Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:23 AM Mar 2016

Can Religious Groups Ignore All Laws They Don’t Like?

Or just those related to women’s health?

By Zoë Carpenter
YESTERDAY 3:01 PM

“What I don’t understand, Mr. Clemens,” said Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday, as she addressed the lawyer for a group of nonprofits who’ve objected on religious grounds to providing insurance coverage for contraception, “is, when will any government law that someone claims burdens their [religious] practice ever be insubstantial?”

That’s the big question raised by Zubik v. Burwell, the fourth challenge to the Affordable Care Act to reach the Supreme Court. At issue is a regulation requiring all employer-provided health plans to cover birth control. Some religiously affiliated nonprofits—schools and hospitals, for instance, and a group of nuns called Little Sisters of the Poor, which runs nursing homes—objected to the mandate, so the Obama administration offered them an accommodation: they could opt out of providing contraception coverage by filing a form stating their religious opposition, and the government would work with insurers to provide it.

The plaintiffs in Zubik v. Burwell argue that even filing a form makes them complicit in the process of providing birth control and, accordingly, violates their rights under a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Paul Clement, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, argued during Wednesday’s hearing that the opt-out process was akin to setting up a clinic that offered birth control in a nun’s home. It amounts to a “hijacking” of their health plans, he argued, a phrase later parroted by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is likely to be the swing vote in the ruling.

The objection to the accommodation, specifically, is part of what differentiates Zubik from 2014’s Hobby Lobby case, which involved for-profit corporations whose owners also objected to the mandate on religious grounds. In Hobby Lobby the Court ruled that that the companies didn’t have to pay for birth control coverage. But it left open the possibility that the government could provide an accommodation similar to what it offered the nonprofits. Now that option is in question. If the religious nonprofits win their case, it means Hobby Lobby, a craft-store chain, and other corporations who object to it would likely be able to fully deny contraception coverage, too, which could impact many more thousands of women.

http://www.thenation.com/article/can-religious-groups-ignore-laws-they-dont-like/

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can Religious Groups Ignore All Laws They Don’t Like? (Original Post) rug Mar 2016 OP
So, by the lights of the complaintent JackInGreen Mar 2016 #1
Only on Samhain. rug Mar 2016 #2
No Lughnasa feast on trespassers? JackInGreen Mar 2016 #3
For one hour. rug Mar 2016 #4
Everybody knew that the Hobby Lobby case... Jerry442 Mar 2016 #5
It implies a semi-feudal right of ownership of the employee's health muriel_volestrangler Mar 2016 #6
It's more an enshrinement of capitalism than feudalism. rug Mar 2016 #8
No. ..........................nt 2naSalit Mar 2016 #7
they never dare go the full way MisterP Mar 2016 #9
There is a resemblance. rug Mar 2016 #10
Any individual or group may ignore any law they don't like. TygrBright Mar 2016 #11
If I have not said it before, let me now say, I enjoy your adverbs. rug Mar 2016 #12
Thank you kindly! n/t TygrBright Mar 2016 #13

JackInGreen

(2,975 posts)
1. So, by the lights of the complaintent
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:30 AM
Mar 2016

We should be able to ignore the laws that we consider associated no matter how distant to our religious freedom?

Does this mean I can start to eat them? I mean, Celtic heritage, Pagan, come ON, I should be able to eat em, right?

JackInGreen

(2,975 posts)
3. No Lughnasa feast on trespassers?
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:37 AM
Mar 2016

and if I just FIND one that's edible, not too spoiled, do I have to wait?

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
5. Everybody knew that the Hobby Lobby case...
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:47 AM
Mar 2016

...would open the gates to a flood of absurd legal claims like this. I'm pretty sure that Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia knew it too. If they were too dense to know it already, Ginsburg told them. They just wanted to toss a goody to their tribe.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,306 posts)
6. It implies a semi-feudal right of ownership of the employee's health
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 09:04 AM
Mar 2016

"It amounts to a “hijacking” of their health plans, he argued, a phrase later parroted by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy"

The health plans belong to each employee, surely? Their life, their health. An employer has a duty, thanks to the American system, of care, which means contributing to funding (which is in their own interest anyway). But the health plan has to keep the employee alive and health 24 hours a day, not just at work. The idea that an employee can 'hijack' their own health plan by getting an insurer and the government to arrange contraceptive coverage seems to show they regard employers as having a lien on employees' bodies.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
8. It's more an enshrinement of capitalism than feudalism.
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:04 AM
Mar 2016

It comes from the same place that favors corporations over unions, corporations over humans, corporations over communities. Hobby Lobby and Citizens United are the icing on the cake. When CU endowed inanimate corporate legal entities with sentience whose free speech must be protected, it was a very small step to endow them with religious beliefs as well, which will be supported with the full power of the state.

TygrBright

(20,758 posts)
11. Any individual or group may ignore any law they don't like.
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 07:08 PM
Mar 2016

But they can't necessarily ignore the consequences of ignoring the law.

nitpickily,
Bright

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Can Religious Groups Igno...