imposing their various religious moral beliefs on everyone else.

All I can think of is that organizations who impose their beliefs on others, like in this case with birth control, should have some of their tax breaks removed. I don't think we should subsidize religiously run businesses and charities that are based on their beliefs but do not have to offer the same benefits as others who do not have tax breaks.

This is another case of not being content having the right to make the decisions for yourself. Rather it is about the right to impose beliefs on others based on something the religion believes others should be doing. I have conflicting thoughts about this.

So if the answer is "if you don't agree, you have the choice not to work for Catholics," just think of the implications for all the various beliefs out there. I say, fine, I won't work for Catholics but they should not get tax breaks that allow them to exclude standard benefits.

On the other hand, we all pay taxes for things we don't agree with.

This issue diminishes all the "no judgement" headway the Pope has been making as insincere. I do not understand why any Catholic woman enables this organization to keep women out of the priesthood and exclude her from reproductive control. Catholic women say they will do what they want, but the end result is an act of women's rights suppression from issues like this.

Will we end up with more religious-run businesses who only hire those of that religion who agree with the policies? Will we have more inconvenience in businesses while we find the person who will sell us birth control, pork, coffee, etc. so we can accommodate all the religious beliefs out there? Will we have to look in the yellow pages for "no waiting for us to find a clerk to assist you who doesn't agree with what you are buying."

I'm wondering if an employer should be able to ask a potential employee if his beliefs will interfere with the job. However this seems very wrong.

Or is this whole thing a tempest in a tea pot?

What are your predictions on how this will be resolved? I'm glad I'm not a judge having to sort this out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 02:13PM

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are your predictions on how this will be resolved? I'm glad I'm not a judge having to sort this out.

I honestly don't know. I think it could go either way. I dislike the controlling nature of organizations that want to tell insurers what they can and can not provide. No one is forcing nuns to go out and get birth control prescriptions. And ironically, there are other reasons why (for instance) the pill might be prescribed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: zenjamin ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 07:56PM

This is a very ell thought out and written point-paper.
Spurred thoughts here. Thanks.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 02:10PM

I don't think this will have any impact on the Shelby ruling.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 02:15PM

My concern is that you can't prove that providing birth control coverage is harmful. So if Justice Sotomayor issued a stay in this case, I think it more likely that she will issue a stay in the Utah SSM case. But that's just my uninformed opinion. The lawyers on the board will have a much better handle on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2014 02:16PM by summer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 04:23PM

B.Control prolly doesn't harm anyone, but forcing a religious group to pay for it crosses that line.

There is no parallel in the Utah SSM case.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: DeusExMalcontent ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 05:22PM

Insurance companies are being required to cover it under the law.

What the religious groups are demanding is a right to decide what healthcare services should be available to their paid employees under their employer-provided health insurance. And the principal plaintiff in this case isn't even a religious group, it's Hobby Lobby, a for-profit business whose principals are a couple of evangelical yahoos.

What if my Christian Scientist employer decides I shouldn't have access to healthcare in any form? Or my Jehovah's Witness employer demands that neither me or my family have insurance that covers blood transfusions?

Fuck the religionists.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stuntc ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 05:29PM

I see it as with SSM they're telling states that if they (a government) offer a service (marriage licenses) then they can't discriminate based on orientation. Basically it should end with homosexuality being a protected class like race or gender.

This is more like whether or not a religiously-oriented business has to offer a service. The parallel would be more like if they said they would offer birth control, but only to straight people or married people or something else that excluded people.

Personally I think this debate over whether they should offer BC in their insurance could be solved by having single payer. Then its on the govt and they don't have yo worry about it. Just like the worries about the govt forcing churches to perform SSM could be allayed by separating church and government marriage like much of Europe.

Maybe I should move to Europe....

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: DeusExMalcontent ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 05:38PM

To uphold the position Hobby Lobby et al.

The SCOTUS has previously held that laws of general applicability, not specifically designed to impede the free exercise of religion, are constitutional even if they have the incidental effect of impeding first amendment free exercise of religion.

The issue previously considered by the Court was the sacramental use of peyote by Native American religions. In the same vein, Rastafarians could not use the sacramental nature of marijuana in their religion to avoid prosecution under anti-drug statutes.

The author of the majority opinion was Justice Scalia. Although, it's possible he might contort himself into a logical pretzel for a case involving his own Roman Catholic church.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notamormon ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 07:46PM

I don't think that anyone should have the right to leave the Mormon Church. /s

Or do you believe that you have the right to your religious beliefs or unbeliefs?

It's called freedom of religion. It's also freedom of conscience.

The Catholic Church is not saying that YOU cannot have birth control, they are saying they shouldn't have to pay for it. It is against the teachings of the Church. The MANDATED coverage of birth control is new.

Birth control is an individual's responsibility and should remain so. We now want to cover so much that insurance is becoming more and more expensive.

And why I should have to pay for your birth control when it is so cheap is beyond me. Insurance used to be for catastrophic events now it's for colds and flu. That is why it is so expensive.

The government has decided to pay a whole lot less for medicare and the insurance exchanges are also paying so little that many doctors will no longer accept either.

It will be concierge medicine and heaven help you if you are not either very rich or very poor. You will not be able to afford medical insurance.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 07:47PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 07:51PM

Okay, thanks, Steve. I did see where Justice Sotomayor gave a Friday deadline for the response.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ddt ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 07:51PM

Did you mean the Catholic-owned Supreme Court?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: January 01, 2014 07:53PM

Catholics are like cats. Good luck herding them. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********  **    **  ********  **     **  **     ** 
 **    **  ***   **  **         **   **   **     ** 
     **    ****  **  **          ** **    **     ** 
    **     ** ** **  ******       ***     **     ** 
   **      **  ****  **          ** **     **   **  
   **      **   ***  **         **   **     ** **   
   **      **    **  **        **     **     ***