General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJustice Sonia Sotomayo Blocks ACA Provision
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-delays-health-law-39-birth-control-mandate-031614323.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has thrown a hitch into President Barack Obama's new health care law by blocking a requirement that some religion-affiliated organizations provide health insurance that includes birth control.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
longship
(40,416 posts)Posted on an earlier DU thread. That this is SOP for a case like this.
Wish I had a link.
former9thward
(32,028 posts)The government has to respond by Friday not the plaintiff.
longship
(40,416 posts)My bad.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and left a bomb overnight....
Holy crap! I thought I liked her....but I see she is just another traitor to my gender!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)As well as being a woman and hispanic, she's also Catholic. This is a big limitation of identity politics.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you have no idea what it is like....
Is that what you would have told a Gay person or an African American before Civil Rights? Were the people who opposed Civil Rights on a Biblical basis not allowed to be criticized because it is a "limitation of Identity"
How about the LGBT...are you going to give a pass for religious reasons for THAT?
as I said ....you have NO IDEA "Jeff"
(this is WHY there is a gender war at DU)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Given the choice between being "a traitor to her gender" or "a traitor to her religion" she chose the former.
You have no more standing to define her than the pope does. Unfortunately, we tend to project our beliefs onto people by just looking at them.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Insurance can or cannot cover is wrong
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what would you say to the LGBT Community if this were them?
Just shut up...don't go to 11?
Apparently women are not allowed to be outraged when OUR rights are being eroded....
SEE thats why we have a gender war on DU
YOU "Jeff" are prime example WHY!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Her job description requires her to not be a traitor to the Constitution. Her job is to protect RIGHTS.
Again, just like you cannot ever understand what it is like to be pregnant....you cannot ever understand what it is like to have the very rights to your sovereignty over your own body CONSTANTLY threatened.
This is a crack in that door....cracks let in cock roaches and cock roaches breed!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Yet to someone who is confident in their ability to predict her votes by simply knowing her sex, she voted in a way that is unexpected.
People aren't one thing. Female Catholics are still Catholics. The difference between how men vote and how women vote on issues of choice is small.
On issues of choice, the article in the OP is one datapoint to indicate that this atheist white guy is a better defender of rights than a Catholic woman.
The level of outrage that my fairly benign previous posts in this thread created, suggests that either I'm being unclear or caricatured.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NEVER!
You are telling us to just "calm down" "STFU" "it's only ONE datapoint"! Do not presume to tell women what they should or shouldn't be outraged about when it comes to the sovereignty of their own bodies. YOU can NEVER understand what that is like no matter how hard you try....
YOU will never have to face gradual loss of "datapoints" of your rights over your own body will you?
I bet you would never tell minorities that losing "datapoints" in the voting rights act was nothing to be outraged about would you?
Yet somehow males think they can tell females what to feel!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Seriously.
I think that your shock and outrage that a female catholic judge would intervene on behalf of the catholic church about an issue that you feel strongly about ("betrayal to women everywhere!"
is misplaced.
As someone who puts a high value on individual liberties, including freedom of choice, I disagree with what Ms Sotomajor did.
So it's the white guy who agrees with you. It is the woman of color who does not.
People aren't one thing.
TBF
(32,068 posts)And not just "at DU" - this is why there is a gender war period. In this country, in other countries.
I don't know what part of "get your fucking laws off MY body" that they don't understand. I watched this through the 1970s (I was a kid then) with Phyllis Schlafly flying around the country telling all other women they should be at home. Control, control, control ... The men are bad enough and some of the women are worse.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we have men telling us to "shut the fuck up....don't be so outraged" when our civil rights to our OWN DAMN bodies are being challenged!
They do not get it...even HERE and it makes me heartsick as well as outraged!
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I'm only surprised there isn't more, especially here.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we cannot even get complete support here!
still told to shut the fuck up and wait! After all these years...and with a Female President possibility looming!
Marr
(20,317 posts)His point was clear and quite difficult to construe as an attack on a gender.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There's apparently a lot of tiny, tiny print hidden between the lines of what I said.
former9thward
(32,028 posts)Maybe, just maybe, she does not decide things based on whether she is a woman or a Hispanic or even if she is a Catholic. Could it possibly be that a judge decides things based on what she sees as their constitutionality? Does she have to be labeled just because someone does not like a decision?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If she's against providing contraception coverage to individuals because it violates their employers ethical code then she's a moralizing corporatist.
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)She has made no such decision.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)would you?
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)I would explain why the outrage is not justified, regardless of the issue.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)YOu have NO idea what it is like...how dare YOU presume to tell those in a group you don't belong to...what to be outraged about!
women have ALWAYS been told by members of your gender...to "shut the fuck up and wait". It's the epitome of misogyny.
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)I really don't get it. Many have tried to explain to you what a temporary injunction is, I'm sorry you still don't understand.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How the fuck can you even identify?
Would you have told African Americans during the sixties that their outrage was false?
This is about my body....this is about Obamacares which is the BIGGEST victory in women's rights SINCE Roe V Wade...and YOU a male presumes to tell me that my outrage is false?
as my mother would say...."get out my face".
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)As has been explained to you ad nauseam, this temporary injunction is SOP, and Sotomayor will not sign on to a decision that limits women's rights. The lawsuit has to run it's legal course, this is not a final decision. You refuse to understand this and act as though a final defeat has been dealt.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I refuse to allow a MAN to dictate to ME what Is or isn't important about MY body.
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)You're right this is the end of the world. **OUTRAGE**
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thank you for making my point.
but of course you will still call yourself a "feminist" I am sure.
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)**OUTRAGE**
Marr
(20,317 posts)And just going out of their way to couch it in the outrage du jour.
Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Response to msanthrope (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)until the Court is able to review the cases is fairly routine.
Response to msanthrope (Reply #25)
Name removed Message auto-removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Obamacare as a whole. I would never tell a nun to go bugger off.....bad form. I will only wish that they lose their case.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)just because it doesn't effect YOU ....doesn't mean you can belittle its effects.
Obamacares is the BIGGEST Women's right victory since Roe V. Wade!
don't tell me to "shut the fuck up" about it...its demeaning.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that.
Your suggestion that I told you to do so ....via your use of quotes.... is offensive.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)is not being told to "shut the fuck up"?
ask someone not a White male that question....if being told those things about whichever groups they belong to's outrage is "silly" "false" or "misplaced" is not being told to "shut the fuck up".
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... no, it's not. It's people giving their opinions. This is, after all, supposed to be a discussion board. Some people can actually discuss things without being offensive.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm increasingly seeing this as nothing more than a stunt to make others hesitant to offer a contrary opinion.
Marr
(20,317 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)it lets in a crack....roaches crawl into cracks...
call me a concern troll for giving a shit what happens to MY people....women!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You worry about the upcoming argument.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)would you tell someone from the LGBT community to "trust you it isn't something to worry about"
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)would you?
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)about. It is a temporary injunction, and likely would have been granted by any justice. In the final decision, there is no way Sotomayor votes with Scalia and co.
And yes if this was a LGBT issue, I would explain why the outrage is not justified.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)tritsofme
(17,380 posts)I don't care if I am "excoriated" by anyone, I just say what I believe to be true.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You are the reason we have a gender war on DU!
How DARE you presume to tell me what I should be outraged about?
this is about my own body!
Women take birth control pills for more than just birth control....MUCH more.
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)I can't recall participating in those threads for many years, if ever. I am just pointing out that outrage over a temporary injunction is pretty silly.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but go ahead and try telling someone LGBT that on DU that their outrage is just "silly" see how far that gets you...
by the way I have been here over 10 yrs myself....lurking for a long time. Your time here doesn't give you a pass.
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)Does decorum dictate that I just be quiet?
I really don't understand why you think I would post something differently if this were an LGBT issue.
Oh...and what exactly am I seeking a pass from? I only brought up my long tenure to point out that I don't self-censor.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)do you think you would get any pushback on DU?
Something tells my you are a male....wonder why I would think that?
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)I'm sorry you don't approve of my vocabulary, but again, yes if there was silly outrage over an issue like this, I would call it that. Also again, I don't particularly care if the people that are whipped up in silly outrage are offended when it is pointed out.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)since you continue to tell women to "shut the fuck up" about their rights over their own bodies which you call "silly".
If a Supreme Court Justice said...lets "think" about allowing businesses to not carry insurance that covers treating prostate cancer....would you call that outrage silly?
I am calling you out on your beliefs that women's BASIC health needs should be allowed to even be questioned at all....
I call that misogyny.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)lurking my ass
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)your ass nonwithstanding.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it's about legal procedure here - be mad at the right wing, but it's sort of unfair to immediately jump at throwing Justice S. under the bus. Very premature.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and about its care...Birth Control pills are prescribed for more than just contraception...
Don't you DARE tell me what is unfair...believe women when they say they know unfair!
treestar
(82,383 posts)What if the final decision is in favor of the birth control? No one is daring to say anything of the sort. Just learn about legal procedure so you don't have to panic so quickly. Have you even seen why she did it? It might be the most boring legal procedural point imaginable. At least read the decision first. How will you survive the arguments before the full court without having a heart attack - you'll have to be enraged at the attorney for the side you aren't on and the rest of the justices for even listening.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It does not mean the final order will reflect that. No reason to assume the ultimate ruling will come out against the birth control. Especially if she's the only one who ruled on it. It could be purely procedural in some way. There are all sort of pro forma things that go on in the courts, especially the SCOTUS.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its a crack in the armor...
Obamacares is the BIGGEST victory in Women's Rights since Roe V Wade...any faltering on the issue is a sign of weakness.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Whether you give a shit or not, the legal standard on TRO's is what it is - whether or not the plaintiff is going to have to do or not do something costly in the event the status quo is not preserved prior to a hearing at the earliest opportunity.
It really doesn't matter what the underlying issue involves.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)So don't tell me to just STFU....If this were about "penii" there would be a whole different chorus wouldn't there?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)However, I have quite frequently had to deal with delays in getting final decisions, or a TRO dissolved, on behalf of clients whose free speech rights have been violated, among another of other basic civil rights.
You want to deal with a JP at 5AM who hasn't finished his morning coffee to sign off on bail for someone who has been locked up on the basis of an illegal arrest? I have.
This TRO does not affect anyone's rights, whether or not involving genital configuration, other than the employees of the specific plaintiff, whom I understand to be primarily nuns.
Are you saying some different standard applies to evaluating a motion for a TRO in this case?
It doesn't affect YOUR rights either, btw.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Are you employed by the plaintiff in this case?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)One standard for granting such a temporary stay in federal court, IIRC (I'm almost always in state court these days), is that there's a fair question on the merits (i.e., neither side has an obviously ridiculous position), and there's a significant imbalance of hardships. Here, the argument probably was that if stay is denied and the appellants end up winning, then the hardship is that in the meantime they will have been unconstitutionally forced to act against their religious beliefs. On the other hand, if the stay is granted and the appellants end up losing, then the hardship is that some people will have to wait a little longer for insurance coverage for abortion or contraception or whatever else may be involved.
As to the first point, religious issues of this sort usually aren't as clear-cut as the DU consensus would make them seem. There are vast gray areas caused by the tension between two parts of the First Amendment: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Under the former, the government can't compel people to do things that go against their religion. Under the latter, people with religious beliefs can't be given an exemption from laws that affect everyone else. Such exemptions are therefore both required and prohibited. I don't know how much precedent there about the application of these principles in the corporate context, but Sotomayor evidently wants this decision to be made by the entire Court after full briefing and oral argument by both sides. I can't fault her for that, under the federal standards for granting a stay.
As I said in my subject line, Sotomayor's decision isn't purely pro forma. Not every requested stay is granted. In this case, there is room for reasonable disagreement about what should happen until the case can be decided, because, whichever path Sotomayor chose, there would be the potential for an error -- if the litigant that she disappoints now ultimately wins, then that litigant will have suffered in the interim because of the grant or denial of the stay. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that she did not choose as she did because she's a Catholic or because she's a woman or because she's a corporatist. Instead, I'll assume that she did her best to make an impartial application of the long-established standards for an interim stay.
And, to answer what VanillaRhapsody keeps saying in this thread:
1. I am not not NOT telling women or anyone else to shut the fuck up. There's room for legitimate criticism of Sotomayor's decision with regard to each of the two criteria I described. Criticizing it instead on the basis that it hurts women or the like is unlikely to persuade anyone who is knowledgeable about the law and who follows the classic rule-of-law approach of deciding cases on the basis of established principles of general applicability. Nevertheless, people who approach the issue from other perspectives are certainly allowed to air their views.
2. Yes, I would say the same thing to the LGBT community, if (for example) there had been a stay pending appeal of a decision overturning DOMA or some such law, or if an appellate court had granted a stay pending appeal of the Utah decision requiring the state to implement marriage equality.
3. Yes, whether it was a law affecting women, or a law affecting LGBT people, or a law that in any other way aroused strong feelings, then I would indeed expect to be excoriated on DU for saying anything in defense of such a decision. That's because there are many people on DU who are either ignorant of the applicable legal standards or who consider those standards irrelevant when they get in the way of some other agenda. (I also expect to be excoriated for that statement but this thread supports it.)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Would you?
women should just shut the fuck up right?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)would calmly explain basic court procedure....
In order to do this I don't think I would have to inquire about the person's sexual orientation.... I don't give legal opinions based on someone's sexual preference, gender, or color of their skin.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)But this thread clearly proves WHY women were so upset in the Gender War threads...
This is the typical response when OUR rights are being eroded! "Just shut up".
How many of those taking this stance are men you think?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)before they go into effect pending eventual Court decisions. this is only temporary..... and I certainly wouldn't read anything into the merits of of any case based on this basic court procedure.
treestar
(82,383 posts)based on your knowledge at the time?
Good thing you don't treat other professions that way. Yell at the car mechanic - You should fix these brakes without new pads! The doctor - You should cure my appendix without surgery!
I mean does it never occur to people to find out more first?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Putting words into the mouths of others is called 'bearing false witness' and it is among the worst forms of dishonesty.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First, I completely agree with you about not putting words in other people's mouths. I'm responding only to the broad position, whoever may assert it (and I think many would), that "there should not be religious tests for secular law, ever."
The law in the United States does make accommodation for religious beliefs. There are instances in which most of us have to obey a particular law, but some people are exempted from it because it violates their religious beliefs. Two examples that occur to me:
1. The Amish are exempt from Social Security. It violates their religion -- I'm not clear on why but I think at least one Amish man went to prison rather than pay FICA taxes, before the exemption was in place. Furthermore, the Amish community has its own internal mechanisms for supporting the elderly. Thus, the government's goals in enacting Social Security are still met.
2. Members of the Native American Church are exempt from the prohibition on the possession and use of peyote, because it is part of their traditional religious practice. This is in the Code of Federal Regulations: "The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration." (from 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31, full text here)
This doesn't mean that religious beliefs will always trump secular law. You're free to start a religion that worships ducks and calls on all true believers to kill people who kill ducks, but if you then put on your priestly robes and go out and shoot Phil Robertson, you'll still be imprisoned.
In sum, religious freedom in the United States means that we have rejected both of the easy, simple solutions -- the idea that religious belief always excuses noncompliance with secular law, and the idea that it never does. It's a balancing of interests.
The appeal to the Supreme Court about the ACA raises an additional complex question about the respective roles of elected officials and the Court in striking that balance. There's an argument that the government is permitted but not required to accommodate religious beliefs in this fashion. On that view, the ACA could, under the Constitution, have granted an exemption of the type sought by the plaintiffs in this case, and giving some people a special privilege based on their religion would not have violated the First Amendment, but since Congress and the President choose to enact the law without giving them that privilege, the Court should find that there's no First Amendment violation.
This area of the law is complicated enough that it's not surprising Sotomayor wanted to wait until the entire Court had decided the question before the plaintiffs were exposed to any fines for noncompliance.
Ms. Toad
(34,076 posts)You are aware that the First Amendment is part of the constitution - you know, the one which guarantees that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The part of the first amendment which is at issue here is whether the ACA prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I haven't looked at the briefs supporting the request for this particular TRO, or the order granting it, so I'm not taking a position about the merits of this particular TRO. But unless you're removing the first amendment from the constitution (which would - by the other part of the provision - permit the government to establish a state religion), you are flat out wrong that there should never be any kind of injunction on any religious ground.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The standard for a preliminary injunction boils down to whether one party or the other is likely to be significantly harmed by maintaining the status quo until a hearing can be held.
Since the law went into effect on Jan. 1, the plaintiffs were going to have to start paying or be penalized. The government, on the other hand, wasn't going to have to do much of anything. Nobody, incidentally, is compelled to work for an outfit which is primarily a religious one. That's different from the Hobby Lobby situation.
In a situation where one side is going to be penalized more than the other by maintaining the status quo pending a hearing, then issuance of a TRO favors the that side.
It has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs, whether the plaintiff or the Justice in question.
As a practical matter, emergency motions from each circuit are assigned in the first instance to the Justice assigned to that circuit. If the Justice turns it down, the emergency motion can be referred to the whole bench. So, the second question is whether a majority of this bench would have granted the TRO. This bench? Sure.
Have you noticed that every person here with actual real-world civil procedure experience doesn't think this is a big deal?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)tritsofme
(17,380 posts)Sotomayor, and Catholics in general are perfectly capable of acting independently, she doesn't take orders from Rome. The problem with Scalia et al, is not that they are Catholic, but that they are Republican.
Intimating that Sotomayor's religion caused this decision is BS. This is a temporary injunction and likely would have been granted by any justice.
But never miss an opportunity to spread some anti-Catholic BS!
Response to tritsofme (Reply #15)
Post removed
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)actually wasn't very religious, himself).
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)of all groups, INCLUDING athiests, be barred from being judges, as it might impact their rulings. Agnostics only!
BTW, your whole "How do you know she doesnt take orders from rome?" is straight out of the 1960 GOP playbook. Oh, and the Klan bitching about "Papists."
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Those prejudices and attitudes sometimes peek out in the strangest ways.
Response to tritsofme (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)tritsofme
(17,380 posts)You are making the assumption based on her religion, not any facts.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)tritsofme
(17,380 posts)Other than she happens to be a member of the Catholic Church.
Mine is the exact right question to ask, you have no evidence other than bigotry that her personal religion decided the case.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)bigot.
tritsofme
(17,380 posts)or assumptions.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)(P.S. I am RC and admire Pope Francis I. )
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)contraceptives are used for MORE than just birth control. A HUGE percentage of women are prescribed them for other reasons.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The truth is that this problem should have been solved and hasn't been, and I'm not blaming the Obama admin. It's thorny. I don't agree with the nuns' position but they couldn't strike a separate peace so to speak if they wanted to.
Anyway the resolution is to allow employees to receive these services from someone else. Why that hasn't been worked out I don't know, but I hope it will be soon. This particular order by the way does tremendous service to the elderly poor by giving unbelievable levels of care for virtually nothing. This from experience. Good care too.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"its only a delay"?
THIS is prime example why DU has a gender war!
Women are supposed to just shut the fuck up and bide their time...
Zorra
(27,670 posts)It does not make us happy.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the sickening part is....there are those on DU who think is just fine to tell women to "shut the fuck up" when our rights to our own bodies are slowly eroding!
This is why we are so pissed!
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... some of those telling women to temper their outrage are other women.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but I am betting most on DU doing it....are men. I believe I just got told my outrage is "silly" by someone who I would bet is male.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Like a temporary injunction, this may be a temporary outrage.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I would think folks would be outraged it even got this far.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Preliminary injunctions have legal standards apply. You'd seem to just do away with them and require the case to be decided before anything happens. In that case, it would be a matter of waiting for the final decision anyway.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)THE POOR.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Did you know the Little Sisters of the Poor (that's the name of the order) are shutting down a facility in NY for lack of funding? You know what will happen to the 72 elderly persons they care for at Latham in their last weeks and months?
I don't either, but they have to go because the place is closing in October.
http://www.troyrecord.com/general-news/20131025/little-sisters-of-the-poor-to-leave-latham-facility
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)But if the church redirected the untold millions it has spent fighting gay marriage and reproduction rights there would be more money for truly worthy causes such as this. Isn't that the kind of reshuffling of priorities that Francis himself spoke about?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)kiranon
(1,727 posts)And, I am Catholic and pro choice. Don't go to church much anymore but hoping new Pope will find a way to resolve the pro choice and gay issues so church is ok with both. Women's reproductive health is as important a health concern as any other medical issue and to not see that is unconscionable in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the nuns do good work or not. Of course they do but that is not the issue. What if a religion doesn't believe in transfusions, any medical intervention at all, medical care for the elderly or disabled and so on? ACA is for everyone of whatever religion. The person can choose not to use it but not deny it to others.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I imagine you would look at the situation differently.
JVS
(61,935 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And it affects lots of other lives, including the people they care for and their families. A two-day injunction to stave off financial ruin isn't going to hurt anyone. And no, there's no treasure trove of rubies and diamonds sitting around in a Vatican vault. These facilities run on donations and if they can't cut it, they fold, which happens all the time:
http://www.troyrecord.com/general-news/20131025/little-sisters-of-the-poor-to-leave-latham-facility
JVS
(61,935 posts)kiranon
(1,727 posts)Many have no retirement plan or funds because they give everything they have to help the poor. But, it doesn't mean others rights can be abrogated. It means more should donate to help the nuns in their mission including funds from the Catholic Church and the Vatican.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)Yes--I don't think a lot of people realize that the Church has been operating in the red for the better part of the last 500 years, ever since Pope Leo X bankrupted the Vatican with his excessive spending. Most of the Church's treasures are in the priceless works of art in its possession, which I am not okay with them selling (because they are held in trust for mankind and would otherwise be in the hands of private collectors perhaps never to be seen again), and in relics, which they cannot sell under Canon Law (it's known as Simony).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Simony is not the selling of relics, it is the selling of pardons and other spiritual rites for money. Trading in Sacraments, dealing in indulgences, that sort of thing.
From Time Magazine:
'Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate."
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html
From the Guardian:
"Few passing London tourists would ever guess that the premises of Bulgari, the upmarket jewellers in New Bond Street, had anything to do with the pope. Nor indeed the nearby headquarters of the wealthy investment bank Altium Capital, on the corner of St James's Square and Pall Mall.
But these office blocks in one of London's most expensive districts are part of a surprising secret commercial property empire owned by the Vatican.
Behind a disguised offshore company structure, the church's international portfolio has been built up over the years, using cash originally handed over by Mussolini in return for papal recognition of the Italian fascist regime in 1929."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/21/vatican-secret-property-empire-mussolini
Small Accumulates
(149 posts)Thanks for the information-packed links. And thanks for sustaining this perspective in these conversations.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)All I would say, though, is that the operational cost of the RCC has to be staggering. Maintaining hundreds of thousands of churches, thousands of schools and hospitals, hundreds of charitable organizations both locally and globally, maintaining a livelihood for hundreds of thousands of religious and lay positions, etc., I can see how you can go through tens of billions of dollars fairly easily. (Also, yes, the Church is currently in the black, I admit & sorry for giving the impression that it's not--my point is that things are tighter than most would suspect).
JVS
(61,935 posts)Things like wealthy families donating large sums of money to the Church with the understanding that one of their sons will be appointed a bishop or a cardinal. Since this is selling an ordination (a sacrament) it could also be construed as selling a sacrament. But I've never run into any stories of other sacraments being sold (baptism, absolution, marriage).
Indulgences are no longer sold, but are granted. Visitation of a particular shrine, attendance of a particular routine of masses or devotional routines, or wearing of a particular type of cloathing (e.g. the brown scapular) are promised to reduce time in purgatory.
kiranon
(1,727 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Last year, my mother was in home hospice, with an excellent staff from a secular health care provider. These nuns obviously value their church and god above their patients, I wouldn't trust them with the care of my cats, much less my parents.
Similar to the decision my fiancee and I made when we are trying for a kid later this year, it will be a high risk pregnancy, and we are avoiding the Catholic Hospitals and Clinics as much as possible, even though they are the closest ones to us, I don't trust them to put my fiancee's life or health above that of a fetus.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Good luck to you and yours!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on others with the care of others?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)If that's an unintended consequence it would be unfortunate and personally devastating to many, and I'm not talking "the 1%" who can shift for themselves. I have every confidence that a satisfactory resolution can and will be reached, and soon. And yes I trust these nuns. The care they give is really unbelievable.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)if they decide to shut down because they value their God and Church above their patients, that's on them, no one else.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)It looks to me like they are trying to weasel their way out of following it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)bonzaga
(48 posts)Can someone please explain to these people that birth control is not abortion?
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)One of the ways it works is by not letting a fertalized egg latch on... so that's how they get abortion out of it -- a viable fertalized egg is, pardon the expression, "going down the tubes."
And they believe it promotes promiscuity. There's that big part, too.
I don't agree with them at all, but I understand what they are concerned about.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Paul VI explained their reasoning in Humanae Vitae.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)who are "OUTRAGED" because Justice Sotomayor turn to issue temporary injunctions when a cause "MIGHT" be heard by the court.
IT IS A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PEOPLE NOT A RULING!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
ananda
(28,867 posts).. separation of church and state.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts).......and overreaction to it, replete with wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, is positively breathtaking.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)You might just be MURDERING their unborn siblings by preventing them from implanting. Oh, wait. GOD is doing that!!!!!
Agony
(2,605 posts)Medicare for all.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)But that’s not quite what happened. (snip)
From the administration’s perspective, officials have already presented a credible solution. Under the law, churches and other houses of worship are already exempt, and non-profit groups with religious objections to birth control can take advantage of a compromise unveiled a year ago that allows organizations to offer health coverage without paying for contraception directly.
This case has been filed by those who believe the compromise doesn’t go far enough to accommodate their anti-birth control objections – as Irin added, these groups “have filed suit in federal court saying that filling out a form for someone else to get birth control is a substantial burden on their religion.”
But again, just to clarify, the temporary stay granted by Sotomayor applies only to the groups involved with this case, not the whole country. The contraception policy is in effect for everyone else.
