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.

 

Supreme Court Stops Obama From Forcing Catholic Nuns to Obey HHS Mandate

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
the bottom line will not be about the Nuns religious convictions...

they --- along with the Catholic Church are signed on as 501 c 3 Organizations

the Øbamacare mandate is considered a TAX,,,

so the Nuns argument of being Exempt from the mandate will be set aside and they (& the Church) will follow the dictates of the Mandate Tax

... 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




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Exactly, between this and the gay marriage front, it's all about attacking and eventually completely suborning any and all religions to the state.

Kiss the 1st Amendment good-bye.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 





... 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


Not exactly.


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.


The "nuns" would not have to pay anything. They simply have to sign a form that allows the insurance carrier to assume responsibility.


“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.
usnews.nbcnews.com...


The form should say something to the effect that the nuns disapprove and wash their hands of the sinful practice of contraception, which about 90% of sexually active Catholic women subscribe to.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Basically, the so-called compromise requires the nuns to engage in sophistry. They still have to buy the policy which still provides those services ... just not to them. So, their money still goes to pay for those services ... just not to them.

In other words, they're still really paying for it.

What do you think these nuns are? Stupid? And are you asking them to think God is stupid, too?

And trying to make it all better by pointing out that 90% of other Catholic use birth control isn't an argument at all. That's like saying that 90% of the rest of the world violates your belief, so you might as well violate your belief too. I say there, Windword, if 90% of the rest of the world jumped off a bridge, would you, too? I mean everyone else is. That is the essence of that last argument of yours.

edit on 1-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Not exactly. The nuns buy the policy that meets their standards and the rest is on the insurance carrier, as is mandated by the ACA as a basic health care standard. What the nuns are trying to do is bar the insurance carrier from offering contraception to their employees, period.

This would be an easy fix if the form were rewritten, relinquishing the nuns from any responsibility at all. Take them completely out of the equation.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


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."



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



indeed the Friday reply by the administration is gonna be something...

0bamacare needs to be the socialized, one-size-fits-all. health management plan...
if the Sisters are exempted that is like a couple of the fence sections of the corral being torn out...all the mustangs will run away from the herd as it were



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.

from: www.breitbart.com...





the only option i see is in the language of the Mandate...and a clear distinction of the Federal Mandate which imposes those procreation clauses on everyone... those Sisters will need to organize outside the Church and apply for the Øbamacare Exemption like the crony organizations already did...



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 





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.


They DO have a policy in which they only pay for the terms that they agree to. As it stands now, all they have to do is sign a form giving approval for the insurance carrier to provide the additional coverage, that is mandated, as a separate "rider". The ACA mandates that the insuree doesn't have to pay extra for such a rider. The burden falls on the insurance carrier, and the law provides avenues for the insurance carrier to recoup the expense elsewhere.

The nuns are arguing that signing the form violates their religion. Easy peasey, change the form's wording!


Those who work for them are not barred from getting contraception, but they are expected to provide for it on their own.


Not according to ACA. Basic health care coverage must cover contraception. "They" are not expected to provide for it on their own. That's your own wishful thinking.


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."


All this is just your opinion and your personal rant. The ACA requires that basic health care covers contraception. There are exemptions for churches already in place. The nuns are not being required to pay for contraception. This is not the issue. Their issue is in the form requiring them to condone it.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


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.

edit on 1-1-2014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
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.

~Tenth


It is always a good policy to hope for things to improve, but in the case of this healthcare act I think it will always be pure wishful thinking. The entire thing was created from a Marxist's blue sky idealism fantasies, and since it has been implemented, it has cost people and companies Billions of dollars in losses, all across the board.

Personally, I think it would be more wasted hope and idealism to expect that giving it more time will see the ACA fulfill any of it's stated purposes, let alone gain back all that has been lost in terms of dollars, (and sense) Sense went right out the door and into the red zone too


Since every single detail that describes the ACA is actually totally the opposite, I feel this monster abomination will stay just as awful and menacing as it is right now, or become much, much worse.

I seriously doubt even massive reform would stop all the money being used on it to somehow get back into the black, to say nothing of becoming profitable for anyone or anything.

I also see it having a very ominous unstated purpose to destroy a persons right to personal liberty and freedom, and at the same time strengthening those that love power over others to have massively more power and control at an enormous level.

I will gladly rather go to prison than cooperate in any fashion with the ACA or anything mandated or even suggested by the filth that is the man child Obama. I really hate the SOB for his hatred and destruction of America. If I ever get to see Obamas grave, I will dump a wheelbarrow full of Bull-S right on the headstone to give him a new and true epitaph. "Here LIES a man that fertilized the earth with pure Bull-S**t, except nothing ever grew.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
This is the Issue that I have with this whole thing I told someone this morning Nuns do not keep money like we do its against their religion to do so and here is the proof of that:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 12 percent of those in religious orders have employment in the labor market. Sister Carol Keenan, who heads the Catholic Health Association, reportedly earns over $8,500,000. While her salary is far above the average $48,000 for other religious employees, many nuns work and earn salaries in traditional jobs as teachers, social workers and nurses. Unlike their co-workers, their compensation goes to the religious order rather than deposited into private bank accounts.

www.ehow.com...

Vow of Poverty

All nuns take a vow of poverty. The vow of poverty is intended to help the nuns remind themselves that God, not man, will supply everything that is necessary, and that spiritual riches matter more than material wealth. The vow of poverty also is supposed to make it easier for a nun to move about various geographical regions at the calling of God, as there is less to transport. Because of the vow of poverty, nuns relinquish any income to their order, which issues them a stipend that covers basic living expenses. Any money from earnings not given back to the nun via the stipend supports the Catholic ministry.

www.ehow.com...

How much does a nun get paid?

Not a whole lot! Nun teachers receive room, board and stipend cost of only $650-$1,250 a year. ChaCha!
www.chacha.com...

Shouldn't they be on medicaid??? that is below the poverty level. However as far as I know the church still pays for their medical. Always use to be that way.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 





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.


I don't know what to tell you, other than that these nuns are already exempt from any responsibility to provide contraceptive coverage.


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.


Looks to me like these "Little Sisters" are just a tool that the Diocese is using to forestall the law, until the cases can be heard by SCOTUS.



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...



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   


One thing that I'm not quite understanding.


One thing I don't understand ok well.

1. wasn't aware there was a rampant outbreak of nuns getting knocked up.

2. guess the scotus,. and the potus, and his henchmen never heard of 'immaculate conception'.

Some how I don't think mere mortals and their big pharmaceuticals is going to stop the 'immaculate kind of ' pregnancy.

Last thought wonder what Jesus would do ?

Hell Mary had the morning after pill and all that other crap that is being used to brainwash people in this country where would we be today without religion ?

Oh that's right the pilgrims left EU to stop being persecuted.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Whatever is going on here was obviously planned.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   

guohua
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?


That's not how insurance works. The entire industry is built on making you pay for things you don't need. They look at your health and current ailments and figure out how much they're going to spend on your care over your lifetime. They do this for everyone they insure. Once they figure out their yearly payouts for everyone they add administrative costs, and then add on a profit margin (used to be 5%, thanks to Reaganomics and then the ACA it's now 25%). Then they divide that cost across all their customers, and that's how you get your insurance premium.

The whole concept is based on spreading risk around. 1000 people pay for care that only 50 people need. Do this among all the various ailments out there and you have modern day insurance.

Actually the entire concept of insurance falls apart if you don't do this because if everyone pays only for the care they need, everyone pays for their care plus some administrative costs and nothing else. Which gives you very high costs since risk isn't spread.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Important Topic Updates





The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Friday that a group of Colorado nuns does not need a special injunction against the new health-care’s law provision providing contraceptive coverage for employees because the group can easily exempt itself from the requirement.

The government asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to lift the temporary injunction she issued New Year’s Eve for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Colorado nonprofit organization that provides services to the elderly. The Affordable Care Act, new provisions of which went into effect Jan. 1, requires employers who provide insurance coverage to include contraceptive services.

Adminstration says Colo. nuns do not need injunction against health law provision






So now they tell me.

So then why is Obama so frustrated ?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I was confused when I first read this topic. Religious organizations are exempt.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





So now they tell me.

So then why is Obama so frustrated ?


Because, all the "Little Sisters" need to do is sign a form that affirms that the "Little Sisters" do not intend to provide certain mandated coverage and allows the insurance company to go ahead and provide it anyway. But, the "Little Sisters" insist that "signing the form" violates their religious freedom.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I was confused when I first read this topic. Religious organizations are exempt.


There must be something else going on.

If it's all about an exemption, what's the problem ?

45 non-profit lawsuits with a score card of 19 injunctions granted to 1 injunctions denied

lots of the names are "religious"?

HHS must be hiding something or they are afraid of something.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
There is always an important issue missed with the birth control debate. BC is a hormone that is used frequently to control female problems. It is a medication, plain and simple.

This is an assault on women by removing a much needed medication used for hormonal issues, because the other use is bc.

No one should have medical options removed at the crazy beliefs of others.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join