Posted on 10/22/2006 10:55:57 AM PDT by dodger
Catholic and other religious social service groups must provide contraceptive coverage through their workplace-sponsored medical insurance programs even if they consider contraception a sin, according to Thursday's ruling by New York state's highest court.
(Excerpt) Read more at eitb24.com ...
Will the Church now stop offering perscription drug coverage or will it stick by it's principles and ignore the Court?
Utterly unconscionable and ripe for overturning.
The Supreme Court seems to have a full time job of monitoring and overruling the politically motivated lower courts and their stupid rulings. I am not a Catholic, but this is outrageous.
Why wouldn't this go the next step up?
This is a good one for Justice Scalia to take on.
Why not jus stop prescription coverage and put a monthly stipend into an HSA for each covered person? Then they can buy whatever they want.
The New York law does exempt churches, seminaries and other institutions with a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion.I don't think it's ripe for overturning.
Government despotism run amuck.
Those sixteen words have taken a terrible beating in the past fifty years. For most of our history, they occasioned little controversy. That was when our culture and our polity seemed to be on more or less amicable terms. There are several possible datings of the change, but I think we can settle on the Supreme Court decision of 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, as the beginning of what would later come to be called the culture wars. That’s when the Court decided that ours is a secular society and began, by pitting the polity against the culture, a determined effort to create a naked public square.The sixteen words, of course, have to do with the first freedom of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Religion Clause—note that it is one clause with two provisions, no-establishment and free exercise—has been turned upside down, with the result that free exercise, which is the entire purpose of the clause, is again and again trumped by no-establishment. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been increasingly candid about the incoherence of its Religion Clause decisions, admitting that they are riddled through with contradictions. There is reason to believe that the Court just may be ready to return to the original meaning of the text, which is to protect the free exercise of religion.
Meanwhile, however, the battles continue. Just yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that religious institutions must cover contraception services in their employee health plans. The appeal of Baptist and Catholic groups for an exemption was denied. The ruling clearly burdens the free exercise of religion for those who believe that paying for artificial contraception is complicity in evil. Defenders of the decision say the decision only marginally inhibits the free exercise of religion. But free exercise means free exercise. When the exercise of religion is inhibited, it is not free exercise.
Last week the New York Times ran for four days in a row front-page stories, followed by two full inside pages each day, attacking religious exemptions from taxes and government regulation and control. The stories were written by Diana B. Henriques, and she has another big story on the same subject in Friday’s business section. This is an extraordinary amount of space for the Times to devote to anything. Under executive editor Bill Keller, this is known as the “blast” or “barrage” tactic when the Times understands itself to be launching a major campaign. This campaign is a take-no-prisoners assault on tax and other exemptions that historically have been deemed essential to the free exercise of religion.
The focus of the stories is on real or alleged abuses of religious tax exemptions. There is no shortage of such abuses, religion being as prone to scams and chicanery as any other human enterprise. But the Times is clearly after more than the correction of abuses. It is the very idea of religious exemptions that is under attack. Among the targets of the stories is the “faith-based initiative” of the Bush administration whereby, according to the Times, exemption from taxes and government regulation give religious organizations an unfair advantage.
Aren't we constantly being told that some of the more religious folks within the Republican party are not pleased with Republicans and are going to sit out this election?
If that's true, we really are the stupid party. Because there's no way that with Democrats in power in any branch of government that we'll be able to appoint judges who won't make ridiculous rulings like this.
Why not just stop prescription coverage and put a monthly stipend into an HSA for each covered person? Then they can buy whatever they want.
Good question. The Church currently ignores the laws concerning criminal aliens, facilitates their entry, illegally provides "sanctuary" and has no qualms admitting it. Be interesting if it will stick to its principles on this.
When I read the court decision in that case, I couldn't help but agree with it.
There would be many people and groups in need of substitute services but that would be the State of NY's problem. Those people still served by a reduced Catholic charities would know that they are receiving their help because the Church is truly carrying out the Great Commission, "To teach all nations."
I certainly disagree with this decision, but I also have a problem with these kinds of laws in general. Why should the government have any say when it comes to what is covered under a company's insurance plan or even whether a company should offer insurance as a benefit at all?
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.