Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[ice grillin you]

Based on what? Defamation? .

no i was thinking a shoplifting charge

[Munson]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063513/-Justice-Scalia-solves-the-contraception-debate

Justice Scalia FTW

[Eagles_Legendz]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063513/-Justice-Scalia-solves-the-contraception-debate

Justice Scalia FTW

"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."

I'm not sure Scalia would think this was a valid exercise of federal legislation, or at least that would be his justification if he came out against it.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Regarding Scalia, if anyone has free time, read his opinion in Gonzalez v Raich, and then decide how he's going to be a massive hypocrite when he justifies voting against the health care bill. 

[Munson]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063513/-Justice-Scalia-solves-the-contraception-debate

Justice Scalia FTW

"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."

I'm not sure Scalia would think this was a valid exercise of federal legislation, or at least that would be his justification if he came out against it.

I think the parallel that could be drawn could be the whole not fighting in a war for religious reasons...you don't have to fight in the war (take birth control or give out condoms at the door of the church during mass), but you do have to pay taxes that may or may not go towards funding the war (supply your employees with a health care plan that covers contraceptives)

with the new law, ALL health care providers have to cover contraceptives now. So the church an either suck it up and deal, or not offer health insurance. If they choose the latter, they'll have to deal with the better job candidates going to other jobs. I think they'll eventually make the decision that's better for business because, hey, God aint free either.

[Eagles_Legendz]

I will preface this by saying that I have no problem with the bill, but there are other issues.  The bill may well say that ALL providers have to cover contraceptives, but that doesn't mean that there is a basis for that to encroach on religion (i.e. the bill may not be constitutional on those grounds).  The court wouldn't be able to simply mandate a religious institution itself provide contraceptives, so the dividing line is, once that religious institution enters into a capacity that isn't simply religion, are they then able to be regulated by the government?  You and I may say yes, but I think judicially it is a very close call, just as the health care bill will be.

[Rome]

What kind of organization views contraception as contrary to its principles?    What a farce.

[Geowhizzer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A

[ice grillin you]

What kind of organization views contraception as contrary to its principles?    What a farce.

the irony here is that the right wing is much more anti abortion than anti contraception....yet by making it more difficult or outright banning contraception they are greatly increasing the number of unwanted preganancies....so you have to ask yourself why would the right wing zealots want to do something that is so against their own interests?

because this is about hating women not religious values or insurance costs

get them dumb bitches pregnant AND make them have the baby

basically only troglodytes would not want women to have cheap accessable birth control of their own...who the hell would be against something so pro society?

but beyond the fact that female contraception is good for just about everyone its none of my employers god damn business what my health insurance covers and doesnt cover...and my boss certainly shouldnt be able to deny part of my health coverage because of some random "belief" he/she has...thats between me and my insurance provider

again lets be clear here...this isnt an insurance or religious issue...its a direct attack on women as rush proved all last week...its just another case of the right wing going after a group of people who dont fall into the rich white christian male category....no different than the attempted attack on planned parenthood or the ultrasound rape bills...you can bet your ass if there were a male birth control pill available this charade would not be going on right now

i was especially proud of our country last week when david vitter was on the floor of the nations capital lecturing women on morals...jesus what an embarrassment

its also not a cost issue...everyone knows employers dont pay the cost of health care...they get around that cost like they get around the cost of anything...by limiting employee salaries...thus employees subsidize their own health care

[MDS]

http://www.istandwithrush.org/

[Diomedes]

just signed it as Jeff Gannon

y'all remember him?

[Eagles_Legendz]

What kind of organization views contraception as contrary to its principles?    What a farce.

You certainly have a large portion of the Catholic Church which does.  I'm not stumping for the right here because I think the position is dumb, but there is a fundamental constitutional issue regarding legislation which impacts religious organizations.  The federal government can't encroach on that territory, for the same reasons that the church shouldn't be allowed to encroach on the government.  The church as an organization in this country is Constitutionally protected, for better or worse. 

The government can't tomorrow declare that Christian Churches (or synagogues or whatever) have to hand out contraceptives, or provide contraceptives.  It isn't within the scope of their power, for better or worse.  You can debate the merits of that all you want, but the law is that there is very little the government can mandate churches do.

The reason why this is tricky is the argument isn't that they're regulating the church as a church, but rather they're regulating the church as an employer or health service provider.  The distinction is critical because the argument from the government then is that they aren't regulating the church within its official capacity, but rather when it strays outside of that capacity into other fields.  When it does that it ceases to become a religious organization primarily.  I think that argument has merit and is persuasive and think the law is valid, but there are issues with it in general which complicates it.

[Diomedes]

If the government argument fails, then what is to stop any religious organization from refusing to provide coverage for whatever they don't like.

Lets say for example that you're a local high school dropout who works for Watchtower in Brooklyn loading jesus pamphlets onto trucks....this would mean that they could give you health coverage...but not for blood transfusions.  So when the driver pulls away thinking you were finished, and as a result your hand gets chopped off and you bleed so much that you need to be given more once you get to the hospital, that service won't be covered and you'll get a bill for thousands...way more than you could ever cover on your dock loading pay.

Scientologists wouldn't pay for any psychiatric care.  Got raped, so what.  No therapy for you.  Family killed by a tornado, tough shtein, no grief counseling for you.

Who knows what Mormons would or wouldn't pay for, i don't know their cult rules well enough to guess.

The possibilities are endless and bad for society as a whole. 

Part of the seperation of church and state is the protection of the state from the church, not just the reverse.  We can't let the division between the two allow religiously affiliated groups carte-blanche to behave however they like under the mantle of religious freedom. 

[Rome]

Tax them all into oblivion.   

[Eagles_Legendz]

The foundation of religious separation was rooted in not wanting the church to have its autonomy threatened and face government persecution.  The converse is true as well in terms of religious usurpation of power within the government, but I'm not sure "protecting the state from the church" extends anywhere near organizations and their health care coverage.  At the very least I think there's trouble in asserting a constitutional argument that a religious organization's refusal to provide health care services to certain employees is a violation of the principle of church and state.

The argument succeeds or fails in general in regards to the government's right to legislate a church as an employer or health care provider.  Like I said before, I'm fairly certain the government in general regulating the church in its daily practice is unconstitutional (I'm not advocating this one way or the other).  Conversely, the federal government has a general right to legislate employers and health care providers.  For the government's argument to win, it depends wholly on whether or not the church's designation as a religious institution trumps their role when the venture outside this capacity. 

Like I said, I think the argument is dumb, and the church is dumb, and contraceptives are crucial both from a cost perspective and from a health perspective.  I also think the government probably can regulate the church because it isn't "the church" when it serves as an employer or health care provider.  But I don't think the question is whether its a good idea, or whether the church is smart or right.  Instead it's whether the government legally can regulate the church in this instance.