Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit [View all]
11:17 am December 19, 2012
by Kyle Wingfield
A federal appeals court said Tuesday it will hold the Obama administration to its promises to change Obamacares controversial contraceptives mandate for certain religiously affiliated employers such as colleges. I guess the judges are now part of the war on women.
If so, they are joined by the Obama administration itself which, as the court noted in its Tuesday order:
represented to the court that it would never enforce [the rule] in its current form against the appellants [Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College] or those similarly situated as regards contraceptive services.
There will, the government said, be a different rule for entities like the appellants
But promises arent enough. The court said it took the administrations pledge during oral arguments to create a different rule for the colleges and similar organizations to be a binding commitment, and it ordered the administration to provides updates about progress made toward the creation of the new rule every 60 days.
This ruling does not necessarily mean the administration will rewrite the rule completely to the liking of the colleges or other entities that view the mandate to subsidize contraceptives for their employees, in violation of their consciences, as an infringement on their religious liberty. Nor does it mean the colleges would necessarily prevail in the courts if they were to continue their lawsuits after the new rule is introduced.
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2012/12/19/a-tentative-win-for-religious-liberty-in-obamacare-lawsuit/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
82 replies, 7511 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tell us, in which way was religious liberty in risk of being infringed?
2ndAmForComputers
Dec 2012
#4
The answer to that question is, of course, "none." Do you disagree with that?
2ndAmForComputers
Dec 2012
#11
That you canot find a fact where the Court of Appeals has does not surprise me in the least.
rug
Dec 2012
#13
There is a distinction you're missing between different types of religious organizations.
eomer
Dec 2012
#18
The ACA imports the trem "religious employer" as defined in ERISA and the Internl Revenue Code,
rug
Dec 2012
#36
Not true, the ACA does not import the term "religious employer" or use it in any way.
eomer
Dec 2012
#39
That's not a definition of the term "religious employer", which you said would be found there.
eomer
Dec 2012
#56
If you read them together they still have nothing to say about the right claimed by Wheaton College.
eomer
Dec 2012
#58
And that representation was that HHS will write the regulation implementing the exemption.
rug
Dec 2012
#59
Therefore, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the HHS, without statutory authority,
rug
Dec 2012
#65
No, the statutory authority is listed right in the regulation and it is the same as I said in #31.
eomer
Dec 2012
#76
Can we now take it you accept eomer has showed you the court did not rule about religious liberty?
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2012
#23
The title if the piece you chose was "a tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit"
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2012
#29
You've refused to answer the question, again, so there's no point in continuing
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2012
#38
Mostly correct but the administration has granted an accommodation, not recognized a right.
eomer
Dec 2012
#46
Why don't we all take a look at all OTHER things Mr. Wingfield has written on that publcation?
2ndAmForComputers
Dec 2012
#8
I do not prefer to 'chew on surmises' so I will ask you questions directly.
LeftishBrit
Dec 2012
#48
"DISGUSTING, INHUMAN individuals, who cannot be regarded as part of decent society"?
rug
Dec 2012
#50
There is of course one solution to the problem of institutions paying for aspects of healthcare that
LeftishBrit
Dec 2012
#28
WHOSE religious liberty? What about a Protestant student, whose religion allows abortion?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#30
Good choice of cases; the gov is not up against the giant Church. In THIS case.
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#63
The other appellant, Belmont Abbey College, is a Cathoic college and the Becket Fund is behind this.
rug
Dec 2012
#66
The most important idea: ENFORCING AN ANTI-ABORTION RELIGION, DENIES OTHER RELIGIONS
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#67
Protestants almost uniformly disapproved contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
rug
Dec 2012
#69
Most Protestant churches allow contraception today: another important case here; not just labor
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#71
I argued with Archbishop Chaput that bishops are employees of the Vatican, in effect?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#72
My argument was never presented; feel free to bring it up with whoever is working on these cases
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#75
There is a win for religious liberty here, just not the one that the article claims.
eomer
Dec 2012
#32
My religion allows abortion; what happens when my Catholic employer denies my religion?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#78
Rug? My PhD is in post-poststructuralist semantics; it's clear to me you are equivocating
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#47
Thanks in any case, for your close consideration of the current legal argument
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#62
Honestly, unless they are dickheads, I would imagine, they would accept buyouts...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#60
Would have to close? Wouldn't there be more dimensions to the question of conscience?
eomer
Dec 2012
#79
They would continue their charity work, including medical care, as they have for centuries.
rug
Dec 2012
#80
Catholic doctrine says all artificial methods are evil and will result in eternal damnation. no?
eomer
Dec 2012
#82
What happens when religions conflict? Whose religion gets freedom, over others?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#81