The Roman Catholic Church says that contraception is a sin, and that therefore providing contraception is a sin. The same church also believes it is their duty to provide health care through hospitals, and education through schools and universities. Those institutions are, if anything is, establishments of religion.
So it seems obvious to me to say that government forcing those institutions to commit a sin violates the First Amendment's prohibition of laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But that's precisely what President Obama is threatening to do, should he win another term: force an establishment of religion to commit a sin.
I don't even believe contraception is a sin, personally; but I respect the right of people to refuse to engage in an act they believe is wrong. If they want to cause direct harm to others, I'll stand against it; but if they simply want to say, "we believe this is wrong, so we won't do it" ... that, to me, defines freedom, including religious freedom.
If you have a different opinion on the law here, I'm all ears. But if you want to talk about women's health issues, please, don't bother. The First Amendment rights of people being forced to buy things for other people is more important than the "right" of those people to have those things bought for them, and I refuse to entertain discussion about that subordinate issue unless someone can first demonstrate that the First Amendment is not being violated.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 09, 2012 08:12 PM | Email ThisThe progressives are actively working to control every aspect of our lives through this system. As they "give" us more and more of the food they eat, they exercise more control over our diet. Look at the reports from California where school lunches are now serving food that is so healthy and nutritious that students are unwilling to eat the bland tasting slop.
Our auto manufacturers are now dependent on government largesse. Thus they are forced to build crap like the Chevy Volt that no one wants to buy. Ford resisted the bailout, and is now being silently squeezed out of the government motorpool market. They don't take the federal aid, so all levels of government work in unspoken concert to squeeze them out of the marketplace. I have seen half a dozen news reports of cop shops and other motorpools shifting from Fords to Chevys. All to support Obama's subsidized Government Motors.
They won't be happy until they tell us where to live, what to eat, what to wear, and how we live our lives. It's funny, Hollywood loves to show dystopian futures where the big corporations have made our lives miserable. That may be coming, but it won't be the corporations who lead us into a Blade Runner or Soylent Green lifestyle.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on February 9, 2012 08:39 PM(Full disclosure, I don't believe contraception is a sin either. But the Federal Government is too big.)
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 9, 2012 08:59 PMThen again, I know of women who use the pill to regulate their periods to reduce the agony rather than for contraception, so I would guess in those cases the Catholic church wouldn't look as their use as a sin...then I really don't know where they are coming from.
However, I don't see why Catholics should be the only ones allowed a waiver for religious views on this subject.
Posted by: doug on February 9, 2012 09:28 PMAnd here is the thin tip of that wedge:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/congress-motorcycle-checkpoints.html
Congress giving out grants to states to enforce federal motorcycle safety preferences. What? Since when was motorcycle licensing part of Federal interest? It probably has a lot to do with Obamacare. Right now the progressives and big government types are going after the smokers and fat people. How long before they try to minimize all risk and medical expenses by banning motorcycles, sky diving, contact sports, and any other part of life that could slightly increase the use of the government run/subsidized/controlled medical establishment? There was a story earlier this week that LA beaches were going to ban frisbees, footballs, and digging holes. All for fear that people would hurt themselves. Another sacrifice of freedom in exchange for apparent security and lowering of medical system usage.
They are already trying to do it in the government mandated/subsidized/controlled education system by effectively banning swings, teeter totters, jungle gyms, tag, dodgeball, etc, etc, etc.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on February 9, 2012 11:26 PM
That must have been when there were less people and the people that there were, likely were far more orthodox than today, or even 2000 years ago.
The Roman Catholic Church position is much more moderate: that contracepted sex is sinful. That nothing but nature should come between your seed and her egg. But even the story of Onan you reference, in my view, does not make this clear.
In the story, Onan's brother died and it was Onan's obligation to give children to his brother's widow, on his behalf.
Onan's "wickedness" was primarily in refusing to provide children to Tamar, but still having sex with her, intentionally withdrawing so she would not conceive. It's not about sex for non-procreation, it's about having sex with a woman purportedly for the purpose of procreation, to fulfill an obligation, and having the sex but bailing on that obligation.
So even if you disagree with my interpretation and think the RCC position is the correct one, I'll still assert that the passage is not "pretty clear" that contraception is sinful (let alone "sex for non-procreation").
When we go against what the holy spirit is telling us to do, we are sinning. Fortunately, we have Christ himself to carry our sins for us, since I don't know anyone, including myself, capable of always following God's will through the holy spirit.
As explained through Paul's letters to the Corinthians (I believe that is where it is) sexual activity within marriage (let's assume outside marriage is a sin and doesn't need touched upon) is neither holy nor un-holy. This falls into the category, IMO, of not following our purpose here on earth, but following our own desires, hence a sin.
Not sure what religion this is, but it pretty much explains my beliefs.
Posted by: doug on February 10, 2012 12:34 AMI'm not catholic, but this one is a real outrage. If they can trample all over the catholics, they can just move onto the next group and repeat in some other way. Therefore, we all must stand with the catholics even if we disagree with them on certain things.
Already called Cantwell's and Murray's today, just to add my voice to the others who recognize that leftist extremist Obama is trampling all over people's rights in an egregious way with this.
Catholics, protestants, and any other religious groups who see where this is going must gear up en masse to vote OUT this president and his wicked administration. Why is it wicked? Since when does a president have the right to force people to do things they can't in good conscience do? This is very, very dangerous.
Posted by: Michele on February 10, 2012 12:40 AMYou surely don't get that from the Bible. It's just not in there. The Bible never implies, in any way, that doing something "not holy" is sinful. On the contrary, Paul says that everything is lawful (i.e., "not sinful") for us. Scratching my nose isn't holy, but it's not sinful, either.
That said, God says in the Bible to love your wife, and that means physically, too, and that may very well mean having sex when you both know that she's incapable of procreation. I don't know if it's "holy," but it is certainly not sinful, because it's part of how human couples show love, and the Bible tells husbands to love their wives.
I don't know what religion your beliefs are, either, but it's not what the Bible says.
To any serious belief of conscience, where the exercise of that freedom does not directly harm others.
I read this morning about one of the Catholic heads (non-clergy) that was involved in the discussions gave the example of owning a Taco Bell and being Catholic not necessarily wanting to offer the coverage because of his religion.
Well, in that case, I'd say that of course, NO business owner should be forced to provide ANY health insurance to ANY employee. That seems obvious to me, but at that point, I say it's not about religion, but about pursuit of happiness, freedom of association, and states' rights.
What makes these Catholic organizations different from a Taco Bell is that hospitals and universities are part of the Church's religious mandate. Taco Bell isn't. So even if we accept that a mandate is reasonable (and I say it's not), we must have religious exemptions for religious organizations, which these institutions are. It's not merely a business owned by people of a particular religious belief set, but the organization is an important part of their religious mission. (Note that we have nonprofit hospitals and universities ... but not Taco Bells.)
Vasectomy or sterilization is also not allowed by the Catholic church. These are potentially much more expensive procedures. It's not unusual for women to elect to have their tubes tied after their last child is delivered.
Posted by: ExPatBrit on February 10, 2012 09:58 AMThat said, I completely understand and support the objection to being compelled to pay for contraceptives to others.
What I don't understand is why you would take something that is readily available, and an expectable, budgetable cost-competitive item, and move it into something called 'insurance', with increased overhead and lack of price sensitivity. 'Insurance' is supposed to cover uncertainties.
Why would you deliberately strip the price sensitivity from a consumer product?
It seems to me that 'bends the cost curve' up rather than down. That is exactly opposite one of the stated objectives of PPACA.
Posted by: Dishman on February 10, 2012 10:00 AMHowso?
Vasectomy or sterilization is also not allowed by the Catholic church.
So what's the problem?
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2012 10:06 AMThis is the same guy who dictates to the Senate whether they are in recess. He is now dictating to a religious organization whether they are a religious organization, and what their beliefs should be, and how to express them.
This is the same guy who, the day he took office, told those of us who disagreed with his vision that "the ground has shifted beneath" us: that our concerns about government control "no longer apply."
I believed he meant that.
Should I be allowed, as a straight Christian male, to be able to marry a woman who cannot conceive a child for a medical reason? If I make love to my barren wife, are we sinning? What if I'm the infertile one, shooting blanks?
For all:
What if, as mentioned, the contraceptives are used for non-contraceptive medical reasons? There are a whole host of legitimate, widely accepted reasons for this. The standard birth control pill for control of excessively irregular and painful menstrual periods is one such valid medical reason.
Since it is illegal for your employer to be given--or request as any condition of employment--access to the details of your medical record, how could any church or religious person thus proclaim a female employee has an invalid reason for the hormonal medical treatment? Catch-22, there.
Posted by: What about society? on February 10, 2012 10:23 AMThe Catholic Church needs to wake up and smell the coffee: contraception makes sense if Catholics are to have any real quality of life. What did the Catholic Church's rules against contraception do to the Irish except keep them in poverty and indirectly support the oppression by the British for the past 800 years.
Here's what you Catholics need to demand of your church: open support for contraception and abortion, women priests and married priests, regardless of gender. You church is stuck in the Twelth Century and not doing anything to join us all in the modern world. In short, if your church continues as it is now, it will become an interesting anachronism and will eventually die-out. The pope and all the other Cathoic churchmen are no more in touch with the Supreme Being than anybody else in the universe. You don't need them to follow your beliefs.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on February 10, 2012 10:35 AMI know a woman one of those with legitimate medical reasons. Untreated, it is life-threatening.
She pays for her own treatment. The expense is nominal, in part because she has the option of and motivation to choose the lowest priced treatment that suffices.
Why would you break that price structure?
Breaking that would increase the price, and end up pushing it back into the overall cost of insurance, which ultimately is part of employee compensation.
It doesn't actually buy anyone (other than Big Pharma) that much, and costs everyone more.
Posted by: Dishman on February 10, 2012 10:51 AMOriginally, yes, But most US health plans (and most developed nations) cover predictable medical services such as check-ups as well. What a remarkable coincidence that the only exception would be a service primarily used by women involving several issues that have historically been linked to women's independence (sex, single parenting) and a male-driven religious hierarchy (the Catholic church).
Posted by: jik on February 10, 2012 11:08 AMFalse.
Maybe back in the Twelth Century, when infant mortality was 50%, church rules against contraception made sense
You have a false belief: that the RCC position on contraception is based on infant mortality rates, rather than their belief about what the Bible teaches is God's command. It's not about what you or anyone else thinks "makes sense," it's about their interpretation of the Bible. If you can't understand that simple thing, then your opinion will only continue to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject.
Here's what you Catholics need to demand of your church: open support for ... abortion
Sure. Ask the Church to say it's acceptable to kill innocent human children. That makes perfect sense.
Your opinion is worthless. Have a nice day! Hope that helps!
It's still up to every organization -- in a free country -- to make up their own minds about what they want to purchase and what benefits they want to provide.
Since it is illegal for your employer to be given--or request as any condition of employment--access to the details of your medical record, how could any church or religious person thus proclaim a female employee has an invalid reason for the hormonal medical treatment? Catch-22, there.
Not at all, actually. The employer doesn't need to know anything. It's simply about whether a specific use of a specific service is covered by the plan. So hormone treatment for contraception would not be covered, but for certain medical conditions would be covered. The insurance company isn't going to -- if it cares about its own costs -- start giving employees extra services they aren't getting paid for.
What a remarkable coincidence that a liberal would use the President's unconstititutional policy to falsely imply that their political opponents are sexists in order to dishonestly score political points.
Ah, the illogical fallacy. You see the Church will not be blackmailed. YOU can choose not to join the Church, but if you do, with HONESTY in your heart and honesty of intention, you are obligated to follow its rules. You can choose to leave the Church if you won't or can't obey.
Let me make it simple for you: UNIONS (although the analogy is not completely true because most are forced to join the union) while all that do are OBLIGATED to obey it.
AND your comment Here's what you Catholics need to demand of your church is perfectly illustrative of a selfish, anti-God, liberal, leftist, spoiled child Obama mindset: MY will trumps all.
Thank you, pudge, for highlighting the blatant dishonesty of calling this a "women's health" issue. Some other day we'll have to dissect the sad and yet laughable irony of abortion and birth control as 'women's health"
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 10, 2012 12:33 PMThis had nothing to do with whether or not Federal aid was accepted. It would have been required even if the Universities/Hospitals/Clinics never accepted a dime.
I don't know what California schools are serving there students, but healthy and nutritious isn't bland slop if prepared well. The bigger problem is with what counts as 'healthy'.
That unspoken agreement that nobody is hearing that pushes out Ford has more to do with fleet incentive pricing as a result of the bailouts (which I disagree with) than anything even remotely approaching some secret cabal apparently psychically linked that is looking to punish Ford. FWIW I still see tons of brand new Ford Escapes in use by various levels of govt. If all you are noticing are the LE fleet changes, the demise of the ubiquitous Crown Vic variant had to do with mileage standards that pre-date the bailouts.
None of which has anything to do with the original post or question put forth by pudge.
Personally, I think the proposal was a trial balloon sent up to re-establish easily defined divisions and to show his base that he's still got some of the 'this is how it's going to be' fight left that they were drawn to originally. All the White House had to do was wait for someone to pop it. What started as a faux 1st Amendment issue, has now been dumped right back in the laps of the political right as an argument over whether or not to publicly subsidize religious choice. OOPS.
Posted by: Brian on February 10, 2012 12:52 PMEven to the extent that's true (I'm not so sure it is much of a compromise), the very fact that Obama thought it was reasonable to do this in the first place is reason enough to oppose him in the election, for those who put a premium on the Constitution or liberty in general, or religious freedom in particular.
So everyone who is insured by the same provider would be subsidizing the cost of other clients religious convictions?
Maybe. Or maybe it will be the same clients. It's not like the insurers have set prices for large organizations. They are negotiations.
My guess is that the insurers will simply not lower the price for the organization after removing contraception from the coverage. So when it is covered outside the plan by the insurer, it's still being paid for by the religious organization, and we're no better off than we were before.
I have an idea: how about we don't require businesses to pay for health insurance benefits, and individuals are free to choose their own types and levels of coverage without government interference? Say, that could just solve most of our health insurance problems. And yes, it's that easy.
And yes, Brian, I think this was all about sending a message to his base. I don't know what you mean by "faux 1st Amendment issue" though ... it really is about the First Amendment freedom of religion.
Without property rights there are no rights. As long as the idea that using your own property to serve the public changes the nature of your rights to your own property there are going to be issues like this.
Do the Catholics get an insurance break by not covering contraception? If not,then the entire 'subsidy' argument goes by the wayside.
But, if someone researches the premiums and discovers that the Catholics do get a break by not "subsidizing" birth control, then maybe the Catholics have a point.
But, what about all the unwanted pregnancies? Am I not subsidizing the Catholics' irresponsibility by being forced to pay higher premiums for prenatal care?
Posted by: dorky dorkman on February 10, 2012 01:08 PMYou're falsely assuming those pregnancies are unwanted.
But even if they are, it is YOUR CHOICE. You liberals are the ones who created this damned mess of a health "insurance" system and all the government money and subsidies that flow into it. So I don't want to hear any whining about what you don't want to "subsidize" through that system. You can't mandate that people have to be in a system and then use that mandate as a means to control their behavior. That's just evil.
Fine. Then, like me, you should oppose government mandates and subsidies and influences and controls over our health insurance system.
Please, please, please let him/hercontinue to perfectly illustrate the hateful tyranny of government mandates, government subsidies, government CONTROL and the high cost or provided by the government
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 10, 2012 01:20 PMWhy stop there? How about oil depletion allowances?
You do understand that health insurance, like the oil companies (Google 'the seven sisters')is a government authorized monopoly that allows the 'private' carriers to dictate terms to the customer and that there are price controls in effect which prevent real competition.
We, as a people, through our goernment, gave them a monopoly. There is no reason why we cannot demand something of them in return.
Sheesh.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 10, 2012 01:21 PMWhy not everyone else? Why are Catholics 'special'? Are their convictions more valid than Dorky's?
If so, are you not endorsing the notion that an authoritarian body (the Catholic church) can demand things that the morally sanctified individual cannot?
Yes, the government should not be taxing income, and therefore not micromanaging our affairs through the income tax code. But even if we do have an income tax, it should be essentially deduction-free (except for a very few and defined deductions, perhaps).
You do understand that health insurance ... is a government authorized monopoly that allows the 'private' carriers to dictate terms to the customer and that there are price controls in effect which prevent real competition.
Yes, as usual: GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. We don't need a refresher course on why, but thanks for providing it anyway.
You will stop astroturfing now, or you will be banned. I don't care what name you give yourself, but when you change your name so that you can seem like other people support you, in a fallacious attempt to lend credence to your arguments, you've crossed a line.
The argument is that Catholics should not have to subsidize behavior that they are morally opposed to.
Right.
Why not everyone else? Why are Catholics 'special'? Are their convictions more valid than Dorky's?
Um. WE AGREEE WITH YOU. No one should have to subsidize anyone else's health care. You're not arguing against conservatives, but with us. We think there should be NO MANDATES, and that everyone should be free to pay for as much or as little of coverage as they wish, from whatever provider they wish, and for whatever reasons or convictions they wish.
It's bizarre that you think you can "trap" us by pointing out inconsistencies: some subsidies and mandates we favor, in order to undermine our opposition to others. But we are -- I am, anyway -- against all subsidies, and against all mandates, except those very few and limited ones required to provide for the minimum government necessary (which I prefer to be through consumption taxes and tariffs and so on, and levied equally).
If people can pick and choose every situation that they don't want to 'subsidize' (speaking of health care), then the system won't work. To draw an analogy, many will buy a Maverick and expect a Cadillac.
Posted by: W. Klingon Skousen on February 10, 2012 01:35 PMThe devil is in the details. How do you propose to levy them equally? A flat percentage of everyone's income would not be fair, as many 'bonuses' and such are not counted as income.
Posted by: W. Klingon Skousen on February 10, 2012 01:42 PMBy 'faux' I wanted to convey that I believe they were fully aware that it would be initially argued and fought as a 1st Amendment issue, but that they didn't intend it to finish as one. I should have phrased that better.
I agree, we shouldn't require businesses to pay for healthcare insurance. I'm kind of ready to go a little too far off-topic with that though, so I'll just hang on to that for later.
Posted by: Brian on February 10, 2012 01:43 PMPudge, this is naive. With the flat wages that people have received for lo these many decades of the Republican war against unions and such, no one can afford to buy coverage themselves.
This is the kind of debate I usually have with idealistic young adults in their teens and early twenties.
"...should be free to pay for as much or as little of coverage as they wish...." To quote Malcolm Muggeridge: "You can put **** in one hand and 'wish' in the other, and see which one fills upo first."
Posted by: W. Klingon Skousen on February 10, 2012 01:50 PM... which, by that definition, does not apply to contraception.
If people can pick and choose every situation that they don't want to 'subsidize' (speaking of health care), then the system won't work.
That's obviously false. It happens all the time. It happened long before government started mandating coverage.
To draw an analogy, many will buy a Maverick and expect a Cadillac.
Um. But they bought a Maverick. So they don't get a Cadillac. What part of this are you missing?
The devil is in the details. How do you propose to levy them equally?
The lack of many details is what makes it equal.
A flat percentage of everyone's income would not be fair, as many 'bonuses' and such are not counted as income.
This is easily solved by counting all money that comes to you as income. This is very, very, simple.
False.
With the flat wages that people have received for lo these many decades of the Republican war against unions and such, no one can afford to buy coverage themselves.
You lie more than once in this sentence. First, wages literally have nothing to do with it. In real dollars -- accounting for inflation -- median income at all levels rose over the past few decades, dropping slightly with the recession. The problem is not wages: it's that the cost of insurance has risen far faster than inflation.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Every economist of every political bent will tell you that it's the cost of care that's the problem.
Even Obama and his people have several times admitted the real problem is the cost of care. Of course, then he did literally nothing to actually reduce the cost of care, because he knows the only real way to do that is to reduce government influence and allow the free market to work, and he doesn't want to do that. But if we did it, the prices would drop quickly and significantly.
Second, if people bought coverage themselves, it would be with increased salary, and/or tax breaks, while you pretend that would have to make room in their current budgets. McCain's plan, for example, called for a (IIRC) $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance. So you would literally get $5,000 off your tax bill, to pay for your own health insurance, and that's after your business likely increased your salary. While I dislike the subsidy, it's economically unwise to overnight go from our massive health insurance subsidies to none at all. And we would be much better off, as individuals would be spending their own money for the best care for themselves, driving prices down further.
"...should be free to pay for as much or as little of coverage as they wish...." To quote Malcolm Muggeridge: "You can put **** in one hand and 'wish' in the other, and see which one fills upo first."
You're not actually making an argument. I expect you to do so. If you want to just spout non sequiturs, do it elsewhere.
Yeah, I think you're right.
As I mentioned a couple of comments above this one, McCain did that in 2008. It didn't do very well for him.
But that doesn't make the Catholic religion right or good. Heck, the damn Catholic priests can't keep their hands off of the altar boys. You Catholics need a general house-cleaning, and you can start by lowering the pope from some sort of "God on Earth" to just another human, flawed and fallible. The pope and the church are DEFINITELY fallible! nobody has a moopoly on "God" or whatever comes after this life is done. Decide for yourself: don't count on some perv in dark robes to guide your lives.
That was smoke and mirrors - it was an accomodation NOT a compromise on any level when properly dissected. He is now imposing the Governments' will on the insurance companies also unprecedented and unconstitutional. He thinks he can get away with it.
Posted by: KDS on February 10, 2012 03:02 PMMy logic is unassailable. People per capita earn far less than they used to.
So, I was right and you were wrong about wage earners in the U.S. of A. Therefore, I am correct about my statement that expecting people to pay for their own insurance is unrealistic.
Notice, Pudge, that I have not called you a liar -- but I am calling you a hysterical nincompoop.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf
Posted by: W. Klingon Skousen on February 10, 2012 03:03 PMYou're not making an argument. No one ever said it is right or good, just that it is their belief. And you -- completely irrationally -- said they should give up those beliefs, for no actual reason other than you don't agree with them.
Yep. After adjusting for inflation. Which means your wages have more buying power now than they did in 1970.
but don't forget that pre 1970, most households were one earner households
I will forget it, because the middle income earners -- the people we are most concerned about, because they don't hit the "safety net" but don't have much if any disposable income -- have an average of one income earner per household. So there's not actually a difference.
Households between 1970 and today have gradually become 2 earner households -- and their real household income is actually LESS -- by far -- than the one earner households of previous generations.
False. Your graph shows quite clearly that real household income is at or near an all-time high. It's not less, and it's not less "by far." Also, most households are still one-income (or less) households. There's a pretty linear progression from the number of earners, and the amount of income per household.
People per capita earn far less than they used to.
You are committing the shifting-the-goalposts fallacy, among others. You said above that real household income is less, which it isn't. Now you say per capita income is less ... even though you provided no data backing it up. In fact, per capita income has increased dramatically since 1970 (due to income inequality: any marginal increase in earners per household is dwarfed by the top earners' increases).
Therefore, I am correct about my statement that expecting people to pay for their own insurance is unrealistic.
Obviously false. EVEN IF you were right about real household wages being lower (and I demonstrated you are not), you ignored the fact that wages would increase and taxes decrease to compensate if we shifted health insurance costs to individuals. That's very dishonest of you. If you give a family a $10,000 tax credit, and you increase a worker's salary by the amount the company paid for the insurance less additional taxes, this will cover most health insurance policies without increasing the cost to the family a dime. Plus, costs would decrease quickly as people shop for bargains.
So if you have a full-time job with medical now, under what I am talking about you won't spend ANY extra money on health insurance. And because costs will decrease, you'll actually come out ahead.
Of course it was smoke & mirrors, when I elaborated on it further down I agreed with that it was. I said 'compromise' because it that is how it comes up in searches (I've been making poor phrasing/word choices all day). I hope it quickly becomes recognized as an 'accommodation' that should be swiftly rejected, but that's for another discussion.
Until I do some more digging, I'm not comfortable jumping on-board with the notion that what he did was unprecedented, and until the SCOTUS says otherwise, it is de facto Constitutional (not a real status or term, but it fits for this purpose).
And frankly, like I pointed out earlier, I don't believe he was ever very concerned about 'getting away with it'. As it happens though, Congress sure gave him some very convenient cover (and arguably the authority) by passing the PPACA.
Posted by: Brian on February 10, 2012 04:20 PMMy hat's off to you -- the one you gave me for free.
Posted by: W. Klingon Skousen on February 10, 2012 04:22 PM"The problem is still the cost of the insurance and the care it covers."
Precisely. And the way to lower the cost of health insurance is to demand that health insurance companies pay 80% of every dollar
on health care and that the customer base for the insurance be increased to make the premiums affordable.
It does not. You are lying.
that means that in real dollars, people are making half what they used to
Even if it WERE true -- and it's not, you're lying -- it still means that each household has MORE MONEY than it used to, and is thus able to buy MORE goods and services for the household ... unless, of course, that good or service has risen in price significantly more than inflation, like health care has.
You said that because wages have decreased, that people cannot afford to buy insurance on their own. But:
a. each household has more real dollars than it used to
b. if companies did not supply health insurance, it would mean an increase in wages, and
c. in this plan, we would also see tax credits, so each dollar spent on health insurance is essentially free
You literally have no case here.
the way to lower the cost of health insurance is to demand that health insurance companies pay 80% of every dollar
on health care and that the customer base for the insurance be increased to make the premiums affordable.
Obviously false. People who can't afford insurance tend to be less healthy, in fact, so there's no reason to think that including them in the pool will decrease premiums, especially when simply paying for more people to be in the system (through welfare and mandates) provides NO incentives to reduce costs. And mandates of percentages never work, and more than likely would reduce the quality of service.
The only reasonable way to reduce costs, without lowering quality, is through competition in the free market. This is a GIVEN at this point. We are where we are because -- as you said -- health insurance is a "government authorized monopoly that allows the 'private' carriers to dictate terms to the customer and that there are price controls in effect which prevent real competition." And you just want to expand the price controls and the customer base without introducing ANY incentives to reduce costs. It's insanity.
Posted by John Jensen at February 11, 2012 01:38 PM
You misinterpret the bible, which is easy for an atheist like you to do. Moreover, you doth protest too much. Ah-hah because you are Obamacare advocate, which by definition makes you the LIAR. I make no bones about this, because you; like your president has a problem with the truth.
Posted by: KDS on February 11, 2012 01:55 PMIt's no wonder he's permanently banned.
This isn't hard: the RCC says contraception is a mortal sin. I disagree. They say this is based on some verses in the Bible that I interpret differently than they do. Each of us is entitled to our beliefs, and I will equally defend all exercise of all belief that doesn't cause direct harm to others.
That's it. End of story. It's very, very, simple. I never lied, nor even said anything remotely untrue. It's completely straightforward truth ... but, as straightforward truth is a threat to Jensen, it must be attacked.
Who pays for the contraceptives.
What?
No, who.
What are the contraceptives for?
Yes, they are for what.
That's the question.
But who uses the contraceptives?
No, who pays.
Who pays what?
No, that would be wrong. What uses the contraceptives, but who pays.
OK...then how much
Well, that would be fair, but who is more reliable.
How much more reliable?
No, we live in an imperfect world.
I know that
No, I already told you that would be wrong, but fair. I don't think you knew that.
What?
True, what didn't know that either, but still needed the contraceptives.
Still needed the contraceptives for what?
No, actually still needed them for that.
For?
Good guess. What... for... true love.
Is the government involved with true love?
Just when I thought you were confused, you figured it out. Who is the government.
Yes, I was confused but not still. Now I am angry.
Welcome to the club!
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 11, 2012 04:47 PMBut that doesn't make the Catholic religion right or good. Heck, the damn Catholic priests can't keep their hands off of the altar boys. You Catholics need a general house-cleaning, and you can start by lowering the pope from some sort of "God on Earth" to just another human, flawed and fallible. The pope and the church are DEFINITELY fallible! nobody has a moopoly on "God" or whatever comes after this life is done. Decide for yourself: don't count on some perv in dark robes to guide your lives.
You'll forgive me if I don't take advice on what my church should do from a drooling moron. And yes, that's an AD HOMINEM. Get over it.
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on February 11, 2012 05:42 PMPudge: Whenever you preface or end your little diatribes with: "It's really very simple!", I am reminded of the truth of Mencken's observation.
Posted by: W. Klingon Skousen on February 11, 2012 05:48 PMSo whether or not they can point to a verse in the Bible that supports their view that contraception is a sin doesn't really settle anything.
For the full exposition and defense of the RCC position, the place to go is Pope Paul VI's encyclical, _Humanae Vitae_. You can find it on the Vatican website, http://www.vatican.va.
In it, you'll find an argument that is based not only on scripture, but also on natural and moral philosophy.
Posted by: CorkyAgain on February 11, 2012 06:04 PMYou're right in that where the verses are not so clear, however, the RCC has other authorities that they place on nearly equal footing with scripture. Protestants don't.
So in cases like contraception, since the Bible is not clear, there is no Protestant doctrine, but there is an RCC doctrine.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said "Whether or not" when all I had in mind was cases where there is no Bible verse addressing the point.
Actually, if you read Humanae Vitae you won't find much in it that a Protestant couldn't agree with.
"If it takes 2 wage earners today to make the equivalent of one wage earner pre-1970....
It does not. You are lying.
Oh, really??
http://rdwolff.com/content/rising-productivity-and-stagnant-wages-over-past-30-years-or-so-where-does-expanding-supply-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
Once again, I am not calling you a liar, because a liar would recognize the truth of what I say -- and then try to contradict it. No -- you are not a liar. You are too stupid to be a liar.
REAL WAGES
1964-2004
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
For all private nonfarm workers
Year Real $ Change
1964 302.52
1965 310.46 2.62%
1966 312.83 0.76%
1967 311.30 -0.49%
1968 315.37 1.31%
1969 316.93 0.49%
1970 312.94 -1.26%
1971 318.05 1.63%
1972 331.59 4.26%
1973 331.39 -0.06%
1974 314.94 -4.96%
1975 305.16 -3.11%
1976 309.61 1.46%
1977 310.99 0.45%
1978 310.41 -0.19%
1979 298.87 -3.72%
1980 281.27 -5.89%
1981 277.35 -1.39%
1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)
And remember -- these are now households that require not one but TWO wage earners. I don't want to bore you with statistics, but 2 wage earners is twice as much as one wage earner.
Posted by: W. Klingon Skousen on February 12, 2012 08:03 AMYes, really. Neither of those links demonstrate that it takes two earners to make the equivalent of one from pre-1970.
And remember -- these are now households that require not one but TWO wage earners.
... which, as I have demonstrated, and you have refused to rebut, is irrelevant to the discussion: your point was that the problem is that household income is insufficient to purchase health care. How many incomes contribute to that household income is literally a nonfactor.
Stop ignoring arguments that prove you wrong.
All it means is that 98% of Catholic women are willingly and knowingly sinning according to the Church. The Church acknowledges 'free will' of sin. It is up to those women to repent, ask for and hopefully be given forgiveness.
It is the use of birth control for the sole purpose of preventing conception. That women use it for other reasons (and given the aging demographic of Catholic women, I suspect menopausal symptoms) is a complete straw dog.
The Catholic Church is not a democracy - 98% of any Catholics participating in any THING against the teachings of the Church will not change it.
For those who screech the church must change and bend to the will of the majority I have to ask - If your 98% of your daughters school were crack addicted whores prostituting themselves to their teachers, should the school provide beds/condoms/abortifacients for it? Should they change their 'zero tolerance' policy? Should student-teacher sex for grades and crack be written in their mission statement?
Because it is the very same thing - except the Church's teachings - its 'mission statement' - has been in existence for over 2000 years given to St Peter as the first Pope by God.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 12, 2012 11:52 AMThe devil is in the details. How do you propose to levy them equally? A flat percentage of everyone's income would not be fair, as many 'bonuses' and such are not counted as income.
Here's an idea - a TRULY equal tax. The Federal budget is around $3.7 trillion. There are about 310 million people in the US. Everyone's tax bill is $12,000. That seems pretty equal - how can you argue otherwise?
Glad you want a nice, equitable tax that meets the Constitutional requirement of equality!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 12, 2012 12:24 PMDemocrats today are killing and limiting new voters in their core voting blocs. How's that for unintended consequences.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 12, 2012 04:46 PM
The Roe Effect
The right to abortion has diminished the number of Democratic voters.
Liberals never consider the possibility of unintended consequences.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 12, 2012 05:03 PMThe Catholic leadership, like many others have a short memory and will flock back to their liberal roots if this issue is allowed to go away on its own.
Posted by: KDS on February 13, 2012 09:30 AMThe church does not pay for 100% of the insurance premium, so why should they get to dictate to individuals what they will or won't cover?
Seems that you just cannot pass up an opportunity to say NO to someone -- and you are on the side of the individual??? LOL
Because it is their plan, provided for as a benefit for the employment they offer.
The individuals are free to reject that benefit (either by not being employed there, or rejecting the coverage and providing their own), or to purchase their own additional care or coverage.
Seems that you just cannot pass up an opportunity to say NO to someone
You're lying. I am not saying "no" to anyone ... except to the government, when it tries to violate the First Amendment (among others).
I am 100% in favor of the rights of the individual. You are not. The problem is, you and the left deceitfully claim that being provided a certain benefit in exchange for employment is a "right." But that's a lie. No one has any right to be given anything, except that which is contracturally promised to them.
I am on the side of the RIGHTS of the individual. I am not on the side of "the individual," beyond that. I am firmly committed to defending individual rights, but what you do with those rights is not my concern.
If you want contraception, then go get it. You have that right. NO ONE is stopping you.
If you want to force someone else to provide contraception to you, against their will ... then not only do you not have that right, but you are violating their rights.
Unless the church is underwriting the health plan themseves, it is most assuredly NOT their plan. Employers typically offer the employee a choice of coverages and deductibles -- but only the Catholics seem to be hinging medical coverage on acceptance of their own prejudices.
If the employee is offered a choice of coverages, the church is admitting that the employee has the option of choosing their own coverages.
Plus, the employee is paying for the coverage. I doubt that they are paying the Catholic church for the coverage -- but some insurance company. Therefore the church does not own the policy and cannot dictate against medical care thet is generally offered to all of the other insurance company's policy holders.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on February 13, 2012 12:00 PMWow. What a great argument for people being able to purchase their own customized insurance plan rather than the one dictated by state regulations or the limited by the company!
Solves all the problems.
Regarding your point that the policy is the employees and paid by them, that is not fully accurate. The employer is a participant in the transaction. And since the government is trying to force the employer to remain a participant in the transaction you run into the problem of forcing someone to be a participant in a transaction that goes against their conscience. Normally you liberals would be against that, but since it is the church being forced, it's ok.
Notice how removing the mandate and removing the incentive for companies to be the middleman in the insurance transaction resolves this conflict?
Posted by: Eyago on February 13, 2012 12:37 PMNo. They are deciding what benefits to provide to their employees, and contracting with the provider for those benefits. In that very real sense, as I intended, it is their plan.
(That said, in some cases the organizations DO self-insure.)
Employers typically offer the employee a choice of coverages and deductibles -- but only the Catholics seem to be hinging medical coverage on acceptance of their own prejudices.
... as is their right. Simply saying that they are the only ones exercising that right (whether that's true or not) has absolutely no relevance.
If the employee is offered a choice of coverages, the church is admitting that the employee has the option of choosing their own coverages.
... from the list of coverages the employer itself chooses to offer. You're not making a case here.
Plus, the employee is paying for the coverage.
For a portion of it, yes. But as the employer is paying for a portion as well, you're not making a case here. Both the employee and the employer are paying a portion (usually), so BOTH must agree on the terms. If either one disagrees, then they don't have to have the arrangement. That's freedom. That's liberty. You want to force one or both sides into an agreement they don't want. That's tyranny, and in this case, it violates the First Amendment.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2012 01:33 PM
Eyago: What a great argument for people being able to purchase their own customized insurance plan rather than the one dictated by state regulations or the limited by the company!
Yes. He's been doing that from the start and still doesn't get it.
... since the government is trying to force the employer to remain a participant in the transaction you run into the problem of forcing someone to be a participant in a transaction that goes against their conscience.
Obviously. And the sad thing is that this is so obvious as to be undeniably true, but the liberals who argue against it just don't care. They want to force the church to provide contraception, and nothing else matters.
The latest number I can find is at http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/542.html, which shows 32%.
Posted by: redmond guy on February 13, 2012 03:31 PMThe courts said:
"When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees."
I believe the court decision was unanimous.
Posted by: pacnwjay on February 13, 2012 10:20 PMNo. Contraception is quite different from social security taxes.
Another important distinction is that when the parties entered into their activity two things did not exist at the time. 1. there was no mandate to offer insurance, and there was no law requiring contraceptive services as part of that insurance. The government has changed the rules in the middle of the contract. They no only began requiring a certain activity after the fact they also prevented you from being able to avoid the activity.
That is much different than entering into an activity knowing the existing laws in place.
And by the way the half that doesn't pay income tax comment is referring to the near half of working people you twit not children which don't count for payers either....nearly half of working people that don't pay income taxes get CHECKS from the dictatorship and their votes have been purchased.
Eyago, yes... congress may have altered the law. But that legal precedent indicates this isn't a First Amendment issue... the question will be whether Obamacare is legal.
Another thing to consider:
"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition." -- A. Scalia
No, it's not. The decision is relevant, but it is not the same, and the decision there isn't directly applicable here.
Most obviously, if you read the decision, it's based on the idea that Social Security can only work if a significantly large number of employees and employers pay into it. But getting contraception to work for as many women as want it can happen even if an employer doesn't provide it. The Court said in U.S. v. Lee, "The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest," and quite clearly, even if there is an overriding government interest in getting contraception to women (which is unclear), forcing employers to provide it is quite obviously not essential to that interest.
How do I know? From the simple fact that women do not have a problem getting contraception right now, and it's not currently mandated. Indeed, Lee is actually a strong argument against your case, because it hinges on the notion that forcing the mandate of Social Security is "essential" to the relevant government interest, and it's nearly self-evident that forcing a mandate of contraception coverage is not essential to the relevant government interest.
The Lee decision talked a lot about accomodating exceptions ... but there is literally no need for accomodations here: if your employer doesn't provide it to you, then get it some other way, as people do now. Literally, there is no harm done, unlike with the Social Security case, where the whole system would collapse if many groups opted out.
Further -- and this was not mentioned in Lee -- but no one considers paying money to government, for no particular purpose other than to redistribute that money, a "mortal sin." It violated the Amish beliefs, but it was not going to cause them to go to hell, unlike (the Catholics believe) providing contraception does. As Lee said -- and as you unfortunately deny -- there's always a balance to be struck. You can't just say, "government says it has an interest, so religions must give way." The particulars on both sides of the equation matter.
... I do not dispute your right to disagree with Church doctrine. What I object to is the use of your status as a Catholic to justify your support of the HHS mandate and publicly diminish many Catholics' legitimate concerns over religious liberty and the viability of countless Catholic-affiliated organizations.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 14, 2012 09:47 AM
True, as with women and abortion, Catholics do not monolithically abide by the Church's teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life. But for purposes of determining the constitutionality or prudence of the HHS mandate, these divergences are entirely beside the point. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Papal Encyclicals, and the works of many Catholic writers (women included) clearly illustrate that the Church's opposition to contraceptive services is well-established and inextricably linked to our core beliefs concerning the sacrament of marriage, sexuality, and, in the case of abortifacients, the sanctity of all human life. If you or other Catholics disagree with this doctrine, you are free not to work for Catholic institutions.
But your disagreement does not alter the centrality or fundamental nature of this Catholic doctrine, nor does it, as you have publicly implied, render the concerns of the Catholic religious and laity operating Catholic institutions, or Catholics, like me, who assent to the fullness of the Church's teaching, inconsequential.
Catholics' taxes fund capital punishment, contrary to the Pope's teachings and Church doctrine.
Certain Christian churches[1] believe it is unbiblical for women to serve in civic leadership. And yet their members' federal taxes pay for a Senate that includes 17 women and a House that includes 76. They also paid for the 2008 election, which could have put a female Vice President in power.
Americans are forced to pay for lots of things that may violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. I don't see how this is any different.
[1] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/the_palin_predicament_resolved.aspx
Posted by: John A. on February 14, 2012 10:34 AMIn both cases, the payment is mandatory and is backed by all the coercive force and violence of the government. Firms will be penalized for violating the Affordable Care Act just as you or I would be penalized for not paying our taxes.
In both cases, the government is bundling services that the purchaser doesn't want along with the things the purchaser does want.
In both cases, the bundled service violates sincerely held religious beliefs.
The only difference, to my eyes, is the payee.
As an aside, it's odd to see you defending the right of governments to tax people for services that they vehemently do not want.
Posted by: John A. on February 14, 2012 11:07 AMYou misinterpret the ruling on Lee. In the case of Lee the participants freely entered into an activity knowing in advance the laws. If their conscience dictated an alternative, they could possibly avoid the activity, thus it is not a rights issue because the parties entered in knowing in advance the laws in place. In this case, the parties entered in to an activity with rules that did not violate their conscience, and then the rules are changed that not only violate their conscience, they are set up so that they cannot exit from that activity legally, thus it is a constitutional issue.
The key is "as a matter of choice", and implied is the foreknowledge of the law. That is not present in this case. It's like saying you freely entered into a rental contract with your landlord with certain expectations and then he later changes your contract saying that you must now allow a pimp with child prostitutes to use one of your rooms for his business and that you are now permanently required to remain the renter.
Posted by: Eyago on February 14, 2012 11:16 AMSo consider where in one case, you force me to pay for contraception. In the other, you force me to pay into the general fund, where that money MIGHT BE USED for contraception, among many other things. That's a huge difference. Now, the person paying might see them as the same to them, but they really aren't the same, on that fundamental level.
And in reality, the amount of money you pay in taxes is less than the amount of money spent on things you approve of, so when you look at it that way, you're really not paying for things you disapprove of, at all. That is, if we broke down how much money was paid by each taxpayer, and figured out all of the things they approve or disapprove of using taxes for, and divvied up their paid taxes by what they approve of (or by what they don't disapprove of), I doubt we'd ever find that anyone is paying for things they disapprove of (except for fraud, waste, etc.).
Further -- and here's the legal point -- referencing my reply about Lee v. U.S., if you allow people to opt out of general fund taxes because they oppose how some of the money is being used, then taxation becomes impossible. The essential nature of general taxation for this government interest overrides your view here.
As an aside, it's odd to see you defending the right of governments to tax people for services that they vehemently do not want.
Why? I don't understand. Nothing in my view, nothing in Republican or Christian or conservative or libertarian philosophy, says that government can only do those things that either don't require money, or that are approved of by every single person whose money goes into the fund being used.
My focus is not whether each person approves of how their taxes are being used, but whether the government has the authority to use the taxes in that way, regardless of that approval.
Catholic organizations are not being forced to pay directly for contraception.
Catholic organizations are being forced to pay for coverage that MIGHT BE USED for contraception.
The choice to use contraception falls to the covered individual. If Catholics obeyed their leadership and didn't use contraception, this wouldn't be a problem.
Which raises the question -- if a majority of Catholics defy their leadership and use birth control, then whose sincerely held religious beliefs are being violated here?
I doubt we'd ever find that anyone is paying for things they disapprove of (except for fraud, waste, etc.).
I'm not following you here. Are you saying that you approve of all the ways your government spends your tax money?
Posted by: John A. on February 14, 2012 12:41 PMNot true: Catholic organizations hire non-Catholics.
I'm not following you here. Are you saying that you approve of all the ways your government spends your tax money?
No, I am saying that I only pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes each year. Let's round my taxes to $50,000. There's a lot more than $50,000 in spending I do approve of.
But again, this is legally irrelevant: you cannot allow people to opt out of taxes, and still have a reasonable way of paying for the government. That means payment of taxes is essential to the overriding government interest. But there's innumerable ways to provide contraception to women who want and need it (it's what we do now), so clearly, forcing religious organizations to pay directly for contraception is not essential to any government interest in making sure women can get contraception.
Posted by: pudge on February 14, 2012 12:56 PMI will grant you that.
But why should employees of Catholic orgs have different rights than employees of non-Catholic orgs? Why should the government favor some employers over others?
I also still disagree with your assertion that Catholic orgs are being forced to directly purchase birth control. As far as I know, Trojan will not be invoicing the Archdiocese of New York.
No, I am saying that I only pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes each year. Let's round my taxes to $50,000. There's a lot more than $50,000 in spending I do approve of.
This doesn't sound outrageous to me. I can say the same thing for myself. It sounds like government is offering us good value for our money!
If seems like if most people are like you and I, and are getting good value for their tax dollar, then we can generalize a bit and say that government spending will, in the main, reflect the values of the taxpayers. Is that fair to say?
This is getting away from the contraception issue, so I hope you'll forgive the topic drift.
Posted by: John A. on February 14, 2012 01:28 PMPlease let me amend this to "Why should Catholic employers have different responsibilities than non-Catholic employers?" "Rights" is kind of a thorny word here.
Posted by: John A. on February 14, 2012 01:40 PMThey don't. You're under the false impression that anyone has a "right" to this. Just because government is mandating it, doesn't magically turn it into a right for the employee.
Why should the government favor some employers over others?
Government is not "favoring" a company by not forcing it to commit a moral sin. It's simply not allowed to do so, by the First Amendment.
I also still disagree with your assertion that Catholic orgs are being forced to directly purchase birth control.
I don't really care how you characterize it, as long as you recognize the fact that the organization's money, by intent and design, is being used directly for the purchase of contraception under the mandated health insurance plan.
This doesn't sound outrageous to me.
OK ... so, my point is, almost no one through general taxation is being forced to fund things they dislike, because almost everyone approves of spending in excess of the amount they pay in taxes. This makes it very different from mandated coverage, where the dollars spent by the company are used directly on contraception.
It sounds like government is offering us good value for our money!
Wow. Not even close. Indeed, part of the reason why this calculation makes some sense is because government spends far more money than it takes in from taxation (through borrowing ... this year, again, in excess of a trillion dollars). I don't call that value.
So let's say that each person pays $1 in taxes. So that's around $300m in revenue. Now, everyone can say they approve of $1 in spending. But the problem is, government spends $3 trillion, so we're all really getting screwed.
If seems like if most people are like you and I, and are getting good value for their tax dollar ...
I certainly am not.
... then we can generalize a bit and say that government spending will, in the main, reflect the values of the taxpayers. Is that fair to say?
Nope. Not remotely.
Wait, what?
I thought you objected to government debt?
How on earth do you think the government finances its deficit spending? You do realize that the consistent and predictable flow of taxes out of your pocket is used to service government debt, right?
Your taxes might not be funding objectionable programs on a dollar-for-dollar basis, but they are certainly enabling the borrowing that fuels those programs.
Posted by: John A. on February 14, 2012 11:07 PMGovernment is not "favoring" a company by not forcing it to commit a moral sin. It's simply not allowed to do so, by the First Amendment.
That's up to the courts to decide. Speaking of the courts, earlier in this thread you said:
The Court said in U.S. v. Lee, "The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest," and quite clearly, even if there is an overriding government interest in getting contraception to women (which is unclear), forcing employers to provide it is quite obviously not essential to that interest.
That was in 1982. Things have evolved since. In 1990, Employment Division v. Smith kicked the compelling government interest test in the crotch:
To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.
In 1993, the Court restated this viewpoint in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (emphasis mine):
In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise of religion, our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.
Pudge, do you have any affirmative case law? Something that backs up your assertion that the First Amendment absolutely, undeniably prohibits Catholic employers from being subject to a contraceptive mandate? If you got to be a superstar attorney for a day and argue this one before the Supremes, what cases would you cite as applicable precedents?
Also note that at least eight states (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Montana, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin are the ones I know about) currently have contraception mandates on the books with no exemption recognized for religions. Have those ever been challenged in court? How did that turn out?
Posted by: John A. on February 14, 2012 11:14 PMYes, that is what I said.
How on earth do you think the government finances its deficit spending?
From the General Fund.
You do realize that the consistent and predictable flow of taxes out of your pocket is used to service government debt, right?
Yes.
Your taxes might not be funding objectionable programs on a dollar-for-dollar basis
Yes, that is what I said.
... but they are certainly enabling the borrowing that fuels those programs.
No, they are not. Borrowing does that. Indeed, we borrow far more than we pay in finance charges. In 2011 we hit a record high in interest payments at nearly half a trillion dollars. But we borrowed a lot more than that. So no, you can't really make the argument that taxes enable the borrowing.
Of course, this is beside the point, which is that the government spends money on many things we disagree with, but that it also spends money on many things we agree with, because you could make the same argument that my taxes "enable" federal spending on contraception and so on. But that was built-in to my original point on this topic.
That's up to the courts to decide.
We may be speaking past each other a bit here, because the point I am making is largely independent of what any court says. The courts do not decide what the Constitution says, they only decide what interpretation of the Constitution is holding for the rest of the government. The courts are sometimes wrong, obviously (cf. Dred Scott), but we don't say that the Constitution meant that former slaves were not protected by the Constitution, but then the Constitution's meaning changed. We say that the Court was wrong, and that the Constitution's meaning didn't change.
As Justice Frankfurter said, the touchstone of constitutionality is what the Constitution says, not what the Court says about the Constitution.
My point is that even if the courts hold that they can force a company to provide contraception against their religious beliefs, the courts are wrong.
As a subsidiary point, I am arguing that no existing precedents say otherwise.
In 1990, Employment Division v. Smith kicked the compelling government interest test in the crotch:
As I read it, that's in very a different context. U.S. v. Lee, and the present case, are about forcing action that violates religious beliefs. You're right that the standard for prohibiting action (in this case, smoking peyote, or killing animals) is different.
Pudge, do you have any affirmative case law? Something that backs up your assertion that the First Amendment absolutely, undeniably prohibits Catholic employers from being subject to a contraceptive mandate?
I don't need it. I only need to show that a. the existing case law doesn't disagree with me, and b. the Constitution agrees with me. The burden is more on you, disagreeing with me, to show that a. or b. is false. You've brought up some good points toward showing a. is false, but I think the differences in the nature of the respective laws -- prohibitions versus mandates -- makes a significant difference.
Of course, precedent directly impacting this case are very unlikely to exist, but that's mostly because until now, there have been very few federal mandates to organizations that impact religious belief. Most of them are about paying taxes (which we've already discussed), or various regulations that don't usually affect religious belief (workplace safety and so on). So precedents on this would be few and far between.
Also note that at least eight states (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Montana, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin are the ones I know about) currently have contraception mandates on the books with no exemption recognized for religions. Have those ever been challenged in court? How did that turn out?
That's actually my question to you: if any of them have been upheld in federal court as applying to religious organizations, then it could bolster your case. Otherwise, they do not.
Link: http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/02/15/news-analysis-bishops%E2%80%99-contraception-objections-fail-churchs-own-moral-reasoning
I found these two lines most interesting:
"In fact, unless you live in a monastery that doesn't have investments, it's unlikely you are innocent of remote material cooperation with something the church condemns," Matthew Boudway, an editor at Commonweal, a lay-run Catholic periodical, wrote on the magazine's blog.
"Nor does the church condemn you for this; it asks only that you be as conscious of these entanglements as you can be, that you minimize them whenever possible, and that you be sure they really are offset by a greater good."
I don't agree with the article's conclusion, however. I would think the question of minimizing in this case is allow religious exemption and not require insurance companies to fund separately.
Posted by: redmond guy on February 15, 2012 11:03 AMThe left are trying to obfuscate the real issue: Overreach of the Federal Government w/Obamacare and appear to be winning by default. It is incumbent on the Repubs and conservatives to fight back and assume NOTHING, rebut the purposely inflammatory racist and bigotted statements/slurs that have been hurled by corrupt politicians like Sheila Jackson Lee, Nancy Pelosi and Frank Lautenburg in the past 48 hours. Unless the so-called loyal opposition gets off of their butts and makes a compelling argument against this crap rhetoric, the dumbed down masses will buy into the lies, straw men and vitreol from the Democratic/neo-coms (i.e. the left) and it will spell doom in November.
Posted by: KDS on February 15, 2012 12:11 PMIf the Constitution were composed only of the First Amendment, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But the Constitution is a large document that confirms many rights upon the people and grants many powers to the government. Sometimes there is tension between two different parts of the Constitution, which is why we have courts in the first place.
Let's look at a more stark case of this tension. The Constitution empowers the government to raise and control the military, and also prohibits the government from interfereing with the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court ruled in Goldman v. Weinberger that the government's control of the military trumped a Jewish serviceman's free exercise rights -- specifically, that the serviceman could be forbidden from wearing his yarmulke while in uniform.
I raise this not to make a direct analogy to the specific facts of the contraception case, but to point out that the Constitution is sometime at cross purposes with itself and that we must rely on courts to resolve this tension, and that the resolution of those tensions is not always in favor of free exercise.
Which leads to the question: does the Constitution empower the government to regulate insurance companies and employers in this fashion? I am definitely not enough of a legal scholar to assert this one way or another. And such an assertion would be meaningless anyway because the courts decide constitutionality, not me, and the Supreme Court is an arbitrary and unaccountable outfit that can ignore and create precedent however it sees fit.
I will say that it seems feasible that a court could find that the government is empowered by the Constitution to impose a contraceptive mandate. The federal government already regulates tons of employment issues, and this is, viewed through a certain light, just another employment issue.
So my conclusion is that it might be legal for the federal government to act in this way, but whether it is moral or not is a matter for individuals to decide on their own. My own view of right and wrong predisposes me in favor of contraception mandates, and I hope that the courts agree with me.
I know you feel differently, and I think your viewpoint is defensible and worth considering, so I thank you for engaging thoughtfully on this.
There's no tension in this case, though, that I can see.
Which leads to the question: does the Constitution empower the government to regulate insurance companies and employers in this fashion?
No, in my educated (though not expert) opinion. But even if it did, that's very different from your citation of Goldman v. Weinberger. The Court held that whether or not there was a compelling government interest, and whether the least restrictive means was used to further that interest, was irrelevant because there were more important factors at play, because it was the military.
And as I've noted before, even if there is a compelling government interest in making sure women are provided with contraception (which is bizarre to me), this is clearly not the least restrictive way of doing it, not when faced with the First Amendment religious challenge before it. The government could just as easily pay for contraception using the same money it has set aside for paying for health insurance for poor people, for example (not that such money actually exists, of course: we'll be borrowing it).
So I don't see a real tension. For there to be tension presupposes a compelling government interest AND the violation of religious liberty must be essential to that interest (or in the words of the Sherbert test, there must be no less restrictive / least burdensome means of meeting that interest).
But again, since pretty much all women today have access to birth control (even poor women, who can get it for free) ... I see no tension.
the courts decide constitutionality, not me, and the Supreme Court is an arbitrary and unaccountable outfit that can ignore and create precedent however it sees fit
All of us are equally able to determine and decide what the Constitution says ... we just don't have the power to make anyone care. That's the only difference. The Court does not, and never has, decided constitutionality for the rest of us, they only decide what interpretations the government will follow. I think this isn't mere semantics. But it's also beside the rest of the point. :-)
The federal government already regulates tons of employment issues, and this is, viewed through a certain light, just another employment issue.
Yes, but viewing it from that light ignores the salient fact that it is forcing all people (except for poor people, and certain few exempt people) to purchase a service they may not want. There's no other federal mandate that does this. The closest we have is Selective Service, which I think is unconstitutional (again, I am not arguing what the Court says, because I know it has disagreed, I am only arguing what the Constitution says, in my view).
But again ... even if a contraception mandate is constitutional, that doesn't mean it can be imposed in violation of one's religious liberties, obviously.
My own view of right and wrong predisposes me in favor of contraception mandates, and I hope that the courts agree with me.
I find it extremely bizarre that anyone would be in favor of forcing businesses and individuals to collectively enter into an agreement for a service that one or both of them may not want. I see no benefit to this, societally or otherwise. It's just so completely foreign to me.
Can you explain why you are in favor of a contraception mandate? You have a good job, and you do well at it, and if your employer didn't offer you benefits you approved of, you would go elsewhere. Why get government involved to force their hand?
Maybe it's because other people may not have the same employment options as you, so you want to make sure they can get contraception, too. But does this happen today, without mandates? I've not heard or seen examples of it.
And even if there are such examples, what are your thoughts on decoupling insurance from employment? If we do that, this issue (mostly) goes away. But despite much crowing about "portability" by the Democrats, their health insurance bill did absolutely nothing to decouple insurance from employment. What they really need to do is what McCain campaigned on: eliminate the business tax deduction for health insurance, and give individuals a tax credit to purchase insurance. That tax credit, combined with the bump in salary from the employer for what they would have spent on insurance, would be sufficient for most people to pay for insurance out of pocket, without a net loss.
So if this happened, would you still favor mandates? So Catholic women would be forced to pay for insurance that includes contraception coverage, even if unused? At least this position is more financially defensible from a "compelling government interest" position: the idea being that when people pay into a pool for services they don't need, then it provides more money to that pool to pay for services other people want. I think it's an absolutely terrible idea, for many reasons, but it's what the individual mandate is based on.
I'd love to have your thoughts on any or all of these questions. Thanks!