Judge Allows Moral, Not Just Religious, Contraception Exemptions

[rug]

By ADAM LIPTAK
AUG. 31, 2015

WASHINGTON — Employers do not need to provide insurance coverage for contraception even if their objections are moral rather than religious, a federal judge here ruled on Monday.

The case concerned a group called March for Life, which was formed after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. The group, Monday’s decision said, “is a nonprofit, nonreligious pro-life organization.”

It opposes methods of contraception that it says can amount to abortion, including hormonal products, intrauterine devices and emergency contraceptives. Many scientists disagree that those methods of contraception are equivalent to abortion.

President Obama’s health care law and related regulations require most employers to provide free contraception coverage to their female workers. But there are exceptions and accommodations for religious groups and their affiliates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/politics/judge-allows-moral-not-just-religious-contraception-exemptions.html?_r=0

29 page decision: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1149-30

[elfin]

1. Dammit. What is "moral" about putting a girl's or woman's life in jeopardy?

I HATE this crap.

[rug]

2. The judge was appointed by Dubya on September 10, 2011.

His classmate was Clarence Thomas.

Read the opinion. I don't think it can stand.

[No Vested Interest]

32. I believe you meant to type 2001, rather than 2011.

Dubya had left office by 2011.
Judge Leon assumed office in 2002.

[rug]

33. Mea culps. Fixed.

Thanks.

Some coincidence, eh?

[AlbertCat]

31. What does the morality of an employer.....

..... have to do with the morality of his employees?

[DesertFlower]

3. what about viagara? what if someone

is opposed to that?

[rug]

4. In theory, this judge should bar that as well.

On appeal, a loophole for Cialis would be found.

[DesertFlower]

5. well cialis is basically the same.

of course, the judge himself might be taking these drugs.

[rug]

6. Could be, his prose is wooden.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Nice smokescreen you found there.

As if there's a non-religious pro life group/reason of any statistical significance.

[rug]

8. Like it or not, atheism is not all rainbows, progress and paradise.

http://www.secularprolife.org/

http://blog.secularprolife.org/

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/

http://thebelltowers.com/2013/05/01/pro-life-without-god/

http://www.istandforlife.org/index.php/home/secular-pro-life-ism

http://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2015/07/17/non-religious-left-wing-feminist-pro-life-and-proud-55786

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/secularprolifeblog/secular_pro_life_perspectives_the_pro_life_movement_belongs_to_all_of_us/

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Do your own google. This one took 0.32 seconds.

BTW, "smokescreen" is a curious word for a dangerous thirty page federal court decision entered today. Reading that reaction, the word "ostrich" popped into my mind. I would use it but I'm a people-pleaser.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I did a little googling of my own. Less than 12% of atheists and agnostics are anti abortion.

Jealous?

[rug]

34. 12? 1 out of 8? That's higher than I thought.

That's not statistically insignificant.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. It is for now, with A/A's being less than 15 percent of the populace

Bet you even money it correlates with people who have become atheists, having departed some religion with dogma around this issue, like the RCC.

I've noted people don't instantly change every element of their worldview the moment they leave religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I especially like that last link you found, looks like a dead geocities page from the 90's

Aw missed it by that much.

It's a dead DreamHost site that was last touched in 2002.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Second link from the bottom, 10 comments, 80% religious.

Holy fuck you're on a roll. Maybe I should Fisk all of these links

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Third link from the bottom, Kate Goodwin could only cite herself as a non-religious

Abortion opponent out of the entire org she belongs to. Fascinating.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Fourth link from the bottom, 7,000 followers or less, worldwide.

Site regurgitates all the same old tired religious pro life arguments when they try to sound all science-y. They're not terribly good at it.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Fifth link from the bottom, less than 2k followers, can only cite a source

That converted to Catholicism. Some secular source for anti-abortion 'science'.

This fucking moron doesn't know the difference between an adult brain being 'unconscious' during sleep, and a multi-celled blastocyst consisting of undifferentiated cells being incapable of being conscious at all, having not yet built anything like a Neuron.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Sixth link from the bottom was a pro life white male catholic before he became an atheist.

Seems like, as with those that bring over a desire for familiar group ritual and commune, so too did this asshole bring over some baggage in the form of an incoherent and not actually scientific opposition to abortion.

Fucker calls himself a feminist too. What an asshole.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. 7th from the bottom, ANOTHER president of pro-life Atheists? Either you're double dipping or

They have an attrition problem.

Another non-scientific position couched as 'indisputable science'. Fuck it, you can have that moron back. Better off in your camp.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. 8th link from the bottom is the same asshole as link 7, and 4, or 5, I forget.

Triple-dipping there, Bucky.

But thank you for that link. Warms my heart she's shitting her pants that an atheist convention was GIVING THE PROCEEDS TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD AS THEIR DESIGNATED ONLY CHARITY.

yeah, those big meanie pro-life atheists.

Do you even read the shit you link to?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Ninth link from the bottom is just another duplicate to the blog roll of a site you already linked.

Must be rarefied air you're fishing in there, being unable to come up with any more uniques.

Nice to know the opposition is so throughly outnumbered and marginalized though.

One of them is making the argument personhood is irrelevant to a non-theistic anti abortion argument. Me thinks their blog roll has been successfully infiltrated by a troll

[AtheistCrusader]

20. And the first link won't load, but I see you're triple-dipping again.

That must suck to belong to a church that attacks women's rights and medical care day in and day out, and all you can do is point to a tiny fucking minority of secular people who misrepresent your own religious herds arguments as secular arguments and oh by the way, at least two of those assholes used to belong to your church anyway.

Quell surprise they have damaged worldviews.

I would LOVE to do an hour long formal debate with any of them.

[beam me up scottie]

22. BRILLIANT!!! You so totally rock, dude!

Anyone who supports an organization that wants to take away my reproductive rights and thinks lgbt people are intrinsically disordered has no business criticizing atheist bigots.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. the technique is wrong anyway. The correct way to do a google gish gallop is to separate each

bogus link into its own post, and to include a huge amount of bloviation with each of the posts.

I think that it is likely that it is that sticky 'u' key that once again is responsible for this mess.

qed sic ipso facto ceteris paribus


besides hitchens was for the iraq war which is why harris is such an asshole, plus dawkins wore a t-shirt that said something.

[rug]

35. 0.32 seconds is all I chose to devote to it.

Nevertheless, it served its purpose; AC found a stat that one in eight nonbelievers are opposed to abortion.

Do you consider that insignificant?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Wrong.

Non believers is a larger population than atheists/agnostics.

I agree it's troubling, but hardly meaningful numbers.

[rug]

42. !2% is 12%. Put any adjective on it you want.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. In contrast to Catholics, 'statistical noise'.

[rug]

45. But it does tarnish the crisader symblo on your tunic.

I'm sure they have a rational basis for their position.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Probably refugees from churches like yours.

Not everyone revises their entire worldview from end to end the moment they realize God isn't real.

Sometimes prejudices persist.

[rug]

49. sorry, i don't deal in suppositions.

Google will supply the facts of that statement. Or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Doesn't seem to be a lot of data. Julia Gillard, former Aussie PM is atheist and was

Against SSM until recently (last month). She was raised in the "baptist tradition", according to her.

One might also assume ulterior motives trying to shore up votes. But that would be almost cynical.

If you see an in depth study/survey, happy to read it.
I don't see any.

[rug]

59. If I find one I will.

If soon, I'll post it her. Otherwise send it to you by DUmail.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. It would be worthy of an Op.

Hopefully something solid from Pew or the like.

I wonder if they take requests/suggestions?

[Lordquinton]

21. Damn! Superb takedown.

It's that same argument trying to say things are great because there's 20 churches against it, and only one for, ignoring those 20 churches have about 50 members each and the one has half a million people attending.

[rug]

36. One of eight atheists is not 20 churches with 50 members.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Look at you, so desperate to mis-frame these demographics.

You can't hide your vicious, homophobic, misogynistic church behind us. We don't cast a big enough shadow.

Pew puts atheists at 2.4% of the populace, agnostics at 3.3%. (2012 irreligion in the United States)
Or, 18.3 million.

Pew puts Catholics at 20.8% of the populace. (2015 Americas changing religious landscape.)
Or, 66.5 million.

At 12% opposition, that's 2.1 million atheists and agnostics that reported opposing SSM in that Pew survey.

At 38% opposition, that's 25.2 million Catholics that reported opposing SSM in same said PEW data.

So, for ever atheist or agnostic that opposes SSM, there are 12 Catholics doing the same. And that's Catholics, not the more numerous White Evangelical Protestant, (39 million members) who opposes at 70%.

If you think 2.1 million A/A's are a problem, what are 25.2 million Catholics?

[rug]

46. Oh get over yourself.

The only desperation I see is your rhetoric.

"You can't hide your vicious, homophobic, misogynistic church behind us. We don't cast a big enough shadow."

I understand your fervently believe atheism represents all that is right and rational in humanity. It isn't. Deal with it.

The fact (which you winnowed) that 12% have different ideas than you demonstrates that.

Oh, the sting of betrayal!

This is right up your alley.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Pew didn't ask the question, but I have yet to meet one that was always an atheist.

Just because an atheist might hold a prejudice, doesn't mean a religion didn't originate it.

[rug]

50. Hmm, don't you preach we are all born atheist?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. We are. Then people begin programming us with doctrine

According to their faith. Doctrine such as, 'homosexuals are intrinsically disordered.'

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5976134

Not something I ever came up with, as an atheist. Disordered compared to what? Oh, right, the abrahamic faiths.

[rug]

53. In that case, compared to the then extant DSM.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Impossible. It was removed from the DSM 5 years before I was born.

[rug]

58. Do you know when the Catechism was written?

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Within a year. Problem is, Persona Humana is still in force, is it not?

Editions of the DSM that made that error are not in use.

[rug]

62. I did some checking. The process of writing the new catechism was begn in 1985.

Homosexuality as a mental disorder was removed from the DSM in 1973.

But, it was replaced in DSM3 with something called "Ego dystonic disorder" in 1980, where it remained until 1986.

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

I don't know how European or other regional psychiatric associations handled the topic.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Did you forget something?

[rug]

67. Let me check.

Nope, my fly is closed.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Allow me.

Last edited Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

1. The DSM-3 wasn't necessarily put together by secularists.
2. That offensive bit is no longer in force. The catechism is. Today.

[rug]

70. 1. No one said a thing about secularists.

The DSM represents a psychiatric consensensus of what is and is not considered a mental disorder at the time.

2. The Catechism reflects that psychiatric consensus at the time it was written.

You asked where that came from. Now you know.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. You said compared, not based on in post 53.

That implies a contrast in source ( group b thogught the same as group a).

The catcehism is based on the DSM? I highly doubt that. (Came from)

[rug]

72. Is that it? Seriously?

Compare means compare to the Catechism to the DSM.

I didn't say, contrasted with.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Comparison is similar. So what.

Maybe you should elaboate on the expected product of the comparison.

The DSM was broken, manufactured by bigots. It has been corrected.

Has the RCC's dogma?

[rug]

74. To the entirety of your posts in this subthread, I say so what.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. That's lovely. DSM is fixed. When is your church going to drop the raging homophobia?

This decade? Next decade? Next century?

When the last person abandons it?

[rug]

76. See #74.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Let me know when you're done with recursive loops and want to answer the question.

[rug]

78. As soon as you're done quibbling with idioms.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. If you're going to dismiss that as quibbling, we're done.

Have the last word.

[cleanhippie]

80. That's what it always comes down to, doesn't it?

Quibbling over superfluous nonsense as a defense against admitting being wrong.

Same shit, different thread.

[rug]

82. Speaking of "superfluous nonsense", weigh in. "Compared to" or "in contrast to"?

[AtheistCrusader]

83. You were getting at something while playing coy. I tried to interpret.

Quell surprise you code something else after the fact.

[Lordquinton]

63. And you ignored the question

Also, non-religious=/= atheist.

And there is still nothing in aheism that speaks to it, but you seem to have enough trouble keeping up anyways, so we'll let it slide.

[rug]

64. And you will never get over yourself.

[Lordquinton]

65. Holy non sequitors batman!

Dunno where that came from, but I'm sure those playing at home notice at you're, in classic form, not answering the question.

[rug]

68. Do you often opine, thinking of what others will think of you?

[Lordquinton]

86. do you often dodge questions? nt

[rug]

87. I believe you just did.

[Lordquinton]

88. So that's a yes? nt

[rug]

89. Yes, you did.

[Lordquinton]

90. I did point out that you're still not answering the question

So...?

[cleanhippie]

81. Where's urbscotty with one of those wrongly worded memes when you need one?

[AtheistCrusader]

85. He keeps trying he might accidentally get one right.

[Angry Dragon]

92. I understand you fervently believe religion represents all that is right and rational in humanity.

It isn't. Deal with it.

[rug]

93. Your understanding is flawed.

[Angry Dragon]

94. no more than yours

[cleanhippie]

28. Wow, dude! That's like an epic Hitchslap, delivered with no mercy whatsoever.

[rug]

37. "Oh!"

Nice role model.

[cleanhippie]

29. Here is your award for administering such an epic beatdown.

[rug]

38. In your dreams.

Try it.

[SheilaT]

9. If people don't believe in contraception, they don't have to use it.q

However, they have absolutely no right to force their own moral view on anyone else.

I cannot believe this stupidity.

[edhopper]

24. The GOP and the RCC

say otherwise.

But strangely, there are people who defame one while supporting the other.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Can anyone think of the "science and moral convictions" they claim to believe

(their wording) that would mean hormonal contraception is a problem?

First of all, hormonal contraception normally prevents fertilisation ever taking place. It also affects the uterus lining, so there is a theoretical possibility that it could fail to have its normal, intended effect but then decrease the chances of a blastocyst that got that far from implanting (though implantation isn't guaranteed for a blastocyst when there's no birth control, anyway).

Religious groups have the soul to fall back on - they can claim that a soul is associated with the zygote at the moment of fertilisation, and they give that cell human rights due to the soul (which seem to include the right to the best possible womb waiting for it). But as far as science is concerned, it's a cell, with the potential to do all kinds of things (split into 2 future human beings, for a start), but in no way advanced enough to have 'moral' rights or responsibilities.

The 'March For Life' argument to me seems a complete turd, from both the scientific and moral viewpoints. Either you're claiming a supernatural soul that must be nurtured from its moment of incarnation, or you're looking at a developmental process, for which you cannot seriously claim a small ball of cells without a nervous system has the rights a human has.

[Faux pas]

26. WTF????

That's all I've got

[DetlefK]

27. Does the company have to prove that moral stance or can they claim anything willy-nilly?

[Jim__]

30. IIRC, Hobby Lobby won based on RFRA.

Does this ruling now say that RFRA applies to moral opinion and not to religion? Is this likely to stand up under appeal?

[rug]

39. He's basing it on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifthe Amemdment,

the federal Administrative Procesudre Act, and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

He lays it out on page 2. I don't think it will stand.

[HassleCat]

51. Every sperm is sacred

The Pythons probably realized, when they did that sketch, that their parody could not match the insanity of the reality.

[Freddie]

54. PLEASE let there be an animal-rights activist employer

Refuse to cover any meds that were developed with animal testing. Take it to court. That's a moral objection, right? Funny how courts only take this seriously when it involves women's reproduction.

[rug]

55. That is an excellent example.

[pansypoo53219]

84. SHARIA!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. Using hormonal birth control results in fewer dead zygotes than no birth control

There are several ways to try and work out the numbers, but it always works out that hormonal birth control is better than none: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/zygotes-lost-with-birth-control-v-without-birth-control.html

Now, if your 'moral' problem is, as these people claim, that fertilised eggs don't always implant successfully and that must be avoided in every way possible, you would also want to take other steps, like barrier methods, and the rhythm method, as well as hormonal methods. But it does not make sense to say a hormonal method is evil in itself, and they have the right to ban it from the list of ways of decreasing the number of zygotes that fail to implant.