 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
Actually Speech, woman pay for contraceptives through their premiums, and the accommodation being worked out, due at the end of the month, makes it possible to get contraceptive coverage as an additional insurance rider outside of insurance the church provides.
Why is that not a good solution to the churches concerns and the females concerns? The church pays nothing, and the burden is on a female to have extra or supplemental insurance. Much like seniors on medicare. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They sell toys for profit, and pay taxes, therefore a business. But of course you think a religious person owning a for profit business makes it a religious business. I don't think so. Neither will the courts. For all the lawsuits by forty or so religious institutions there are still thousands that have chosen not to sue, and have indeed gone about their business and still perform abortions within the law, as well as other female reproductive health services. I doubt if that changes no matter what the courts rule. |
||||
|
||||
|
You apparently believe the only people who deserve any conscience protection are those who agree with you.
Cardinal Dolan said that, while the new proposal was presented as a solution to the narrow religious exemption, in reality, “the administration’s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries.
“It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education and Catholic charities. HHS offers what it calls an ‘accommodation,’ rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches.” Cardinal Dolan noted additional concerns prompted by the latest plan: “It appears that the government would require all employees in our ‘accommodated’ ministries to have the illicit coverage — they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children — under a separate policy.” Further, “because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies. “Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities.” Read more: U.S. Bishops Say Latest HHS 'Accommodation' Falls Short | Daily News | NCRegister.com The 'accommodation' is a charade. |
||||
|
||||
|
Not at all, the church and its members are entitled to their opinion, as are you also, and we are entitled to ours. It's the outcome of the policies and laws we are arguing about and for the record, I disagree with Cardinal Dolan.
The federal mandate does allow for exemptions because that's what they are working on whether Dolan likes it or not. Its in the court NOW!! We all await the outcomes despite the rhetoric and posturing. |
||||
|
||||
|
The law only allows exemptions for places of worship, not schools, not hospitals, not soup kitchens or any other extension of the church. I'm well aware of the court decision, I'm the one who posted it here first and thus far this administration has just rearranged the chairs as it is won't to do. I see no reason thus far to believe their next 'accommodation' will be any more serious.
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think there will be a limitted ruling regardless of how they decide. The fact that the court CAN'T ignore is that whenever it has come to a vote ; gay marriage has been defeated . I think DOMA may lose over the federalism issues I've already brought up on this op ,and Prop 8 will be upheld .
The court will not decide the cases this week so we should have plenty of time to read the arguments (but as Obamacare proved ;that decides nothing ) . |
||||
|
||||
|
Here is the 1st link I found on this.
My Way News - Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage ban The problem with Kennedy's position is that although he doesn't feel comfortable in over-turning prop 8... by not hearing the case ;the court would throw it back to the last court that heard the case... the 9th Circus. The 9th ruled to over-turn prop 8 .So by not ruling on a case for a law he thinks should be upheld,he in fact would rule against the law. |
||||
|
||||
|
Transcripts of the oral arguments are here :
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...transcript.pdf Audio here : Supreme Court of the United States |
||||
|
||||
|
Read and listened to the oral arguments. Best guess is that Justice Kennedy will take the lead and lead from behind. He was clearly uncomfortable with over-turning prop 8 ;but openly questioned throughout the hearing why SCOTUS even accepted this case .
Two things can happen if that's the case . The cop out way would be to decide that since the State of California did not defend the law ;that the defendants have no standing . But that was hotly debated by both sides of the bench. The more likely outcome is the least satisfying for both sides ;but one that Kennedy seemed to support .The court would dismiss this case as one that should not have been accepted. Should that be the outcome, it would have the effect of leaving the issue to be worked out in state legislatues ,and at the ballot box, one state at a time. A future SCOTUS would no doubt eventually have to rule on the issues brought up on the case. Today SCOTUS hears the arguments for and against DOMA. I don't think they can side step this case. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
View more questions Search
|
