Posted on 07/06/2014 7:41:39 AM PDT by dervish
Today, the Supreme Court granted Wheaton College an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of the contraception mandate, even though Wheaton was eligible for the accommodation HHS has provided for religious non-profits. Specifically the Court ordered:
If the applicant informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a non-profit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicant the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review. To meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, the applicant need not use the form prescribed by the Government, EBSA Form 700, and need not send copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note the use of the phrase "Blessings of Liberty." They didn't say "liberty," they said "blessings of liberty." They also capitalized Blessings and Liberty. Why?
In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note the use of capitalization for Life, Liberty, and Happiness. This is common when writing about gifts from God. Also note that these refer to the rights endowed by the Creator, which would be blessings. By this language, is it possible that Founders meant the Constitution to establish a government that secured the blessing of the unalienable right to Liberty?
Therefore, when they spoke of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity," wouldn't those referred to as "our posterity" be the unborn children who were also "blessed" with the right to Liberty, and the other unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence?
How can the Founders believe that they were securing Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness for our unborn future if they were also writing abortion into the Constitution?
-PJ
Not to mention IVF ....I was not speaking of denominations, I was just saying Christian, I have no denomination past that
Not to mention IVF ....I was not speaking of denominations, I was just saying Christian, I have no denomination past that
How about sex change operations for geriatrics? Medicare will pay for those.
I don’t understand your point. IMO this is a big deal.
SCOTUS enjoined enforcement of the birth control mandate pending outcome of Wheaton’s appeal.
Morrissey makes the point, and rightly so, that the Accommodation which Obamacare gave to employers with religious objections is not a done deal.
Wapo also thinks this means a SCOTUS majority has serious reservations about the accommodation and the employer mandate for birth control.
also
“SCOTUS enjoined enforcement of the birth control mandate pending outcome of Wheaton’s appeal.”
Wheaton College is not controlled by the employer mandate. They are already largely exempt. This case is about what sort of forms the government can require, and what process, to document that one is a religious non-profit.
There may or may not someday be a court decision saying that a religious non-profit doesn’t have to submit X form, but even if so, that would hardly be some major blow for freedom. It would only apply to employers who are already exempt.
You are not following what "insurance" does in these cases. Car insurance will not absolutely fix up your car. It will only pay up to the policy limit for a mechanic or body shop to work on your car to fix it to the best of their ability within the financial constraints of the policy. Rare indeed is the policy which will pay for a new car if your old one is older. The only thing any car insurance can do is pay you money for the damage to your car. There are special circumstances where if your car is new enough theory will pay for a replacement new one, but they never give you the car -- they write a check and send it to you.
For medical care insurance, there is no guarantee they will fix what is wrong with you, all they promise is to pay up to the policy limit the medical bills you have for treatment which is very much different than a "complete cure". Yes the matter of birth control is a medical matter but I say that it is not a medical *insurance* matter. If pregnancy is to be considered a disease, it is by any measure the most preventable “disease” mankind has ever “suffered”.
Again, you are not seeing what insurance does. Both pregnancy and birth control require medical treatments, although this does not mean that pregnancy is any kind of a disease. Long ago, mankind discovered that the outcome of a pregnancy was frequently better if there were medical care during the progress of the pregnancy. Especially during birth, where medical intervention frequently saves the life of both mothers and children.
All insurance does is pay for this care. The concept of pregnancy being treated as a disease, is a red herring. Every woman knows this and when we make that claim we lose support, and their votes. Every woman I know would much rather give birth in a hospital than somewhere else. I have read about some who would rather do it at home or in a non-hospital setting, but all of them want an ambulance on call, a hospital somewhere nearby, and a midwife right there with them.
At least you recognize that birth control is medical treatment. Medical treatment does not always have to fix something wrong, but it always has to be paid for.
Notice I didn't say "abortion" anywhere in there. That is where I draw the line.
Anywhere else leaves us open to the charges of being conservative cave men. As much as I might not like the entire package, I would far rather give in on non-abortion birth control and let women hear about the values of other conservative positions, than have their minds closed before we even start a conversation on areas like school vouchers, safe housing, lower taxes, government overspending, and all the other things where we have positions and a message that most women are receptive to.
Very well said - thank you! That’s the best post on this subject I have ever seen.
I think the toughest challenge the employer mandate faces is the idea that birth control pills are a right AND a compelling state need. Generic birth control pills run under $10/month, and many counties will provide them for free (along with free IUDs) for those who cannot afford them.
Thank you for explaining this.
I agree. The compelling state interest is not there.
** the Supreme Court granted Wheaton College an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of the contraception mandate, even though Wheaton was eligible for the accommodation HHS has provided for religious non-profits.**
Just a delay.
Is there any language, anywhere, in either the PPACA (Obamacare) law, or federal regulations implementing it, that requires insurers to cover Viagra? Some insurers may choose to cover it, but are all insurers required to? I don't think so.
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.