• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
WASHINGTON — Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration from forcing some religious-affiliated groups to provide health insurance coverage of birth control or face penalties as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Acting at the request of an order of nuns in Colorado, Justice Sotomayor issued the stay just hours before the requirement was to go into effect on New Year’s Day. She gave the Obama administration until Friday to respond to the Supreme Court.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/u...ate-in-health-law.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0
 
Sounds like they are now committed to hearing the case. Laws with political agendas are always bad laws. Yet the lawmakers continue passing them. We need to give them more and longer vacations.

They are already hearing multiple cases on the issue. There is that one and there is the other one by hobby lobby about the same thing.

there are so many different verdicts on this healthcare law that it should be deemed unconstitutional and ended. seem like every federal judge rules differently than the other one making it impossible to figure out what is legal and not legal.
 
They are already hearing multiple cases on the issue. There is that one and there is the other one by hobby lobby about the same thing. there are so many different verdicts on this healthcare law that it should be deemed unconstitutional and ended. seem like every federal judge rules differently than the other one making it impossible to figure out what is legal and not legal.

Actually Hobby Lobby is quite different. A secular corporation that was agreeable to many forms of contraception but not anything they considered akin to abortion- devices and drugs that prevent the fertilized egg implanting on the wall.

The Nuns represent a religious order that doesn't want ANY form of contraceptive in an insurance plan. The Nuns had several paths to avoid the court case but seem intent on forcing the issue in court. (Traditionally religious orders can opt out of federal plans if they certify they are self insuring, the Amish do this)

Our system works by a series of courts to decide important issues- not just one judge of one court of appeals. Once the Supreme Court makes a ruling it is quite possible to figure out what is legal and what isn't. To this day people are still arguing the Civil Rights Act of 1964- that some wish to constantly batter away until they get their way doesn't mean the system doesn't work or that important social issues are too complex to be implemented. Just means some will use any excuse to deny.

As an aside- when Justice Sotomayor was being grilled the CONs howled over what a liberal, activist Judge she was. The stay she issued should please many CONs out there. but then again it decided nothing.
 
The Nuns represent a religious order that doesn't want ANY form of contraceptive in an insurance plan. The Nuns had several paths to avoid the court case but seem intent on forcing the issue in court. (Traditionally religious orders can opt out of federal plans if they certify they are self insuring, the Amish do this)

"The administration says it has exempted churches from the contraceptive coverage requirement and offered an accommodation to certain religious nonprofit groups. But the Becket Fund argued that “the ‘accommodation’ still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”

This is partly why the nuns forced it into court.
 
I don't see the reason why they weren't exempt.
They are blatantly a religious, non-profit organization.

They are not a BUSINESS that has to adhere to BUSINESS regulations like Hobby Lobby.

They should never have had to go to court.
 
Well shoot, if being certain religions means getting exempt from Obamacare, im off to church everybody.
 
"The administration says it has exempted churches from the contraceptive coverage requirement and offered an accommodation to certain religious nonprofit groups. But the Becket Fund argued that “the ‘accommodation’ still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.” This is partly why the nuns forced it into court.

And I see the Becket Fund literally using the Little Sisters of the Poor as a stalking horse in the ACA debate. The Administration also allowed the religious order to self fund like the Amish do, but I imagine the Sisters want their cake in the secular world and eat it in the religious one while the Becket Fund wants a court fight.

No one outside Becket and the nuns are forcing anyone to court.... :roll:
 
And I see the Becket Fund literally using the Little Sisters of the Poor as a stalking horse in the ACA debate. The Administration also allowed the religious order to self fund like the Amish do, but I imagine the Sisters want their cake in the secular world and eat it in the religious one while the Becket Fund wants a court fight.

No one outside Becket and the nuns are forcing anyone to court....

Unless of course there is some sort of entity that is forcing nuns into buying abortion insurance. What could that be?
 
Well shoot, if being certain religions means getting exempt from Obamacare, im off to church everybody.

Wouldn't that be nice? It would be enough to convert even me. ;)
 
Last edited:
What I don't get is that Sotomayor voted that the law is constitutional. How does that square with this ruling??
Are you referring to the ruling about the individual mandate? This is a different mandate.
 
Are you referring to the ruling about the individual mandate? This is a different mandate.

No I am talking about the vote that ACA was constitutional. If they could only focus on the mandate due to the case in front of them I stand corrected.
 
So my question would be....if this decision comes back supporting the church...what happens when the next private business/employer that objects to specific health coverage based on religious beliefs brings their suit (as they will)? I realize they are not 'religiously-affiliated organizations' but IMO the basic premise of belief and govt imposition is the same.
 
Looks like we now have a Judicial Condom.
 
What I don't get is that Sotomayor voted that the law is constitutional. How does that square with this ruling??

This isn't a ruling. Its just a temporary injunction which gives the State time to respond.
 
This isn't a ruling. Its just a temporary injunction which gives the State time to respond.

I understand what it is, not sure why she would grant it based on her vote.
 
Sounds like they are now committed to hearing the case. Laws with political agendas are always bad laws. Yet the lawmakers continue passing them. We need to give them more and longer vacations.

And offering a few religious denominations special privileges under the law isn't a political agenda? Religious groups need to pay their damn taxes like the rest of us.
 
And offering a few religious denominations special privileges under the law isn't a political agenda? Religious groups need to pay their damn taxes like the rest of us.
This isn't a question of taxes though...is it?
 
This isn't a question of taxes though...is it?

Requiring them to pay for the insurance or face a penalty. The whole point of the supreme court decision about Obamacare was that it's a tax. I don't really care if it is one way or the other technically a tax. Religious groups shouldn't get out of compliance with the law.
 
Requiring them to pay for the insurance or face a penalty. The whole point of the supreme court decision about Obamacare was that it's a tax. I don't really care if it is one way or the other technically a tax. Religious groups shouldn't get out of compliance with the law.
Then the law needs an exception that allows them to purchase insurance which does NOT provide contraception and such.
 
And offering a few religious denominations special privileges under the law isn't a political agenda?

No. The Bill of Rights > statutory mandate to pay for anti- reproductive services.
 
Back
Top Bottom