Supreme Court halts contraception mandate for religious groups
Source: NBC News
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.
The archdioceses of Washington, D.C., and Nashville, Tenn., the Catholic Conference of Michigan and several affiliated groups requested the emergency stay of provisions of the Affordable Care Act that would require companies regardless of religious beliefs to provide contraceptives and other abortion-inducing drugs to their employees.
The groups want the mandate halted while the court considers a legal challenge, brought by the for-profit company Hobby Lobby, arguing that the requirement violates their religious liberties.
"Tomorrow, a regulatory mandate will expose numerous Catholic organizations to draconian fines unless they abandon their religious convictions and take actions that facilitate access to abortion-inducing products, contraceptives, sterilization, and related education and counseling for their employees," the groups said in their request for a stay Tuesday.
Read more: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/31/22128010-supreme-court-halts-contraception-mandate-for-religious-groups?lite
BumRushDaShow
(128,354 posts)By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 31, 2013
WASHINGTON A Supreme Court justice has blocked implementation of portions of President Obamas health care law that would have forced some religion-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance for employees that includes birth control coverage.
Justice Sonia Sotomayors decision came Tuesday night after a different effort by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the nation. Those groups rushed to the federal courts to stop Wednesdays start of portions of the Affordable Care Act.
Justice Sotomayor acted on a request from an order of Catholic nuns in Colorado, whose request for a stay had been denied by the lower courts.
Justice Sotomayor is giving the government until Friday morning to respond to her decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/politics/justice-sotomayor-blocks-contraception-mandate-in-health-law.html?hp&_r=0
weissmam
(905 posts)RKP5637
(67,083 posts)persecution of someone.
dflprincess
(28,070 posts)when Paul VI allowed missionary nuns in war zones to use the pill because of the risk of rape. This was after his encyclical on birth control and amounted to an admission that perhaps a pregnancy resulting from rape was not "God's will".
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)The question of birth control was going to be revisited around the time of Vatican II but Paul got ganged-up on.
A lot of married, lay Catholics presented good, solid arguments as to why this doctrine is hurtful and senseless, and he was actually open to hearing them. But then the swarm descended. This is an issue the Church needs to revisit, but probably not anytime soon.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Their power in developing countries depends on lots of ignorant peons dropping coins into the slot
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Overpopulation is one of the biggest issues facing the entire planet.
The ability to control the number of children a woman conceives is one of the biggest indicators of whether or not those women are able to achieve equality in their societies and earn money themselves that makes it possible for those women and the children they have to survive.
When your doctrine is harming the earth and half the population of the earth, maybe your doctrine needs to be revised to reflect reality. It's another one of those Galileo moments.
What the church is doing increases inequality, poverty, health problems, and environmental stress.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Dec 31, 9:25 PM EST
Utah asks Supreme Court to block same-sex unions
Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Utah took its fight against gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking the high court to suspend same-sex unions that became legal when a judge struck down the state's voter-approved ban.
The heavily Mormon state wants the marriages to stop while it appeals a judge's decision, which said banning gay couples from marrying violates their right to equal treatment under the law.
In papers filed Tuesday, the state asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to overturn a decision that has led to more than 900 gay marriages in Utah. Sotomayor handles emergency requests from Utah and other Rocky Mountain states.
Sotomayor responded by setting a deadline of by noon Friday for legal briefs from same-sex couples. She can act by herself or get the rest of the court involved.
-snip-
Full article here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-12-31-21-25-48
24601
(3,955 posts)circuit the case is originating. These were Colorado and Utah cases and both states are within the 10th circuit.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)District of Columbia Circuit - Chief Justice Roberts
First Circuit - Justice Breyer
Second Circuit - Justice Ginsburg
Third Circuit - Justice Alito
Fourth Circuit - Chief Justice Roberts
Fifth Circuit - Justice Scalia
Sixth Circuit - Justice Kagan
Seventh Circuit - Justice Kagan
Eighth Circuit - Justice Alito
Ninth Circuit - Justice Kennedy
Tenth Circuit - Justice Sotomayor
Eleventh Circuit - Justice Thomas
Federal Circuit - Chief Justice Roberts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Justices_as_Circuit_Justices
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)and she's got time to drop the ball in NYC. Surely, one of the hardest working Supreme Court Justices in recent memory.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Happy New Year
merh
(35,996 posts)She is a Catholic.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,570 posts)Anyhow, this was just a preliminary injunction or stay; it's merely procedural and would have probably been granted no matter who was making the decision.
merh
(35,996 posts)why do the religious get to have their cases heard by the religious?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)since we all know they are biased against religion. Where are all the agnostics when you need them?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Ugh!
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Obvious conflict of interest there.
merh
(35,996 posts)and no one else.
Never said what you posted and most certainly never implied it.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Why is her religion an issue but not her gender?
pnwmom
(108,951 posts)Should people of any other religion disqualify themselves, too, since Catholic groups are not the only religious orgs affected by the law?
merh
(35,996 posts)all religious justices should recuse themselves. Gosh, for that matter they should refuse to hear it as it is religion asking government to get involved in their religious practices.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)The Catholic Church chooses to operate as a business(hospitals, etc) as well as Hobby Lobby, and so they are not religious organizations, but businesses. Religion ceases to have any sway.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)ok but I completely oppose allowing private companies engaged in seeking profit like Hobby Lobby from opting out.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Ask them to stop taking our tax money first, then they might have an argument.
valerief
(53,235 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)MsPithy
(809 posts)If they want to be in business, they must obey the laws for business.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)the civil liberties of their employees.
The fact is, the majority of American Catholics differ from the official Church position on BC and abortion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its sickening.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)gratuitous efforts by the powerful to enforce their will on those under their control.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It restores my faith that there ARE some men that "get it".
Squinch
(50,901 posts)choose not to run hospitals, but if they are going to do either of those, they have to comply with the law of the land.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Up in Comment #1 it says...
"... Justice Sotomayor is giving the government until Friday morning to respond to her decision. ..."
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Checks and balances...no surprisetit made it there...should be intresting
freshwest
(53,661 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)You know, decide challenges to laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)my understanding is it`s about their insurance policy that is a self insured plan. under the separation of church and state it would seem to me if a religious entity is self insured they do have this right.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)...why should my employer enforce its beliefs on me, if I am not a member of the employer's religion? If a job with the employer is the only option I have, and if I need contraceptive medication (and there are other uses for the pill than just contraception), I guess I just suck it up and pay for it out of pocket? Costs of medication can be "draconian" as well.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Or some bullshit like that.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, render unto God what is God's.
Maybe these places just ought to hire people of like mind, and be like the Domino's pizza dude and go off and form their own community and leave the rest of us alone.
And they have the balls to continually say they're being "persecuted." They don't know the meaning of the word.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I will just leave it at that.
valerief
(53,235 posts)This is terrible.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)I'm surprised at SS granting this stay. Of course, I don't get the whole problem with the contraception coverage mandate anyway. It's freakin' 2014 and THIS is what we are forced to debate? I'm getting really tired of having to constantly pander to the "needs" and sensibilities of old-time religions that not everybody is a part of anyway. This is why we can't have nice things in this country. Catholics want to help prevent/limit abortions. Seems like allowing more contraceptive coverage could play a useful role in that.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)One standard for granting such a stay in federal court, IIRC (I'm almost always in state court these days), is that there's a fair question on the merits (i.e., neither side has an obviously ridiculous position), and there's a significant imbalance of hardships. Here, the argument probably was that if stay is denied and the appellants end up winning, then the hardship is that in the meantime they will have been unconstitutionally forced to act against their religious beliefs. On the other hand, if the stay is granted and the appellants end up losing, then the hardship is that some people will have to wait a little longer for insurance coverage for abortion or contraception or whatever else may be involved.
As to the first point, religious issues of this sort usually aren't as clear-cut as the DU consensus would make them seem. There are vast gray areas caused by the tension between two parts of the First Amendment: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Under the former, the government can't compel people to do things that go against their religion. Under the latter, people with religious beliefs can't be given an exemption from laws that affect everyone else. Such exemptions are therefore both required and prohibited. Sotomayor wants this difficult decision to be made by the entire Court after full briefing and oral argument by both sides. I can't fault her for that, under the federal standards for granting a stay.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)merh
(35,996 posts)exactly - if they are going to politic, against the IRS statute which allows them tax exempt status, they should be taxed. They want the government to help them promote their religious doctrines then they should have to pay for the services.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)the daily pope fellating?
Paula Sims
(877 posts)I can understand Sotomayor's decision to keep a level playing field "for now" but what about the final decision? When is that supposed to come down (has it even been taken up)?
The arguments against Hobby Lobby should be simple -- if a "religious group" believes that women shouldn't be paid more than $1 a day (and there are some that think THAT's generous) and can cite religious grounds, or not hire because of skin color or ethnicity or religion (we don't want no Catholics), does that trump federal law? That starts a slippery slope. ACA IS the law of the land are are fair wages and others. That should get to the heart of each member of the supreme court -- even Freddo...
The law is the law, it's constitutional, and people need to abide by it. Don't like it, elect those (and enough of them) to over-turn. And we need to keep electing MORE people to keep the law.
It's the elections -- stoopeeed. . .
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)Actual church groups ARE exempt. This is about corporations claiming the same religious freedom given to churches. Not the same thing.
StoneCarver
(249 posts)I know I've said this before- But if I start a business and belong to one of these religious groups, do I have to provide any medical insurance (for employees) other than prayer?
Faith groups which avoid conventional medical procedures:
The Body (a.k.a. "The Body of Christ" : This is a small Fundamentalist Christian faith group in Attleboro MA, consisting of several extended families living together in a commune.
Bible Readers Fellowship: This is a small, Evangelical Christian group in Florida. They shun medical treatment.
Church of the First Born: This group is mainly active in Colorado and Oklahoma. The sect promotes the use of prayer to heal; they do not believe in doctors or medicine.
End Time Ministries: They have lost several members in a number of states due to their exclusive belief in faith healing.
Faith Assembly: This is a fundamentalist faith group that shuns medical care in favor of prayer.
Faith Tabernacle Congregation: This is a Fundamentalist Christian congregation based in Philadelphia PA, which has "stations" from New Jersey to Africa. 5 It was founded in 1987 and currently has about 18,000 members. They teach their members to be consistent: to follow the will of God tenaciously as they see it. Some members practice this belief in the area of physical health.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm
katmondoo
(6,454 posts)thesquanderer
(11,968 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)unless its for a different, underlying, medical condition, and those that do cover them only cover like 3-5 pills a month.
former9thward
(31,923 posts)It is medical insurance -- not medical expenses. Insurance is supposed to cover large unexpected events not ordinary expenses. If you have Homeowners insurance you don't go running to the insurance company just because your drain gets plugged. Your post is why medical insurance is so out of control and expensive.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)It seems that any church has the first ammendment right to fully discriminate against it's employees regardless of race, gender, etc... Hosana Tabor -V- Equal employment opportunity case was decided 9 zip in favor of allowing the church to have the first ammendment right to discriminate. Why would anyone believe that the same court would rule differently in regard to forcing the church to provide health coverage that offers contraception to their employees, which is a direct violation of the church's beliefs.
Now for my own education is a woman's contraception needs really that expensive that this small group affected by this provision cannot find another way to afford quality contraception? Can't the state just offer any women working for church groups free contraception or why doesn't Planned Parenthood just stand up and go on the record and tell any woman affected by this decision that they will offer free contraception, or Is this really about more than contraception?
Lars39
(26,104 posts)and either usage should be none of your employers' business.
Igel
(35,268 posts)Given that we don't know the definitions of the words we're using, we're bandying about words and think they mean something when they're as meaningful as "arpil" or "frigulity".
Prescribe desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol and it's a couple of chemicals. Do you recognize it as something that can be used for birth control?
A pharmacist would know it has a variety of uses, all interrelated. It can be a birth control pill. It can also suppress the symptoms of endometriosis and allow for the endometriomas to be treated in other ways. It is what it is, but we usually name it for what it's used for. Then we think that's what the substance or object is, inherently. It's like saying a screwdriver can only be used to drive in screws. "Outside-the-box thinking" would allow it to punch a hole in a can of condensed milk or a person's cranium. Some uses are proscribed, some aren't; the same, I'm betting, for the sisters. It's not the substance, but the purpose.
The sister's object to "birth control pills." Not to "desogestrel/ethinyl estradiol". Don't use it for birth control and they're probably fine. Call them "birth control pills" and you're stating the use in the name. It's like selling a "thin, cylindrical flat-headed murder device" for driving in screws.
Similarly, there's this running debate about Viagra. It can be used to give a guy temporary priapism. Or it can be used to treat a real physical condition with psychological and emotional consequences. Viagra is marketed under a slightly smaller dose for pulmonary hypertension in children 1-17 and called Revatio. Drug =/= drug's most common purpose.
This is a distractor argument that gets away from the real issue involved.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)I get it now, and I am sure the nuns have rejected the use of all coat hangers in their closets too...
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Planned Parenthood is under attack like never before. Not only have their places across the USA been burned, bombed and staff murdered, but the Romaine Catlick Church has a bunch of nut jobs picketing the last planning clinic in my nearest town and "Counseling" (read intimidating) patients who go there for services by a bunch of rosary thumbing miscreants with photos of aborted fetuses. They call their Posse the "Shield of Roses" And at every turn they are de-funded.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shield-of-Roses/104462073079809
http://christendom.edu/chronicler2012/latest/files/fedc236df5adf4cf67914f5d40dc19ca-75.php
Mega Shield Protests Planned Parenthood
The group traveled to D.C. following the 7:30 a.m. Mass, and proceeded to pray four rosaries and sing a number of Marian and religious hymns while the clinics pro-choice escorts looked on.
Christendom Colleges pro-life student group, Shield of Roses, held its largest pro-life prayer protest of the semester in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic located on 16th Street in Washington, D.C., this past Saturday, November 19. Saturdays are big days for the abortion industry, says Admissions Director Tom McFadden who traveled with the group for Mega-Shield. I am always so proud of our students who travel the hour and a half every Saturday to prayerfully protest this crime against humanity, and especially pleased to see so many, over 25% of our on-campus student body, take part in the Shield of Roses Mega-Shield each semester.
I'm sure Francis will put no brakes on his flock who continue to perform this outrage.
Indyfan53
(473 posts)It's reasons like this why I left the catholic church. They are a misogynist cult and need to be destroyed.
Not even their new pope can stop their evil ways.