Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court: Catholic Group Must Provide Birth Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Court: Catholic Group Must Provide Birth Control

    SAN FRANCISCO — A Roman Catholic charitable organization must include birth control (search) coverage in its health care plan for workers even though it is morally opposed to contraception, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

    Just think, if it wasn't for that wanker "truman" we may not have had to worry about SF.
    Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

  • #2
    I like this the best: >>The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."<<

    Laughable.

    This is the left's version of "separation between church and state" - religious freedom will not stand in the way of women and reproductive freedom.

    Comment


    • #3
      Amazing.

      Catholic Charities is too secular to be exempt because they offer help to people of all faiths.

      I would guess that Catholic Charities, and probably Catholic hospitals, in California, are going to reevaluate whether they want to offer health insurance to their employees. After all, if they don't offer contraceptive coverage, rights are being trampled.

      So perhaps they'll stop offering insurance as a benefit. But thank God we're taking care of everyone's "rights."
      I'm always right.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by King in KC+Mar 1 2004, 05:11 PM-->
        QUOTE(King in KC @ Mar 1 2004, 05:11 PM)

      • #5
        Of course, to me this is another example of why health insurance should not be tied to employment and instead should be provided under a single-payer program.

        But on the case itself, this seems to be the key to the ruling:

        The high court said that Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, where "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement. Catholic Charities argued that it, too, should be exempt.

        But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values....

        Catholic Charities has 183 full-time employees and had a $76 million budget in California in 2002. It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

        So "religious employers" are exempt, but the court felt Catholic Charities did not qualify as a "religious employer" . Without knowing all of the details of how they operate and whether they receive any benefits from being a business instead of a "religious employer", there's no way to know if this decision was valid or not.
        2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

        Comment


        • #6
          I wonder if this means they are eligible for federal funding now?
          Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by Airshark@Mar 1 2004, 05:21 PM

            Let me just add that I'm not a religious person at all. I'd have jailed people for burning crosses on other people's private property, and left the cross in the park because of its historical significance.
            Great post, Shark. And it's also good to your other intelligent and thoughtful posts.

            However, (you had to know this was coming) I can't accept the teal. It reminds me of Marc Bergevin throwing the puck into his own goal.....but that is another story.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by King in KC+Mar 1 2004, 06:06 PM-->
              QUOTE(King in KC @ Mar 1 2004, 06:06 PM)

            • #9
              If people are true to their faith, then they won't need the birth control at all. Right?

              Comment


              • #10
                You are correct, sir!!!
                Make America Great For Once.

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Trigfunctions@Mar 1 2004, 05:42 PM
                  Of course, to me this is another example of why health insurance should not be tied to employment and instead should be provided under a single-payer program.
                  Every financial scam and almost all political scams in human history are variations on the same theme:

                  "Something for nothing"

                  No such thing as a free lunch, trig. But we can certainly destroy civil society in once again proving it.

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by kaiser@Mar 1 2004, 05:21 PM

                    So perhaps they'll stop offering insurance as a benefit. But thank God we're taking care of everyone's "rights."
                    The more I think about this, the more pissed I get. Two thoughts come to mind:

                    1. Who is the pathetic plaintiff in this lawsuit. Imagine, going to work for an employer that you know opposes something under moral and religious grounds, and then suing them so that the state will force them to betray their moral and religious doctrine. What a friggin world.

                    2. If I were head of Catholic Charities in California, I would end it right here and now. Dismiss all employees and stop distributing all charitable benefits. And to those who were now left without jobs and without assistance, I would give the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs attorneys, and the six judges.

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      King - my only disappointment with your response is that it took you so long to make it.

                      The biggest benefit, IMO, of single-payer health insurance is that it would have a built-in incentive to provide preventative health care to all social classes - especially children.

                      Right now, with private insurance companies, there is no incentive for them to cover preventative medicine because they know most people change jobs and insurance companies several times.
                      2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        Originally posted by Trigfunctions@Mar 1 2004, 07:08 PM
                        King - my only disappointment with your response is that it took you so long to make it.

                        The biggest benefit, IMO, of single-payer health insurance is that it would have a built-in incentive to provide preventative health care to all social classes - especially children.

                        Right now, with private insurance companies, there is no incentive for them to cover preventative medicine because they know most people change jobs and insurance companies several times.
                        Trig:

                        You are getting to know me too well.

                        Social Security sounded reasonable as well. Still does. But it doesn't work.

                        There is this messy thing called moral hazard - and human nature (us religionists might call it original sin).

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Here's the website for the California Supreme Court.
                          http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/

                          The court opinion is there, in it's entirety. It looks like Catholic Charities challenged the law requiring them to provide contraceptives - it wasn't that someone sued Catholic Charities.

                          The explanation for the ruling is on page 5:
                          As mentioned, the WCEA permits a “religious employer” to offer prescription drug insurance without coverage for contraceptives that violate the employer’s religious tenets. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1367.25, subd. (b).) The act defines a “religious employer” as “an entity for which each of the following is true: [] (A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity. [] (B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. [] © The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. [] (D) The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in Section 6033(a)(2)(A)i or iii, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” (Ibid.) The cited provisions of the Internal Revenue Code exempt, from the obligation to file an annual return, “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” (26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(2)(A)(i)) and “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order” (id., § 6033(a)(2)(A)(i) and (iii)).

                          Catholic Charities does not qualify as a “religious employer” under the WCEA because it does not meet any of the definition’s four criteria. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 1367.25, subd. (b)(1)(A)-(D).) The organization candidly acknowledges this in its complaint, offering the following explanation: “The corporate purpose of Catholic Charities is not the direct inculcation of religious values. Rather, [its] purpose . . . is to offer social services to the general public that promote a just, compassionate society that supports the dignity of individuals and families, to reduce the causes and results of poverty, and to build healthy communities through social service programs such as counseling, mental health and immigration services, low-income housing, and supportive social services to the poor and vulnerable. Further, Catholic Charities does not primarily employ persons who share its Roman Catholic religious beliefs, but, rather, employs a diverse group of persons of many religious backgrounds, all of whom share [its] Gospel-based commitment to promote a just, compassionate society that supports the dignity of individuals and families. Moreover, Catholic Charities serves people of all faith backgrounds, a significant majority of [whom] do not share [its] Roman Catholic faith. Finally, . . . Catholic Charities, although an exempt organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501©(3), is not a nonprofit organization pursuant to [s]ection 6033(a)(2)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Consequently, . . . Catholic Charities is not entitled . . . to an exemption from the mandate imposed by [the WCEA].”
                          It sounds like the judges made a reasonable interpretation of the law. We don't want activist judges changing the laws, do we?
                          2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X