Page 18 of 169 FirstFirst ... 813141516171819202122232868118 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 3367

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #341
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Did we ever get an answer as to whether employees such as Hobby Lobby will be able to know which of its employees opt for contraceptive coverage using the same exception other religious institutions have gotten (and which is currently bein challenged in court)?

    Two posters made this claim earlier and it seems dubious to me. anyone in the health care industry know anything about this?

    Would Hobby Lobby really be able to see which of its female employees were using birth control?

  2. #342
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon923 View Post
    the better question is, why on earth do we continue to live with a system that now requires the government and the courts to inquire into whether or not someone's religion is "sincere"?
    What's the alternative? Ignoring religious freedoms? Taking someone's word for claimed religious freedoms?

    Maybe instead of constantly bitching about the Court we should elect officials who write better laws. Changing the RFRA, the Dictionary Act, or the ACA are all easier and more legal solutions than simply ignoring the laws as they are written

  3. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    From the materials I've seen, the problem is that the science is inconclusive. HL should be permitted to make choices like this in gray areas without its sincerity being called into question.

    http://m.theatlantic.com/health/arch...rtions/284382/
    Scientifically, there isn't really much of a debate. As both your and my article indicate, IUDs as an abortifacient is an exceptional, rather than a primary, mechanism of action. So here's the rub: there are lots of forms of birth control, including many that are HL's approved list, that are also abortifacients secondarily. If intent matters, then IUDs should be on the approved list because its intent is to prevent fertilization. If the purpose is to avoid even the possibility of an abortion*, then HL needs to drop virtually every hormonally based birth control from its list.

    *using HL's definition, as it's not universally accepted that an unimplanted conceptus is a pregnancy

  4. #344
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by DeacinBama View Post
    Scientifically, there isn't really much of a debate. As both your and my article indicate, IUDs as an abortifacient is an exceptional, rather than a primary, mechanism of action. So here's the rub: there are lots of forms of birth control, including many that are HL's approved list, that are also abortifacients secondarily. If intent matters, then IUDs should be on the approved list because its intent is to prevent fertilization. If the purpose is to avoid even the possibility of an abortion*, then HL needs to drop virtually every hormonally based birth control from its list.

    *using HL's definition, as it's not universally accepted that an unimplanted conceptus is a pregnancy
    Maybe Obama should have called you as a witness during the initial trial.

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    The statute the ACA contraception mandate supposedly violates in this case (The RFRA) merely requires that a religious belief be sincerely held.
    Hopefully my last post addresses this, but HL's religious belief is a finely tuned one - one that relies on science to distinguish between the prevention vs. abortion of a pregnancy. I am not contending that HL insincerely believe abortifacients are immoral. What is or is not an abortifacient is not a question of religion.
    Last edited by DeacinBama; 07-01-2014 at 12:10 PM.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Well, we can't have courts evaluating whether a religious view is reasonable because (1) courts are courts of law not ecclesiology and (2) church doctrine will not necessarily align with human reasoning.

    What else would you suggest?
    First of all, not having health care delivered through employers, so that my employer's religious scruples (sincere or otherwise) are not an issue in the type of health care I receive.

    More globally, I really don't see a need for a statute like the RFRA in the first place. The First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion from another. The Founders would not have liked the idea of a statute forcing the courts to become entangled in handing out exemptions from generally applicable laws based on their examination of whether someone's beliefs were "sincere".

  7. #347
    I guess it doesn't matter though right? It you sincerely believe something as part of your religion but it's factually inaccurate it is still your prerogative to accept whatever you choose to be your guiding principles right? There is no prerequisite of truth or proof in the first amendment.

    I just don't really agree that you should be able to exempt yourself from neutrally applicable laws because of your religious beliefs, but that's neither here nor there.

    The definition of religion could get tricky IMO. What it you have views that aren't commonly shared but guide the way you live and to you that's a religion? What's the overall criteria for this?

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon923 View Post
    First of all, not having health care delivered through employers, so that my employer's religious scruples (sincere or otherwise) are not an issue in the type of health care I receive.

    More globally, I really don't see a need for a statute like the RFRA in the first place. The First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion from another. The Founders would not have liked the idea of a statute forcing the courts to become entangled in handing out exemptions from generally applicable laws based on their examination of whether someone's beliefs were "sincere".
    Yes I completely agree with your second paragraph. If it's neutrally applicable then the test should be "was a religion favored in the passage of this" and if it is determined that the law (so in this case, mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives) itself was neutrally designed then there is no further inquiry - everyone is required to comply.

    I don't see "freedom of religion" to stand for a circumvention of a neutral law, because then you're giving free passes to people who hold a belief for a religious reason but not those who hold the same belief for a secular reason. In the instant case you are not covered as an employer if you believe that contraceptives are enabling dangerous activities for society, but you are if you believe they are immoral. Same end belief, different rationale, and we give preference to religious beliefs.

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    I guess it doesn't matter though right? It you sincerely believe something as part of your religion but it's factually inaccurate it is still your prerogative to accept whatever you choose to be your guiding principles right? There is no prerequisite of truth or proof in the first amendment.
    Unless HL's religion requires it to believe that IUDs are abortifacients and OCPs are not, then this doesn't make any sense. I could sincerely hold a religious belief that it's moral for me to marry my dog, but does not make my cat a dog.

  10. #350

    SCOTUS decisions

    That's why exempting religions is ridiculous IMO. Religions don't require facts, just beliefs. Sincerely believing something that is categorized as a religion is the only requirement to pass that threshold.

    It doesn't matter if it's factually accurate that Jesus was the son of god or not. Believing that makes you christian, there are no facts involved.

    It's a fine line though for the government to make a law that says "this isn't true" since that then infringes on your religious freedom (advocating one view over another on a religious matter).

  11. #351
    I'm having a hard time distinguishing "religion" from "set of beliefs" though. The former has protection but the latter doesn't unless it is part of the former.

  12. #352
    I like the idea of removing the employer from the equation and just let people buy the products they want, using some baseline of coverage. There are some negatives with this but it might be direction we need to go for the greater good. We need to get out of this "I object" mindset.

    It just kills me in 2014 we are debating contraception. One of the many reasons I think European style single payer would be an epic calamity here. I still think the dumb mistake was to require contraception to be covered at 100% under the preventive care guidance. Cover it sure, but have some cost share. That's my beef. I also want to know why condoms aren't covered! Thanks Nancy Pelosi.

    On a positive note, I feel smarter today now that I've learned what abortifacient means.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    That's why exempting religions is ridiculous IMO. Religions don't require facts, just beliefs. Sincerely believing something that is categorized as a religion is the only requirement to pass that threshold.

    It doesn't matter if it's factually accurate that Jesus was the son of god or not. Believing that makes you christian, there are no facts involved.

    It's a fine line though for the government to make a law that says "this isn't true" since that then infringes on your religious freedom (advocating one view over another on a religious matter).
    No, but it does matter whether or not that belief is actually held by the religion in question. In this instance, HL's espoused belief is that abortion is wrong. To my knowledge, they do not hold a religious tenet that specifies which forms of birth control cause abortions. Therefore, this determination does not deserve the protection afforded to sincerely-held religious beliefs.

  14. #354
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by CHDeac View Post
    I like the idea of removing the employer from the equation and just let people buy the products they want, using some baseline of coverage. There are some negatives with this but it might be direction we need to go for the greater good. We need to get out of this "I object" mindset.

    It just kills me in 2014 we are debating contraception. One of the many reasons I think European style single payer would be an epic calamity here. I still think the dumb mistake was to require contraception to be covered at 100% under the preventive care guidance. Cover it sure, but have some cost share. That's my beef. I also want to know why condoms aren't covered! Thanks Nancy Pelosi.

    On a positive note, I feel smarter today now that I've learned what abortifacient means.
    The problem is acquiring customers for either a for profit or non-profit HC provider becomes much, much more expensive if BC/BS or Kaiser have to get each of the 20,000 people at HL or the 250,000+ Target employees.

  15. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    With respect to your second paragraph, you have a democratic congress and Bill Clinton to thank for RFRA. Scalia tried to limit the FE Clause to preclude exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability, but the 103d wouldn't let him.

    Oops.
    I don't think it really matters to 923 where the RFRA came from. He's not a partisan hack like you and me

  16. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    The question isn't whether it a belief is held "by the religion in question." The inquiry is specific to the individual.
    Okay, but that doesn't change my point. Is any individual from HL claiming that their religion spells out which types of birth control cause abortions?

  17. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    With respect to your second paragraph, you have a democratic congress and Bill Clinton to thank for RFRA. Scalia tried to limit the FE Clause to preclude exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability, but the 103d wouldn't let him.

    Oops.
    Correct. It was unanimous in the House and only three dissenters in the Senate so while it was a democratic Congress it wasn't like it was a controversial bill. I would have been up in arms if that shit were up for vote now though.

  18. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by DeacinBama View Post
    No, but it does matter whether or not that belief is actually held by the religion in question. In this instance, HL's espoused belief is that abortion is wrong. To my knowledge, they do not hold a religious tenet that specifies which forms of birth control cause abortions. Therefore, this determination does not deserve the protection afforded to sincerely-held religious beliefs.
    It does matter though because the inquiry is whether or not an individual believes it, not that it's held by the religion they cite.

    Which again, is absolutely ridiculous.

  19. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    It does matter though because the inquiry is whether or not an individual believes it, not that it's held by the religion they cite.

    Which again, is absolutely ridiculous.
    But the belief still has to grounded in that individual's religion, right? So, same question to you, has any individual from HL asserted that his/her religion mandates he/she believes that IUDs are an abortifacient and OCPs are not?

  20. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    I don't know what the testimony was at the trial court, but it seems to me that unless the evidence was that there is literally 0% chance that the contraceptive is an abortifacient and that fact could be demonstrated to a 100% certainty, the sincerity of HL's belief shouldn't be questioned on these grounds. My guess is that HL hired an expert who created a question of fact on that issue.
    Then I'll refer you to my earlier post about how HL's argument is therefore internally inconsistent. HL should also be opposed to paying for birth control that uses hormones, as the chance that it, too, is an abortifacient is some percentage greater than zero.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •