Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to email@example.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
I find the idea that the contraceptive mandate is a thread to religious liberty absurd and find the whole thing aggravating, including the plain hypocrisy (and stupidity) of the Catholic Church focusing on this. The same f-ing church -- yes, at some point it pisses me off -- that ignores that its own members are breaking the marriage sacrament in their eyes. I simply don't understand how they can blithely let people who do this take communion. Or, do all those Catholics have two or so children because of the rhythm method? For-profits seeking an exemption is truly stupid:
So the legal requirement that the plaintiffs pay for a health care plan
which, among *many* other things, covers contraceptive services which
may or may not *actually* be abortifacients, and which will neither be
used by the plaintiffs nor given directly by them to employees who may
choose to use them, is a violation of plaintiffs' religious principles. How
does this possibly rise to the level of "religious exemption"? I have
to agree with Joe_JP that this is a tenuous argument at best for
organizations whose primary purpose is actually religious, and utterly
absurd for a commercial establishment (even one that's selling religious
paraphernalia, and Hobby Lobby at least doesn't even have that excuse).
A post from "Scott" in this thread with various (same old) arguments from similar minds, including myself. What really annoys me is that people like Prof. Adler refuse to explain how broad these claims are. They simply are not applicable to contraception though stretching the "abortion exception" (which is a policy exception, not a constitutional one) to include morning after pills is bad enough. If this is a problem, birth control pills overall and IUDs (maybe more) also might act this way. No, it would apply to any single religious problem an employer, even a for-profit selling hobby supplies, might have with any health choice. Trying to drown us in minutiae won't change this.
I find the concern of various religious affiliated schools (including those like various local ones that many might not deem "religious," like Manhattan College) dubious -- janitors should get to use their health care as they see fit. But, when corporate for-profit hobby stores raise claims, it is nonsense on stilts. So were claims against PPACA. Yeah. I stick to my comment over there -- taking things this far really waters down the religious liberty and exemption brand. It truly harms both overall.