This is a relevant national This is a relevant national topic of debate, right now.
I hope my poll ties in nicely with walter’s poll on God and religion.
desmond
February 20, 2012 @
3:31 PM
B ri
I see you are slowing B ri
I see you are slowing easing back into your old ways.
bearishgurl
February 20, 2012 @
3:37 PM
brian, you don’t have a brian, you don’t have a category for those who are too old to care anymore …
UCGal
February 20, 2012 @
8:48 PM
bearishgurl wrote:brian, you [quote=bearishgurl]brian, you don’t have a category for those who are too old to care anymore …[/quote]
He has that category half covered with ” Idon’t need it, but Iwould use it.”
He should add I don’t need it but wouldn’t use it…
svelte
February 20, 2012 @
8:52 PM
Another topic that matches Another topic that matches recent discussions in our house. My wife and I were talking about this just last night.
And we discovered that over the years we’ve been together, we have used every means of birth control that we could think of (pill, IUD, sponge, diaphram, condom, timing, and vasectomy). I guess we missed tube-tieing.
zk
February 21, 2012 @
11:14 PM
svelte wrote:Another topic [quote=svelte]Another topic that matches recent discussions in our house. My wife and I were talking about this just last night.
And we discovered that over the years we’ve been together, we have used every means of birth control that we could think of (pill, IUD, sponge, diaphram, condom, timing, and vasectomy). I guess we missed tube-tieing.[/quote]
Timing? Oh, dear. My (catholic) parents had 7 kids in 7 years and 11 months – no twins – using “timing.” I wonder if they were doing it wrong. Well, obviously they were “doing it” right. I mean doing the timing wrong.
bearishgurl
February 21, 2012 @
11:25 PM
zk wrote:Timing? Oh, dear. My [quote=zk]Timing? Oh, dear. My (catholic) parents had 7 kids in 7 years and 11 months – no twins – using “timing.” I wonder if they were doing it wrong. Well, obviously they were “doing it” right. I mean doing the timing wrong.[/quote]
Lol, lol, zk …. from another individual raised “Catholic.” There is no excuse for “timing wrong” for any period since 1962 (when the BCP was first introduced), IMHO. Faulty “timing” was/is all on the parents from then on ….
I’m guilty here…. thus, we have an early/mid boomer in our wings still doing the “HS thing,” lol …..
It is what it is :=0
zk
February 21, 2012 @
11:29 PM
bearishgurl wrote:zk [quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]Timing? Oh, dear. My (catholic) parents had 7 kids in 7 years and 11 months – no twins – using “timing.” I wonder if they were doing it wrong. Well, obviously they were “doing it” right. I mean doing the timing wrong.[/quote]
Lol, lol, zk …. from another individual raised “Catholic.” There is no excuse for “timing wrong” for any period since 1962 (when the BCP was first introduced), IMHO. Faulty “timing” was/is all on the parents from then on ….
I’m guilty here…. thus, we have an early/mid boomer in our wings still doing the “HS thing,” lol …..
It is what it is :=0[/quote]
Isn’t it, though?
Interesting, of the 7 of us, none are catholics (and only one is religious – and even her only since she married a very religious guy who ended up a pastor). I’m curious what the stats would be for children of catholics from our era.
bearishgurl
February 21, 2012 @
11:33 PM
zk wrote:…I’m curious what [quote=zk]…I’m curious what the stats would be for children of catholics from our era.[/quote]
I would venture … ex-communicated and non-practicing Catholics, primarily (whether or not currently practicing some other “religion”).
no_such_reality
February 21, 2012 @
12:00 PM
Using or not using isn’t the Using or not using isn’t the political issue. The issue is who should be required to pay
That said, have used, don’t use, will use agaIn. as for paying, my carrier should pay and I expect my premiums to reflect that they do for everyone they cover.
I also expect my premiums to be lower because they do provide and years of BC are far cheaper than a single pregnancy.
njtosd
February 21, 2012 @
12:17 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Using [quote=no_such_reality]Using or not using isn’t the political issue. The issue is who should be required to pay
[/quote]
The issue that has arisen lately is a political one, specifically, what is the effect of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution. And I do believe that requiring a religious institution to pay for procedures and medication that contravene the very basis of that institution’s religious beliefs is a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
12:25 PM
I believe that oral sex I believe that oral sex should be taught in schools as a form of birth control.
SK in CV
February 21, 2012 @
2:52 PM
njtosd wrote:no_such_reality [quote=njtosd][quote=no_such_reality]Using or not using isn’t the political issue. The issue is who should be required to pay
[/quote]
The issue that has arisen lately is a political one, specifically, what is the effect of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution. And I do believe that requiring a religious institution to pay for procedures and medication that contravene the very basis of that institution’s religious beliefs is a violation of the Free Exercise clause.[/quote]
This is a rediculous argument. Nobody is being told how to practice their religion. Nobody is being told that they MUST use birth control. The SCOTUS has long held that religious beliefs do not supercede laws. You can’t violate a law and blame it on your religion, even if your religion tells you to violate a law. To the contrary, adapting a law that specifically exempts a religious organization from complying with the law may violate the establishment clause.
njtosd
February 21, 2012 @
3:55 PM
deleted deleted
njtosd
February 21, 2012 @
3:56 PM
SK in CV – Clearly you have SK in CV – Clearly you have very strong views on this point but they don’t seem based on actual legal theory. You are welcome to your views but you seem to miss the fact that one of the main points of the Constitution (which the Supreme Court interprets, not vice versa) is that the government should avoid supporting or interfering with the practice of religion. Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
4:08 PM
When a church is an employer When a church is an employer don’t they have to follow rules that apply to all employers?
markmax33
February 21, 2012 @
4:10 PM
Birth Control makes women Birth Control makes women crazy, but I still think it’s pretty cool!
njtosd
February 21, 2012 @
9:28 PM
walterwhite wrote:When a [quote=walterwhite]When a church is an employer don’t they have to follow rules that apply to all employers?[/quote]
I thought you were a lawyer(?) It’s a Free Exercise/strict scrutiny analysis IMHO.
Anonymous
February 21, 2012 @
4:09 PM
njtosd wrote:Forcing the [quote=njtosd]Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Nobody is forcing a church to do anything. The church chooses to operate businesses, and the church chooses to hire employees.
The church chooses to participate in economic activities that the federal government unquestionably has the power to regulate.
If I had a religion that forbade the wearing of hard-hats, could I ignore OSHA laws? (We could easily could come up with similar, and very pertinent examples all day…)
This is a manufactured issue – manufactured by a desperate faction of a political party that is quickly losing any shred of credibility. It is the most ridiculously irrelevant non-issue of the century so far.
njtosd
February 21, 2012 @
9:16 PM
pri_dk wrote:njtosd [quote=pri_dk][quote=njtosd]Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Nobody is forcing a church to do anything. The church chooses to operate businesses, and the church chooses to hire employees.
The church chooses to participate in economic activities that the federal government unquestionably has the power to regulate.
If I had a religion that forbade the wearing of hard-hats, could I ignore OSHA laws? (We could easily could come up with similar, and very pertinent examples all day…)
This is a manufactured issue – manufactured by a desperate faction of a political party that is quickly losing any shred of credibility. It is the most ridiculously irrelevant non-issue of the century so far.[/quote]
You need to brush up on how these laws are reviewed by the Supreme Court. The first question that’s asked is whether a law contravenes the Establishment or Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. If it does not, then the analysis goes no farther. If it does, the law is reviewed under what is known as the strict scrutiny standard – in other words, the state has to show that it has a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities. The hard hat example would probably be considered a compelling interest. I don’t think abortion coverage in insurance is – but as I have said in other posts, reasonable people can differ.
When you speak of a “political party that is quickly losing any shred of credibility” – who are you talking about? Catholics are more likely to be democrats, which is why I believe Obama has retreated on this issue. And finally, I don’t think Constitutional issues are ridiculously irrelevant – but you are certainly welcome to your beliefs.
SK in CV
February 21, 2012 @
4:38 PM
njtosd wrote:SK in CV – [quote=njtosd]SK in CV – Clearly you have very strong views on this point but they don’t seem based on actual legal theory. You are welcome to your views but you seem to miss the fact that one of the main points of the Constitution (which the Supreme Court interprets, not vice versa) is that the government should avoid supporting or interfering with the practice of religion. Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Actually they are based on legal theories. You can argue all you want that the SCOTUS doesn’t make laws, but they do provide guidance on how existing law is to be interpreted. The constitution doesn’t say anywhere that religion will not be interfered with. The Catholic church has not been forced to fund abortion.
The SCOTUS has provided guidance on almost this exact same scenario more than 20 years ago, where they ruled:
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
These eloquent quoted words from Employment Division v. Smith were written by Justice Scalia in 1990. If a law is not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious belief, it must be followed, religious convictions notwithstanding.
As an example, if a religion holds, as one of its secret tenets, that priests will molest little boys, it is still a violation of law for them to do so, for the law probiting molestation of little boys is not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. Surely you agree that religious ritual would not be protected under the first amendment? Similarly, the church, in it’s commercial endeavors, be they for profit or non-profit, are subject to the same laws regarding employment practices as all non-church employers, without prejudice.
SK in CV wrote:njtosd [quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]SK in CV – Clearly you have very strong views on this point but they don’t seem based on actual legal theory. You are welcome to your views but you seem to miss the fact that one of the main points of the Constitution (which the Supreme Court interprets, not vice versa) is that the government should avoid supporting or interfering with the practice of religion. Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Actually they are based on legal theories. You can argue all you want that the SCOTUS doesn’t make laws, but they do provide guidance on how existing law is to be interpreted. [/quote]
Agreed
[quote=SK in CV] The constitution doesn’t say anywhere that religion will not be interfered with. The Catholic church has not been forced to fund abortion. [/quote]
In describing the Free Exercise clause, the SCt has said: Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. It is my opinion, which others are free to disagree with, that the position that President Obama has recently retreated from would have been a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
[quote=SK in CV] As an example, if a religion holds, as one of its secret tenets, that priests will molest little boys, it is still a violation of law for them to do so, for the law probiting molestation of little boys is not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. Surely you agree that religious ritual would not be protected under the first amendment? Similarly, the church, in it’s commercial endeavors, be they for profit or non-profit, are subject to the same laws regarding employment practices as all non-church employers, without prejudice. [/quote]
I wish you would have made a more reasonable hypothetical. How about limitations on the wearing of headscarves, or compulsory coed education in parochial schools or something similar? There are volumes of cases devoted to the limitations on government action with respect to religious entities – especially tax issues – which make it clear that there are special considerations when it comes to religious institutions. The case you cite, which relates to the use of peyote by a religious sect, was an easy call. I don’t think the issue of dictating what kind of insurance will be made available to employees of the Catholic Church is so easy.
SK in CV
February 21, 2012 @
9:33 PM
njtosd wrote:In describing [quote=njtosd]In describing the Free Exercise clause, the SCt has said: Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. It is my opinion, which others are free to disagree with, that the position that President Obama has recently retreated from would have been a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
[/quote]
In the case i cited, the Supreme Court said pretty clearly, that if a law is not aimed at restricting or promoting religion, it is not a violation of the free exercise clause.
It’s interesting that you single out the position of President Obama. It’s been the position of the federal government for more than 10 years that all employer provided prescription plans must cover birth control, with no exception for religious orgnaizations. Additionally, at least 28 states require policies with prescription drug coverage to cover birth control. The only new part of the ACA is that like all preventive care, it must be included with no co-pays. No case challenging either federal regulations nor a single state law have advanced in the federal courts. This argument is purely political in nature, without basis in law. Your own citation as the “position of President Obama” supports that argument. No significant arguments in any of the 28 states. No significant arguments at the federal level, despite it having the effect of law for more than 10 years (established under President Bush). It’s nothing more than petty political rhetoric with only a small minority support of the electorate. And no support of case law.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
9:47 PM
just not familiar with the just not familiar with the issue at all.
not sure how compelling providing brith control interferes witht he practice of religion. if everyone in the organization is super catholic, it’ll be available and no one will use it, right?
it’s not like the law forces the catholic church employees to use the birth control.
not seeing the issue.
briansd1
February 21, 2012 @
10:58 PM
Walter for judge!!! Walter for judge!!!
8bitnintendo
February 21, 2012 @
12:38 PM
Do tubal ligations count Do tubal ligations count (since I gather this poll has more to do with the debate on hormonal birth control and IUDs)? I’m not sure whether to go “have used and will use” or “don’t need but would use”.
Either way, I feel that “birth control” is a bit overly conflated a category, since most of those who object to birth control object to specific forms for various reasons. There seems to be a pretty wide spread of opinions, from “only family planning is acceptable” to “condoms are okay but hormonal and IUDs aren’t” to “everything but morning-after pills are okay” etc.
Actually, perhaps I should vote other, because there are several birth control options that I would not use for physiological reasons.
I still find it absolutely mind-boggling that birth control is being seriously debated. But I’m not sure I’m on board with forcing religious institutions to cover contraceptives in the health insurance they provide their employees. Considering how many Catholics still use birth control, if they have to pay $15-50 a month for a prescription another employer would cover, maybe Mr. Market will sort it out. I have to admit it would tickle me if some religious institutions had problems hiring people because their flock disagreed with their stance on birth control.
Of course, it does open the door for organizations run by Christian Scientists and some fundamentalist groups to fight against covering almost everything, Scientologists to not cover psychiatric services, etc. Is that a bug or a feature?
afx114
February 21, 2012 @
12:53 PM
I belong to a religion that I belong to a religion that opposes war, so I look forward to receiving a refund check covering the amount I paid in taxes that went toward funding the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
briansd1
February 21, 2012 @
1:36 PM
afx114 wrote:I belong to a [quote=afx114]I belong to a religion that opposes war, so I look forward to receiving a refund check covering the amount I paid in taxes that went toward funding the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/quote]
That’s a good one, afx114.
no_such_reality
February 21, 2012 @
1:13 PM
Target offers two generic BC Target offers two generic BC pills in three doses each as part of their $4 generics plan. So basically a person without coverage has a chance of getting something that works for the price of a pack of cigarettes a month.
WAlmart also offers two types at $9 a month
pokepud3
February 22, 2012 @
11:46 AM
Birth Control is a godsend. Birth Control is a godsend. Don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to use it if the need arises.
briansd1
February 22, 2012 @
12:40 PM
pokepud3 wrote:Birth Control [quote=pokepud3]Birth Control is a godsend. [/quote]
If God sent it, then I don’t see why religious folks would object. Maybe birth control is part of God’s master plan for us.
Anonymous
February 22, 2012 @
1:03 PM
briansd1 wrote:If God sent [quote=briansd1]If God sent it, then I don’t see why religious folks would object. Maybe birth control is part of God’s master plan for us.[/quote]
I was going to comment on the “need arises” part of pokepud3’s comment, but I give credit to Brian for taking the higher ground.
February 20, 2012 @ 3:01 PM
This is a relevant national
This is a relevant national topic of debate, right now.
I hope my poll ties in nicely with walter’s poll on God and religion.
February 20, 2012 @ 3:31 PM
B ri
I see you are slowing
B ri
I see you are slowing easing back into your old ways.
February 20, 2012 @ 3:37 PM
brian, you don’t have a
brian, you don’t have a category for those who are too old to care anymore …
February 20, 2012 @ 8:48 PM
bearishgurl wrote:brian, you
[quote=bearishgurl]brian, you don’t have a category for those who are too old to care anymore …[/quote]
He has that category half covered with ” Idon’t need it, but Iwould use it.”
He should add I don’t need it but wouldn’t use it…
February 20, 2012 @ 8:52 PM
Another topic that matches
Another topic that matches recent discussions in our house. My wife and I were talking about this just last night.
And we discovered that over the years we’ve been together, we have used every means of birth control that we could think of (pill, IUD, sponge, diaphram, condom, timing, and vasectomy). I guess we missed tube-tieing.
February 21, 2012 @ 11:14 PM
svelte wrote:Another topic
[quote=svelte]Another topic that matches recent discussions in our house. My wife and I were talking about this just last night.
And we discovered that over the years we’ve been together, we have used every means of birth control that we could think of (pill, IUD, sponge, diaphram, condom, timing, and vasectomy). I guess we missed tube-tieing.[/quote]
Timing? Oh, dear. My (catholic) parents had 7 kids in 7 years and 11 months – no twins – using “timing.” I wonder if they were doing it wrong. Well, obviously they were “doing it” right. I mean doing the timing wrong.
February 21, 2012 @ 11:25 PM
zk wrote:Timing? Oh, dear. My
[quote=zk]Timing? Oh, dear. My (catholic) parents had 7 kids in 7 years and 11 months – no twins – using “timing.” I wonder if they were doing it wrong. Well, obviously they were “doing it” right. I mean doing the timing wrong.[/quote]
Lol, lol, zk …. from another individual raised “Catholic.” There is no excuse for “timing wrong” for any period since 1962 (when the BCP was first introduced), IMHO. Faulty “timing” was/is all on the parents from then on ….
I’m guilty here…. thus, we have an early/mid boomer in our wings still doing the “HS thing,” lol …..
It is what it is :=0
February 21, 2012 @ 11:29 PM
bearishgurl wrote:zk
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]Timing? Oh, dear. My (catholic) parents had 7 kids in 7 years and 11 months – no twins – using “timing.” I wonder if they were doing it wrong. Well, obviously they were “doing it” right. I mean doing the timing wrong.[/quote]
Lol, lol, zk …. from another individual raised “Catholic.” There is no excuse for “timing wrong” for any period since 1962 (when the BCP was first introduced), IMHO. Faulty “timing” was/is all on the parents from then on ….
I’m guilty here…. thus, we have an early/mid boomer in our wings still doing the “HS thing,” lol …..
It is what it is :=0[/quote]
Isn’t it, though?
Interesting, of the 7 of us, none are catholics (and only one is religious – and even her only since she married a very religious guy who ended up a pastor). I’m curious what the stats would be for children of catholics from our era.
February 21, 2012 @ 11:33 PM
zk wrote:…I’m curious what
[quote=zk]…I’m curious what the stats would be for children of catholics from our era.[/quote]
I would venture … ex-communicated and non-practicing Catholics, primarily (whether or not currently practicing some other “religion”).
February 21, 2012 @ 12:00 PM
Using or not using isn’t the
Using or not using isn’t the political issue. The issue is who should be required to pay
That said, have used, don’t use, will use agaIn. as for paying, my carrier should pay and I expect my premiums to reflect that they do for everyone they cover.
I also expect my premiums to be lower because they do provide and years of BC are far cheaper than a single pregnancy.
February 21, 2012 @ 12:17 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Using
[quote=no_such_reality]Using or not using isn’t the political issue. The issue is who should be required to pay
[/quote]
The issue that has arisen lately is a political one, specifically, what is the effect of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution. And I do believe that requiring a religious institution to pay for procedures and medication that contravene the very basis of that institution’s religious beliefs is a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
February 21, 2012 @ 12:25 PM
I believe that oral sex
I believe that oral sex should be taught in schools as a form of birth control.
February 21, 2012 @ 2:52 PM
njtosd wrote:no_such_reality
[quote=njtosd][quote=no_such_reality]Using or not using isn’t the political issue. The issue is who should be required to pay
[/quote]
The issue that has arisen lately is a political one, specifically, what is the effect of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution. And I do believe that requiring a religious institution to pay for procedures and medication that contravene the very basis of that institution’s religious beliefs is a violation of the Free Exercise clause.[/quote]
This is a rediculous argument. Nobody is being told how to practice their religion. Nobody is being told that they MUST use birth control. The SCOTUS has long held that religious beliefs do not supercede laws. You can’t violate a law and blame it on your religion, even if your religion tells you to violate a law. To the contrary, adapting a law that specifically exempts a religious organization from complying with the law may violate the establishment clause.
February 21, 2012 @ 3:55 PM
deleted
deleted
February 21, 2012 @ 3:56 PM
SK in CV – Clearly you have
SK in CV – Clearly you have very strong views on this point but they don’t seem based on actual legal theory. You are welcome to your views but you seem to miss the fact that one of the main points of the Constitution (which the Supreme Court interprets, not vice versa) is that the government should avoid supporting or interfering with the practice of religion. Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?
February 21, 2012 @ 4:08 PM
When a church is an employer
When a church is an employer don’t they have to follow rules that apply to all employers?
February 21, 2012 @ 4:10 PM
Birth Control makes women
Birth Control makes women crazy, but I still think it’s pretty cool!
February 21, 2012 @ 9:28 PM
walterwhite wrote:When a
[quote=walterwhite]When a church is an employer don’t they have to follow rules that apply to all employers?[/quote]
I thought you were a lawyer(?) It’s a Free Exercise/strict scrutiny analysis IMHO.
February 21, 2012 @ 4:09 PM
njtosd wrote:Forcing the
[quote=njtosd]Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Nobody is forcing a church to do anything. The church chooses to operate businesses, and the church chooses to hire employees.
The church chooses to participate in economic activities that the federal government unquestionably has the power to regulate.
If I had a religion that forbade the wearing of hard-hats, could I ignore OSHA laws? (We could easily could come up with similar, and very pertinent examples all day…)
This is a manufactured issue – manufactured by a desperate faction of a political party that is quickly losing any shred of credibility. It is the most ridiculously irrelevant non-issue of the century so far.
February 21, 2012 @ 9:16 PM
pri_dk wrote:njtosd
[quote=pri_dk][quote=njtosd]Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Nobody is forcing a church to do anything. The church chooses to operate businesses, and the church chooses to hire employees.
The church chooses to participate in economic activities that the federal government unquestionably has the power to regulate.
If I had a religion that forbade the wearing of hard-hats, could I ignore OSHA laws? (We could easily could come up with similar, and very pertinent examples all day…)
This is a manufactured issue – manufactured by a desperate faction of a political party that is quickly losing any shred of credibility. It is the most ridiculously irrelevant non-issue of the century so far.[/quote]
You need to brush up on how these laws are reviewed by the Supreme Court. The first question that’s asked is whether a law contravenes the Establishment or Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. If it does not, then the analysis goes no farther. If it does, the law is reviewed under what is known as the strict scrutiny standard – in other words, the state has to show that it has a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities. The hard hat example would probably be considered a compelling interest. I don’t think abortion coverage in insurance is – but as I have said in other posts, reasonable people can differ.
When you speak of a “political party that is quickly losing any shred of credibility” – who are you talking about? Catholics are more likely to be democrats, which is why I believe Obama has retreated on this issue. And finally, I don’t think Constitutional issues are ridiculously irrelevant – but you are certainly welcome to your beliefs.
February 21, 2012 @ 4:38 PM
njtosd wrote:SK in CV –
[quote=njtosd]SK in CV – Clearly you have very strong views on this point but they don’t seem based on actual legal theory. You are welcome to your views but you seem to miss the fact that one of the main points of the Constitution (which the Supreme Court interprets, not vice versa) is that the government should avoid supporting or interfering with the practice of religion. Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Actually they are based on legal theories. You can argue all you want that the SCOTUS doesn’t make laws, but they do provide guidance on how existing law is to be interpreted. The constitution doesn’t say anywhere that religion will not be interfered with. The Catholic church has not been forced to fund abortion.
The SCOTUS has provided guidance on almost this exact same scenario more than 20 years ago, where they ruled:
These eloquent quoted words from Employment Division v. Smith were written by Justice Scalia in 1990. If a law is not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious belief, it must be followed, religious convictions notwithstanding.
As an example, if a religion holds, as one of its secret tenets, that priests will molest little boys, it is still a violation of law for them to do so, for the law probiting molestation of little boys is not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. Surely you agree that religious ritual would not be protected under the first amendment? Similarly, the church, in it’s commercial endeavors, be they for profit or non-profit, are subject to the same laws regarding employment practices as all non-church employers, without prejudice.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html
February 21, 2012 @ 9:04 PM
SK in CV wrote:njtosd
[quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]SK in CV – Clearly you have very strong views on this point but they don’t seem based on actual legal theory. You are welcome to your views but you seem to miss the fact that one of the main points of the Constitution (which the Supreme Court interprets, not vice versa) is that the government should avoid supporting or interfering with the practice of religion. Forcing the Catholic church to fund abortions seems about the most clear example of interference. And if it’s not, what is?[/quote]
Actually they are based on legal theories. You can argue all you want that the SCOTUS doesn’t make laws, but they do provide guidance on how existing law is to be interpreted. [/quote]
Agreed
[quote=SK in CV] The constitution doesn’t say anywhere that religion will not be interfered with. The Catholic church has not been forced to fund abortion. [/quote]
In describing the Free Exercise clause, the SCt has said: Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. It is my opinion, which others are free to disagree with, that the position that President Obama has recently retreated from would have been a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
[quote=SK in CV] As an example, if a religion holds, as one of its secret tenets, that priests will molest little boys, it is still a violation of law for them to do so, for the law probiting molestation of little boys is not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. Surely you agree that religious ritual would not be protected under the first amendment? Similarly, the church, in it’s commercial endeavors, be they for profit or non-profit, are subject to the same laws regarding employment practices as all non-church employers, without prejudice. [/quote]
I wish you would have made a more reasonable hypothetical. How about limitations on the wearing of headscarves, or compulsory coed education in parochial schools or something similar? There are volumes of cases devoted to the limitations on government action with respect to religious entities – especially tax issues – which make it clear that there are special considerations when it comes to religious institutions. The case you cite, which relates to the use of peyote by a religious sect, was an easy call. I don’t think the issue of dictating what kind of insurance will be made available to employees of the Catholic Church is so easy.
February 21, 2012 @ 9:33 PM
njtosd wrote:In describing
[quote=njtosd]In describing the Free Exercise clause, the SCt has said: Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. It is my opinion, which others are free to disagree with, that the position that President Obama has recently retreated from would have been a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
[/quote]
In the case i cited, the Supreme Court said pretty clearly, that if a law is not aimed at restricting or promoting religion, it is not a violation of the free exercise clause.
It’s interesting that you single out the position of President Obama. It’s been the position of the federal government for more than 10 years that all employer provided prescription plans must cover birth control, with no exception for religious orgnaizations. Additionally, at least 28 states require policies with prescription drug coverage to cover birth control. The only new part of the ACA is that like all preventive care, it must be included with no co-pays. No case challenging either federal regulations nor a single state law have advanced in the federal courts. This argument is purely political in nature, without basis in law. Your own citation as the “position of President Obama” supports that argument. No significant arguments in any of the 28 states. No significant arguments at the federal level, despite it having the effect of law for more than 10 years (established under President Bush). It’s nothing more than petty political rhetoric with only a small minority support of the electorate. And no support of case law.
February 21, 2012 @ 9:47 PM
just not familiar with the
just not familiar with the issue at all.
not sure how compelling providing brith control interferes witht he practice of religion. if everyone in the organization is super catholic, it’ll be available and no one will use it, right?
it’s not like the law forces the catholic church employees to use the birth control.
not seeing the issue.
February 21, 2012 @ 10:58 PM
Walter for judge!!!
Walter for judge!!!
February 21, 2012 @ 12:38 PM
Do tubal ligations count
Do tubal ligations count (since I gather this poll has more to do with the debate on hormonal birth control and IUDs)? I’m not sure whether to go “have used and will use” or “don’t need but would use”.
Either way, I feel that “birth control” is a bit overly conflated a category, since most of those who object to birth control object to specific forms for various reasons. There seems to be a pretty wide spread of opinions, from “only family planning is acceptable” to “condoms are okay but hormonal and IUDs aren’t” to “everything but morning-after pills are okay” etc.
Actually, perhaps I should vote other, because there are several birth control options that I would not use for physiological reasons.
I still find it absolutely mind-boggling that birth control is being seriously debated. But I’m not sure I’m on board with forcing religious institutions to cover contraceptives in the health insurance they provide their employees. Considering how many Catholics still use birth control, if they have to pay $15-50 a month for a prescription another employer would cover, maybe Mr. Market will sort it out. I have to admit it would tickle me if some religious institutions had problems hiring people because their flock disagreed with their stance on birth control.
Of course, it does open the door for organizations run by Christian Scientists and some fundamentalist groups to fight against covering almost everything, Scientologists to not cover psychiatric services, etc. Is that a bug or a feature?
February 21, 2012 @ 12:53 PM
I belong to a religion that
I belong to a religion that opposes war, so I look forward to receiving a refund check covering the amount I paid in taxes that went toward funding the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
February 21, 2012 @ 1:36 PM
afx114 wrote:I belong to a
[quote=afx114]I belong to a religion that opposes war, so I look forward to receiving a refund check covering the amount I paid in taxes that went toward funding the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/quote]
That’s a good one, afx114.
February 21, 2012 @ 1:13 PM
Target offers two generic BC
Target offers two generic BC pills in three doses each as part of their $4 generics plan. So basically a person without coverage has a chance of getting something that works for the price of a pack of cigarettes a month.
WAlmart also offers two types at $9 a month
February 22, 2012 @ 11:46 AM
Birth Control is a godsend.
Birth Control is a godsend. Don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to use it if the need arises.
February 22, 2012 @ 12:40 PM
pokepud3 wrote:Birth Control
[quote=pokepud3]Birth Control is a godsend. [/quote]
If God sent it, then I don’t see why religious folks would object. Maybe birth control is part of God’s master plan for us.
February 22, 2012 @ 1:03 PM
briansd1 wrote:If God sent
[quote=briansd1]If God sent it, then I don’t see why religious folks would object. Maybe birth control is part of God’s master plan for us.[/quote]
I was going to comment on the “need arises” part of pokepud3’s comment, but I give credit to Brian for taking the higher ground.