|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2004 : 11:23:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
While the church pays for insurance coverage, they do not pay for individual treatments. The insurance company is limited by the law concerning what terms in contracts they may or may not write. The local law insists that female oral contraceptives cannot be excluded as a term of a health care contract.
I agree  . The charity needs to follow the law, try to change the law or change its practice. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 11:36:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, go back to my earlier example: what standard would you apply to my hypothetical porno company, were I to claim that it was a religiously-based organization, and thus deserving of an exemption (not only from this law, but from taxes).
I would want to know what they base their claim on. Some common sense needs to apply here. How do we then decide what a religious organization is? I could not find a law in California outlining this (I am not saying there is not one). It seems that six judges decided that question in California for all Californians. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 13:28:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, go back to my earlier example: what standard would you apply to my hypothetical porno company, were I to claim that it was a religiously-based organization, and thus deserving of an exemption (not only from this law, but from taxes).
I would want to know what they base their claim on. Some common sense needs to apply here. How do we then decide what a religious organization is? I could not find a law in California outlining this (I am not saying there is not one). It seems that six judges decided that question in California for all Californians.
Not really. It's based on quite literally centuries of case law which defines what is a religious pursuit and what is a secular persuit. A religious persuit primarily ministers to a group of believers or prostelyzes to non-believers. A secular persuit provides a service without ministering nor prostelyzation. Case law supports this going back to the 1700's. It has been updated with every ruling to adapt with new concepts.
Also, if "religious organization" is not (and likely it isn't) defined by a law, then one cannot assert that something is a religious organization either. American jurisprudence is based on laws and the interpretation of the abstract concepts contained within the laws. It is the further definition and interpretation which applied the First Amendment strictures on Congress down to the state and local levels through the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the protections and strictures in the First Amendment were fundamental rights and therefore applied to the states and local governments by the 14th Amendment. This was based on a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court in 1870.
Here's case law to support it.
Marsh v State of Alabama (1946)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=326&invol=501
Lovell v City of Griffin, GA (1938)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=303&invol=444
Gitlow v New York (1925)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=652
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&invol=542
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 14:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Well, nevermind the hypotheticals. I found the Superior Court decision (the Supreme Court decision doesn't appear to be available on findlaw.org yet - and I can't link to the decision quoted below, you'll have to register and search California Case Law for "Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court (Department of Managed Health Care) (2001) , Cal.App.4th"), which says, in part,quote:
The "religious employers" exemption is defined narrowly. It applies only to those who satisfy the following four criteria: "(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity. [¶] (B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. [¶] (C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. [¶] (D) The entity is a nonprofit organization pursuant to Section 6033(a)(2)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended [which exempt from certain tax filings churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches, and the exclusively religious activities of any religious order]." (Health & Saf. Code, § 1367.25, subd. (b); Ins. Code, § 10123.196, subd. (d).) fn. 2
Catholic Charities concedes that it does not meet any of the four criteria necessary to qualify for the religious employer exception. It serves people of all faiths and does not proselytize or attempt to inculcate those it serves with its religious beliefs. Its employees, 74 percent of whom are not Catholic, come from a diverse group of religious faiths. It offers social services to the general public that promote a just and compassionate society, reduce the causes of poverty, and build healthy communities. And it is a nonprofit public benefit organization exempt from federal income tax pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, rather than section 6033(a)(2)(A)(i) or (iii) of that code.
Catholic Charities appears to have argued that the law, with its narrow definition, has put it in the position of either (A) not offering a prescription-drug benefit, which they say would make it more difficult to hire staff, or (B) paying for oral contraceptives (even for non-Catholics), which they claim is a sin.
Further, theyquote:
claim that the limited nature of the religious employer exemption violates the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly burdens Catholic Charities's religious beliefs about contraception without being justified by a compelling governmental interest.
The Superior Court showed well that the law in question is, in fact, a compelling governmental interest, in that it encourages women's health and also prevents sex and pregnancy discrimination. They also pointed out that the law in question is completely neutral as to religious beliefs (in that it doesn't favor any one sect or group of sects over another), as is the religious exemption (which was not required, but was added due to lobbying from Catholics).
Further, the court said that the Legislaturequote:
had a rational, nondiscriminatory reason to limit the exemption in this fashion in order to reduce the concomitant infringement on employees' rights resulting from the religious accommodation, which serves to impose the employer's faith upon the employees, thereby burdening their religious beliefs. ( United States v. Lee (1982) 455 U.S. 252, 261 [71 L.Ed.2d 127, 134-135] [granting a religious exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees]; Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Com . (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1143 , 1170, 1174, 1176 (hereafter Smith v. FEHC ).)
And they even address a point you've brought up:quote:
To say that the employees may work elsewhere is to deny them the full choice of employment opportunities enjoyed by others in the workforce. (Cf. Smith v. FEHC, supra , 12 Cal.4th at p. 1175.)
And Catholic Charities did try to argue that the law was "aimed" against Catholics, in particular. Howver, the Court wrote:quote:
Unlike the situation in Lukumi, where the very object of the laws was to discriminate against Santeria religious practices by outlawing them, the object of the prescription contraceptive coverage statutes is not to infringe upon or restrict Catholics' beliefs about contraception because of their religious motivation, but to accommodate those beliefs to the extent possible while protecting the rights of employees and effectuating the legislative purpose of eliminating gender discrimination in health insurance coverage. Some Catholic employers are exempt from the mandate and others are not, but all religions are treated identically. The limited exemption does not cover all religious-affiliated ancillary organizations engaged in "secular-type" pursuits. The Catholic Church is not the only religious entity with affiliated institutions engaged in secular activities; therefore, it is not the only church whose affiliated entities do not qualify as "religious employers" under the challenged statutory criteria.
Even worse for the plaintiff:quote:
If, as Catholic Charities alleges, Catholicism is the only religion that prohibits artificial contraception and, thus, is the only one burdened by the limitation of the exemption, then it also is the only religion that benefits from the religious employer exemption enacted by the Legislature. This cannot be viewed as an attempt to target Catholic religious practices for unfavorable treatment.
There's a whole lot of stuff in this decision, including claims which Catholic Charities put forward, but failed to argue, and some they put forward without a clear understanding of prior cases.
The lawyers for Catholic Charities did not argue for a "common sense" view of the law and their client, they argued for many specific and sometimes strange legal precedents. They failed to make their case, either originally or upon appeal, in which the court said that they were unlikely to win on the arguments they've offered. Perhaps had they argued something else, they might have prevailed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 14:49:45 [Permalink]
|
Robb, I'm aware that employers pay all or part of the premiums for their employees. I reviewed health insurance plans for my last boss.
If you honestly believe it's morally wrong to deny health care, why do you think it's okay to deny women oral contraceptives? If a woman has menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea (heavy bleeding or painful menses), she is often prescribed oral contraceptives to ease pain, to keep her from developing anemia, or even to keep her from missing work (to say nothing of improving the quality of her life, which I'm sure wouldn't work as an argument with you). Or maybe a woman has a history of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage, or another medical condition that would make getting pregnant highly risky to her health. Oral contraceptives provide the best protection, statistically, against pregnancy (next to abstincence and please don't even go there!)
Oral contraceptives run up to $40 a month and some women can't afford them without coverage.
Essentially, you're saying that your religious beliefs are more important than a woman's physical health and well-being. All legal arguments aside, your thinking is both contemptuous of women and disrespectful of the science of health care--the latter of which should be devoid of political and religious nonsense. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 16:37:02 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
Essentially, you're saying that your religious beliefs are more important than a woman's physical health and well-being. All legal arguments aside, your thinking is both contemptuous of women and disrespectful of the science of health care--the latter of which should be devoid of political and religious nonsense.
Actually, that's what the law says, too. The problem is that the organization Catholic Charities is not religious enough to meet the standard at which religion outweighs medical science. Catholics managed to get the exemption into the law (originally, there was no exemption clause) so that they wouldn't have to provide oral contraceptive coverage to church employees, and then Catholic Charities got annoyed that the exemption doesn't cover each and every organization touched by Catholicism, no matter how slightly. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 06:03:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
If you honestly believe it's morally wrong to deny health care, why do you think it's okay to deny women oral contraceptives? If a woman has menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea (heavy bleeding or painful menses), she is often prescribed oral contraceptives to ease pain, to keep her from developing anemia, or even to keep her from missing work (to say nothing of improving the quality of her life, which I'm sure wouldn't work as an argument with you). Or maybe a woman has a history of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage, or another medical condition that would make getting pregnant highly risky to her health. Oral contraceptives provide the best protection, statistically, against pregnancy (next to abstincence and please don't even go there!)
I am not against oral contraceptives myself, some Christians are, but I think Catholics are opposed to using contraceptives for the sole purpose of not getting pregnant without any other medical conditions. Most Catholics I know would approve of the use of contraceptives for these other medical conditions.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
to say nothing of improving the quality of her life, which I'm sure wouldn't work as an argument with you).
Essentially, you're saying that your religious beliefs are more important than a woman's physical health and well-being. All legal arguments aside, your thinking is both contemptuous of women and disrespectful of the science of health care--the latter of which should be devoid of political and religious nonsense.
Yes Renae, I hate all women.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 06:34:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Yes Renae, I hate all women.
I apoogize in advance for this comment. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 07:12:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
If you honestly believe it's morally wrong to deny health care, why do you think it's okay to deny women oral contraceptives? If a woman has menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea (heavy bleeding or painful menses), she is often prescribed oral contraceptives to ease pain, to keep her from developing anemia, or even to keep her from missing work (to say nothing of improving the quality of her life, which I'm sure wouldn't work as an argument with you). Or maybe a woman has a history of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage, or another medical condition that would make getting pregnant highly risky to her health. Oral contraceptives provide the best protection, statistically, against pregnancy (next to abstincence and please don't even go there!)
I am not against oral contraceptives myself, some Christians are, but I think Catholics are opposed to using contraceptives for the sole purpose of not getting pregnant without any other medical conditions. Most Catholics I know would approve of the use of contraceptives for these other medical conditions.
Catholic Charities made no such distinction. They objected to prescription oral contraceptives and had them disincluded in their health coverage. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 07:13:57 [Permalink]
|
Robb, I didn't say you hated all women. BTW, implying someone said something they didn't--something that's easier to attack--is sometimes seen as setting up a strawman.
I said that your views were contemptuous for women and showed a lack of respect for the science of health care. It's none of your busines (or more specifically, Catholics' business) whether a woman needs oral contraceptives solely for birth control or if she needs them to prevent anemia. That's a medical decision between her and her doctor. It's PRIVATE.
Religion and politics have NO business in health care and other science. Period.
The Catholics have NO credibility in endorsing ANY morality. The Catholic church covered up decades of sexual abuse of children. Yet they see birth control as wrong. Please. Absurd. Stupid.
I'm tired of the requirement that ANY religious belief, no matter how bigoted, foolish, or illogical, be "accepted" and/or given legal free reign. What bullshit. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 07:35:11 [Permalink]
|
How many Catholics even know how oral contraceptives work? I wonder how many of them just parrot the official church party line, rather than researching and making their own decisions.
For the record, oral contraceptives thicken a woman's cervical mucous to impede sperm travel, inhibit ovulation, and create changes in a woman's endometrium so as to make implantation less likely.
A good link on OCs:
http://www.arhp.org/healthcareproviders/cme/onlinecme/lowdosecp/todays.cfm?ID=67
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 07:55:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Robb, I didn't say you hated all women. BTW, implying someone said something they didn't--something that's easier to attack--is sometimes seen as setting up a strawman.
I apoligize for my earlier statement. I admit that I wrote it out of frustration.
quote:
I said that your views were contemptuous for women and showed a lack of respect for the science of health care. It's none of your busines (or more specifically, Catholics' business) whether a woman needs oral contraceptives solely for birth control or if she needs them to prevent anemia. That's a medical decision between her and her doctor. It's PRIVATE.
Some believe its a decision between a woman, her partner, her doctor and God.
quote:
The Catholics have NO credibility in endorsing ANY morality. The Catholic church covered up decades of sexual abuse of children. Yet they see birth control as wrong. Please. Absurd. Stupid.
Yes they did. It is hard to understand how far they strayed from biblical principles.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 08:27:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Some believe its a decision between a woman, her partner, her doctor and God.
Anyone who believes that can bring God into the exam room WITH HERSELF. It's neither legal nor moral to impose God-think on someone else.
I don't see as to where the Catholic church adhered to Biblical principles in the first place. They're fourth on my list of Most Screwed Up Religions (after cults, Jehova Witnesses, and Mormons.)
My opinion only, of course. My skeptical, smart-assed, irritable opinion. It's raining too hard here for me to get my morning run.  |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2004 : 09:51:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I don't see as to where the Catholic church adhered to Biblical principles in the first place. They're fourth on my list of Most Screwed Up Religions (after cults, Jehova Witnesses, and Mormons.)
I agree. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
