[speechlesstx]

So they're just in it for the money? I'm going to use one of my favorite ministries as an example, the Christian humanitarian group called World Vision. You take a look and tell me what they do, ex. Check into their finances, too, it's right there on the website. You want them to stop feeding children because Obama has this cure in search of a disease? Are you kidding me?

[excon]

So they're just in it for the money?

Hello again, Steve:

I'm sure they ARE in it for the good works.. But, they TAKE the money, and that's the difference.. I'm sure the bill doesn't say DONATION!

excon

[talaniman]

That was an interesting read there Steve, and brought up an interesting idea. Can my boss take away my religious rights if they schedule me to work on Sunday? Can my boss make me work on any religious holiday I celebrate?

Can they force my kids to pray to their God, in school, or can my kids pray to their own?? Dude, when you limit government, and enhance religion, we look more and more like a theocracy, following religious rules than we do a nation having fair rules we all follow.

I suspect these religious freedom motives have a more insidious purpose in mind, and that's to minimize and subjugate the individual rights of choice for the individual. The events of the last few months seem to indicate, by vote, and legislation that the far right citing religious beliefs is again trying to subjugate female choices, and make them second class citizens.

The Person hood initiatives, DEFINING when life starts, AND the defunding of Planned Parenthood, to deny access to woman's health choices by DEFINING it as an abortion mill, even if 97% is about other health services. And most egregious the recent legislative push by the state of Virginia to invade a females body for NO medical reason, against her will. Much like justifying slavery by saying the slave were not real people, only 3/5ths of a human, to deny equal protection of the law.

Seems like the real conflict is against the needs, and rights of females to follow church doctrine, than it is against the freedom to religion. This is individual rights versus institutional rights. So the freedom of religion has to define what religions are so we know for sure where the institutional right end, and the rights of the citizens begins.

According to you, the church, and you can decide that, and all due respect right wingers, I would like it in writing through consensus, instead of taking your word for what my rights are, thank you. Not to mention the overwhelming consensus that most of the country is in agreement with the presidents accommodation to the catholic church, as balanced and fair. That only leaves the far right on the side of the bishops.

[speechlesstx]

Tal, there is no 'consensus' when Obama decrees thusly.

[tomder55]

fair rules we all follow.

Lol , what a concept . That would be the same rules where a tax code is thousands of pages giving one person or the other an advantage ?

Religious exceptions are a reality that predates this country,and it is well established in constitutional law... [Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption.]

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I'm sure they ARE in it for the good works.. But, they TAKE the money, and that's the difference.. I'm sure the bill doesn't say DONATION!!

excon

In other words they have no expenses? Dude.

And do you have any idea how much free healthcare these places provide? And as I keep repeating, it isn't just hospitals it WILL spread to EVERY community outreach program the church and parachurch organizations provide. You're perfectly willing to destroy the very good works that have been demanded of us AND our constitutional rights for this cure in search of a disease?

[speechlesstx]

lol , what a concept . That would be the same rules where a tax code is thousands of pages giving one person or the other an advantage ?

Religious exceptions are a reality that predates this country,and it is well established in constitutional law.... [Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption.]

Those would be the same "fair" rules that give $100 million of taxpayer money to assist the 1 percent in buying an electric car.

[TUT317]

Religious exceptions are a reality that predates this country,and it is well established in constitutional law.... [Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption.]

Hi Tom,

This is not accurate. A sincere objection is not enough.

If it were someone would claim a sincere objection to not being allowed to smoke marijuana as being part of their religious ritual The Free Exercise Clause requires the state to show a compelling interest in restricting someone religious PRACTICE. A persons religious beliefs and opinions are absolute and this is the only unqualified aspect.

Yes, as you point out the Free Exercise test was all but eliminated, but it was reinstated again in 1993. As I have been saying this clause has sometimes been interpreted in a narrow fashion and sometimes broadly depending upon the historical circumstances.

Tut

[tomder55]

Sorry Tut the "Sherbert Test" is still the law of the land . And nothing has changed about a law infringing on religious liberty if 1) the person or institution has a valid claim to a sincere religious belief, and 2) the law is a substantial burden on the that belief.
The contraception decision clearly meets that standard .
Now ,a more recent ruling.. . 'Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta'l.SCOTUS decided that the federal government must show a compelling state interest in restricting religious freedom.
Obama has not met that test either .
This also complies with legislation called the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act '. I would argue in court that there is absolutely no compelling state interest to force this mandate of a preventive waiting for a disease. And the only justification I can see for this is the hostility to religious institutions this administration has... it is clearly politically motivated .

[paraclete]

back to the original question. Here is a thought. This would not be an issue if the secular state didn't attempt to force its values on the church in order to circumvent the constitution.. So ask yourself what is a constitution worth if it can so easily be overturned.

Churches shold be allowed to provide their services within their ethical standards and if that doesn't suit some them let them seek service elsewhere

[tomder55]

Not only that ;but the President has just dicatorially decided that a company must give it's services for "free" ;a service he calls a financial burden to the customer. And here we were laughed at when we said Obamacare was a government takeover of medical care industry.The insurance companies may as well be the Post Office... well except for one thing... the Constitution gives the government the power to establish a postal system.It gives the government no such authority over the health care industry.

[talaniman]

I would argue in court that there is absolutely no compelling state interest to force this mandate of a preventive waiting for a disease.

I would argue just the opposite as its well documented and a common practice to prevent many diseases particular to women by the use of contraception.

Highly effective reversible contraception. Birth control pills provide highly reliable contraceptive protection, exceeding 99%. Even when imperfect use (skipping an occasional pill) is considered, the BCPs are still very effective in preventing pregnancy.
Menstrual cycle regulation. Birth control pills cause menstrual cycles to occur regularly and predictably. This is especially helpful for women with periods that come too often or too infrequently. Periods also tend to be lighter and shorter.
Reduce menstrual cramps. Birth control pills can offer significant relief to women with painful menstrual cramps.
Decreased risk of iron deficiency (anemia). Birth control pills reduce the amount of blood flow during the period. Less blood loss is helpful in preventing anemia.
Reduce the risk of ovarian cysts. The risk of developing ovarian cysts is greatly reduced for birth control pills users because they help prevent ovulation. An ovarian cyst is a fluid - filled growth that can develop in the ovary during ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary).
Protection against pelvic inflammatory disease. Birth control pills provide some protection against pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Pelvic inflammatory disease is a serious bacterial infection of the fallopian tubes and uterus that can result in severe pain and potentially, infertility.
Can improve acne. Birth control pills can improve acne. For moderate to severe acne, which other medications can't cure, birth control pills may be prescribed. The hormones in the birth control pill can help stop acne from forming.
Reduces the risk of symptomatic endometriosis. Women who have endometriosis tend to have less pelvic pain and fewer other symptoms when they are on the Pill. Birth control pills won't cure endometriosis but it may stop the disease from progressing. The pills are the first-choice treatment for controlling endometriosis growth and pain. This is because birth control hormones are the hormone therapy that is least likely to cause bad side effects.
Improves fibrocystic breasts. 70 - 90% of patients see improvement in the symptoms of fibrocystic breast conditions with use of oral contraceptives.
Improved excess hair (hirsutism). Women with excessive facial or body hair may notice an improvement while taking the Pill, because androgens and testosterone are suppressed by oral contraceptives. High androgen levels can cause darkening of facial and body hair, especially on the chin, chest, and abdomen.
Prevents ectopic pregnancy. Because birth control pills work primarily by suppressing ovulation, they effectively prevent ectopic pregnancy as well as normal pregnancy. This makes the pills an excellent contraceptive choice for women who are at particular risk for ectopic pregnancy, a potentially life-threatening condition.
Helps prevent osteoporosis. Several studies show that by regulating hormones, the pill can help prevent osteoporosis, a gradual weakening of the bones. However, the results of different studies are conflicting (1-3).
Does not affect future fertility. Using the pills will not affect a woman's future fertility, although it may take two to three months longer to get pregnant than if a woman did not take pills.
Easy to use. Does not interrupt foreplay or sexual intercourse.
Safe for many women. Research for over 40 years has proven long term safety.

And since men have insurance for viagra, why shouldn't a female have access to contraceptives since it clearly does multiple thigs that benefit a woman.

And the only justification I can see for this is the hostility to religious institutions this administration has... it is clearly politically motivated .

So its okay for states to make a law, but not okay for the federal government to have the same law. Did any of you figure out if Obama just said forget it, you would still be under the same law?? You lose under the EEOC ruling.

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."
.

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. (DePaul officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."

So yet again you righties blame this on Obama tyranny but this was long before he even though of being president.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!!

[TUT317]

Sorry Tut the "Sherbert Test" is still the law of the land . And nothing has changed about a law infringing on religious liberty if 1) the person or institution has a valid claim to a sincere religious belief, and 2) the law is a substantial burden on the that belief.
The contraception decision clearly meets that standard .
Now ,a more recent ruling ....

Hi Tom Nice try, but this particular aspect is not a faita accompli.

In your first example you state that ," The Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objections had a presumptive constitutional right to exemption."

Yet here you say,".....the person or institution has a valid claim to a sincere religious belief"

Which is it? What did the Supreme Court decide? Answer... neither of these two when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause.

Taken from Wikipedia Justice Brennan's quote in summing up the majority opinion, " To condition the availability of the appellant's willingness to violate CARDINAL PRINCIPLES* of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties".
(*my emphasis)

A religious objection doesn't wash. A religious objection can be anything I want it to be. I can always claim that the state stopping me from smoking dope is religiously objectionable from my point of view. However this religious belief contains no cardinal principles. The state can also intervene because it has a vested interest in stopping me from breaking the law. I lose out on two accounts.

The 'Sherbert decision' is saying that a persons religious beliefs are being burdened because they are going against the cardinal principles set out in this this particular individuals religion.

To rule otherwise would allow all sorts of nonsense such as ritual killings to go ahead in the name of a sincere religious belief.

Tut

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3030575]

Ni Tut,

No offense but you're going to have to speak in plain English for me. All I know is religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment, free birth control is not.

Whether that's the 'corporate body' as the church and its extended ministries or the individual matters not in my view. He is narrowly defining what qualifies as religious to those things generally found in houses of worship; faith, common beliefs, teaching and evangelism, etc. in order to disqualify service to the community as legitimate religious activity and burden the church to violate its beliefs or get out of the business of helping others. This is illegal, hypocritical and violates our rights.

Hi Steve,

I agree with what you are saying here. There no requirement for a persons religious belief to be codified in law. Up until now that is!

I am not a constitution lawyer but I don't think there are too many here at the moment so I will put my two cents worth in.

The bottom line for me is that a corporation enjoys quasi legal status. This means that one of the defining features of a corporation is that it resembles a person when it comes to freedom of speech and many other liberties. What it can't do is claim the right to vote.

The Obama administration is not redefining religion per se. Rather it is redefining religion for legal purposes. According to the legislation as 'a religious employer' I enjoy quasi legal status. In other words for the purpose of law religion can be defined in legal terms.

Despite what Tom thinks, freedom of religious beliefs and opinions is different freedom of religious practices.The first is absolute and the second is qualified. Here in 'lies the rub'

A quasi religious interpretation can give the state a compelling interest to interfere in religious beliefs. In other words, it will be a lot easier for the state to show a compelling interest.

This is what I mean when I say the Constitution may well end up backing you into a corner, What do you think? Is it possible?

[tomder55]

And since men have insurance for viagra, why shouldn't a female have access to contraceptives since it clearly does multiple thigs that benefit a woman.

Men do not have a "right " to "free " viagra . There are many things I take to prevent disease . Why can't I get them for "free" ? I take all types of supplements as preventives . I want my saw palmetto for "free " . I want my very expensive co Q "free" . I'm thrilled they found such wonderful other uses for "the pill " besides the reason the vast majority of women use it for (to prevent the disease called pregnancy ). However ,they are also finding many other reasons to take aspirin than for relief from headaches. Why can't we all get "free" aspirin ?
When the nanny state can make such mandates anything is possible ! Why not mandate that women take the pill if it's such a compelling state interest ?

So its okay for states to make a law, but not okay for the federal government to have the same law.

Actually yes .The constitution has very few restrictions on what a state has the power to do.

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones

Maybe so... what changes here is the religious exeptions . That is unchartered territory .Religious liberty precedes any state interest in this instance .

[excon]

Hello again,

Instead of starting a new thread, I'm going to shift this one LEFTWARD...

ENOUGH about church's... You righty's had a winner there... Then you turned your win into a loss. We're not talking about church's any more, we're talking about contraceptives...

That's a LOSER for you guys - a real loser...

excon

[speechlesstx]

How about you just talk about the constitution instead? Where is that right to free contraceptives found?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

You're missing it again... I think you do this on purpose...

I'm not talking about FREE or paid for.. I'm talking about your right wing co-horts telling women that they're SLUTS if they SCREW and don't want to get pregnant. It's having a congressional committee on contraception WITHOUT saying the word contraception and WITHOUT having ANY women on it.

The Limp one, Isis and Santorum are on that bandwagon... Looking for a link, but you KNOW I speak the truth..

excon

[tomder55]

Can't speak for the others . I don't march to their orders... I have no objection to contraception on the market (except the morning after pill) . To me this is only a question about religious freedom .

Carolyn Maloney of New York and Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, DC are both on the committee so your contention is wrong. They staged some political theater by walking out complaining about the witness list. That I suppose is what you mean by 'without any women on it '.
They were hearing testimony from religious leaders. I have no opinion on the political savy of not having female witnesses. The Repubics have been shooting themselves in the foot a lot lately . Just this week they gave the President another victory by caving in on the pay roll tax cut.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

You're missing it again... I think you do this on purpose...

I'm not talking about FREE or paid for.. I'm talking about your right wing co-horts telling women that they're SLUTS if they SCREW and don't want to get pregnant.

Dude, stop making stuff up. I think the problem is you guys want to have both sides of the debate without our input, commonly referred to in liberal circles as "compromise", "bipartisanship" and other bizarre euphemisms.

In fact Pelosi's idea of "compromise" or "accommodation" is even self-insured Catholic organizations need to get over their "conscience thing" and be forced to violate their beliefs.

It's having a congressional committee on contraception WITHOUT saying the word contraception and WITHOUT having ANY women on it.

The Limp one, Isis and Santorum are on that bandwagon... Looking for a link, but you KNOW I speak the truth..

Excon

So, basically what I get from your post is facts don't matter, the constitution doesn't matter and profiling is cool after all. My name is neither The Limp one, Isis or Santorum.

Now about that constitution thingy again, where is that free contraceptives civil right found?