Court delays Obamacare contraception mandate for 2 nonprofits

13

The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily exempted two Catholic Church-affiliated nonprofits from requirements to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a brief order late Tuesday, hours before the controversial Obama administration mandates were set to go into effect.

The Little Sisters of the Poor – a charity congregation of Roman Catholic women in Denver – and the Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services had filed a lawsuit objecting to the contraception mandate, saying it violated their religious and moral beliefs. Some religious-affiliated groups were required to comply with contraception coverage or face hefty fines.

Sotomayor said the two groups were exempted from the mandates until at least Friday, when the federal government faces a deadline to file a legal response in the case. Another high court order is expected later this week.

Written By: Bill Mears
continue to source article at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

13 COMMENTS

  1. Well, apparently it’s extremely urgent that Catholic organizations not be forced into an awful, horrible state of immorality by being required to provide basic healthcare to women, but there’s no hurry at all to make them own up to child sex abuse by priests or any of the other egregiously immoral things they ignore, overlook, gloss over or deny on a daily basis. Nope – fuck women and children. Business as usual, just as it has been for the last thousand years.

    Furthermore, what is the point of calling something a “mandate” when anyone and everyone can get out of obeying it simply by saying “God!” I wish I could just ignore or disobey onerous laws like paying taxes on time or showing up for jury duty so easily. But, even though those actions aren’t going to ruin the lives of millions of women and children, or result in anyone’s death – I’d get a quick trip to prison. You think just saying “because God” to the IRS would work?

  2. It is a complex issue and just starting the long legal fight. The sisters are not being required to use birth control. The sisters are not being required to hand out birth control. They are only required to cover it in insurance. To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never said anything about insurance policies. In the past the SCOTUS has held that groups and persons could not use religious exemptions to laws that everyone generally must follow. The Court hates to get into this because the whole point of the Establishment Clause is to keep government from having to sort out theological issues. What would be truly interesting is if the six Catholic Justices felt they needed to recuse themselves, leaving the case to the three Jewish Justices. Oy vey!

  3. I wonder if the RCC will be able to come up with any actual evidence by Friday – which is usually what Courts adjudicate – or will they continue to just talk out of both sides of their mouths as usual, after swearing on their Fairy Book to tell the ‘truth’ – not the ‘Truth’ as they blindly see it….. Mac.

    • In reply to #4 by CdnMacAtheist:

      I wonder if the RCC will be able to come up with any actual evidence by Friday – which is usually what Courts adjudicate – or will they continue to just talk out of both sides of their mouths as usual, after swearing on their Fairy Book to tell the ‘truth’ – not the ‘Truth’ as they blindly see it……

      Priests are allowed by their faith to tell lies, or rather be economical with the truth – it’s called “mental reservation”. Basically as long as they say something which is technically true even if it isn’t truthful they’re a-okay. So they can make the answer misleading, ambiguous, omit salient facts or throw in provisos or qualifiers to avoid telling the truth.

      • In reply to #10 by locka:

        In reply to #4 by CdnMacAtheist:
        Priests are allowed by their faith to tell lies, or rather be economical with the truth – it’s called “mental reservation”. Basically as long as they say something which is technically true even if it isn’t truthful they’re a-okay. So they can make the answer misleading, ambiguous, omit salient facts or throw in provisos or qualifiers to avoid telling the truth.

        Hi Locka.

        I quite agree, the main reason for this is that they have so few facts or evidence to work with, so must ‘foolusophize’ to have enough to say to fill their time with, and to paper over all the multitude of cracks in their stories.

        As for “mental reservation”, I’d like to see them all put in a very secure one, to keep our youth & children safe from them, both emotionally & physically.

        I suggest that the Vatican, with some aggressive walls & bars, stripped of all the riches & comforts (to pay for the mods, upkeep & psychiatric care), would take & hold most of them until they keeled over & became ex-priests…. Mac.

  4. Okay Pope Frank, now is the time to show whether you are just all talk or there is some genuine intention to change the church. One word from him could shut this down. Why doesn’t he? No instead they all over the world oppose what other people do with their bodies, how we die, how and to whom we can be married, refusal to pay taxes, demands for exceptions for their beliefs based on nothing. Angry atheist? You bet! Get your nose out of other peoples business!

    • In reply to #7 by Miserablegit:

      Little sisters of the poor? I take it there is not trade descriptions act when they thought up this nauseating name.

      It does say “Little sisters of the poor”, not Little sisters for the poor?

      It seems they are doing their best to generate poverty and more impoverished underfunded large families who are open to missionary activity.

  5. Waiting for the Jehovah Witnesses to demand to be exempt for paying for transfusions and Christians “Scientists” to be exempt from paying for doctors, since both are repugnant to their beliefs.

  6. I don’t understand why this is even an issue. If an organization employs a person, what that person’s doctor prescribes for them is certainly not the business of the employer. Only a lame-brained American would argue with that. So if a person is dumb enough to not only continue to practice the Catholic faith, but would actually WORK for an RCC organization in America (where people know their rights and know the abusive history of the RCC), then as far as I’m concerned, these people are idiots and they deserve exactly what they get. What are we talking about here? Health care workers? Are we talking about nuns being covered for contraception? Administrative support staff, cleaning staff who are of reproductive age? What is this general profile of the type of worker being denied coverage for contraception? Anybody know?

    • In reply to #11 by ShesTheBeth:

      I don’t understand why this is even an issue. If an organization employs a person, what that person’s doctor prescribes for them is certainly not the business of the employer. Only a lame-brained American would argue with that. So if a person is dumb enough to not only continue to practice the C…

      I agree with you it’s really insane. And the amazing thing is the way this is discussed in the major US media, as if it’s a perfectly reasonable debate, as if not letting an employer define what healthcare their employee gets on religious grounds is considered an impingement on the freedom of the employer. It’s such a completely backward view of what words like “freedom” and “rights” are supposed to mean.

      The bottom line is if the RCC is concerned about morality all they have to do is make it clear to all their employees what good Catholics are supposed to do and all the good Catholics will choose to do that.

      Also, some of the care that the RCC doesn’t want to include can be used for things that have nothing to do with wanting to have sex without children. There are many legitimate uses for things like the pill that are purely medical and unrelated to pregnancy. If you heard of Sandra Fluke, she was going to testify to congress about one such example, a colleague she knew who needed birth control strictly for a medical condition.

Leave a Reply