I do not see how requiring private entities do it instead of the feds is "least restrictive way."
Joel Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 12:53:22 AM
In fact, that is pretty much the crux of my argument: That a true PUBLIC healthcare law would avoid this conflict because it would not force private religious institutions to directly finance things their doctrine forbids. The members would indirectly finance it through taxes paid to the feds, which would then be spent on public healthcare that would include contraception (and abortion, incidentally,) but there a mountain of case law has established US citizens lack the Constitutional right to opt out of federal taxes on the grounds it is partly spent on things their religion forbids. That would restrict Catholic hospitals/schools religious freedom much less than forcing them to pay for those things.
Government forcing people to directly finance other people doing things that contradict the first peoples religious beliefs is a First Amendment infringement. Jehovahs Witnesses could reasonably raise the same objection Catholics have, and, in fact, a "public" healthcare mandate whose principal form is PRIVATE employers paying for healthcare makes it almost inevitable that such valid objections will be routine. It is just another fantastic reason we need ACTUAL public healthcare instead of the dogs dinner of "public" healthcare we got.
First Amendments rights are NOT ABSOLUTE!!! Yes it is coercing a person to do something that person doesn't want to do. The government does have a right to do so. Cases that involve the first amendment invoke strict scrutiny (the highest level of judicial review) under strict scrutiny the government has to show that it is serving a "compelling governmental interest" and that it is doing so in the "least restrictive way in possible." Mainting the health and general welfare of a nation is a legitimate government interest (such as paying for contraception and blood transfusions.) There is a law school saying "strict in theory, fatal in fact," but this saying is more of a myth and doesn't hold up under empirical observation, 59% of court cases challenging laws involving religious freedom survive strict scrutiny (link below)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360
Furthermore you are dead wrong on the legal issues here Joel. 28 of 50 states already require health care plans in their state cover contraception. Some stats (italics is me quoting the below link, parts in parenthesis but no italics are Roland00 talking to make the comment a little more clear)
HIGHLIGHTS:
* 28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA - approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 17 of these states also require coverage of related outpatient services.
* 2 states exclude emergency contraception from the required coverage.
* 1 state excludes minor dependents from coverage.
* 20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate. 8 states have no such provision that permits refusal by some employers or insurers. (The States are Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin so 8 states that require even churches to fund contraception)
(These remaining numbers are for the 20 states that require contraception but have exceptions. Here are the exceptions)
* 4 states include a “limited” refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so .
* 7 states include a “broader” refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse, but not hospitals.
* 8 states include an “ expansive ” refusal clause that allows religious organizations , including at least some hospitals , to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with moral or religious objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states ex empt insurers in addition to employers.)
* 14 of the 20 states with exemptions require employees to be notified when their health plan does not cover contraceptives.
* 4 states attempt to provide access for employees when their employer refuses to offer contraceptive coverage, generally by allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own, but at the group rate.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf
So 22 states do not require it at all, and another 20 grant exemptions to some or all religious institutions whose doctrine forbids birth control. How many times has the constitutionality of that specific provision in the other 8 been tested in court?
I am asking for this is much the same logic saying that Catholic employers should not have to pay for contraception.
Government forcing people to directly finance other people doing things that contradict the first peoples religious beliefs is a First Amendment infringement. Jehovahs Witnesses could reasonably raise the same objection Catholics have, and, in fact, a "public" healthcare mandate whose principal form is PRIVATE employers paying for healthcare makes it almost inevitable that such valid objections will be routine. It is just another fantastic reason we need ACTUAL public healthcare instead of the dogs dinner of "public" healthcare we got.
First Amendments rights are NOT ABSOLUTE!!! Yes it is coercing a person to do something that person doesn't want to do. The government does have a right to do so. Cases that involve the first amendment invoke strict scrutiny (the highest level of judicial review) under strict scrutiny the government has to show that it is serving a "compelling governmental interest" and that it is doing so in the "least restrictive way in possible." Mainting the health and general welfare of a nation is a legitimate government interest (such as paying for contraception and blood transfusions.) There is a law school saying "strict in theory, fatal in fact," but this saying is more of a myth and doesn't hold up under empirical observation, 59% of court cases challenging laws involving religious freedom survive strict scrutiny (link below)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360
Furthermore you are dead wrong on the legal issues here Joel. 28 of 50 states already require health care plans in their state cover contraception. Some stats (italics is me quoting the below link, parts in parenthesis but no italics are Roland00 talking to make the comment a little more clear)
HIGHLIGHTS:
* 28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA - approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 17 of these states also require coverage of related outpatient services.
* 2 states exclude emergency contraception from the required coverage.
* 1 state excludes minor dependents from coverage.
* 20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate. 8 states have no such provision that permits refusal by some employers or insurers. (The States are Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin so 8 states that require even churches to fund contraception)
(These remaining numbers are for the 20 states that require contraception but have exceptions. Here are the exceptions)
* 4 states include a “limited” refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so .
* 7 states include a “broader” refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse, but not hospitals.
* 8 states include an “ expansive ” refusal clause that allows religious organizations , including at least some hospitals , to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with moral or religious objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states ex empt insurers in addition to employers.)
* 14 of the 20 states with exemptions require employees to be notified when their health plan does not cover contraceptives.
* 4 states attempt to provide access for employees when their employer refuses to offer contraceptive coverage, generally by allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own, but at the group rate.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf
So 22 states do not require it at all, and another 20 grant exemptions to some or all religious institutions whose doctrine forbids birth control. How many times has the constitutionality of that specific provision in the other 8 been tested in court?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up
09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM
- 1749 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again.
09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM
- 779 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor
10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM
- 670 Views
In general, I disagree with that view, but not in this particular case.
11/02/2012 02:02:42 AM
- 894 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well.
09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM
- 859 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources!
*NM*
09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM
- 595 Views

Wanting both parties to be hit by a bus does not make one non-partisan.
09/02/2012 10:05:28 PM
- 735 Views

You lost all credibility in the first line of your post.
09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM
- 798 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM*
09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM
- 491 Views
It's one thing to have a bias.
09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM
- 833 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms.
09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM
- 643 Views
The Catholic Church wants to eliminate the birth control coverage requirement entirely.
10/02/2012 12:24:01 AM
- 941 Views
Sounds like they just do not want Catholics directly financing; great argument for public healthcare
10/02/2012 02:27:36 AM
- 885 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly.
10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM
- 1663 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention?
10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM
- 2098 Views

If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote.
10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM
- 2130 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course.
11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM
- 1945 Views
No everynametaken this is not unconsitutional according to the first ammendment
11/02/2012 12:14:29 AM
- 1943 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end.
10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM
- 2195 Views
He is already preparing to cave.
10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM
- 2173 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said.
10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM
- 1966 Views
Aaaaand you can put your hat back on now: Obama has already caved.
10/02/2012 04:04:30 PM
- 2193 Views
Yup, the cave already happened.....you could have set your watch to this! *NM*
10/02/2012 05:00:02 PM
- 1680 Views
Actually, no, I could not; I expected it to take another week or two.
11/02/2012 01:27:31 AM
- 2081 Views
No, you don't have to buy it from insurers. You get it for free, just like everyone else will. *NM*
10/02/2012 09:55:53 PM
- 1825 Views
"The employees can then buy the coverage directly from an insurer."
11/02/2012 01:25:52 AM
- 2184 Views
Then that article is wrong.
11/02/2012 01:43:40 AM
- 2131 Views
Two days ago the White House said it would not back down from requiring school/hospital compliance.
11/02/2012 01:57:50 AM
- 2096 Views
So in summary... the article you posted was wrong.
11/02/2012 02:18:00 AM
- 1644 Views
To soon to tell, but if you think so feel free to demand a correction from them.
11/02/2012 03:12:40 AM
- 885 Views
Losing the exchanges is a pretty big loss
11/02/2012 03:30:15 AM
- 795 Views
So they refuse to cover it for the next two years, then do an about face in 2014.
11/02/2012 03:57:53 AM
- 963 Views
If Aetna does not provide the free contraception as part of the compromise
11/02/2012 02:46:14 AM
- 673 Views
Yeah, I saw that; if Aetna does not do as Obama says by 2014 they lose out on free profits then.
11/02/2012 03:13:36 AM
- 734 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions?
10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM
- 751 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM
- 927 Views
Money is not the same as speech!
10/02/2012 07:20:56 PM
- 650 Views
And actions are different from both—until others are expected to pay for ones actions.
11/02/2012 12:53:40 AM
- 906 Views
No it isn't Joel, empirically you are dead wrong
10/02/2012 11:24:19 PM
- 891 Views
I do not see how requiring private entities do it instead of the feds is "least restrictive way."
11/02/2012 12:53:22 AM
- 876 Views
Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. Superior Court
11/02/2012 01:21:46 AM
- 811 Views
"the Court found that it wasn't a religious organization, it was just a non-profit corporation."
11/02/2012 01:36:33 AM
- 669 Views
One last point
10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM
- 978 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes.
11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM
- 755 Views
You argument does not make sense
11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM
- 643 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency.
11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM
- 767 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality
11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM
- 874 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money?
11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM
- 824 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money?
11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM
- 2073 Views
In other words, I could.
11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM
- 562 Views
You believe it can't help people since it is not single payer? *NM*
11/02/2012 04:31:13 AM
- 497 Views
Since you answered this in your other response I will just adress it there. *MN*
11/02/2012 05:59:37 AM
- 842 Views
Some more points
11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM
- 897 Views
Sex is not a necessity either.
11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM
- 837 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a
in it )
11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM
- 869 Views

Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained.
11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM
- 793 Views
The polls disagree with you.
11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM
- 759 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls.
11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM
- 802 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway
11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM
- 935 Views
Frankly, I hope Obamacare DOES die, just not because of the public mandate.
11/02/2012 07:18:04 AM
- 806 Views
I haven't really heard about it outside of this post, so the negative exposure can't be too bad.
11/02/2012 05:56:58 PM
- 634 Views
There seems to be plenty of Hell raising over it, but you are in the States and I am not.
11/02/2012 07:55:51 PM
- 649 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is
11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM
- 804 Views
Understood.
11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM
- 757 Views
mmm...
11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM
- 815 Views
The man talked about during the campaign was the one elected with a mandate.
12/02/2012 02:28:15 AM
- 957 Views
I think Obama (for once) was far more clever you give him credit for...
15/02/2012 05:11:10 PM
- 1017 Views
Surrendering on liberal issues then blaming Republicans is not just Obamas strategy, but his POLICY.
15/02/2012 07:23:04 PM
- 866 Views