We would accept Supreme Court’s offer on contraception mandate, say Little Sisters and others


#1

Under the proposed deal, contraception would only be offered under a separate insurance plan

The religious nonprofits challenging the US government’s contraceptive mandate have said they would accept a new proposal to safeguard their freedom.

The groups, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, have agreed with a US Supreme Court proposal that such coverage be provided through an alternative health care plan without involving the religious employers in a legal brief filed with the court.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/we-would-accept-new-supreme-court-offer-on-contraception-mandate-say-little-sisters-and-others/


#2

Check this:

Government Concedes That HHS Contraceptive Accommodation “Could Be Modified”

In its supplementary brief issued yesterday, the government said the accommodation “could be modified to operate in the manner described in the Court’s order—but only at a real cost to its effective implementation.”

That striking admission, accompanied by a lot of grumbling, raised a red flag for Michael McConnell, a leading authority on religious freedom at Stanford University law school. In comments cited in an April 13 post on The Volokh Conspiracy blog at the Washington Post, McConnell said the justices’ question “put the government in a bind. If it answered ‘yes,’ it would effectively be admitting to a RFRA violation. But if the government said ‘no,’ it would be appearing unwilling to work with the Court on a solution that will satisfy both sides.”

It should come as no surprise that the brief submitted by the Little Sisters’ lawyers adopted a brighter tone.

“The answer to [the justices’] question is clear and simple: Yes,” read the brief, which applauded the court’s apparent desire to explore new options.

While the government’s allies have framed the Little Sisters’ objections as an attempt to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and so bar access to contraception, the brief dismissed the political spin.

So long as the coverage provided through these alternatives is truly independent of petitioners and their plans—i.e., provided through a separate policy, with a separate enrollment process, a separate insurance card, and a separate payment source, and offered to individuals through a separate communication—petitioners’ RFRA objections would be fully addressed.

m.ncregister.com/49129/b


#3

. For example, the government could “require or incentivize” commercial insurance companies to provide plans that offered free contraceptives without involving the Little Sisters.

While I think it great that the Little Sisters would receive protection, the authoritarian language here is disturbing. Why should the insurance company be forced to provide contraceptives at their own cost? Why should taxpayers pay for it?

The plan seems to free up the rights of one set of Americans at the expense of the rights of others. Requiring the insurance companies to provide something at their own cost (nothing is free) is slavery

Jon


#4

“Should the Obama Administration succeed in forcing dissenting religious institutions to bow to its contraception/abortifacient mandate, the Church will be made into an administrative unit of the federal government. The full ramifications of this transformation will take time to play out. But the federal government’s right to force religious organizations to violate conscience in service to the state even in matters of purely internal administration will have been established.”

–from the article The Little Sisters of the Poor Last Stand for Religious Liberty


#5

If you think the insurance companies are going to provide something at their own cost, then you don’t understand the concept of overhead and administrative costs that are included in every insurance premium paid by the insurance companies customers.


#6

No business provides this sort of thing at their own cost. Additional mandatory benefits provisions, minimum wage hikes, increasing payroll taxes - they all hit the cost of goods for the consumer, not the profit of the business. That’s the flaw in using government coercion to accomplish anything. Incentivize, not penalize.


#7

You don’t have to worry about the insurance companies or the taxpayers. Contraception is an incredible cost-savings for both groups.


#8

It shouldn’t have an impact at all on taxpayers, and it should only impact insurance companies if, by negotiation with the customer, it is part of an insurance package. Authoritarian coercion by government, no matter who pays for it, is still authoritarian coercion.

Jon


#9

Thank you for this. It reminds me that when the government says the insurance companies must provide something for free, they are intentionally lying to the people, another necessary aspect of authoritarian coercion.

The issue remains that government involvement in healthcare creates far more problems than it solves, all the while trampling on the rights of individuals, one way or another.

Jon


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.