Why Religious Exemptions Matter

[rug]

February 1, 2013
4:38PM
Post by Sarah Posner

As I reported earlier, it appears that the Obama administration's new proposed rule (which of course is still subject to public comment) expands the type and number of religious organizations that can claim an exemption from covering contraception for their employees. Religious organizations that don't qualify for the exemption can "self-certify" as one that is entitled to an "accommodation," through which employees can obtain the coverage from an insurance plan separate from their employer's.

In the main, reproductive rights organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have praised the new rule. As I reported earlier, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is studying the rule, and I wouldn't read that as a tacit endorsement. Studying a document like that before offering comment is the way the USCCB operates; rarely if ever does it issue an off-the-cuff assessment.

But the USCCB's allies -- other groups that oppose the contraception mandate -- have wasted no time in lambasting the new rule as an inadequate protection of their constitutional rights. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal group that has led the charge of litigation against the rule, claimed that the rule "leaves religious Americans at risk." Becket claims the rule fails to protect for-profit businesses and their owners; that the expansion of the exemption beyond houses of worship was inadequate; and that the accommodation to provide coverage to employees of religious organizations that were not entitled to an exemption was "convoluted' and "may not resolve religious organizations' objections to being coerced into providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees." (When Becket refers to abortifacients, it's referring to ella and Plan B, drugs that are emergency contraception, not abortifacients, according to the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration.) Other organizations raising similar objections include Concerned Women for American, Americans United for Life, and the American Center for Law and Justice.

As to private employers, the proposed rule takes note of the fact that private employers are not entitled to religious exemptions under other federal laws, such as Title VII, prohibiting discrimination in employment. Based on that precedent, the administration declined to extend an exemption to private employers here.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/6806/why_religious_exemptions_matter/

[mountain grammy]

1. Dear Churches: Pay taxes like the rest of us and you can do whatever the hell you want!

[cbayer]

5. Do you think all non-profits should start paying taxes just like every else,

or just churches?

[mountain grammy]

6. To the extent the church or any other non profit engages in politics

yes, they should be taxed.
Here's the deal: I can donate time and money to a political campaign, but pay federal and state taxes on that donation.
The church can pump millions of dollars and plenty of time to a political campaign, but all church money is tax exempt. In addition, a large doner to the church can also claim a tax exemption for the money donated, thereby exempting funds going to a political campaign from federal and state taxes.
Churches and other non profits should not be allowed to make tax exempt contributions to political campaigns because the rest of us can't, and any and all funds used for that purpose should be taxed.

[cbayer]

7. So, non-profit organizations that fight in the political arena for abused children

or for GLBT rights or for a woman's right to choose should all be taxed? Are you sure?

Churches and other religious organizations have to follow the same rules as other non-profits. They are permitted to advocate for causes, including political or legislative issues, but they can't advocate for specific candidates.

Not all church money is tax exempt. Any money donated to a non-profit provides for a deduction. Non-profits can not contribute tax exempt money to any candidates, but they can financially support causes.

Be careful what you wish for here. To change the rules for churches would be to change the rules for all non-profits.

[mountain grammy]

8. We've been down this slippery slope

non-profits file with the IRS, not churches. Why not? Churches can and do support candidates, that's become crystal clear. Yes, non-profits have a place, but even planned parenthood has a separate political arm for non tax exempt donations.
Churches have been given far too much leeway. Check out http://taxthechurches.org/

[cbayer]

9. Some churches are required to file, some are not.

Churches can not support candidates and maintain their tax exempt status. While the IRS has been lax in enforcing this, that's the law and those that do it run the risk of losing their status.

I agree that there has been abuse in the system. Many of the mega churches do not appear to be non-profit at all. I think the IRS needs to tighten up and I hope that they will.

If they do, those churches that are truly non-profit should continue to benefit from the tax status of any other 501(3)c.

[pinto]

2. LA Times has a piece up that takes a look at the new proposal -

A new plan for birth control coverage

The Obama administration proposes that employees of some religiously affiliated workplaces get contraceptive coverage through a separate, private insurance policy at no cost.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insurance-contraceptives-20130202,0,680698.story

[rug]

3. That's good reporting.

[cbayer]

4. She makes some excellent points and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

It's a fascinating 1st amendment issue, imo.