Posted on 07/11/2014 2:13:45 PM PDT by NYer
I read this at NRO:
Senate Democrats Religious-Freedom Deprivation Bill
Under the guise of protect[ing] womens health from corporate interference, the bill that Senate Democrats are proposing in response to the Hobby Lobby ruling would deprive religious entities of all religious-liberty protections against having the HHS mandate directly imposed on them. Specifically:
1. The bill would apply to employers generally, not just (as the bills short title would suggest) to corporate employers. Subsection 4(a) would make it unlawful for any employer that establishes or maintains a group health plan for its employees to deny coverage of a specific health care item or service . . . where the coverage of such item or service is required under any provision of Federal law or the regulations promulgated thereunder. (Note that the purpose set forth in section 2 is likewise defined with respect to employers generally.)
As I understand it, subsection 4(a) wouldnt itself override the existing exemption from the HHS contraceptive mandate (which applies to a very narrow category of religious employers) or the accommodation for religious nonprofits, because employers covered by the exemption and accommodation are not deny[ing] coverage of an item or service [that] is required under any provision of Federal law or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
2. Subsection 4(b) states that subsection 4(a) shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including Public Law 103-441 (which is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act).
In other words, no employer religious or otherwise, corporate or otherwise, for-profit or otherwise would have any RFRA rights against being required to comply with subsection 4(a).
3. Subsection 4(c) states that the existing HHS mandate regulations on the exemption and the accommodation shall apply with respect to section 4. It further states that the regulatory agencies may modify such regulations consistent with the purpose and findings of this Act.
I dont know what it means to say that the exemption and the accommodation shall apply with respect to section 4. I gather that it means no more than that the bill itself wouldnt abolish the exemption and the accommodation.
In any event, it is clear from the second sentence of subsection 4(c) that the bill would allow the Obama administration (or its successors) to abolish the exemption and the accommodation in their entirety. (If the bill were instead intended to preserve the exemption and the accommodation against regulatory abolition, it would be a fairly simple matter to say so clearly.)
Under the bill, if the exemption and the accommodation were abolished, religious entities would be subject to the HHS mandate under subsection 4(a) and would have no RFRA protections against it.
Ill note that (as a reader called to my attention) the metadata to the one-pager that Senator Murray [D-WA] issued about the bill yesterday identified its author as Hillary Schneller of the National Womens Law Center. (I havent checked whether the metadata has since been scrubbed.) Its a safe bet that activists at NWLC and similar organizations drafted the entire bill. Im not going to pretend to be shocked that outsiders draft legislation for senators. But if you hand the drafting pen to ideological activists, youre not likely to get a modest result.
(Among other things, that one-pager asserts that the bill would restore the contraceptive coverage requirement guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. But the so-called Affordable Care Act which in its full Orwellian glory is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does not mention contraceptive coverage at all, much less guarantee it. The HHS mandate is a regulatory implementation of a provision of the Act.)
Ping!
There is not a single part of the Bill of Rights they actually support
If any of this survives the House then I will be officially done with the Republican party.
They are forcing us to sin, much like Islam is making suicide bombers and Obama is making children cross the border. Shields for their politics.
Is Harry want’n to rewrite that pesky ol Constitution again?
This is why we should have repealed this crap...
This is what so called compromise and bpartisanship looks like.
They always look to progress to the next crisis bait, using the compromise against us.
Bunch of cheerleaders we got with boehner.
Indeed, what good is it to win elections. it is doing something that is important.
Look for it to go right back to the Supremes down the road.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.