Religion
In reply to the discussion: A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit [View all]eomer
(3,845 posts)Rather it is a definition of "Association with church"; it spells out what it means to say that an organization is associated with a church for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.
And the religious college does not claim that this definition in the IRC or anything else in the IRC confers the right that they claim, so this is completely irrelevant to our conversation. Rather, they claim that the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act confer the right. The court ruled that they will not decide the merits of that claim because HHS has promised to grant an exemption.
So, again, the court has not decided that the appellants have the right that they claim to have. Rather, the court has said that the case will be dropped if and when HHS puts a permanent exemption into regulations. At that point the government will have voluntarily granted them what they seek, obviating the need to decide whether they have a constitutional right to it.
Why don't we cut to the chase, I'm getting tired of debunking your claims because besides being consistently mistaken they are also irrelevant. What is obvious and no one, as far as I know, disagrees with is that an exemption for these religious organizations by HHS regulation is in the works. The exemption will keep the organizations from having to directly provide contraception coverage. But the employees will still get contraception coverage, just in a way that technically splits off such coverage into a separate policy that the insurance company is required by the regulations to provide at no cost to the employee.