It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
... which is a different class of Tax than ordinary wealth or earning tax ...they will be forced to pay for contraception and abortions or lose the broader scope 501 c3 organization tax exemptions
The Obama administration had crafted a compromise, or accommodation, that attempted to create a buffer for religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and social service groups that oppose birth control. The law requires insurers or the health plan’s outside administrator to pay for birth control coverage and creates a way to reimburse them.
But for that to work, the nuns would have to sign a form authorizing their insurance company to provide contraceptive coverage, which would still violate their beliefs, their lawyer Mark L. Rienzi said.
“Without an emergency injunction, Mother Provincial Loraine Marie Maguire has to decide between two courses of action: (a) sign and submit a self-certification form, thereby violating her religious beliefs; or (b) refuse to sign the form and pay ruinous fines,” he said.
US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has granted a temporary reprieve to a group of nuns challenging a requirement of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law that health insurance they offer include birth control.
Sotomayor acted late New Year's Eve, just hours before major provisions of the Affordable Care Act law were to take effect.
Sotomayor gave the US government until early Friday morning to give the court its response in the matter.
....As a compromise, the Obama administration has said that women who work for nonprofit religious groups that oppose birth control could receive separate coverage not paid for by the employers.
But it refused to offer such assurances to secular businesses whose owners have religious objections to contraception.
That distinction has led to a separate group of lawsuits.
If the nuns are part of the policy that is being offered to both them and their employees and they are the provider, then they are the ones who have the right to request the terms of the policy be in accord with their beliefs.
Those who work for them are not barred from getting contraception, but they are expected to provide for it on their own.
If they do not like those terms, they can work elsewhere, and I expect that as with most policies, once the pill crosses from elective to medically necessary, it is provided for under the policy. It was this way with Fluke's "horrid" Georgetown policy. However, since Ms. Fluke did not have ovarian cysts or another condition which made the pill medically necessary, hers wasn't covered since it was solely for birth control.
This is the problem with a one-size-fits-all policy approach. It does not recognize or adapt or even seek to protect the rights of the individual or minority. Instead, it tramples them seeking the "greater good."
reply to post by butcherguy
I feel almost confident enough to bet that we will never see it go away.
It doesn't really 'need' to go away entirely. It just needs massive reform.
The main goal of the ACA was to improve coverage while dropping costs. It's done neither of those two things so far.
Although I guess waiting a year is probably best before making any kind of concrete judgement about the program, if the launch is any indication of the future, you're all in for a crappy few years.
At least this gives the GOP a hell of a running slogan during the next election. Maybe they'll even beat Hillary if ACA turns out to be that bad.
Oh and and we'll see how Immigration reform turns out.
I don't know how many times I have been told that the principle that allows the ACA to provide insurance for all at lower prices on average is the fact that so many more people are in the 'pool'.
Now I am hearing that somehow, the money that these nuns are paying will be entirely separate, that they aren't taking part in the ACA... which mandates coverage of contraception.
The White House responded Wednesday to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor halting a birth control mandate in ObamaCare for a Catholic organization, saying the group isn’t subject to the requirement because it doesn’t apply to self-funded church plans.
The White House said the Justice Department has already made clear the mandate doesn’t apply to such organizations and that it defers to the agency on litigation matters.
Several organizations, including the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, Catholic University and the Michigan Catholic Conference, had asked other justices to block the law until their arguments were heard. Parts of the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, go into effect New Year’s Day.www.patheos.com...
One thing that I'm not quite understanding.
You know my friend I gave you an S & F for this thought provoking find.
My question this, You're a Female married to another Female, when you feel out the application for insurance and let's say, like the NUN's you're not in a relationship with a Male and No Chance of getting Pregnant.
Is there a Plan For You that Does Not Include Extra's for Preventing Births or Paying for the Birth.
Same question for the Males that are married to their Male Partners.
I mean, Fair is Fair, Right? Luckily, my husband and I don't have to worry about the ACA B S or me getting Pregnant.
But I'm Happy for the Nun's Really I am, but I think these other groups and people of a certain age or have had the operation to prevent getting pregnant needs to be considered.
So,,,, Are they?
So now they tell me.
So then why is Obama so frustrated ?
reply to post by xuenchen
I was confused when I first read this topic. Religious organizations are exempt.