HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obamacare: US judge lets ...

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:25 AM

Obamacare: US judge lets Catholic-owned firm cut contraception from coverage

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Obamacare: US judge lets Catholic-owned firm cut contraception from coverage

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / July 27, 2012

A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that allows the Catholic owners of a private company in Colorado to avoid providing their female employees with contraceptives as required under President Obama’s health-care reform law.

The owners of the company, Hercules Industries, objected to the requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), saying it violated their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Company officials say they are striving to build their business around a corporate culture based on principles of the Roman Catholic Church. As such, their existing self-insured health plan does not include coverage for contraception or sterilization.

The health-care reform law, upheld last month by the US Supreme Court, would require them to provide such coverage or pay a penalty tax.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0727/Obamacare-US-judge-lets-Catholic-owned-firm-cut-contraception-from-coverage

24 replies, 2921 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 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obamacare: US judge lets Catholic-owned firm cut contraception from coverage (Original post)
Eugene Jul 2012 OP
hedgehog Jul 2012 #1
NYC_SKP Jul 2012 #2
snot Jul 2012 #3
KansDem Jul 2012 #10
msanthrope Jul 2012 #4
Bort336 Jul 2012 #6
msanthrope Jul 2012 #8
Bort336 Jul 2012 #13
msanthrope Jul 2012 #15
Bort336 Jul 2012 #16
msanthrope Jul 2012 #17
Fla Dem Jul 2012 #18
msanthrope Jul 2012 #19
Fla Dem Jul 2012 #21
Bort336 Jul 2012 #22
former9thward Jul 2012 #11
msanthrope Jul 2012 #14
former9thward Jul 2012 #20
mia Jul 2012 #24
Freddie Jul 2012 #5
Bort336 Jul 2012 #7
ananda Jul 2012 #9
williesgirl Jul 2012 #12
Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #23

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:27 AM

1. What if the next employer announces that it his belief that women

should suffer in childbirth, therefore he isn't covering anesthesia!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:28 AM

2. Let them pay the penalty tax, then.

 

Assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:29 AM

3. Let's get an injunction excusing us from paying the portion of our taxes that funds war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:08 PM

10. I'm with you!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:36 AM

4. A very interesting legal opinion from this Carter appointee....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/Newland-_Hercules-Industries_-v-Sebelius-Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf


I would not assume that Hercules has 'won' anything other than a temporary victory....indeed, pages 15 to 17 show a reasonable framework to the government on just how to make the case for the full hearing....which is expedited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:38 PM

6. The Veil of Religious Freedom

 

Obstructionists have spent every waking moment trying to locate any real or perceived chink in the armor of our civil society to further their ends. This attempt by business owners to hide behind a veil of religious freedom to dictate their religious dogma to their employees is reprehensible.

There is no right to own a business in this country. As a matter of FACT, to own a business is a privilege that is given by the state in which you form or incorporate your business. Any business, which has access to all the commons provided by the local, county, state and federal government entities also has certain obligations to all of those entities as well as all of the people who reside within those entities. Discrimination on any basis is not one of them.

Leevank, from a post to a similar article in another forum, makes an excellent point when he/she assesses a number of religious freedom proclivities that business owners could use to undermine the civil contract. As a business owner, you made a choice to start your business and I would like to congratulate you on that choice and hope you remain successful into the distant future. Please though, if you want to project your religion and all its nuances onto your employees, close the business and start a church.

Here is a definition that my daughter, my wife, and I put together last year, which hits the nail right on the head.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/...

I you agree with our definition please give it thumbs up, pass it on to your friends, and keep your eyes open for our grand opening inquisition of the “Bringing the Light”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bort336 (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:55 PM

8. Welcome to DU! I think copying and pasting your posts from Kos doesn't do our

 

forum justice, but to each, their own.


I gather you do not like ellipses. Sorry....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:43 PM

13. not my intent

 

It was not my intent to diss DU by copying a post made on another forum for the same topic.

Not being either a good or prolific writer, I find myself doing much spelling, grammatical and structural correcting to construct a 10 sentence post.

Sorry, I didn't know that copy and paste is not looked upon well and to show my respect for DU, consider this my copy and paste cease and desist statement.

The statement about not liking ellipses went right over my head, Please explain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bort336 (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:48 PM

15. Click the urban dictionary link you put in your reply to me....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #15)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 02:17 PM

16. link?

 

I corrected the link with a re-posting of my reply to your first post. I posted to the original thread, my first post to you and apologized for accidentally replying to your post instead of commenting on the thread and blamed it on my lack of posting experience.

After reading the sentences above, do you see my point about copying?

I still don't understand your ellipses comment unless the link directed you to something on ellipses - that must be it.

Here is the link:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vaginal+vampire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bort336 (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 02:56 PM

17. "Vaginal Vampire?" I am not clicking that link! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #17)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 03:21 PM

18. With no disrespect to you msanthrope, I have cut and pasted the definition I believe

Bort336 was referencing. There were 2, the 2nd being disgusting. But here is the 1st so you do not have to click on the link. LOL

1. Vaginal Vampire 594 up, 10 down
Any person, group of people, or organization that through their speech, writings, and/or actions are implicitly attempting to control, direct, and/or subjugate a woman’s inherent rights to the control of her body, her mind, her sexuality, and medical choices made between her and her doctor. Most of these Vaginal Vampire attacks are veiled in authoritarian religious dogma and conservative political rhetoric in an attempt to steal and control the power of the Womb and/ or Woman. This is accomplished through the demonizing of birth control, abortion, Planned Parenthood, the dumbing down and/or elimination of sexual education, the defining down of the violent crime of rape, the propagation of abstinence only, and the theft of a women’s rights of equality. The tactics employed to accomplish these goals run the gamut from intimidation, fear, propaganda, terror, violence, and murder/assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 03:24 PM

19. I am assuming he wrote that one, and not the 2nd???

 

Though we should never assume?

Thank you!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 03:59 PM

21. Yes, the 1st shows by bort6 May 31, 2011. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 05:15 PM

22. VagVamp

 

As I stated in my earlier post, the first definition was constructed by three people: my daughter, my wife, and myself. This definition was applauded by my 83 year old Arizona mother, who I love with all my heart, but to my chagrin, is a fox news hound and thinks o'riley is great.

If you were to read both definitions that were on the linked page I, my daughter, and my wife take tremendous pride in having the most vile and disgusting definition on that page, if not in the entire Urban Dictionary.

maybe my mistake in this instance was to have "Vaginal Vampire" in the link because it might have a tendency to scare off one from linking to the definition. The following link, which takes you to a stand alone definition of "Vaginal Vampire" the secondary definition and it also doesn't show the words "Vaginal Vampire" in the link itself.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vagvamp

We spent about a month constructing this definition and also considering the ramifications to being on the same page with a much less digusting alternate definition. We finally decided that it didn't really matter how the alternate definition was viewed because it was only a tedious, trashy, and misogynist description that would finally serve a purpose, to enhance the point we are trying to make.

Our final point is to show the hidden beauty in the words "Vaginal Vampire". The most beautiful thing that we can think of is that no republican, conservative, or tea-bagger will ever utter the word vaginal or vagina - so, what the hell so you think they will do when they get tagged as a "Vaginal Vampire" - melt, we hope.

"We can't get 'em all with wooden stakes through the heart so we will have to tag 'em, drag 'em "Into the Light", and let them explode in flames of their own accord." VAGINAL VAMPIRE HUNTER

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:11 PM

11. Not really....

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of defeating the contraception requirements when the case proceeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:47 PM

14. Did you read the pages I cited? The judge indicated that the given the case the government was

 

currently making, the Plaintiffs had met the standard for the TRO.

But I've read lots of opinions. That judge gave the Defendants a road map of how to win. I wouldn't count out the government prevailing on this just yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 03:55 PM

20. No I didn't read the pages.

Just going by the TRO standard. I figured the government knew this challenge was coming for many months now so they would be prepared to give it their best shot. We'll see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:10 AM

24. Thanks for the link.

This topic is very interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:12 PM

5. "Self insured" is key here

I think we're going to be seeing more of this because when a business is self-insured (like many large employers) the "insurance co. actually pays for the contraception" compromise does not apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:45 PM

7. The Veil of Religious Freedom

 

Sorryy, I ment to post this as a response to the thread and not to #4's comment. Kinda new at this - also fixed the broken link.

Obstructionists have spent every waking moment trying to locate any real or perceived chink in the armor of our civil society to further their ends. This attempt by business owners to hide behind a veil of religious freedom to dictate their religious dogma to their employees is reprehensible.

There is no right to own a business in this country. As a matter of FACT, to own a business is a privilege that is given by the state in which you form or incorporate your business. Any business, which has access to all the commons provided by the local, county, state and federal government entities also has certain obligations to all of those entities as well as all of the people who reside within those entities. Discrimination on any basis is not one of them.

Leevank makes an excellent point when he/she assesses a number of religious freedom proclivities that business owners could use to undermine the civil contract. As a business owner, you made a choice to start your business and I would like to congratulate you on that choice and hope you remain successful into the distant future. Please though, if you want to project your religion and all its nuances onto your employees, close the business and start a church.

Here is a definition that my daughter, my wife, and I put together last year, which hits the nail right on the head.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vaginal+vampire

I you agree with our definition please give it thumbs up, pass it on to your friends, and keep your eyes open for our grand opening inquisition of the “Bringing the Light”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:56 PM

9. The Catholic Church should be renamed..

Misogyny Inc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:38 PM

12. I'd love to see them have difficulty hiring good employees after this. Plus, non-Catholics should

boycott their products, since we don't agree with the Church's behavior. rec'd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 05:40 PM

23. Companies have "deeply held religions beliefs?"

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread