Supreme Court to hear ACA case mandatory contraception
- Thread starter RJKarl
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
I can't get past it either. The argument of the author is pretty compelling: If atheists don't have standing to sue when Louisiana directs vouchers to Catholic schools, because the intervening choice of the parent insulates the government from supporting the religion, why does a Catholic have standing to sue when the government mandates payments to contraception? If the intervening choice of the parent vitiates the atheist's standing, surely the intervening choice of the employee should also vitiate the Catholic employer's standing.
awaken
Well-known member
Employers should not be connected to health insurance. Employers should provide $$ to an HSA that their employees can use to buy their own insurance, with policies that accommodate their own conscience.
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
In the first case, there is a tenuous connection at best between the government and religion. There is certainly no impediment to the free exercise thereof. In the second case, there is a direct connection, as the government is mandating that an objectionable service be made available by a religious entity.
The for-profit versus not-for-profit angle is interesting, granted. The one thing the author seems to overlook in his comparison to the Lee case (or his description of the Lee case-- I didn't read the decision), however, is that Lee entered into business knowing full well the rules that govern it (and it sounds like he was just floating out some BS to avoid taxes). In the case of Hobby Lobby, they had the rules changed on them, and on a matter of religious import. I don't think the middleman argument is particularly compelling here, either, but parsing is what lawyers and judges do best. If you believe that BC is an instrument of killing, you don't provide access to the instrument.
Also, though not particularly relevant to the facts of the case, the author argues at the end of his Lee analysis that "hovering over this whole debate is a barely concealed sense among many that contraception**—indeed, any control by women of their own fertility—is a special constitutional area, that it is in some way questionable in a way that taxes and pensions and other benefits are not. This Court might write that prejudice into the Constitution, implicitly holding that as a matter of law contraceptive rights are suspect, and can be abridged more easily than others." The court carved out that special area already, first in Griswold, and then by sneakily invoking a passing reference in Griswold as a justification for Roe. It seems that he's perfectly content to recognize that it is a special constitutional area when the decisions go his way, but not so much if they don't. I mean Roe is the only decision that I know of that recognized a specific medical procedure as a constitutional right. If that isn't a "special area," I don't know what is.
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
Personally, I think there is a much greater connection in school voucher cases because state legislatures absolutely intend for and hope that the money will go to religious schools. I think you are missing the bigger point. It's not the closeness of the connection, whatever that means, but the intervening choice of the parent/employee that absolves the state/employer of religious connection. On a personal moral level, not as a legal analysis, I cannot understand the moral distinction between my employee using his salary for whores and blow and my employee using her insurance benefit to get contraception. Either way I am enabling the bad moral choice. I don't see how filtering the money through an insurance company makes me any more or less culpable (to be clear, I don't feel culpable in either case, it's between the employee and God). Under this logic, I'm a sinner every time I pay my taxes because the government is using them to murder people with drones. The courts have held over and over again that there is no standing for these kinds of objections.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
I find it curious that they rolled two for-profit cases into this one, but not a non-profit challenge. Now a corporation can be either non-profit or for-profit, but I have a hard time thinking that SCOTUS would view a challenge from Hobby Lobby in the same light as one from the Catholic Church. If they decide to parse on the profit/non-profit thing, can they make a decision that in effect says, "Fuck you, Hobby Lobby," but spares the Catholic Church and other non-profits? It would seem that with no non-profit involved, they might not be able to do that.
Wakelaw2006
Well-known member
I have no followed or read much about these cases, but my guess is that it will not be a proft/non-profit or taxable/tax-exempt distinction, but a non-religious organization/religious organization distinction. For example, the American Cancer Society (among hundreds of thousands others) is a corporation that is non-profit, tax exempt, and a public charity. It is not a religious organization. I think it would be lumped in with Hobby Lobby. Organizations themselves that are religious (probably defined the same way as determining when a organization is tax exempt as a religious organization), like the Catholic Church or Catholic Relief Charities (other denominations too, but I'll harp on the Catholics, since I don't know enough about religion to know what other denominations have problems with contraception), would be different because there is a free exercise issue for the organization itself, not its members or owners.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
There is a differentiation between sectarian and nonsectarian religious nonprofits and functions with the IRS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think churches have significantly less public disclosure requirements. Are they required to complete a 990?
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Actual religious beliefs? It's not like provisions against contraception in Christianity are just showing up on a lark.
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
I mean, that's kind of the problem. If you start giving out religious scruple exceptions to generally applicable laws, you have to give them to everyone, unless you want to start giving government bureaucrats the authority to determine whether someone's beliefs are "legitimate" or "genuine" or "sincere" or whatever other descriptor.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
I agree with this. I just know rj has a tendency to oversimplify.
It's exactly what my question was. It's not oversimplifying. If Hobby Lobby wins this case, any business owner can have a conversion to be a Christian Scientist and say "God will heal my employees. I want to be exempt."
There would be no way to keep any business from saying "my true belief is- exempt me."
There would be no way to keep any business from saying "my true belief is- exempt me."
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
The main problem with this argument (apart from being unrealistic) is that in a system like we have where the employer is expected to offer healthcare, such a situation would put the Christian Scientist business owner at a competitive disadvantage. They would not be able to attract quality candidates for available positions unless they offered more money to offset the lack of HC. But beyond that, it is perfectly within any employer's rights to not offer healthcare to their employees, whether for religious reasons or not. They should be able to do so without being penalized/fined by the government.
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
Interesting point.
Wakelaw2006
Well-known member
You are correct - actual churches and certain church affiliated organizations are exempt from applying for tax exempt status and filing annual 990s. I could see that as a dividing line too, rather than just religious/non-religious.
For more information: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
At the end of the day though, somebody, somewhere is making a distinction on which religious values deserve "recognition" and which ones don't right?
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
The IRS will shut you down if you make up a fake church where you are the only member and claim tax exemption. It has to be pretty egregious tho.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Making up a fake church will get you busted, but "converting" to a faith like Christian Science won't. Go to church a few times, make a couple of donations and you should be fine to cut all insurance if Hobby Lobby wins.
Since the moran has me on ignore, could someone point out to him that prior to the ACA businesses were free to either offer or not offer health ins to their employees and there were no mass conversions to Christian Science Theology to prevent them from offering ins to employees.