President Obama's Birth Control Gamble

[Hubertus]

When will the mandate go to the courts?

[4588686]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1328294967' post='2380443']
When will the mandate go to the courts?
[/quote]

Soon enough. It could go either way. I think Kennedy is going to use it and some gay rights cases coming down the pipeline to make his name but it could go either way.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Hasan

[Guest]

@ kugo : no threat cuz just sayin the truth. Obama does not have the fear of God in him or he wouldn't be killing all these babies.

[kujo]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1328301759' post='2380511']
@ kugo : no threat cuz just sayin the truth. Obama does not have the fear of God in him or he wouldn't be killing all these babies.
[/quote]

It's "Kujo."

And I apologize for misinterpretting your tone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='FaithAndReason21' timestamp='1328243574' post='2380035']
It would be more akin to the President mandating that every restaurant in America, including Hindu owned Indian restaurants, serve hamburger meat as per some health and nutrition regulation coming from HHS, or forcing Muslims to serve pork, because the "other white meat" is just oh so nutritious. How long would a law such as that stand, do you think?
[/quote]
Exactly the example I was going to use, but you beat me to it.

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1328243694' post='2380036']
I don't think the pork argument is a very good one for the simple reason that you're more likely to be vegan if you're a crazy liberal, rather than advocating[i] *shudder* [/i]unhealthy and distasteful [i]meat[/i].
[/quote]
Such dictates (as is the HHS mandate forcing Catholic institutions to violate their religion by offering insurance covering contraception) would be equally in violation of the clause of the First Amendment against prohibiting the free practice of religion, whether the victims are crazy liberals or right wing-nuts.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328241686' post='2380016']
There is no Constitutional right specifically for religious institutions to operate a hospital or employ people with unique exceptions. After reading Douthat's article (I linked it on another thread) I think I lean towards this being unwise policy but to compare this to the President mandating that every citizen convert to Hinduism, something very obviously unconstitutional, is not just a silly exaggeration, it would also be a very different sort of exertion of power than the one utilized here, an exertion of power that is perfectly within any President's prerogative to utilize in the shaping of policy, even if this particular exercise of that class of power is unconstitutional.
[/quote]
It would quite accurately compare to the example given by Arfink of mandates requiring that Muslim establishments serve pork or Hindus serve beef (or that Amish-owned businesses be required to have laptops and internet access, or any number of examples one can think of). Either you take seriously the First Amendment protection of free practice of religion or you don't. If you make an exception for "unless the president thinks otherwise," the Constitution is meaningless, and we are in practice no longer a republic, but a dictatorship.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the powers of the federal government and protect the rights of the people - not the other way around. As per the tenth amendment, the federal government is to have no powers not specifically granted it in the Constitution, not to give it the power to do absolutely everything not specifically denied it.

This mandate, would clearly violate any reasonable definition of "free exercise of religion." Your reasoning in this case is just as absurd as if one would use it regarding the hypothetical pork mandate by saying, "There is no Constitutional right specifically for religious Muslims to operate a restaurant or employ people with unique exceptions."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328235661' post='2379942']
This is a mandate about health insurance for employees in a tax supported hospital.[/quote]
You're mistaken. The mandate applies to any institution that provides employees with insurance plans, including any private Catholic institutions that employ or teach any non-Catholics, whether they receive any tax money or not.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328234544' post='2379930']
Those, like me, who are mildly disconcerned about it but see it as a reasonable resolution to the collision of two sets of rights, the rights of woman and the rights of the Church, won't let this one thing sway us.
[/quote]
To use an example of a particular institution affected affected by (and fighting against) this mandate, the women employees and students of Christendom College would take strong issue to the charge that Christendom is violating their rights by not providing insurance that covers contraception. They are aware of this policy, and agree with it. In fact, most if not all would be proud of this policy, not wishing to support contraception in any way. Those that want contraception covered by their insurance have the choice of going to any of the countless other institutions that do.

It's those Catholic institutions that do not wish to violate their conscience in this way who do not have a choice in this matter, and whose constitutionally-guaranteed right to free practice of religion is being violated.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328319868' post='2380625']
It would quite accurately compare to the example given by Arfink of mandates requiring that Muslim establishments serve pork or Hindus serve beef (or that Amish-owned businesses be required to have laptops and internet access, or any number of examples one can think of). Either you take seriously the First Amendment protection of free practice of religion or you don't. If you make an exception for "unless the president thinks otherwise," the Constitution is meaningless, and we are in practice no longer a republic, but a dictatorship.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the powers of the federal government and protect the rights of the people - not the other way around. As per the tenth amendment, the federal government is to have no powers not specifically granted it in the Constitution, not to give it the power to do absolutely everything not specifically denied it.

This mandate, would clearly violate any reasonable definition of "free exercise of religion." Your reasoning in this case is just as absurd as if one would use it regarding the hypothetical pork mandate by saying, "There is no Constitutional right specifically for religious Muslims to operate a restaurant or employ people with unique exceptions."
[/quote]

Right. I agree. This was stupid policy and a stupid political move. The policy wasn't made to discriminate against a particular religion so I don't know how the court would rule on it. I think they should strike it down. Hawaii has a good policy whereby particular employees can form a cooperative of some sort to get Birth Control without their employers having to pay for it, and I think that would have been a much better option. I think women should have access to birth control but there are other ways to do it that don't arguably trample on religious freedoms.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Hasan

[Guest]

@ kugo : its razzle dazzle cuz.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328241686' post='2380016']
There is no Constitutional right specifically for religious institutions to operate a hospital or employ people with unique exceptions. After reading Douthat's article (I linked it on another thread) I think I lean towards this being unwise policy but to compare this to the President mandating that every citizen convert to Hinduism, something very obviously unconstitutional, is not just a silly exaggeration, it would also be a very different sort of exertion of power than the one utilized here, an exertion of power that is perfectly within any President's prerogative to utilize in the shaping of policy, even if this particular exercise of that class of power is unconstitutional.
[/quote]

Never ceases to amaze me how people will make any excuse, use any loophole to support their point of view. Throw religous freedom in the trash Hassan.

[4588686]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1330798394' post='2395740']
Never ceases to amaze me how people will make any excuse, use any loophole to support their point of view. Throw religous freedom in the trash Hassan.
[/quote]

What is my point of view that I will find any loophole to defend.

[Jesus_lol]

Its like Thessalonian doesnt read all the posts or he would have seen the one Hasan just made about how the mandate was poorly done and should be reworked so it doesnt mess with religious freedoms.

[4588686]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1330803532' post='2395771']
Its like Thessalonian doesnt read all the posts or he would have seen the one Hasan just made about how the mandate was poorly done and should be reworked so it doesnt mess with religious freedoms.
[/quote]

I still think it's constitutional. I just read an article in the National Review by a Law Professor from Notre Dame who concluded, unhappily, that the current court (a conservative court, I hasten to add) would probably find it constitutional, in large part based on the opinion of Employment Division V. Smith (written by Scalia, that well known liberal activist).

Sorry people, this law is almost certainly constitutional. I do agree that it is probably bad policy and unnecessarily confrontational. But my opinion that it is probably constitutional has nothing to do with any liberal agenda. It has to do with a basic grasp of the relevant case law.

[Groo the Wanderer]

wrong again

[4588686]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1330821568' post='2395868']


wrong again
[/quote]

Try giving some substance rather than your usual vapid dribble. Just friendly advice