The HL folks also had to demonstrate that the burden was substantial. The court addressed that point head on, and those who disagreed with the ruling, including the dissent, found differently. I see the other side, but that IS a major point of departure between the two groups on this issue.No, the issue of whether religious objections should result in a waver hinge on whether the government has a compelling interest in implementing the law and whether they are using the least restrictive means reasonably possible. It's clear that the Court's problem with how HHS did things was that they had a less restrictive alternative available and didn't offer it to HL.
Disclaimer: I seem to have to reiterate this over and over again when I make anything close to the above argument: Even with the undesirable consequences that I believe will come out of this ruling, I still believe the ruling is a good one. Sometimes freedom isn't free, and I think this will turn out to be a case of that. So please don't characterize my argument as being against this ruling or against religious freedom. Arguably, I am MORE principled regarding religious freedom than conservatives who want this ruling to be so narrow and unprincipled that it won't have any of the undesirable consequences that liberals have been saying it will have. Again, my argument is that the ruling will have SOME of the undesirable consequences liberals say it will have, and it is STILL as good ruling despite that.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
Don't know about the other men here but I had a lot of trouble breast feeding at night and couldn't seem to satisfy the baby's appetite. Other than that I had no problem changing diapers and helping my wife take care of the kids and in fact enjoyed it. Guess that is why I have such a good relationship with my kids todasy plus we have always accepted responsibility for our actions which is why we are conservative
Women's health care is Health Care, not religion. Someone taking birth control is not practising their religious beliefs. Someone else may believe it's wrong to use birth control and choose to not to take it. Someone else may believe that taking medicine is immoral. But that doesn't mean that I'm committing a religious act by taking a Tylenol.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
So based on all that, I don't blame them for the decision. If they had contraceptive options greater than zero, they were sure to be the subject of intense opposition, lawsuits, etc. and so I think rationally decided to include the full list because that makes the most sense medically, and best achieves the desired outcome. IUDs are extremely effective, for example, at the very top of the list and long lasting.
What they COULD have done is just accept the compromise offered by the House as I recall and give employers a "conscientious objection" out to any or all coverage. In retrospect, that was likely a mistake, although the compromise to the mandate is also being litigated, so even THAT wouldn't have cut off the debate, just blunted some of it.
Does a religious belief need a certain number of believers before it "counts"? If other people don't share in your deeply held religious beliefs are they no longer important? What about taxes? Can you now opt out of paying for the portions of government you have a moral objection to? What's the legal distinction between women's reproductive health care and immunization, prescription drugs, or any other form of health care? What about someone who believed that all healthcare was an affront to god, should they be allowed to ban their employees from purchasing health care too?
I think we all have to accept that this was a TERRIBLE ruling. The idea that something you own can avoid paying something for someone else which contributes to something which pays for something you don't like just because you own it is incredibly destructive to the legal system as a whole. I mean, in WV there are people who play with venomous snakes to prove their devotion to god. Is it really that hard to imagine a time in which theses same individuals believe that insurance in any form is immoral because god will provide? Is that actually a stretch?