Religious freedom and contraception

[RandFan]

The Churches could lobby and work to end Title X.

For that matter you and everyone who are against the mandate could speak out against Title X. I seriously question those who are fighting this. And I question it for very good reason. No one gave a damn until specific dynamics led to drawing a bogus line in the sand. Forgive me if I'm quite unimpressed with the "outrage" over forcing hospitals to cover co-pays for BC.

 

[RandFan]

So you'd be OK with it if the government provided contraceptive coverage directly and raised taxes on employers to pay for it?

-Bri

Yes because that's a special circumstance.

 

[xjx388]

And?

Bob: We don't want to pay for BC unless we have to.

?

Uh, yeah, that's the point.

Finally, xjx, you are special pleading. You are saying that there are special circumstances that make it okay to force people to fund BC. This is a Democracy. The Churches could lobby and work to end Title X.

No. I'm saying that the courts have ruled that religious organizations can't exempt themselves from the general tax because they object to what the money is being spent on (Amish and war, Catholics and BC, etc.).

But the courts have also ruled that you can't force anyone to do things that are against their religion (religious drug use, conscientious objectors, etc.). I believe that forcing the CC to pay for BC falls under this and that they and other religious institutions should be exempted similarly.

 

[RandFan]

No. I'm saying that the courts have ruled that religious organizations can't exempt themselves from the general tax because they object to what the money is being spent on (Amish and war, Catholics and BC, etc.).

Not responsive. Special pleading. Churches and conservatives could argue that Title X infringes on freedom of religion. You are simply finding special circumstances to justify your inconsistency.

But the courts have also ruled that you can't force anyone to do things that are against their religion (religious drug use, conscientious objectors, etc.). I believe that forcing the CC to pay for BC falls under this and that they and other religious institutions should be exempted similarly.

Then fight against Title X. If you are consistent. Don't get me wrong. I get your argument. But most conscientious objectors don't bow down and accept the military. They are fighting it. They are morally consistent.

 

[xjx388]

Not responsive. Special pleading. Churches and conservatives could argue that Title X infringes on freedom of religion. You are simply finding special circumstances to justify your inconsistency.

Then fight against Title X. If you are consistent. Don't get me wrong. I get your argument. But most conscientious objectors don't bow down and accept the military. They are fighting it. They are morally consistent.

There's no inconsistency.

Title X provides BC to low-income/uninsured people right now. Churches can't get out of paying the general tax obligation. So the need for BC is being provided for already. What will a coverage mandate accomplish that Title X doesn't?

OTOH, mandating coverage through insurance means that some religious employers will be forced to directly pay for BC even though it's against their religion. We already force them to generally support it through their taxes. I believe the 1st Amendment protects them against the government directing where they spend the income they have left over after taxes.

Further, people who are employed with insurance benefits can likely afford their own birth control if they choose it. If not, there's Title X to help. So mandated coverage actually provides no increase in access to BC at all. Just because some people would rather not pay for BC doesn't mean that anyone should be forced to provide it to them.

 

[RandFan]

There's no inconsistency.

Yes there is.

Churches can't get out of paying the general tax obligation.

Churches could fight against Title X. Seek to have it rescinded. You could fight against Title X.

I'm not sure why you work so hard to ignore that.

The rest of your post is just special pleading. That's all. Nothing more. You want us to think there are these special circumstances that make Title X okay because it is funded through a general tax. Yet you ignore Bri's very astute question. To overcome your special pleading we need only raise taxes and fund the co-pays from the general fund, right?

 

[RandFan]

Oops... I almost forgot.

There's no inconsistency.

Title X funds can't be used for abortion. Can you guess why? By your logic that should not be a problem, right? By your logic, questions of conscience are moot when it comes to the general tax obligations, right?

Churches can't get out of paying the general tax obligation.

So, let's start funding abortions from the general fund. Right?

 

[Neally]

And it does exactly that.

Only if in your alternate reality sterilization is not classified as a method of birth control.

A fallacy isn't a false proposition. And I stand by that. Given that there is parity of sterilization in both plans then, like other science, we can compare the two.

Apples and oranges are fruit too, it doesn't mean we can say which one is more nutritious if we wrongfully assume they both have the same nutrients.

I've no time for it. So, I won't be responding to you anymore. Good bye.

I don't blame you. You've failed to respond to all the issues from my last response because you can't. You have nothing to support your claim other than one flawed model. Your dishonesty and hand waving have become quite comical lately.

If the plan covers all pregnancy and maternity-related expenses, it has to be cheaper to provide contraceptiuon.

Have you any idea how much it costs to have a baby these days, even if the mother is as strong as an ox?

Do try to keep up if you are going to chime in. The debate isn't over pregnancy and maternity-related expenses. The assumption is that all plans cover those. The debate is whether offering contraception is cheaper than not offering it. If it is not offered, people will of course pay for it themselves. No evidence has been presented showing that the net cost to the company is less with full contraception coverage vs no contraception coverage.

 

[Bri]

But the courts have also ruled that you can't force anyone to do things that are against their religion (religious drug use, conscientious objectors, etc.). I believe that forcing the CC to pay for BC falls under this and that they and other religious institutions should be exempted similarly.

This is not true. The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that if a law is “neutral and generally applicable” (meaning that it is not specifically targeted against any religious group) individuals must comply with it even when doing so imposes a burden on their free exercise of religion. Specifically, Alfred Smith was fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. He sued for unemployment benefits and lost.

From the ruling:

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause of the First Amendment]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.​

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

Yes there is.

Churches could fight against Title X. Seek to have it rescinded. You could fight against Title X.

I'm not sure why you work so hard to ignore that.

I'm not ignoring it; it's just irrelevant. I don't want to fight against Title X. I think it's a good idea. It meets the need of women who can't afford BC for whatever reason. Taxes are a general obligation of every citizen and no one can get out of it for religious objections. Thus, the Amish pay for wars and the CC pays for BC.

The problem arises when you force people to use the money they have left over after taxes to pay for things they don't want to.

The rest of your post is just special pleading. That's all. Nothing more. You want us to think there are these special circumstances that make Title X okay because it is funded through a general tax. Yet you ignore Bri's very astute question. To overcome your special pleading we need only raise taxes and fund the co-pays from the general fund, right?

The problem with this is that the mandate isn't a tax, so the question is irrelevant. The mandate is forcing employers to use non-tax funds to pay for things they morally object to. The govt cannot force you to use your own post-tax money pay for things you morally object to.

If the legislation in question was a bill to increase the funding for Title X to cover BC for all women who want it, this would be a very different argument that I probably wouldn't be a part of.

 

[xjx388]

Title X funds can't be used for abortion. Can you guess why? By your logic that should not be a problem, right? By your logic, questions of conscience are moot when it comes to the general tax obligations, right?

That is correct.

So, let's start funding abortions from the general fund. Right?

I have no problem with this.

Just don't mandate that the CC pay for it from their own private funds.

Do you see how it's a different fight?

General tax funds = funds to serve the public need
Private after-tax funds = funds to serve your own needs

 

[RandFan]

I don't want to fight against Title X. I think it's a good idea.

It forces religions to fund BC. But YOU like it.

It meets the need of women who can't afford BC for whatever reason.

Special pleading.

Taxes are a general obligation of every citizen and no one can get out of it for religious objections. Thus, the Amish pay for wars and the CC pays for BC.

But Title X can't be used for abortion. I think it should be. Who is right? Why is it that the genral fund can be used to infringe on some religious objections but not others? Special pleading.

The problem arises when you force people to use the money they have left over after taxes to pay for things they don't want to.

Special pleading. Anything to preserve your position.

The problem with this is that the mandate isn't a tax, so the question is irrelevant.

But we could make it a tax. Asserting that it is irrelevant doesn't make it so. That's just being dismissive and it's special pleading.

The mandate is forcing employers to use non-tax funds to pay for things they morally object to. The govt cannot force you to use your own post-tax money pay for things you morally object to.

But they could make it a tax.

If the legislation in question was a bill to increase the funding for Title X to cover BC for all women who want it, this would be a very different argument that I probably wouldn't be a part of.

You very well make our case. You don't mind forcing employers to pay for BC you just don't like this method. This would be a great example to instruct others what special pleading is. It's the very definition of it.

 

[RandFan]

Just don't mandate that the CC pay for it from their own private funds.

If taxes were increased that would result in lowering private funds. Money is fungible. This is just a silly semantics game.

 

[xjx388]

This is not true. The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that if a law is “neutral and generally applicable” (meaning that it is not specifically targeted against any religious group) individuals must comply with it even when doing so imposes a burden on their free exercise of religion. Specifically, Alfred Smith was fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. He sued for unemployment benefits and lost.

From the ruling:

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause of the First Amendment]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.​

-Bri

But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed as a direct result of this controversial ruling. It basically nullifies the decision in Employment Division v. Smith and re-institutes the Sherbert standard:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

This is the law that requires the govt to demonstrate that burdening the free exercise of religion meets a compelling govt interest and that it is the least restrictive means to do so.

So until those two things are proven, I don't see how this mandate can hold up.

 

[xjx388]

If taxes were increased that would result in lowering private funds. Money is fungible. This is just a silly semantics game.

Isn't all law?

Who says we have to increase taxes? It would save money, wouldn't it? We should be able to cover BC and abortions with the money we save by paying for unwanted pregnancies.

Or we could cut other programs to pay for this compelling need.

 

[RandFan]

Isn't all law?

Point taken.

Who says we have to increase taxes? It would save money, wouldn't it? We should be able to cover BC and abortions with the money we save by paying for unwanted pregnancies.

Or we could cut other programs to pay for this compelling need.

I like the status quo and I think it's going to remain. It's a good thing. We will see.

 

[xjx388]

It forces religions to fund BC. But YOU like it.

Religions are forced to pay taxes and they have no say (other than their rights as citizens) in how it is spent. They should have say in how their own money is spent.

But Title X can't be used for abortion. I think it should be.

I agree with you.

Who is right?

Nobody is right.

Why is it that the genral fund can be used to infringe on some religious objections but not others? Special pleading.

Because that's what the Supreme Court said. In the end, it's their interpretation that matters.

But we could make it a tax. Asserting that it is irrelevant doesn't make it so. That's just being dismissive and it's special pleading.

But no one in Congress is arguing to make it a tax. It's a valid point but not relevant to this particular discussion -mandating employers to pay for BC.

But they could make it a tax.

Sure they could. Different argument though.

You very well make our case. You don't mind forcing employers to pay for BC

I don't mind forcing employers to pay their taxes. Every citizen has that obligation. How we spend those taxes is up to Congress to determine the nation's needs.

you just don't like this method.

I don't like the govt forcing people to spend their own money on things they morally object to.

This would be a great example to instruct others what special pleading is. It's the very definition of it.

If it's special pleading, then the Constitution and Congress is doing it too. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act basically says that just because a rule is generally applicable doesn't mean that it can burden the free practice of religion. It, along with the Constitution, specifically carve out religious practice as protected.

 

[RandFan]

I don't like the govt forcing people to spend their own money on things they morally object to.

A silly semantics game. Taxes IS their own money. If we raised taxes to cover the co-pays it would have the same result. I honestly can't believe you are continuing to defend the special pleading.

If it's special pleading, then the Constitution and Congress is doing it too.

No but I'll give you credit for trying.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act basically says that just because a rule is generally applicable doesn't mean that it can burden the free practice of religion. It, along with the Constitution, specifically carve out religious practice as protected.

Agreed. 100%. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. We could increase taxes to pay for the co-pays or we can do what is most obvious and reasonable. The effect is the same and we don't have to pretend that there is a special means to force secular organizations owned by churches to pay for BC.

1. Taxes reduce discretionary income.
2. The mandate reduces discretionary income.

You want to believe that #1 is somehow different than #2 but you have to twist your logic into a pretzel to attempt to do it. At the end of the day this mandate does not burden such organizations any more than Title X.

 

[Bri]

But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed as a direct result of this controversial ruling.

You said, "But the courts have also ruled that you can't force anyone to do things that are against their religion (religious drug use, conscientious objectors, etc.)."

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act specifies the conditions under which people can be forced to do things that are against their religion, as you acknowledge below. So the law you cited proves you wrong.

It basically nullifies the decision in Employment Division v. Smith and re-institutes the Sherbert standard...

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a congressional law, and it doesn't nullify the Smith decision or the Constitution. It does impose further restrictions in addition to the constitutional restriction that laws must be neutral and generally applicable.

This is the law that requires the govt to demonstrate that burdening the free exercise of religion meets a compelling govt interest and that it is the least restrictive means to do so.

Yup, so you're agreeing with me that your statement to which I was responding was incorrect. The government can in fact burden your free exercise of religion, as long as it "meets a compelling govt interest and that it is the least restrictive means to do so."

So until those two things are proven, I don't see how this mandate can hold up.

I don't disagree with you that those two things need to be proven. I think they will be.

But as I have pointed out before, you keep going back and forth between two different (and opposing) arguments as it suits you. One argument you've made (which is incorrect) is that it is against the law (you've even said against the Constitution) to burden someone's free exercise of religion. The other argument you've made (which is correct) is that a law needs to meet a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means in order to burden someone's free exercise of religion.

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

You said, "But the courts have also ruled that you can't force anyone to do things that are against their religion (religious drug use, conscientious objectors, etc.)."

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act specifies the conditions under which people can be forced to do things that are against their religion, as you acknowledge below. So the law you cited proves you wrong.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a congressional law, and it doesn't nullify the Smith decision or the Constitution. It does impose further restrictions in addition to the constitutional restriction that laws must be neutral and generally applicable.

The law does indeed nullify the the Smith decision, in effect by reinstating the Sherbert test. It applies only to federal law, not state law. So in the States, the Smith decision is still applicable but not to the Feds. Which is who we are talking about here.

I think we are hung up on wording. But words are important in the law. The Constitution specifically says: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." It doesn't specify, "except in this case."

So now congress has made a law in reaction to Supreme Court cases laying out that indeed, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion unless it can demonstrate CGI and LRM. This is the law of the land as it currently stands.

I don't disagree with you that those two things need to be proven. I think they will be.

We'll see how it plays out. It's certainly not open and shut either way.

But as I have pointed out before, you keep going back and forth between two different (and opposing) arguments as it suits you. One argument you've made (which is incorrect) is that it is against the law (you've even said against the Constitution) to burden someone's free exercise of religion.

This is not incorrect. It's right there in the 1st Amendment. The Constitution does indeed explicitly say this.

The other argument you've made (which is correct) is that a law needs to meet a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means in order to burden someone's free exercise of religion.

Right. Which is what the RFRA is all about. Establishing a legislative standard as to when the Feds can burden free exercise. But it's a very tough standard -as it should be.
These are not opposing arguments.

I think we can all agree that the govt has to meet a heavy burden in demonstrating a CGI and LRM. How do you believe that govt. will demonstrate both as regards this law?