1.3M a day fine?

[Anddenex]

Part of the problem, we are continually growing up in a nation where people confuse "rights" with "privileges."

This wouldn't be an issue if this line was understood. The drugs provided by a private or government company is not a right to anybody.

Employers should not be forced to pay anything outside of what they feel they should offer. My provider, at work, provides 80% easily of our cost for health-insurance. It is their right to provide what they want to provide, not the right of any organization, especially government to force their hand on speculative rights.

Companies shouldn't even be forced to pay for healthcare. If the company wants to that is their right, not for employees to force their hand through government.

[MarginOfError]

Part of the problem, we are continually growing up in a nation where people confuse "rights" with "privileges."

This wouldn't be an issue if this line was understood. The drugs provided by a private or government company is not a right to anybody.

Employers should not be forced to pay anything outside of what they feel they should offer. My provider, at work, provides 80% easily of our cost for health-insurance. It is their right to provide what they want to provide, not the right of any organization, especially government to force their hand on speculative rights.

Companies shouldn't even be forced to pay for healthcare. If the company wants to that is their right, not for employees to force their hand through government.

Single payer healthcare would be a great solution to that complaint!

[Anddenex]

Single payer healthcare would be a great solution to that complaint!

If I am understanding your meaning of "Single payer healthcare" I would agree.

Company healthcare also is a great solution, when "entitlement" issues are resolved. One good owner began providing insurance, now the government feels the need to force employers, through hefty fines, to offer what they say they should offer, even if it is against their religious freedom.

Employees who want this healthcare mandate, go work for another company who is willing to provide it.

Instead, people would rather make the government force them to offer what they feel is against their religious beliefs and that isn't right or correct. :)

[Guest]

This case is slightly different. Employers are being asked to cover birth control pills and morning after pills under their benefit plans for their employees. If the employees choose to purchase these items under these plans, then that is their right since these legitimate drugs have been made available under the HHS mandate. The employers may not like that some employees use these legitimate drugs that they do not approve of due to a misunderstanding of how they work, but that should not take away the employees right to have access to these legitimate drugs under this mandate. No one is forcing the employers themselves to use a legitimate drug they do not approve of.

M.

You are, once again, missing the point.

Say, I am an employer. I'm Roman Catholic. If I was to PAY for my employees' healthcare benefits, I would choose a plan that do not cover birth control pills because it is MY PURCHASE. My employees, therefore, will have to buy their birth control pills on their own with the money that they received from me in their paychecks because I am not buying it for them.

Regardless of what you believe about birth control pills, I, as a Roman Catholic, am going to exercise my belief, and you should not be able to force me to buy something that goes against my conscience.

This is the same thing as forcing a Mormon to buy your daily dose of morning coffee regardless of what anybody believes is the health benefits of coffee.

Edited January 2, 2013 by anatess

[Maureen]

You are, once again, missing the point.

Say, I am an employer. I'm Roman Catholic. If I was to PAY for my employees' healthcare benefits, I would choose a plan that do not cover birth control pills because it is MY PURCHASE. My employees, therefore, will have to buy their birth control pills on their own with the money that they received from me in their paychecks because I am not buying it for them.

Regardless of what you believe about birth control pills, I, as a Roman Catholic, am going to exercise my belief, and you should not be able to force me to buy something that goes against my conscience.

This is the same thing as forcing a Mormon to buy your daily dose of morning coffee regardless of what anybody believes is the health benefits of coffee.

I understand exactly anatess what your point is; I just don't agree with some of the arguments as to why a company should be exempt from following the mandate and providing coverage. The Catholic church has a stronger case for exemption than the Hobby Lobby group does, since they are against preventing pregnancy. The Hobby Lobby group however is against abortion, and that is fine; but providing coverage on birth control would not go against this employer's beliefs because the contraceptives allowed on the mandate list do not cause abortion. If Hobby Lobby can show that these contraceptives cause abortion, they have a case.

M.

[Wingnut]

I understand exactly anatess what your point is; I just don't agree with some of the arguments as to why a company should be exempt from following the mandate and providing coverage. The Catholic church has a stronger case for exemption than the Hobby Lobby group does, since they are against preventing pregnancy. The Hobby Lobby group however is against abortion, and that is fine; but providing coverage on birth control would not go against this employer's beliefs because the contraceptives allowed on the mandate list do not cause abortion. If Hobby Lobby can show that these contraceptives cause abortion, they have a case.

M.

When I first read about Hobby Lobby's complaints in this case, I seem to remember that the concern wasn't about regular birth control, but rather about Plan B/The Morning-After Pill. That makes a difference, I think.

[Maureen]

When I first read about Hobby Lobby's complaints in this case, I seem to remember that the concern wasn't about regular birth control, but rather about Plan B/The Morning-After Pill. That makes a difference, I think.

The morning-after pill is not an abortion pill. All three types of morning-after pills that I've read about state that if taken while pregnant would not cause an abortion or harm the fetus. If Hobby Lobby thinks the morning-after pill could cause an abortion, it would be on them to show that that is the case. A mere belief that this pill causes abortions would not cut it, IMO.

M.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Maureen

[selek]

A mere belief that this pill causes abortions would not cut it, IMO.

M.

Maureen, you consistently refuse to see the forest in preference to your deep fixation on a single acorn.

The First Amendment freedoms of religion and association guarantee us the right to worship who, what, and how we will.

Those rights are inalienable. They are not derived from the State and cannot be revoked by the State.

They are god-given and inalienable.

Unlike other laws which must only serve a putative public good or interest, laws seeking to constrain these rights are held to a much higher standard.

Government interference in these rights is permissable ONLY in cases where such worship demonstrates an immediate, tangible danger or infringes upon the rights of others.

THAT is sufficient grounds to reject this mandate.

If the tenets of my faith dictate that I do all my banking on Thursday, the state cannot compel me to deposit my check any other day of the week without first demonstrating that my failure to do so is directly impinging upon the rights of others.

It doesn't matter if YOU think the rule is stupid or not.

The Hobby Lobby plaintiffs believe that the goods and services in question are morally questionable (even indefensible)- and that being forced to purchase and/or subsidize these goods and services is inconsistent with their religious practice.

Unless you (or the State) can show immediate, demonstrable harm, then they must and should be allowed to worship as they will.

In this instance, they must be treated as any other conscientious objector.

What YOU think of their reasoning matters less than a gnat's spit in a nuclear blast.

Unless you (or the State) can demonstrate that their belief and practice are causing direct, irremediable harm to others, then IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Contrary to your laser-like focus on the minutia, the burden of proof in this case is on the State, not the plaintiffs.

Edited January 3, 2013 by selek
corrected spelling

[Guest]

I understand exactly anatess what your point is; I just don't agree with some of the arguments as to why a company should be exempt from following the mandate and providing coverage. The Catholic church has a stronger case for exemption than the Hobby Lobby group does, since they are against preventing pregnancy. The Hobby Lobby group however is against abortion, and that is fine; but providing coverage on birth control would not go against this employer's beliefs because the contraceptives allowed on the mandate list do not cause abortion. If Hobby Lobby can show that these contraceptives cause abortion, they have a case.

M.

You're still not understanding what I'm saying, Maureen. You are going by YOUR definition of what constitutes Abortion. I have explained this already - there are people (and they're not only Catholics, mind) - who believe that life begins at conception not pregnancy, so that anything that causes a fertilized egg - implanted or otherwise - to die of un-natural causes, is a potential abortificent. ANY birth control pill falls in this category.

You can point me to case law after case law including Rowe vs. Wade on what constitutes abortion it's not going to matter. Because, these people do not decide what is abortion by pointing at case law. They decide what constitutes abortion through their faith. And THAT is not something you can put infront of the courts. And freedom of religion provides that as long as the faith practice does not go against the enumerated rights of the Constitution, people can be free to believe what they want and practice it.

Edited January 3, 2013 by anatess

[Maureen]

...IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS....

It's my business if I have an interest in it. Who are you to tell someone, they have no business in discussing a topic, which is what is happening in this thread.

What's so special about Hobby Lobby and other similar businesses like it? They are not a church. Why should they be exempt from following this mandate?

M.

[Guest]

It's my business if I have an interest in it. Who are you to tell someone, they have no business in discussing a topic, which is what is happening in this thread.

What's so special about Hobby Lobby and other similar businesses like it? They are not a church. Why should they be exempt from following this mandate?

M.

What's so special about a random muslim convict that the prison warden cannot force him to eat pork? Same thing.

A business - even a corporation - is not a faceless entity regardless of what that speaker at the democratic convention says. A business is owned, operated, run, by a private person/group of people, that have religious freedom.

Edited January 3, 2013 by anatess

[Maureen]

Judge Carol Jackson of Federal District Court, a George H.W. Bush appointee, dismissed the lawsuit filed against the administration brought by a mining company and its owner, who said that providing contraceptive coverage in the company health plan violated his personal religious views.

Judge Jackson, based in St. Louis, correctly pointed out that the rule exempts churches, mosques and other houses of worship. The mining company — a secular, for-profit employer — clearly does not qualify for that exemption or for the accommodation the administration is fashioning to relieve colleges, hospitals and other organizations with religious affiliations from having to provide contraceptive coverage directly, by putting the burden on insurance companies. Her legal analysis, however, applies broadly, providing a useful framework for assessing claims by varied religious objectors.

The plaintiffs argued that the contraception mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that prohibits the federal government from taking actions that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that action advances a compelling government interest and is the “least restrictive means” of achieving it.

Judge Jackson said she did not have to address whether the act’s strict test should be applied in this case to a company because the contraception coverage requirement does not rise to the level of a “substantial” burden needed to trigger the law.

Any imposition on religion is trivial and remote, she explained. The health care coverage would offend the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an employee “makes an independent decision to use the plan” to obtain contraceptives; and that independent decision is no different from an employee using part of a salary to pay for contraceptives, which clearly would not harm the employer’s right to free exercise of religion.

The 1993 statute “is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others” and “does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own,” Judge Jackson wrote.

She also forcefully dismissed the claim that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion. Her ruling accurately said the regulation is a “neutral” attempt to expand women’s access to health care and combat gender bias, and applies equally to all denominations. Under legal precedents, the First Amendment does not exempt individuals or entities from complying with neutral laws of general applicability based on a religious objection, however sincere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/contraception-and-religious-liberty.html?ref=contraception&_r=0

M.

[Guest]

Judge Carol Jackson of Federal District Court, a George H.W. Bush appointee, dismissed the lawsuit filed against the administration brought by a mining company and its owner, who said that providing contraceptive coverage in the company health plan violated his personal religious views.

Judge Jackson, based in St. Louis, correctly pointed out that the rule exempts churches, mosques and other houses of worship. The mining company — a secular, for-profit employer — clearly does not qualify for that exemption or for the accommodation the administration is fashioning to relieve colleges, hospitals and other organizations with religious affiliations from having to provide contraceptive coverage directly, by putting the burden on insurance companies. Her legal analysis, however, applies broadly, providing a useful framework for assessing claims by varied religious objectors.

The plaintiffs argued that the contraception mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that prohibits the federal government from taking actions that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that action advances a compelling government interest and is the “least restrictive means” of achieving it.

Judge Jackson said she did not have to address whether the act’s strict test should be applied in this case to a company because the contraception coverage requirement does not rise to the level of a “substantial” burden needed to trigger the law.

Any imposition on religion is trivial and remote, she explained. The health care coverage would offend the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an employee “makes an independent decision to use the plan” to obtain contraceptives; and that independent decision is no different from an employee using part of a salary to pay for contraceptives, which clearly would not harm the employer’s right to free exercise of religion.

The 1993 statute “is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others” and “does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own,” Judge Jackson wrote.

She also forcefully dismissed the claim that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion. Her ruling accurately said the regulation is a “neutral” attempt to expand women’s access to health care and combat gender bias, and applies equally to all denominations. Under legal precedents, the First Amendment does not exempt individuals or entities from complying with neutral laws of general applicability based on a religious objection, however sincere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/contraception-and-religious-liberty.html?ref=contraception&_r=0

M.

Now you're hitting the nail in the head. That's the issue we are discussing here. Whether that religious freedom is impinged by the government MANDATING that ALL employers HAVE TO provide employees with minimum healthcare coverage that includes birth control.

The discussion should not be whether birth control is moral or not. The discussion should be whether the government can mandate healthcare coverage that includes birth control to those whose faith prevents them from purchasing such things.

That's the problem with a government who can mandate a private entity to buy something. Lots of toes end up getting trampled on. It would have been much easier if the government was just straight-up about it and mandated all businesses to pay more taxes that the government will use to buy everybody's healthcare insurance. Because, really, that's the end-all be-all of this whole thing.

Edited January 3, 2013 by anatess

[Anddenex]

Any imposition on religion is trivial and remote, she explained. The health care coverage would offend the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an employee “makes an independent decision to use the plan” to obtain contraceptives; and that independent decision is no different from an employee using part of a salary to pay for contraceptives, which clearly would not harm the employer’s right to free exercise of religion.

It does harm the employer's right to the free exercise of religion if he/she is paying for a part of the insurance policy.

If the employer is paying for a majority, or even a small amount to assist his/her employees with health insurance, then yes, forcing a company to pay for options, against their religious views, is violating our ability to honor covenants or anything else we have made with our God.

As they say the pen is mightier than the sword and when a person is able to seek to nullify religious freedom by penning "Any imposition on religion is trivial and remote" is astounding to me, more astounding that others who believe in religious freedom do not take up arms -- the pen -- and say "this is wrong."

If an employer wasn't paying for the employee's health insurance, then yes, no the free exercise of religion is not infringed, however if the employer is assisting with the premium, then it is a different story.

[selek]

It's my business if I have an interest in it.

Come clean, Maureen- other than the anti-agency and un-Christian impulse to control everyone and everything around you- what is your interest in Hpbby Lobby?

Are you a stockholder? An employee?

If neither is the case, then you are simply a prurient bystander meddling in other people's private affairs.

Just because you are "interested" in what goes on doesn't mean you have a right to know- let alone to dictate to others how to run their affairs.

Just because you like to snoop around bedroom windows late at night doesn't give you the right to lecture a couple about the conduct of their marital bed.

Who are you to tell someone, they have no business in discussing a topic, which is what is happening in this thread.

Huh. Guess you don't like meddling when the shoe's on the other foot, huh?

More to the point, we have a Constitutional right to privacy, to be secure in our homes and our persons, and to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures.

What's so special about Hobby Lobby and other similar businesses like it?

You are still (deliberately?) missing the point: the burden of proof is NOT on Hobby Lobby, but on the State.

It is the State which must prove that they have a valid reason to violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Hobby Lobby owners and employees.

The question is NOT why Hobby Lobby must comply, but is rather "How is the State justified in infringing upon their rights?"

But to answer your question, the answer is "Not a thing- which is why this intrusion is so egregious."

Hobby Lobby isn't special in that it should be exempted from this illegal act of bureaucratese.

The question is how and why the State justifies violating conscience and religious liberty of private citizens.

Hobby Lobby is not on trial here (though many anti-religionists wish they were).

The "mandate"- issued by executive fiat and bureaucratic whim- is.

This mandate is an extralegal and unprecedented overreach by the State into the private lives of business owners and employers.

The legislation which was passed in no way envisioned the extremes to which the administration's bureacrats carried the regulations.

The State has no business mandating that private citizens provide health coverage to their neighbors. That is, quite arguably, an unreasonable seizure and a violation of their freedoms of speech and association.

They are not a church. Why should they be exempt from following this mandate?

It doesn't matter if they are a Church or a brothel- they are being forced at gunpoint to subsidize and provide goods and services which violate their conscience and religious beliefs.

That is quite enough to invalidate this particular exercise in Nanny-state socialism.

Edited January 4, 2013 by selek

[bytebear]

Let's turn the argument around.

Say the government decided that for safety reasons, every person should be encouraged to own a gun. Now, rather than having the individual buy the gun, they decide that employers must provide guns to their employees. How would you feel as an employer who was against guns?

Edited January 4, 2013 by bytebear

[bytebear]

Let's turn the argument around.

Say the government decided that for safety reasons, every person should be encouraged to own a gun. Now, rather than having the individual buy the gun, they decide that employers must provide guns to their employees. How would you feel as an employer who was against guns?

[pam]

Then again I didn't start this thread to discuss gun.

[Maureen]

selek, your diatribe is a bit extreme and some of what you wrote makes no sense with the subject matter. The great thing about forums is that I can say what I think and you get to do the same. And that's about the only thing our posts have in common.

M.

[selek]

selek, your diatribe is a bit extreme and some of what you wrote makes no sense with the subject matter. The great thing about forums is that I can say what I think and you get to do the same. And that's about the only thing our posts have in common.

M.

Translation: "Since I have neither facts nor reason with which refute anything you are saying, I will instead call 'an extremist' and dismiss your arguments out of hand."

Given that your prefer beating your own dead horse instead of actually focusing on what I and other posters are saying, I can't really say I'm surprised at this tactic.

I will agree that you are entitled to your own opinion.

You are not, however, entitled to your own facts, nor are you- by virtue of your gender, political affiliation, or the divine right of sovereigns- immune from having your dogma challenged.

Before this mandate can be declared Constitutional, the State must show either a compelling, overwhelming interest which justifies violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens OR it must show that the plaintiff's failure to comply creates and immediate, irremediable threat to the rights of others.

Neither you nor the propaganda piece you cited have done anything to meet that burden of proof, but have focused instead on demonizing and disenfranchising those whose religious values prevent them from submitting meekly to your demands.

Edited January 4, 2013 by selek

[Maureen]

...You are not, however, entitled to your own facts...

What exactly does that mean?

M.

[selek]

What exactly does that mean?

M.

I believe the statement is reasonably self-apparent and obvious.

Your quibbling over whether Hobby Lobby supports the blue pill or the red one is irrelevant. Whether you agree with their rationale or not is wholly beside the point.

The burden of proof is NOT on Hobby Lobby, nor upon the hundreds (thousands?) of plaintiffs who are fighting this mandate.

The proof is upon the State to show that its intrusion into the private lives, private beliefs, and private dealings of its citizens are justified, unavoidable, and the least intrusive means possible of achieving critical national interests.

Edited January 4, 2013 by selek

[MarginOfError]

Contrary to your laser-like focus on the minutia, the burden of proof in this case is on the State, not the plaintiffs.

Problem solved. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a big proponent of expanded access to contraception precisely because of public health benefits. ACOG estimates unintended pregnancies cost $11.1 billion in taxpayer funds each year. The research has been done. Contraception is a public health concern.

You are still (deliberately?) missing the point: the burden of proof is NOT on Hobby Lobby, but on the State.

It is the State which must prove that they have a valid reason to violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Hobby Lobby owners and employees.

The question is NOT why Hobby Lobby must comply, but is rather "How is the State justified in infringing upon their rights?"

And at least one court has already indicated that this is not infringing upon their rights. So it actually appears that the burden of proof is on Hobby Lobby, not on the state.

Translation: "Since I have neither facts nor reason with which refute anything you are saying, I will instead call 'an extremist' and dismiss your arguments out of hand."

If the shoe fits....

You are not, however, entitled to your own facts, nor are you- by virtue of your gender, political affiliation, or the divine right of sovereigns- immune from having your dogma challenged.

The facts are in. Perhaps you should try reading them.

Before this mandate can be declared Constitutional, the State must show either a compelling, overwhelming interest which justifies violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens OR it must show that the plaintiff's failure to comply creates and immediate, irremediable threat to the rights of others.

Neither you nor the propaganda piece you cited have done anything to meet that burden of proof, but have focused instead on demonizing and disenfranchising those whose religious values prevent them from submitting meekly to your demands.

Judge Jackson disagrees with you. Since you can't be bothered to look beyond the 'propaganda piece,' I'll give you a freebie for your laziness and provide you with Judge Jackson's own words.

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. [it] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own. . . .

[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees. (source)

So before you go attacking other people over their dogma, I recommend you check your own at the door.

Edited January 4, 2013 by MarginOfError

[Guest]

Problem solved. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a big proponent of expanded access to contraception precisely because of public health benefits. ACOG estimates unintended pregnancies cost $11.1 billion in taxpayer funds each year. The research has been done. Contraception is a public health concern.

MOE, I'll just start with this.

The cost of supporting children with birth defects is staggering so much so that in the UK, they found doctors who send children born with birth defects to the "left to starve" hospice-style facilities.

I think all of us here share the same moral code in our religious beliefs that killing kids (after birth) with birth defects is morally wrong.

Let's say that the government makes a law in the healthcare bill that children with birth defects can be sent to the left-to-starve hospice (we already know this is legal by virtue of the Schaivo incident).

Now, let's say the government, to save $11.1 billion in taxpayer funds each year, forces Hobby Lobby to give their employees healthcare coverage that pays for the "left-to-stave" hospices for children with birth defects.

I think we all are in agreement that this is a problem in the law and that Hobby Lobby is justified in fighting this case.

The only difference between this scenario and the birth control scenario is that the people who find birth control morally wrong by virtue of religious convictions is a minority whereas the people who consider starvation of children with birth defects is a majority.

In the US, people don't go by majority rule - they go by the rule of law. Therefore, the law, in the case of the healthcare bill, can be challenged by a minority and the State has the burden of proof by virtue of religious freedom as outlined in the Constitution.

[MarginOfError]

MOE, I'll just start with this.

The cost of supporting children with birth defects is staggering so much so that in the UK, they found doctors who send children born with birth defects to the "left to starve" hospice-style facilities.

I think all of us here share the same moral code in our religious beliefs that killing kids (after birth) with birth defects is morally wrong.

Let's say that the government makes a law in the healthcare bill that children with birth defects can be sent to the left-to-starve hospice (we already know this is legal by virtue of the Schaivo incident).

Now, let's say the government, to save $11.1 billion in taxpayer funds each year, forces Hobby Lobby to give their employees healthcare coverage that pays for the "left-to-stave" hospices for children with birth defects.

I think we all are in agreement that this is a problem in the law and that Hobby Lobby is justified in fighting this case.

The only difference between this scenario and the birth control scenario is that the people who find birth control morally wrong by virtue of religious convictions is a minority whereas the people who consider starvation of children with birth defects is a majority.

In the US, people don't go by majority rule - they go by the rule of law. Therefore, the law, in the case of the healthcare bill, can be challenged by a minority and the State has the burden of proof by virtue of religious freedom as outlined in the Constitution.

Actually, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect employers to provide palliative care in their health care packages. In fact, my employer does provide palliative care.