It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Admin Renews Attempt to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

This topic is used on a regular basis to derail discussion about the original topic. By taking the bait, you are playing into the agenda of the person who wants to derail discussion about the original topic. You can see this happening in many bulletin board threads and chatrooms. Stop taking the bait.




posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
The Nuns already informed the government that the entire birth control issue is in violation of a tenant of their faith.
If the Obama Administration continues on then it will ultimately have to remove the Ministerial exception law, that protects ministers and laypersons, from the government interfering in the churches.

That this means is that a minister, while running a church, can legally ignore certain laws, such as those covered in the civil rights acts. It also forbids government from being entangled in any matters of the church. In short a church's right to decide matters of governance and internal organization, remains in the church, and the government is forbidden from getting involved in such matters.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Annee

Just so you know, I am 60, and I retracted my statement. You do know what that means, right?






posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

As employers, The Little Sisters are required to comply with state and federal law, such as withholding income tax, FICA, Medicare, etc. The law was changed, since the Hobby Lobby ruling, and subsequent SCOTUS stay. The Little Sisters only have to file a form for the Dept of Health, informing them of their decision to OPT OUT, based on their religious objection.

All non-profits and businesses with religious objection need to do this. The government isn't psychic, they need to be told who is not covered.

I don't see how that is interfering with their expression of their religion or the governing of their church or their mission. Maybe someone can explain it to me.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: sdcigarpig

As employers, The Little Sisters are required to comply with state and federal law, such as withholding income tax, FICA, Medicare, etc. The law was changed, since the Hobby Lobby ruling, and subsequent SCOTUS stay. The Little Sisters only have to file a form for the Dept of Health, informing them of their decision to OPT OUT, based on their religious objection.

All non-profits and businesses with religious objection need to do this. The government isn't psychic, they need to be told who is not covered.

I don't see how that is interfering with their expression of their religion or the governing of their church or their mission. Maybe someone can explain it to me.



They obviously want to be exempt from complying with ANY government regulations regarding this topic because of religion. Their is no logic except in light of their claim of special status due to religion. The Supreme Court made an atrocious ruling (Hobby Lobby) that opened up this can of worms and it was intentional. If you look at the make-up of the Supreme Court you will see that many members are of a particular religious bent, apparently do not believe in separation of church and state but, rather, supremacy of religion over state. This is the beginning of a nightmare.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
And how is it different than the Federal government outright lying to the public about the health care law. At first it was not a tax, then in court it was a tax. Even when before it passed, the actions of congress was outright criminal. The idea behind the new health care law is a good one, but the actual law, well lets just say that leaves much to be desired, as it is horrible in its nature and wording. There are aspects in it that are just deplorable and it set a new precedent that should not have been done. For the first time in the history of the country, it is law that a person take an action, not by choice but by law, and the results have been mixed.

But beyond that, if they force this one non profit religious organization to do this, to violate a tenant of their faith, then it opens the door legally for the government to go into any church and dictate how it can be ran. Every church hires people, to assist in the running of it, but it is always under the control of said church. If a church decides to be a charitable organization, then it is still under the jurisdiction of said church, and never under the federal government, as long as it does not take any federal money. The moment that federal money is accepted, then all of the strings that go along with have to be included.

So as long as the Little sisters, an organization run by nuns, takes no federal money for being a charity, then the federal government can not simply come in and dictate or demand that it violate its tenants of faith.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
It's funny, but if you actually read the brief it is not exactly as it is being presented here.

The govt has refused to acknowledge their status as a religious employer. The brief filed on behalf of The Little Sisters seeks to redress that action, or inaction.

This is from the actual filed brief:



The government’s latest interim rules—the seventh set of revisions to the Mandate in 36 months—change nothing of substance in this appeal. The Little Sisters of the Poor1 continue to need a preliminary injunction to protect them from forced participation in the Mandate in violation of their undisputed religious beliefs.
The government easily could have eliminated the need for this appeal. It could have exempted the Little Sisters as “religious employers”—just as it would if the Little Sisters’ homes were operated by Catholic bishops. Op. Br. at 12-13, n.3 and 47-51. It could have exempted church plans. It could have adopted the “most straightforward” path of just providing contraceptives itself, Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2780 (2014), such as through Title X or tax incentives. Most simply, it could just allow employees of religious objectors to purchase subsidized coverage on the government’s own exchanges.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

you're right...that SCOTUS ruling has religious law trumping man-made law....a mythical being has authority over American citizens...for SCOTUS to justify this, is beyond common sense. I have more respect for a panhandler on the street, than I do for the right-wing religious nutcases on the supreme court, they have taken this country back before our own constitution was signed.....



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Tangerine
And how is it different than the Federal government outright lying to the public about the health care law. At first it was not a tax, then in court it was a tax. Even when before it passed, the actions of congress was outright criminal. The idea behind the new health care law is a good one, but the actual law, well lets just say that leaves much to be desired, as it is horrible in its nature and wording. There are aspects in it that are just deplorable and it set a new precedent that should not have been done. For the first time in the history of the country, it is law that a person take an action, not by choice but by law, and the results have been mixed.

But beyond that, if they force this one non profit religious organization to do this, to violate a tenant of their faith, then it opens the door legally for the government to go into any church and dictate how it can be ran. Every church hires people, to assist in the running of it, but it is always under the control of said church. If a church decides to be a charitable organization, then it is still under the jurisdiction of said church, and never under the federal government, as long as it does not take any federal money. The moment that federal money is accepted, then all of the strings that go along with have to be included.

So as long as the Little sisters, an organization run by nuns, takes no federal money for being a charity, then the federal government can not simply come in and dictate or demand that it violate its tenants of faith.


You're trying to hijack the topic and turn it into something else re the healthcare comment. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

It's a tenet not a tenant. No, you're wrong. Churches have had to obey employment laws. The Hobby Lobby ruling is an attempt to subvert that. You're wrong, all non-profits are subject to federal law and state law. Who do you think issues non-profit status?

When Little Sisters decided to function as a business and hire people, it made itself subject to employment law and that's the way it should be. If it wants to function solely as a religious organization it can opt out of functioning like a business. It should not have it both ways.

This does not open the door for the federal government to go into a church and dictate how it can be run as a church. The problem is that some churches want to function as businesses and, when they do, government regulations for businesses do apply. They can't have their cake and eat it, too.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

So when the constitution states that we have freedom of religion, that is not man made law?



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Churches have had to obey employment laws.


Pulled that one out of your nether orifice, did ya?

Obviously you are not even bothering to research anything before you make statements as fact....that are not factual. You have a history of that....

Personally, I feel that if a religious organization hires people they should be subject to the same laws as anyone else. That the separation of church and state should assure that. But that is just my opinion.

Here is the link that provides just one example how churches and religious organizations are not subject to employment laws in the same way a private entity would.

Religious exemption to EEOC


edit on 13-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: jimmyx

So when the constitution states that we have freedom of religion, that is not man made law?



you have freedom of religion, you can't insist on others to obey that religion. why is this so hard to understand.? that's what these nuns are doing, they are hiring people to work for them, employment laws are written by modern day man, if they do not want to follow those laws, then they can have religious volunteers do the work...pray to whoever you want to, but, if your religion requires others to obey your religion, that should be against the law, period.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: jimmyx

So when the constitution states that we have freedom of religion, that is not man made law?



you have freedom of religion, you can't insist on others to obey that religion. why is this so hard to understand.? that's what these nuns are doing, they are hiring people to work for them, employment laws are written by modern day man, if they do not want to follow those laws, then they can have religious volunteers do the work...pray to whoever you want to, but, if your religion requires others to obey your religion, that should be against the law, period.


Well said.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

There is very little I have a problem understanding bud.

Here is the situation, like it or not:

SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the same constitutional rights as people (the concept of corporate personhood...nothing new about it other than the SCOTUS's recognition of it)

The constitution provides for freedom of religion.

SCOTUS decided on the side of Hobby Lobby regarding the Unaffordable Care Act's application to religious entities.

No one is "insisting" that ANYONE hired by a religious organization obey their religion. That is just stupid reasoning. Disingenuous at the least to say that. Ignorance in huge, heaping quantities at the most.

You see, the fact of the matter is that if you work for a religious organization you may have abortions, you may use contraceptives. However, you may not require said organization to violate their beliefs and pay for your abortions, or contraceptives. Get it now? See how that works?



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the same constitutional rights as people (the concept of corporate personhood...nothing new about it other than the SCOTUS's recognition of it)


If any ordinary person, for whatever reason want to be recognized as eligible for some exemption to the law, every ordinary person would have to file a form or an application. Why should the Little Sisters be above that? How does filing a government form, proclaiming their status of "conscientious objector", violate any Christian tenet?



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I fail to see what your question has to do with the quote...??

Is the question related to corporate personhood?

Do you have to file a form to exercise your religious rights? Scratch that...that is not what this is about, I am pretty sure.

Otherwise, the corporate personhood ruling, coupled with constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of religion....

I have a severe problem with the ruling, myself.

So this is about The Sisters not filing a form? Or is it about the govt not recognizing their status?

Please elaborate cause I am not sure how to respond...sincerely.

I am also a bit confused, because you seem to be implying that I believe that the filing of a form would violate some religious belief. Or are you saying that the Little Sisters believe that filing a form violates their belief system or religious "tenants"? (wink wink).

I think there may be a couple of religious tenants living in my apt complex...


edit on 13-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

This case isn't related to the Hobby Lobby case. The Little Sisters are NOT a for profit business. They already qualify for exemption.

The Supreme Court granted them temporary relief from having to FILL OUT A FORM they claimed violates their religious beliefs.


Washington D.C., Aug 22, 2014 / 10:33 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Department of Health and Human Services issued on Friday new rules regarding its contraception mandate, after the Supreme Court ruled against its application to certain companies this summer.

----------

Previously, religious groups were instructed to sign a form voicing their objection to the coverage, which would authorize their insurer or a third-party administrator to pay for the products.

Many religious groups had objected to this arrangement, saying that it still required them to violate their religious beliefs by authorizing an outside organization to pay for the products they found to be immoral.

The new rule announced Friday allows these non-profit groups to notify the Department of Health and Human Services of their objections. The federal government will then contact insurers and third party administrators to provide the coverage.
www.catholicnewsagency.com...



So, I'm asking, "What's the problem?"


edit on 13-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I just wanted your take on it.

It is not as presented, as I posted a while back. It is not, as you present it, they just do not want to "fill out a form".

They are concerned that the verbiage on the form will commit them, once signed, to accepting a 3rd party insurance company that will charge them for abortion and abortion drug coverage. Hence, the violation of their beliefs.

Apparently their lawyer feels so, and apparently there is enough of a case that SCOTUS issued the injunction.

So do not represent it as being a stupid action, by a stupid group. I am not a religious person by any means, but it really get's my goat when people misrepresent crap for obvious bias reasons.




The contraceptive mandate requires insurance plans, including those sponsored by an employer, to provide all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, without copays or other cost-sharing. However, according to the government, the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, which provides health benefits for the Little Sisters of the Poor, would not be forced to include this coverage because another federal law exempts “church plans.”[2]
The Little Sisters of the Poor homes in Denver and Baltimore, part of an international organization of Roman Catholic nuns serving the elderly poor, have employee benefit plans that would allow them to be exempt from the ACA contraceptive mandate if they were to file an Employee Benefits Security Administration Form 700 and provide copies to their health plan administrator.[3]
Nonetheless, the Little Sisters are seeking formal legal shelter from the contraceptive mandate, arguing that filing Form 700 would authorize a third party to provide contraceptive coverage, thus implicating them in a system that provides contraceptives and goes against their faith.







edit on 13-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Do you have a link for that citation. I'm pretty sure it was all cleared up in the new rules issued this past August.

What are the details of their complaints with the new rules? My link is a Catholic org link, and they seem pretty okay with the new rules. I don't know what all the fuss is about with these Little Sisters.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Very predictable


SIECUS

Bam! There ya go


What the verbiage is on form 700 that is objectionable, I have no idea. Never seen the form.




edit on 13-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join