Contraceptives as preventive health is a lie. I have seen some tv comercials against certain brand birth control pills negitive effects. Like blood clots and stokes to call a certian phone number for compensation. Contraceptives are not good for women health.

I am praying for a favorable decision.  If the goverment prevails in this, the first amendment is DEAD.  They are saying that because the gentleman takes his Catholic faith seriously, he deserves to be run out of business.  The notion that conduct is not speech is a lie; in fact, we have a word for conduct that is the opposite of one’s speech—it is called hypocrisy.

Notwithstanding the bishops’ arm waving about religious liberty and Bowman’s assertion in the article, the health care law does not “force” employers to act contrary to their consciences.  Contrary to bishops’ assertions and the widespread belief of those who trustingly accept their claims, the law does no such thing.

Under the law, employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments (which, by the way, would total much less than the cost of health plans) to the government.  Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.

Some nonetheless have continued complaining that by paying assessments, they would indirectly be paying for things they oppose, seemingly missed that that is not being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars.

In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required.

Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar.

enness, you are wishing for an unfortunate outcome.  The lawsuit essentially asks for the right of anyone to disobey any law on the grounds of conscience, indeed to deprive others of their rights under the law on the grounds of personal religious conviction.

No pluralistic society - and whether you wish it or not, we are a pluralistic society - can endure under such conscience clauses.

It is unconstitutional for the Obama administration to put in effect any laws that attempt to negate the great and fundamental foundations of a free country and should cause this administration to be tried for acts of intentional negligence or treason.

The government is telling religious people they cannot practice what they preach. What good are your religious beliefs if you can’t live them out?

In order to get his vote for Obamacare, Obama promised Congressman Bart Stupak that conscience would be respected via his executive order. He swore up and down to the American people that conscience exemptions would b e in the bill. He told Notre Dame the same in his speech there. He told the bishops they had nothing to worry about because there would be a conscience clause.

Is anyone gullible enough to believe HHS won’t mandate any immorality that suits it? Nancy Pelosi wasn’t being funny when she said we had to pass this bill to find out what is in it: Kathleen Sebelius and Obama are free to make it up as they go along, without any Congressional oversight or checks and balances.

What about the Catholic job seeker, who is unable to find “gainful employment” because doing so will violate moral conscience (i.e. working for a general practitioner or pharmacist). I mean, it’s just one more reason why I remain unemployed.

Since when does abortion “improve the health of women and children” in that stupid judge’s view? So far it has resulted in *death* for children and some women, like the one in Chicago!

I would call it tyranny.  The government seems to be saying ‘You do as we say or you will forfeit everything you’ve ever worked for, or sacrifice your beliefs and morals.’  I pray for our country daily.  If more of us do that, it will eventually make a difference.  But we have to live what we believe.

All I can say about this issue is - good luck, because the majority of people I run into, non-Catholic and Catholic, are in the pro-contraception coverage camp. The culture and the media have not been terribly sympathetic, characterizing the church as a bunch of mean old men wanting to deprive women of reproductive rights. However the bishops are not pushing removing contraceptives from the shelves under force of law here. It’s amazing that people don’t respect that businesses or charities run by religious organizations shouldn’t be forced to cover things (within reason, of course) they find morally objectionable.

Doug Indeap - First off, this “assessment” is a penalty imposed on employers who don’t provide insurance plans.  Saying that you’re free to follow your faith as long as you submit to the penalty is still an infringement of religious freedom.

Second, even if you assume the “assessment” option is a real, un-coerced option from a constitutional standpoint, you’re still basically saying that every employer has the right to offer health insurance to their employees (and thus be a more attractive employer) *except* employers of certain faiths, who must either violate their faiths, or not provide insurance.  This is still discrimination against certain religions.  Also, see my point below to Ear of Malchus.

Ear of Malchus - Two main points for you, too.  First, we’re not asking for a general conscience objection to any law we don’t like - we’re asking to be exempted from being ordered to provide, at our direct expense (those of us who are employers) a product that we find morally objectionable.  We’re not asking to be allowed to hurt anyone, or take any options away from anyone (see point 2) or compel anyone else to do anything or refrain from doing anything.  We just don’t want to be ordered by the wise and benevolent Obama to do something we feel is wrong.  You can’t force a Jew to eat pork, and you can’t force a Jehovah’s Witness to give blood (or accept a transfusion) - and you can’t force a Catholic to pay for abortifacients and sterilizations.

Second, we’re not depriving anyone of any rights.  An employer who chooses not to cover contraceptives and other objectionable treatments (a) is not prohibiting any employee from getting them from other sources (including private insurance, or even free or low-cost clinics) and (b) is not forcing any person to work for them.  If dental coverage is important to me, and an employer doesn’t offer dental, I can’t cry to the courts that they’re denying me my right to dental care…  I can choose to find another employer who *does* give dental.  If you go to a Chinese restaurant, you don’t complain that you can’t order a burger - if you wanted a burger, why did you go out for Chinese instead of to a bar & grill joint?  If you choose to work for a Catholic employer (whether affiliated with the Church or just owned by a Catholic), you can’t complain that you don’t get coverage for drugs and services that the Church doesn’t approve of - if you wanted that, why did you work for a Catholic organization, instead of a secular one?

Doug Indeap: I didn’t “trustingly accept their claims,” though I don’t see what is so wrong with that, any more than believing that my mother loves me.  I was against this while it was still a rumor.  The fines are apparently so onerous that some organizations have concluded it may run them out of business or seriously hamper their ability to provide the service they are trying to provide - I think they would know that better than armchair quarterbacks in comboxes, no?
-
No, Ear of Malchus, not anyone for any reason.  I have no issue with an expectation that the ostensibly injured party provide evidence of sincerity and not just trying to get out of something.  Our long tradition supports the claim.  There is little if any precedent for the idea that free birth control is a right that must be extracted at the cost of other people’s first amendment rights.  Before I ditched the Pill for good, I use to get it at Walgreens for $12 a month, and there was never a bishop following me around, looking over my shoulder.

“preventive care” for women???  whatever happened to just say no?  We’ve insisted on it for our kids with drinking, drugs and smoking—but what about men and women using self-control???? this is not preventive care as pregnancy is not an illness.

Anthony,

Confronted by questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith, the courts have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (E.g., http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html)

When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), provide exemptions for conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.

The real question here then is not so much whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences. Since the law already affords employers choices by which they can avoid acting contrary to their consciences, there is no need for an exemption. The fact that that choice also entails an economic consequence–perhaps a cost or, since the assessments are less than the cost of health care plans, perhaps an economic benefit–does not somehow mean employers are “forced” to violate their consciences. They may not like what the government does with “their” money, but that’s a gripe no different than that of many taxpayers.

The real aim of those seeking an exemption is to free employers of the law’s requirements and thereby free them to foist their religious views on their employees.

enness,

The assessments are hardly “onerous.”  Indeed, just the opposite.  Because they have been set so low and because the law affords individuals more opportunities to obtain insurance themselves, 10-30% of employers are considering that option according to several recent studies.  The claim that the law “forces” employers to violate their consciences is simply false.  All the arm waving about religious liberty is just political theater aimed at obtaining an exemption that allows employers to limit their employees’ choices to those conforming to the employers’ religious beliefs.  Their aim is not religious liberty for themselves (they already have that), but rather power over their employees.

Doug Indeap, I think your posts are simply wishful thinking.
“(T)he law already affords employers choices by which they can avoid acting contrary to their consciences, there is no need for an exemption.”
Hilarious! Let’s take a look at those options: going out of business, acting contrary to one’s deeply held religious beliefs, paying heavy fines that no other employers need to pay . . . yep, very real “choices” there. May I remind you that this is still America, that Catholics and those of other religious beliefs are citizens, and that the First Amendment has not been done away with and Freedom of Religion is still a protected Constitutional right? You may not like it, but your (apparent) disagreement doesn’t negate those facts.

We’ll see what the Supreme Court decides, won’t we? They already gave clues as to what they are thinking, in the June 28 case.
Justice Ginsberg, p. 29 in her dissenting opinion:

”Other provisions of the Constitution also check congressional overreaching. A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” Chief Justice Roberts had some like-minded comments in his majority opinion.

(Not to mention the federal district judge in Colorado who gave Hercules Industries a temporary injunction against the HHS mandate on Friday.)

Dougindeap is badly misinformed. No one should be misled by anything s/he says.  It is simply not true, for example, that practicing-Catholic business owners would “have the option of not providing any [health] plans and instead simply paying assessments (which, by the way, would total much less than the cost of health plans) to the government.”  The Government has not made that argument in its briefs in ANY of the pending cases, because it’s not true.  Here, instead, are the facts from the Hercules Industries case, which illustrate the grave harm and coercion in issue:  Hercules Industries - wholly owned by the Newland family - has 265 full-time employees. Failing to knuckle under to the coercive HHS mandate in this case would make them liable for (i) penalties through the Treasury Department of approximately $100 per employee per day (see Section 1563(e)-(f) of the Obamacare law): that’s $26,500 per day, for so long as they continue omitting coverage of the items to which they conscientiously object—which adds up to $9.5 million per year; AND (ii) penalties of $2,000 per year per employee if they elect to omit health coverage altogether (that adds up to $530,000 per year); AND (iii) liability to expensive private lawsuits in federal court brought by the EEOC, private plaintiffs, or both; and those suits can specifically force the plaintiffs to violate their beliefs by providing the objectionable coverage. 

Nor are dougindeap’s declarations concerning the applicable First Amendment law remotely accurate.  He overlooks that, under binding Supreme Court precedent, a challenged law is NOT a “law of general application” where, as here, it has galaxy-sized exclusions from its coverage; where it discriminates among religions; and where it grants exclusions for secular reasons but not religious ones.  He also overlooks the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - a federal statute.  I urge everyone to read Judge Kane’s decision in this case which - unlike dougindeap - actually describes accurately the relevant legal landscape.  The fact is, the Obama Administration’s outrageous HHS mandate violates both the First Amendment and RFRA.

Jeanette and Madisonian,

I am familiar with both of the provisions of the ACA Madisonian mentions. They work much differently than he supposes. The former applies only when a health insurance plan is offered and it fails to meet statutory requirements. That provision simply does not apply when an employer chooses not to provide health insurance. It bears noting, too, that the provision contains many exceptions and other ways to avoid or substantially reduce the penalty.

The latter is the provision pertinent here. It provides that an employer choosing not to provide such health insurance pays an assessment of only $2,000 per employee per year–far less than the typical annual cost of health insurance. Moreover, employers don’t pay any assessment for the first 50 employees–a $100,000 saving. Employers with fewer than 50 employees, thus, would owe nothing.

Far from forcing religious employers to pay “heavy fines no other employers need to pay,” as Jeanette supposes, the ACA actually affords all employers more choices.  It is for this reason that, according to two recent studies, 10-30% of employers are considering the option of not providing such insurance—for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html  http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_US_health_care_reform_will_affect_employee_benefits_2813 They think that it may be economically advantageous, and they certainly don’t think it will put them out of business.

Again, contrary to all the wild assertions of late, the ACA does not force—DOES NOT FORCE—any employer to provide any insurance, let alone insurance conflicting with the employers’ beliefs.

You assume constitutionality and, as Madisonian pointed out, Judge Kane’s decision sharply points otherwise, under the RFRA: “Even if the government were able to establish a compelling interest in applying the preventive care coverage mandate to Plaintiffs, it must also demonstrate that there are no feasible less-restrictive alternatives.” Fail.

Your characterization of a penalty exemption “for the first 50 employees” as a $100,000 “savings” is delusional.

As I said, we’ll see what the Supreme Court says on this; a successful challenge under the RFRA looks mighty likely, since the government wasn’t content with merely dispensing free contraceptives to every female but rather, insisted on attempting to crush religious opposition to its use.

In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is “morally sound.”  While also considering this option “unfortunate” in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers’ “moral connection” to that coverage would be “remote.”  https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821

Bottom line:  Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences.  Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.

Doug Indeap - First, I agree that the “option” to pay the “assessment” would be a way for Catholics to avoid violating their principles - but it’s still a *penalty* (or a “tax”) for refusing to violate their principles.  If Obama said, “Sunday Mass is banned, but you won’t be arrested, just fined $0.10 per parishioner,” even such a relatively small penalty would still be a First Amendment violation.

Second, as Madisonian points out, this is not a “law of general application,” as there are many exemptions, some of which are already conscience-based (e.g. if you belong to a faith that morally objects to health insurance in general, you don’t need to comply with the individual mandate portion of the law).  What this law does is not to create a universal rule that just happens to burden certain religions - it picks and chooses which moral objections are worth respecting and which religions have a strong enough objection to be counted (e.g. Amish - yes, Catholic - no).  Once the government starts doing that, it has to either exempt all religious objectors equally, or none at all (and we all know the law would never have passed if there were no exemptions at all).

This also leads me to my final point: even the “law of general application” principle is not unlimited.  I think there can be no reasonable doubt that if the government chose to enact a blanket ban on more than X number of women living under one roof (like the old-school “brothel” laws), they would be constitutionally compelled to exempt convents.  Likewise, a law mandating that all livestock be slaughtered by pneumatic hammer only would have to exempt Jews for the purpose of Kosher slaughter provisions.

If the government were free to burden religions to any extent it wished, just by making the laws applicable to everyone equally, then the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause would be toothless.  “No, we’re not banning Catholic Mass, we’re just making it illegal for *anyone*, regardless of religion, to serve food or drink in a non-residential venue without applying (and paying) for a permit for each gathering, or getting a restaurant license.”