HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obamacare Contraception M...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:39 PM

Obamacare Contraception Mandate Does Not Violate Religious Freedom, Federal Judge

Obamacare doesn't violate the religious freedom of employers that don't want to cover contraceptives, a federal judge in Missouri has ruled.

Frank O'Brien, the owner of O'Brien Industrial Holdings, filed a lawsuit in March claiming that Obamacare violated his religious freedom by mandating that his company's health insurance cover employees' contraceptive use, according to Courthouse News Service. But U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson ruled on Friday that this Obamacare provision indeed is constitutional.

"This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious exercise," Jackson wrote in the decision. She noted that "plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives."

O'Brien Industrial Holdings claims on its website that it follows the Ten Commandments and that "we will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obamacare-contraception-mandate_n_1939366.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=1530933,b=facebook

6 replies, 1161 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obamacare Contraception Mandate Does Not Violate Religious Freedom, Federal Judge (Original post)
elleng Oct 2012 OP
Warpy Oct 2012 #1
xuinkrbin. Nov 2012 #4
Warpy Nov 2012 #6
Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #2
xuinkrbin. Nov 2012 #5
xuinkrbin. Nov 2012 #3

Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:03 PM

1. Religious freedom applies to personal conscience

and not to organizations that want to bully people outside them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:56 PM

4. Who is bullying?

Choosing to not actively engage in an action is not the same as bullying Someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xuinkrbin. (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:57 PM

6. Making that choice for people who do not share it is bullying.

The Catholic hierarchy is trying to bully everybody who has the misfortune to work at a Catholic owned business.

This is wrong.

Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:16 PM

2. Interesting Mission Statement for this company

Mission
Our mission is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.
Values

Integrity
Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system.

Customers
Our customers provide for our very existence as a commercial entity. Our relationship with them will be mutually beneficial.
People

We are an organization that will attract and keep outstanding personnel. Mean spirited behavior will not be tolerated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:58 PM

5. Whether We like it or not, They are at least consistent.

The Employers are not discriminating against Anyone based on said Anyone's personal belief system. Neither are the Employers engaging in mean spirit behavior (inaction =/= "mean spirit behavior").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:58 AM

3. Yeah, no.

The "incidental" argument upon which the Judge relies in Her opinion was considered by the Supreme Court in Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division. The Supreme Court rejected that argument outright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread