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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

This is just me thinking, so look out!

There are hundreds of lawsuits related to the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision and the ACA.

If you just got what you wanted from SCOTUS, why in the world would you (The Sisters) or any of the other hundred or hundreds of lawsuits be doing that?

The only reason I can think of is if there was some feeling that the Administration, still burning from the loss of the decision, was trying to pull a fast one, somehow.

Total guessing, as I said. I am trying to rationalize the why. Makes no sense that all those suits would be because they just do not want to bother to fill out a form. There is zero logic down that road.

And the fact that the SCOTUS is involved... says something, IMO. If the Admin were trying to pull an end run, who else, other than SCOTUS, would take that quite personally, so to speak?

Interesting...perhaps we are seeing the outer periphery of a power struggle between SCOTUS and the Admin. Or, perhaps, I am so far off the mark I left the stadium an hour ago


Normally I am not the one wearing the tin-foil-hat..




posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

OR...........

This thread is based on outdated outrage. Your SIECUS is dated January 2014. The new rules were issued August 24, 2014, just a few weeks ago.

www.hhs.gov...



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
Several things: 1) You did open up the door by attacking the nature of the court. I was merely pointing out that the federal government has lied and did things to get this law passed.

There are aspects of employment law that any church can choose not to obey. Did you know that a church is not an equal opportunity employer. A church can choose not to hire someone on the grounds, of race, sex, sexual orientation or hire anyone who is handicapped, and never be prosecuted for it?

Churches can do anything they want as long as they do not break criminal law. It has been that way for years. That means if a church, recognized as such, having the tax status of such can not be forced to hire anyone it does not want, or perform acts that are in violation of any tenant of its faith.

The only difference between a church and a business, is that a church, can have no profit. That means by all accounts, a church at the end of the tax year, can show that it has either broke even or is in the red. The minister is paid a salary, someone has to maintain grounds and building, the books have to the bought and kept in order, the insides have to be cleaned, the grounds maintained, the windows washed, write the checks and there has to be someone keeping the books to show and account for every penny that it brings in. Just like a business. The only difference is that a church can have no extra at the end of the year, all of it has to be accounted for.

If the federal government forces the Little Sisters, which is run by Catholic Nuns, in an order that has been around for over 100 years, that is well versed in the tenent of the Roman Catholic belief; a belief that includes to be against abortion and that there can be no use of anything that prevents pregnancies, which is well documented; if the government forces this order of nuns to provide such, then it is dictating that it can interfere in the running of a church, even forcing those to violate their faith.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Perhaps so, although I do not see the outrage.

The suit was related to the form 700. I have not read that and how the new rules changed the form, if at all.

Anyways...hope everyone is happy with the new rules!

Wait...this is the govt and people are people. Like that would happen! lol



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Tangerine
Several things: 1) You did open up the door by attacking the nature of the court. I was merely pointing out that the federal government has lied and did things to get this law passed.

There are aspects of employment law that any church can choose not to obey. Did you know that a church is not an equal opportunity employer. A church can choose not to hire someone on the grounds, of race, sex, sexual orientation or hire anyone who is handicapped, and never be prosecuted for it?

Churches can do anything they want as long as they do not break criminal law. It has been that way for years. That means if a church, recognized as such, having the tax status of such can not be forced to hire anyone it does not want, or perform acts that are in violation of any tenant of its faith.

The only difference between a church and a business, is that a church, can have no profit. That means by all accounts, a church at the end of the tax year, can show that it has either broke even or is in the red. The minister is paid a salary, someone has to maintain grounds and building, the books have to the bought and kept in order, the insides have to be cleaned, the grounds maintained, the windows washed, write the checks and there has to be someone keeping the books to show and account for every penny that it brings in. Just like a business. The only difference is that a church can have no extra at the end of the year, all of it has to be accounted for.

If the federal government forces the Little Sisters, which is run by Catholic Nuns, in an order that has been around for over 100 years, that is well versed in the tenent of the Roman Catholic belief; a belief that includes to be against abortion and that there can be no use of anything that prevents pregnancies, which is well documented; if the government forces this order of nuns to provide such, then it is dictating that it can interfere in the running of a church, even forcing those to violate their faith.


Some of what you have said is accurate and some is not. Some of the rules for churches and other non-profits are not different if they use federal money to provide social services, for example. This is the reason that Catholic Charities, for example, provides social services with no proselytizing or even so much as a crucified man dripping blood on a cross in sight. I applaud Catholic Charities for the good they do. Many other religious groups that receive federal funds are not nearly as ethical and take every opportunity to proselytize and even withhold desperately needed services from the poor unless the poor allow themselves to be subjected to proselytizing or participation in religious activities. These churches and religious organizations get away with it because the government is utterly gutless when it comes to religion.

Other religious groups get millions in donations and take that money out of the country under the guise of doing missionary work. It ends up in the hands of dictators and those of similar ilk. I refer you to the case of Pat Robertson's "700 Club". Pat Robertson hand-delivered more than a million in cash to General Effrain Rios Montt, the Butcher of Guatemala, who overthrew a democratically elected government and committed numerous atrocities. The IRS should be monitoring what happens to these donations but apparently does not. As a result, clearly political organizations get away with claiming to be religious organizations and retain tax-free status.

Are you aware that, in clear violation of the Constitution, there is now a Faith-based Office in the White House that runs federal funds to religious groups, many of which are designed to skirt federal laws? The office was created under G. W. Bush and kept by the person who is, in effect, carrying out G.W.'s fourth term.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

If this was the right topic, I would argue that the constitution does not provide for separation of church and state and never have... regardless of appearance. There is but one sentence in the constitution that provides for anything remotely similar and that merely addresses what congress cannot do.

Basically, the whole separation of church and state has been botched.


edit on 14-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I've read a little about this

Little Sisters are not consider as a church because they serve more than just those of their own faith. And I really kind of doubt if they could serve just those of their own fail and still take the medicaid payments.
Which means that they do take federal money!

They are a religious non profit and this is how they accomodated them:




It provides that an eligible organization may notify HHS in writing of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services. The notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs to providing coverage of some or all contraceptive services (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type (i.e., whether it is a student health insurance plan within the meaning of 45 CFR 147.145(a) or a church plan within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33)); and the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third party administrators and health insurance issuers… A model notice to HHS that eligible organizations may, but are not required to, use is available at: www.cms.gov... If there is a change in any of the information required to be included in the notice, the organization must provide updated information to HHS…

www.breitbart.com...


They're griping about having to fill out a form!
I guess the gov't could accommodate them further. Have the insurance company or whatever that is handling their policy contact HHS instead , and give them the name and address of the companies that have requested policies that don't include all or some of the types of birth control and then the gov't could send them a notice asking as to the reason and once it's gotten an answer continue on setting up the alternative. But I imagine that they would object to answering the notice also??
And then they'd be griping that they are getting socked with the fine or whatever for not carrying the officially accepted coverage for their employees and we'd be back to square one!

How's the lawsuit claiming that the federal exchange and it subisidizing insurance policies coming along? Maybe it will break the back of obamacare and get us out of this nightmare??

By the way
insurance policies provide by companies have been carrying birth control since
2000, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.




In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
www.motherjones.com...


This might not pertain to Little Sister's but it most certainly would to the for profit companies that have also filed suit (and been ruled in favor of!) more than likely they were providing coverage since 2000 or they were in violation of the Civil Rights Act!



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

They don't need to use the form. they just got to make sure the information requested is present in the notification they send in;



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Noo... as I stated earlier and provided a link, that is oversimplifying significantly.

They were concerned that filling out Form 700 to notify the govt of it's objections would open them up to having to accept coverage from a 3rd party that would provide the coverage they objected to based on religion.

To suggest that they "just do not want to fill out a form" is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at the worst.

What's easier, fill out a form or file a lawsuit?

The fact that SCOTUS issued an injunction would suggest that there is some justification to the suit and that it is not wholly BS.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

So..your experience with the govt would suggest that just providing the info is enough?

lol

Wrong. The form is how you provide the info.

Unless that is a part of the new rule changes, in which case this whole thread, as a poster suggested earlier, is based on old information, including the lawsuit.


edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
well like I said I supposed the i nsurance company could be the one to alert the gov't that this organization or company has coverage that doesn't incude it and they coud go that route instead.

and the idea that they don't need to use the form didn't just pop into me head it says so in the quote I gave..
edit on 15-9-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Right, but there was a specific reason...not just simply that they did not want to fill out a form. They were concerned that filling out the form would result in the insurance being provided by a 3rd party and said insurance would include the coverage objected to.

Check out the link I provided several posts above. It puts it in better perspective. The main reason I jumped in was that I couldn't understand the motive as it was being presented. Not willing to fill out a form, yet willing to file a lawsuit? Not logical in the least...but then I found the actual reason.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Studies have found that nuns are highly susceptible to breast cancer, based on their life style. Studies have shown that nuns who took birth control pills have reduced cases of breast cancer.

Should Nuns Take the Pill to Prevent Cancer?

And, all is not what it seems on the home front!


Now, a separate group of nuns is taking the opposite tack, defending birth control coverage in the ACA in an online petition. The head of the National Coalition of American Nuns, Donna Quinn, told Religion Dispatches, “It isn’t ‘faith and freedom’ when reproductive autonomy isn’t extended by the Catholic Church to women. Now we have other Christian religions seeing what the bishops are doing and saying we will do likewise. It isn’t freedom when a woman can be held hostage by the owner of a business.”

The petition asks others to join the group of nuns. It declares, “We know that religious freedom means that each person has the right to exercise their own religious beliefs; religious freedom cannot mean that an individual or a corporation gets to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”

The Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in particular has taken an active role in criticizing the contraceptive coverage mandate in Obamacare. But this isn’t the first time nuns have shown independence on an issue. In 2012, a Vatican group rebuked the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for espousing ”radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”
www.msnbc.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I don't have a dog in that race...at all. I can see how taking BC could help in a number of ways. They could take the pills and just not say anything. That would be a personal decision they (the nuns) would have to make, each on their own.

I do not believe that anyone, given the history of the Catholic Church, or religion in general, would claim that there has always been a wide streak of logic involved in decision making.

No one is physically preventing them from getting and taking contraceptives. It is my understanding that the Hobby Lobby decision and the issue with the Sisters (although I could be wrong) is related to the abortion inducing drugs...the day after type pills. If I am wrong, well...as I said, I could care less since I do not have a dog in that race.

The whole issue is around coverage... not access. If all your health needs are met via insurance coverage, are you telling me that someone responsible would not be able to afford standard BC pills?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I don't what you mean by "someone responsible", as if that should be qualifier for equal protection under the law.

Not that your answer matters, but, Is a homemaker, who depends on her husband's employer's medical insurance policy considered responsible enough to have the right to choose her own method of birth control?





edit on 15-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

*facepalm*

You misconstrued the statement. Not sure if intentionally or accidentally.

It had nothing to do with the "right" to choose her own method of BC or with equal protection under the law.

The "you" was not you...it was the generic philosophic you. The whole discussion was around the Sisters, no? So I was talking about nuns. By responsible I was talking about how one (or a nun) spends her money and assigns priorities.

Had absolutely ZERO to do with you, with homemakers, employed people or unemployed people. The sentence before the one you took personally states clearly: "The whole issue is around coverage...not access". BTW...my oldest daughter is a homemaker. Nothing wrong with that. She is also home schooling. Have anything nasty to say about that?

So please stop trying to build strawman arguments.

I could give a rat's butt whether they get access to BC insurance coverage or not. I am not catholic... I am not even religious. I would count the last time I was in a church in decades.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: bbracken677

He doesn't seem to care what other branches of the government say.

We need a good old balance of power battle.


We need more than that.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677
well gee...
they really don't have to do anything and just by paying their taxes they are enabling them to get the birth control!!
what in hades name is the difference? People need to start making a decision.
Just how are the people supposed to obtain what they need to live?
through employment or through gov't programs?
right now it seems like some speak with forked tongues!
oh no no no!! employers shouldn't have to pay living wages or even half a living wage!!
oh no no no!! employers shouldn't have to provide health insurance that covers our needs!!
well it seems that the gov't seems to think that if the employers aren't doing it they should!
so well such support for the employers seems to just add more and more burden in a place most of think it shouldn't be!



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You do realize who pays taxes, right? So whether the money comes from the govt, from employers, or from individuals, it still ultimately comes from the same places, right?

I fail to see how anything that you posted above has anything to do with anything that I previously posted.

Well gee.....?


edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar



Just how are the people supposed to obtain what they need to live? through employment or through gov't programs?


I don't know about you, but I prefer to obtain what I need to live through employment, or entrepreneurship.

That has, pretty much, been how thing are throughout history. What if everyone just decided to quit and live off the govt dole? There are not enough working, supporting too many who are not right now. Some of those not working are making every effort to gain employment. The govt holds much of the blame re jobs and condition of the economy.

I would be embarrassed to have to depend on govt programs for my wherewithal. For those who must, because they hit a rocky road in life, that is what the programs are there for. They should not be there for permanent support because someone chooses not to work for a living. I am not referring to homemakers, before panties get bunched up in a wad. I am referring to those who feel entitled to being supported by the govt with zero effort made on their own behalf.

Nice rant, btw.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join