Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Church-State Birth Control Case
By Logan Murphy Tuesday Oct 02, 2007 1:16pm
AP Via The Huffington Post:
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to enter a church-state dispute over whether some religious organizations can be forced to pay for workers' birth-control health insurance benefits, a growing trend in the states.
The court let stand a New York court ruling upholding a state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.
New York is one of 23 states that require employers that offer prescription benefits to employees to cover birth control pills as well, the groups say. The state enacted the Women's Health and Wellness Act in 2002 to require health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone density exams.
Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued New York's law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful. Read more...
bluegal: Clearly the court sees that it is up to religious organizations to insist that their members practice the religion, rather than insist that the insurance companies enforce religion for them. For instance, contraception is very widely practiced among American Catholics: this report (pdf) points out that sexually active Catholic women above the age of 18 are just as likely (97%) to have used some form of contraception banned by the Catholic church as women in the general population (97%)." More importantly, "75% percent of Catholics believe that you can be a good Catholic without obeying the church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control and only 13% believe that the church hierarchy should have the final say in contraception."
Login or Register to post comments.
Amen.
And surely they don't want to lose employees to unwanted pregnancies? But still the idiocy continues...
It's kind of convenient that preventing someone from imposing his/her religious beliefs on an entire group of people is a violation of that person's rights lol.
That's exactly right. It's not up to insurance companies or retail pharmacists to dictate their religious morals to any one.
My own Church has worked around this issue by not hiring any more women.
stupid rhythm methodists
So, catholic organizations are denied the right to practice their faith?
Don't forget, we're also fighting the contraceptive wars against THE ‘DRUGSTORE GOD-IANS’
That Donahue fella is not going to like THI.
THIS THIS THIS
Honestly Captain I should be so lucky as to be targeted by the Catholic League. I'm seriously ready for my close-up, KO. -- Blue Gal
Still, this is a small....
(Johnny Drama voice)
VICTOREEEEE !!!
To bad birth control wasn't offered to Barbara Bush. JCB
The Supreme Court has taken one too many black eyes in doing the bidding of El jefe Boosh. They know in order to remain relevant, they'd best get all eyes off them so they can go back to at least having the appearance of looking non-partisan and impartial jurists. For the last seven years, they have looked anything but.
Clarance's appearance on "60 Minutes" Sunday night didn't help their case, either.
Additionally, I also think that they are paying attention to the American People more than Congress is, and they don't want to risk an uprising which would lead to judiciary impeachments, or worse, the discussion that leads to term limits of a sitting justice.
I had my students do an argument where they had to defend lifetime supreme court appointments or term limits. Out of a class of 45 students, 85% went for TERM LIMITS.
Ahh..religion. That behavior-modification tool that possesses no evidence save the claims and threats of hellfire. And lest we forget the hypocritical acts of their 'leaders' who, once exposed, become poster-boys for 'forgiveness.'
The fact that 'God' gave man common sense should have doomed modern religion, but the religious war pushing suspension of members' rational thought processes (i.e. the brains they were born with...) seems alive and flourishing. As with civil and Constitutional rights, how quick is the religious people's surrender to 'authority' figures who offer to do their moral thinking for them.
God help us against the people claiming to speak for God helping us...
As I understand, the NY court ruling is based on the facts that the church-charity in question had employees who were not, and served individuals who were not, members of th church.
As I further understand, if both employees and served individuals were required to be members of the church, the church would have won the case.
Refuses to hear the case? So, just WTF does the SCOTUS do anyway?
I say that if religious organizations don't want to fund contraception, then it's no different than just hiring people who don't want kids. Seems fine with me. ;)
"the groups are essentially social service agencies, not churches"
Exactly right. They are not a church, they are a charity organization. The reason these states (IL being one) have mandated that birth control be covered is because Viagra and other "male" drugs were being covered while birth control was not.
I say good on them for refusing to entertain this nonsense!
Joshdavis @ 16:
How do you propose those who 'don't want kids' don't have them without the use of contraception? Oh, abstinence. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
If you plan on voting for Ron Paul in NH and are not registered or not registered Republican... then you got ONLY until Oct 12th to do so... this is true in many other states as well... Decide NOW if you are going to support the Elites or help change this countries direction...
leftminded @ 15:
Write books about how rightious they are.
leftminded @ 15:
Apparently writes books whining about the 'liberal elite' and punishes an entire country's citizens because some elected officials grilled him who were worried about a justice's blatantly right-wing sour-grapes punitively partisan agenda...hey, wait a minute....
Just a weasely rationalization for sticking their female employees with more burden for health care costs. They're not fooling anybody with their self-righteous argument, except those who want to be fooled.
Taking birth control advice from an organization of pedophiles is nothing short of insane.
Yet they try to advance their agenda of telling people how to breed, which is odd, particularly since priests can not get married themselves and raise children.
It's alot like taking your broken car to the veterinarian for advice, except that even veterinarians have cars.
So why ask someone for advice on a topic, who, by the very nature of their role, should have no experience or information on the topic?
Not surprised even this right wing activist court wants to go there.
If he RW wants to open up this avenue it will influence access to (and profit from) any meds with warnings about endangering conception and pregnancy. Those have have to come off the shelves, ntm challenges against meds potentially used in "sinful" situations (Viagra used to commit adultery.)
Discrimination apart from religious extortion is a good counterattack against activist pharmacists who pretend "moral values" trumps legal standing when they deny a customer contraceptives incl. Plan B. If those pharmacist whackjobs have been shown to sell ANYTHING -- even routine cold meds -- with warnings to pregnant women, the pharmacy and pharmacist are inviting a discrimination suit.
Yep, Donohue must be spitting bullets about now. I hope none of them ricochet like that guy Prince of Blackwater said some of theirs might have.
Dan S @ 6:
No. They're denied the right to force others to practice what they preach. It's a simple as that.
The NeoCons' "it's either black or white" schtick is getting thin.
I love how it's always about contraception, too. There are plenty of therapeutic uses for contraceptives that don't have anything whatsoever to do with attempting to prevent pregnancy. They're female hormones of one formulation or other, and that the church-run organizations can't see the difference between necessary hormones for certain medical conditions (such as pituitary disease and ovarian issues) and voluntary contraception is obnoxious.
leftminded @ 15:
By not hearing the case they deem the matter settled and the holding of the Circuit Court becomes law. So after reading the briefs the Court (and i think most of us agree that I can use the phrase "in its wisdom" here) felt that the matter had no basis for further appeal.
Refusing to hear some cases is just as important as ruling on others. snark.
Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued New York’s law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful.
Yeah and I'm pretty sure Priests molesting kids is sinful too. But that went on unpunished for how long before people started speaking up? Couple of hundred years or more?
Hey, I need some help! Can anyone point me to the passage in the bible stating women should not take oral contraceptives!?
leftminded @ 15:
What's wrong with you! It's right there in the 4th paragraph of the SCOTUS job description.
It's right after the section that says:
Dan S @ 6:
Where exactly does it say catholic organizations cannot "practice their faith"? Denying health care to women = denying the right to practice faith??? Wow.
johncos @ 28:
They have over 7,000 cases to deal with each term. It isn't a job for the timid.
patthemonkey @ 34:
While I too think that the Court doesn't here enough cases, there is no possible way they could hear the arguments of 7000 cases. The overwhelming majority of these appeals are frivolous obviously. I think you're missing my point. By not hearing this case, the Court did not timidly hide from it, but rather less than 4 justices felt that the issue was even questionable enough to be heard. The justices felt that the Appeals Court decision was correct, and that the plaintiffs (the religious organizations) did not offer compelling arguments against the decision. While it's fine to complain about a decision, a) are you criticizing this one? and b) Not wasting one's time on an agreed upon matter does not equal temerity?
Last I heard it was something like $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 just to petition the supremes to hear your case, and when they refuse (which is allowed in some circumstances) you don't get your money back.
That's why I think priests and deacons need to wear garter belts. I've slipped more dollars into garter belts than I have collection plates.
Frivolous cases are generally killed before they even enter the court of original jurisprudence, unless the one appealing the case has almost unlimited wealth.
Next thing you know we won't let them burn witches
E in MD @ 30:
http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/gen19.html (Don't worry, it proves your point.)
Jack Lewis @ 39:
I wonder how many witches go to tanning salons.
To be fair, the article mentions other christian organizations, as well as othordox Jews, who signed onto the brief.
I say this as a recovering catholic.
ysbaddaden @ 41:
So, not really burning them, just toasting them a little bit?? LOL u r funny.
Aren't these the same people that did nothing as Hitler murdered millions of people? They really need to pick up their own yard before pointing fingers at others!!
I'm really sick of all this whining about not being allowed to practice their faith. We have pretty clear legal guidelines in this country that allow the free practice of religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. When you force other people to act as if they believe what you believe, you are infringing on their rights. There's a nice Hindu couple who owns a gas station down the street from me, and they haven't avoided putting products with meat in them in their store or required their employees to be vegetarian. How shocking! They must not be practicing their religion! Only certain nutty practitioners of monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam would be so clueless and arrogant.
SpinyNorman @ 28:
Excellent point, SpinyNorman. Too many people forget this. Ironically, if it weren't for the extra hormone boost from The Pill, my mother-in-law's body might well have aborted my husband. (As it was, he was born a preemie.) So by the so-called "charities" so-called logic, they would rather have had her abort my husband than commit the "sin" of taking oral contraceptives. Niiiiiice... +1 to Comment #14!
Are they burning that cross?
Nothing says Old Time Religion more.
If everyone that worked for catholic charities were catholic then I'd say they are within their rights but, then they would be guilty of job discrimination wouldn't they.
So if your religious believes say you shouldn't use contraceptives, then don't.
Just don't go around telling other people they have to do what your religion says ... or they might stone your kids to death for sassin' back!
I can't believe it. The Extreme Court actually did the right thing! Wonders never cease. Amazing.
johncos @ 35:
While I too think that the Court doesn't here enough cases, there is no possible way they could hear the arguments of 7000 cases. The overwhelming majority of these appeals are frivolous obviously. I think you're missing my point. By not hearing this case, the Court did not timidly hide from it, but rather less than 4 justices felt that the issue was even questionable enough to be heard. The justices felt that the Appeals Court decision was correct, and that the plaintiffs (the religious organizations) did not offer compelling arguments against the decision. While it's fine to complain about a decision, a) are you criticizing this one? and b) Not wasting one's time on an agreed upon matter does not equal temerity?
I think you both make very good points and I was being more than a little factious when I suggested they had nothing to do. My point is the religious right goes on and on about having a court that's lined up to do their bidding. Well, it doesn't get any better for them than now and they won't even listen to a simple case. What happens when it comes to the biggie - abortion? Problem here is while they love to ride the courts over not overturning Roe fact is if that ever happened, they would lose their favorite talking point. What would Jesus’ water carriers do if they didn't have an issue anymore? Probably start another war.
On the down side: this probably means you still can't get a prescription for medical marijuana by claiming to be a Rastafarian.
JudyLou @ 27:
sooooo true...
The insurance companies pay for Viagra but not birth control. Does that seem odd to anyone?
[...] OH HELL YES!!!! The Roberts court actually managed to shock me in a good [...]
Isn't it odd that religions were allowed an exemption during prohibition in the USA for the consumption of alcohol, and the Native American Church is allowed to use peyote, yet, both Rastafarians and Shivites utilize marijuana, but it's against the law?
Sometimes, keeping things illegal is more about making money, than about making sense.
Freedom and Justice for all, who are Just-like-us... for surely, all animals are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others.
Hey, Rev, that's discrimination - I hope someone sues you a$$.
leftminded @ 16:
It means the same thing as agreeing with the NY Court without getting their hands and feet dirty. Just as if they heard the case = Case closed.
@Post #13
I wish the judges and all other positions, just as the office of president is, would all have term limits. All those career politicians just sitting around getting fat, robbing the People while giving each other huge raises late at night, using millions of dollars of the tax-payers money flying all over the world on first class tickets, squandering the wealth of this country--spending money like there is no tomorrow, while driving the USA straight into the ground. They all need to be impeached and sent to jail! They do absolutely nothing for the People!
Damned inactivist judges! (The new catchphrase!)
klunk @ 53:
While the neocons get fatter and fatter.
Login or Register to post comments.