Many of us stayed up to midnight last night and watched the ball come down in Times Square. If you were still sober enough to notice, the person triggering the dissent was none other than Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It turns out that that was not the only thing that she was doing on New Year’s Eve. Late Tuesday with only hours to go before January 1st — and the activation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — Sotomayor granted a stay requested by Catholic-affiliated groups to prevent the implementation of part of the ACA to require them to supply contraceptive services to employees in violation of their religious beliefs. The decision follows a refusal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to issue a stay. The stay order by Sotomayor was requested from Catholic nuns running the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged in Denver and now joins a stay issued earlier by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The decision guarantees that no one will have morning after regrets today in allowing the law to be implemented without a final resolution of the religious freedom claims. Sotomayor could still lift the stay since she gave the Obama Administration until 10 am EST on Friday to respond to the order. Until then, the government is “temporarily enjoined from enforcing against applicants the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The decision is a victory for the Becket Fund, which argued that “the ‘accommodation’ still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”
The stay makes sense given the Court’s decision to hear similar arguments in the Hobby Lobby case discussed earlier. The case involves objections from businesses and individuals like David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, who insist that the Act’s required support for contraceptive services violates religious rights. Two cases were accepted: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354); and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356).
Under the ACA, non-for-profit religious corporation have an exemption. However, Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company that is run according to the family’s religious beliefs. These new Catholic-affliated groups are not parts of the Church but educational institutions like Catholic University and other types of enterprises.
While the Obama Administration arranged for insurers to pay for such services for religious objectors, that compromise would still require the businesses to sign off on the payment for services in contradiction to their beliefs. Such stays are significant legally because they are granted on a view that the party is likely to prevail on the merits. Earlier a D.C. Circuit panel split 2-1 in granting a similar stay. Judge David S. Tatel dissented in the case, concluding “[b]ecause I believe that appellants are unlikely to prevail on their claim that the challenged provision imposes a ‘substantial burden’ under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I would deny their application for an injunction pending appeal.”
Putting aside that standard, the decision could reflect an accommodation for those members who granted cert in Hobby Lobby. The decision freezes the status quo and, if not reversed after Friday, would allow the Court to proceed to the merits in the Hobby Lobby case without having chaos over whether and how the provision can be enforced. That case is expected to be argued in March and decided by summer.
Are Christian Science members required to buy health insurance?
Nick: Only through a prayer.
Then where should we stand on keeping people alive through artificial/not natural means–such as feeding tubes and respirators? Such things may keep nature from following nature’s course. Would that be acting contrary to life?
Elaine: Great point to ponder for some.
pdm,
Thanks for the link. That’s an interesting piece of information.
Here is an interesting short article from Slate that has a view that corresponds to mine – the Little Sisters are being extremely unreasonable. Some months ago the Church asked for an exemption and got it. Apparently, that wasn’t good enough for the Church and now they are opposed to the exemption that was given.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/02/justice_sotomayor_grants_temporary_injunction_to_catholic_groups_who_say.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content&mc_cid=f42d1223ba&mc_eid=95c452a0e1
I also agree with the author that Sotomayor’s temporary injunction is not to be seen as a liberal Justice siding with the Church. This will, and needs to, go to the SC. Just heaven help us if the SC finds for the Church.
I have already expressed my views on this issue:
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/25/the-corporate-veil-meets-the-first-communion-veil/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/13/contraception-and-separation/#more-45312
I believe it is important to remember that Justice Sotomayor’s stay has nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. But given the court’s determination to hear the Hobby Lobby case, her order is understandable.
This is the first amendment through the looking glass.
Antonin Scalia says there is no mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution nor is there any mention of a right to an abortion or even the right to control one’s own body.
If that is what governs Scalia’s mind and thinking, how can he possibly find rights for corporations in the Constitution since there is NO mention of corporations in the Constitution either?
Scalia may be the most dishonest Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
It seems to me that the US Supreme Court only recognizes rights for institutions and corporations. There is no justice for the People. Why does a government of the people, by the people and for the people only give rights to corporations and institutions that already capriciously deny human rights to people.
It seems to me that what the Constitution of the United States guarantees is the right to hold one’s own religious belief but not the right to use government to impose one’s religious beliefs on anyone else.
Religious belief is a matter of FAITH, not PROOF; therefore, we need to be very careful about deciding what is really religious faith and what is not.
Sometimes, what masquerades as religious faith is just the desire to impose one’s will on someone else.
Our SECULAR laws already provide exclusions for certain types of religious organizations so that they can freely bypass laws protecting against hiring discrimination and other workplace laws. If an organization is not accorded those exemptions it’s because they do not qualify as a religious organization. They are then REQUIRED to adhere to the rest of our employment laws including ALL provisions of ACA. Beyond that, there is no reason to have a discussion. Apparently, there are still those who have either not gotten this very clear and singular message, choose to be willfully ignorant or are acting out like petulant children, that the USA is a SECULAR operating under the EXCLUSIVE guidance of our Constitution. There is NO higher authority than the Constitution. Period. I have no patients left any longer for these intrusions by religious people and groups trying to make America bend to the whims of their religious practices rather than them performing their highest obligation of obeying our secular laws.
Those who practice the Catholic and Mormon faiths get a lot of respect from our courts; I wonder how much respect our courts will provide for Muslims who practice the Islamic faith (and Sharia law) and how happy or unhappy the posters here will be about that.
will there be a litmus test for non- religious based employers, company owners to ascertain their claim to religiousness or is it enough to claim to be an “X”,
be it a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever ? Whose religion, and their tenets, are used to receive an exemption – the owner, the CEO, the Board of Trustees et al?
maplady wrote: “Whose religion, and their tenets, are used to receive an exemption – the owner, the CEO, the Board of Trustees et al?”
Corporations are people. Whatever the people forming the corporation decide is contrary to their code of morality should be sufficient. How the corporation decides on policy is determined by the corporation’s constitution.
Problems like this one illustrate why the whole idea of government control of the means of production is wrong and why it has failed in most every country that has tried it. We have taken a wrong socialist turn here and we need to back up and fix it. Sadly, once the step is taken to control the means of production, most people never think about abolishing the bad law. All they think about is how to force the law into effect. In most every country that keeps going down this road, revolution is the end result. Hopefully our future revolution will not be a bloody revolution. Maybe it will be more like the recent Soviet Union revolution where the harsh economic environment caused by socialism caused the government to be dissolved without firing a bullet.
As this concerns health matters, then all the religiously affiliated hospitals should be allowed to forbid to treat patients from other religions or no religions, if we take this logic a bit further. The Catholic Justice Sotomayor should have also added that in her stay.
Teji Malik wrote: “As this concerns health matters, then all the religiously affiliated hospitals should be allowed to forbid to treat patients from other religions or no religions, if we take this logic a bit further. The Catholic Justice Sotomayor should have also added that in her stay.”
You use a very broad brush when you say “health matters.” Is assisted suicide a “health matter”?
Up until modern times, all physicians would take an oath that included the following:
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
The overall moral code of physicians use to be to promote life and never death. In modern times that moral code has been abandoned by many but not all physicians.
A contraceptive is something which prevents life. It acts contrary to life. Contraceptives sometimes actually work by terminating life through removing its ability to receive nourishment from the mother. This is considered immoral by a large number of people.
Should physicians and hospitals be allowed to have a policy of not assisting people with terminating life? Yes, I think so. The person seeking such assistance can find someone else who agrees to do it rather than forcing another human being to do that which is against his or her conscience.
davidm2575: LOL.You are all over the place with your ignorance and dogmatic fervour. Let’s try to decipher your comments.
“You use a very broad brush when you say “health matters.” Is assisted suicide a “health matter”?”
You bet it is and also it is legal in many countries.Are in favour of the Terry Schiavoes of life for whom W. had to fly back from Camp David to sign the bill to keep her alive when the same machine could have been used for someone having chances to survive?
“Up until modern times, all physicians would take an oath that included the following:
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.””
Please give us the reference where you got that from. You mean even if the mother’s life is in danger? It seems far fetched but quite imaginative for sure.:)
“The overall moral code of physicians use to be to promote life and never death. In modern times that moral code has been abandoned by many but not all physicians.”
First, English does not seem to be your forte as I have noticed in many of your posts. Do you mean useD to? What is the moral code and please define life for me. FYI, we as humans have to consume life in order to survive. I thought you knew that. Talking about life, do you like donkey meat as it is sold in China by Walmart?
“A contraceptive is something which prevents life. It acts contrary to life. Contraceptives sometimes actually work by terminating life through removing its ability to receive nourishment from the mother. This is considered immoral by a large number of people.”
What an uneducated way to babble! Many Christians, especially the Catholics use calender system as a form of contraceptive. Most of the Christians use some kind of contraceptive. You mean they use contraceptives in an immoral manner?
David, even semen has life in case you did not know. So, you must have had many tadpoles swimming in your undies during your wet dreams.:-)
“Should physicians and hospitals be allowed to have a policy of not assisting people with terminating life? Yes, I think so. The person seeking such assistance can find someone else who agrees to do it rather than forcing another human being to do that which is against his or her conscience.”
That is your not so thoughtful opinion which I happen to disagree with.
lotta,
You know that only evil temptresses use immoral things like contraceptives. Only a slut would use birth control…and expect their healthcare providers to help defray the cost.
pdm, Call an anger management clinic. I worked civil lawsuits. I’ll be brief. Up until the 1990’s,[varied according to parishes], the “gold” came from insurance companies. If you followed these cases, the vast majority of claims came from before the 90’s. In the 90’s, the Catholic Church could not find any insurance companies to insure them as the lawsuits started to rise exponentially. I believe they bankrupt a couple of regional carriers. One case I worked involved the full range of defendants, the local church, the diocese, the order of the priest, the priest himself, and the rehab clinic the Catholic Church operates in NM. It was this case I provided background to the Globe. When the “gold” started coming out of the Church’s till, they still tried to protect it, using the same shuffle and cover up, but the Globe and an aggressive plaintiff’s law firm out of the Twin Cities[I worked adverse to them..they’re good], changed that. The key now are priest and Bishops[Philly I believe] going to prison. Cardinal Law has sanctuary in The Vatican, he will burn in hell. So, take what you may possibly know about this issue, and multiply it by ~250, and that’s how much I know.
On a personal level, a kid I played high school football w/ was molested by a local priest that I know. His name is Kevin Zile. The Hartford Courant did a full spread on him back in maybe 2005-6, so releasing his name is cool. He wanted his story out there. Kevin was a very emotional kid back in the 60’s when I knew him, and would sometimes just cry. When I read his total account[this priest abused several other boys as usual] it all made sense, and I cried. I have meant to reach out to him but never have. You may be able to put aside your anger and relate to my reticence. Maybe, thanks to you I now will contact Kevin. I love to take a negative and turn it into a positive. So, on a legal, personal, and emotional level you are not worth even discussing this further. And, you obviously don’t understand the utter contempt I have for how the Church handled this, so maybe a reading comprehension class also? Nice rant, though.
David: “For you to take the job and then complain about their religious beliefs and then call upon government to spank them and force them to give you the immoral things that you want, I would consider you to be among the most evil of men.”
***
Variation #218 of “Sandra Fluke is a slut” from Limbaugh’s little red book of ‘Religion is Being Attacked Because it Can’t Discriminate Against Women’.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html
Archbishop started the trend of sheltering as much money as possible in new ways and declaring bankruptcy.
“Then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan tried to protect money from claims, records show”
“Four years before the Archdiocese of Milwaukee filed for bankruptcy, then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan sought Vatican approval to move nearly $57 million in cemetery funds off the archdiocese’s books and into a trust to help protect them “from any legal claim or liability,” according to documents made public Monday.”
http://www.jsonline.com/news/religion/Cardinal-Dolan-sought-to-protect-money-from-claims-struggled-with-Vatican-to-defrock-abusers-b9943953z1-213832541.html
Since 6 of the nine justices are catholic, this decision is really not surprising. They are older and hold a certain fondness for the Little Sisters of the Poor.
From “my back yard”:
TIMELINE: A Cultrera family history and a chronology of the Boston abuse scandal.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/handofgod/etc/cron.html
Lew wrote: “You are free to practice the religion of your choice as long as it does not infringe on anyone else’s right to practice theirs. By manipulating how, or on what your employees compensation is spent, based on your religious views does not constitute freedom of religion. In fact it is the very opposite as the employer is forcing their religious beliefs on someone else, taking their freedom of religion. The fact that someone needs to work for a living does not give a wealthy man the right to force his religious views on him.”
So an employer offers you a job to work for them, and you claim that the employee has the right to force the employer to compensate him with medical insurance? I don’t think that is right at all!
If you don’t like the wages or benefits offered by an employer, don’t take the job. Period. End of discussion. If you go work for a church, expect that the doctrine and beliefs of the church are going to govern how you are compensated. If you don’t like that, then don’t work for the church. Nobody is forcing you to work for them.
For you to take the job and then complain about their religious beliefs and then call upon government to spank them and force them to give you the immoral things that you want, I would consider you to be among the most evil of men.