SCOTUS men do it again, harder

[Bob Juch]

The U.S. Supreme Court men have done it again, temporarily barring the government from enforcing the contraception mandate in Obamacare, granting an injunction for Wheaton College, a Christian college in Illinois. Specifically, this college and other religious organizations have filed suit saying that having to complete federal forms that they have to send to insurers and plan administrators is a religious burden because doing so makes them complicit in providing the evil birth control. In granting the injunction, the majority said that Wheaton College merely has to inform the government in writing that it qualifies for the exemption.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor takes the majority of the Supreme Court to task for contradicting the position it took just a few days ago in the Hobby Lobby decision, when its decision rested on the premise that the exemption that the administration had carved out for religious organizations was an adequate accommodation and that it still achieved the government's aims. Now, they've just undermined that very argument. She writes:

Even assuming that the accommodation somehow burdens Wheaton’s religious exercise, the accommodation is permissible under RFRA because it is the least restrictive means of furthering the Government’s compelling interests in public health and women’s well-being. Indeed, just earlier this week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.[…] the Court described the accommodation as “a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage.” […] And the Court concluded that the accommodation “constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.” […] Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates RFRA as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, see ante, at 29–30 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting), retreats from that position. That action evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution.

Sorry to break it to you, Justice Sotomayor, but that ship has already sailed, through no fault of your own.

[Beebs52]

Give it up. You lost. Western civilization isn't going to fail on contraceptive issues. It's limping due to lots of other stuff.

[Bob Juch]

Give it up. You lost. Western civilization isn't going to fail on contraceptive issues. It's limping due to lots of other stuff.

It's not contraception, it's that some people think their religion allows them to control others. That's the same thing we've been fighting against in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

[jarnon]

I've looked into this because the Archdiocese of Philadelphia filed a similar suit. This is the form they object to:

EBSA FORM 700-- CERTIFICATION
(To be used for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014)

This form is to be used to certify that the health coverage established or maintained or arranged by the organization listed below qualifies for an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover certain contraceptive services without cost sharing, pursuant to 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, and 45 CFR 147.131.

Please fill out this form completely. This form must be completed by each eligible organization by the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014, with respect to which the accommodation is to apply, and be made available for examination upon request. This form must be maintained on file for at least 6 years following the end of the last applicable plan year.

Name of the objecting organization

Name and title of the individual who is authorized to make, and makes, this certification on behalf of the organization

Mailing and email addresses and phone number for the individual listed above


I certify that, on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.

Note: An organization that offers coverage through the same group health plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the same controlled group of corporations as, or under common control with, such employer and/or organization (within the meaning of section 52(a) or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), may certify that it holds itself out as a religious organization.

I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that this certification is complete.


______________________________________
Signature of the individual listed above


______________________________________
Date

The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification to the plan’s health insurance issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for self-insured health plans) in order for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement.

Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans

In the case of a group health plan that provides benefits on a self-insured basis, the provision of this certification to a third party administrator for the plan that will process claims for contraceptive coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) or 29 CFR 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) constitutes notice to the third party administrator that the eligible organization:

(1) Will not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services; and

(2) The obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A.

This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated.



PRA Disclosure Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1210-0150. Each organizations that seeks to be recognized as an eligible organization that qualifies for an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover certain contraceptive services without cost sharing is required to complete this self-certification from pursuant to 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a)(4) in order to obtain or retain the benefit of the exemption from covering certain contraceptive services. The self-certification must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which generally requires records to be retained for six years. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 50 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, gather the necessary data, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Policy and Research, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210 or email ebsa.opr@dol.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1210-0150.

The first part of the form is unobjectionable; the plaintiffs freely provided all this information and more in their suits. The section in color is what the plaintiffs object to. According to their suits, it authorizes their insurance administrators to provide contraception coverage, at no cost to the employer. I think the courts will be able to come up with a compromise.

[Beebs52]

Give it up. You lost. Western civilization isn't going to fail on contraceptive issues. It's limping due to lots of other stuff.

It's not contraception, it's that some people think their religion allows them to control others. That's the same thing we've been fighting against in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Actually, it's curbing the state from asserting its religious or anti-religion beliefs on closely held corporations. Something that most people should be happy about. But, I'm an elitist. I think most people are increasingly imbecilic.

[Bob Juch]

Give it up. You lost. Western civilization isn't going to fail on contraceptive issues. It's limping due to lots of other stuff.

It's not contraception, it's that some people think their religion allows them to control others. That's the same thing we've been fighting against in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Actually, it's curbing the state from asserting its religious or anti-religion beliefs on closely held corporations. Something that most people should be happy about. But, I'm an elitist. I think most people are increasingly imbecilic.

So you were fine with the restaurants that refused to admit Blacks because they claimed their religion prohibited race mixing?

[Beebs52]

It's not contraception, it's that some people think their religion allows them to control others. That's the same thing we've been fighting against in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Actually, it's curbing the state from asserting its religious or anti-religion beliefs on closely held corporations. Something that most people should be happy about. But, I'm an elitist. I think most people are increasingly imbecilic.

So you were fine with the restaurants that refused to admit Blacks because they claimed their religion prohibited race mixing?

Not at all. Comparing civil rights abuse like that to not funding abortion drugs, that kill babies, is dickworthy. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for a benefit, not a right. If you cannot understand that I'm flummoxed. Insurance is not a basic human right. It's a perk and a commodity.

[Bob Juch]

Actually, it's curbing the state from asserting its religious or anti-religion beliefs on closely held corporations. Something that most people should be happy about. But, I'm an elitist. I think most people are increasingly imbecilic.

So you were fine with the restaurants that refused to admit Blacks because they claimed their religion prohibited race mixing?

Not at all. Comparing civil rights abuse like that to not funding abortion drugs, that kill babies, is dickworthy. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for a benefit, not a right. If you cannot understand that I'm flummoxed. Insurance is not a basic human right. It's a perk and a commodity.

So you had no problem with the state asserting its religious or anti-religion beliefs on closely held corporations in those cases?

[Beebs52]

So you were fine with the restaurants that refused to admit Blacks because they claimed their religion prohibited race mixing?

Not at all. Comparing civil rights abuse like that to not funding abortion drugs, that kill babies, is dickworthy. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for a benefit, not a right. If you cannot understand that I'm flummoxed. Insurance is not a basic human right. It's a perk and a commodity.

So you had no problem with the state asserting its religious or anti-religion beliefs on closely held corporations in those cases?

What's your point? Sometimes you don't track.

[Beebs52]

To answer your question, yes, I had no problem with that. The reason is there are case by case situations. Some things are good. Some are evil. One has to have some sort of grasp on right/wrong and how to differentiate. He who prevails prevails, and that is why we at least, theoretically, have checks and balances.

[Bob Juch]

To answer your question, yes, I had no problem with that. The reason is there are case by case situations. Some things are good. Some are evil. One has to have some sort of grasp on right/wrong and how to differentiate. He who prevails prevails, and that is why we at least, theoretically, have checks and balances.

What you consider good or evil is not necessarily what the majority of Americans or the rest of the civilized world considers good or evil. What gives you the right to force your opinion on them?

[Beebs52]

To answer your question, yes, I had no problem with that. The reason is there are case by case situations. Some things are good. Some are evil. One has to have some sort of grasp on right/wrong and how to differentiate. He who prevails prevails, and that is why we at least, theoretically, have checks and balances.

What you consider good or evil is not necessarily what the majority of Americans or the rest of the civilized world considers good or evil. What gives you the right to force your opinion on them?

If one has the opinion that nothing is good or evil, one is a moral relativist. One is also a hypocrite, otherwise why one care. Good luck when some jackass next decides to bomb something. You and Ayers would make good buds. Actually, not, because while he's a maggot, he's a maggot with a point of view. Not all world views are beneficial. And as much as you appear to disdain the sovereignty of the US, it will bite you in the ass eventually. Go Sunnis! Go Shiites! Go Saudis! Go Yemen! Good luck with that. Why aren't you concerned with women's rights over there?

[Beebs52]

To answer your question, yes, I had no problem with that. The reason is there are case by case situations. Some things are good. Some are evil. One has to have some sort of grasp on right/wrong and how to differentiate. He who prevails prevails, and that is why we at least, theoretically, have checks and balances.

What you consider good or evil is not necessarily what the majority of Americans or the rest of the civilized world considers good or evil. What gives you the right to force your opinion on them?

If one has the opinion that nothing is good or evil, one is a moral relativist. One is also a hypocrite, otherwise why one care. Good luck when some jackass next decides to bomb something. You and Ayers would make good buds. Actually, not, because while he's a maggot, he's a maggot with a point of view. Not all world views are beneficial. And as much as you appear to disdain the sovereignty of the US, it will bite you in the ass eventually. Go Sunnis! Go Shiites! Go Saudis! Go Yemen! Good luck with that. Why aren't you concerned with women's rights over there?

I retract my statement about you vis a vis sovereignty. You give that impression. I do think your worldview is wrongheaded, tho.

[Bob Juch]

To answer your question, yes, I had no problem with that. The reason is there are case by case situations. Some things are good. Some are evil. One has to have some sort of grasp on right/wrong and how to differentiate. He who prevails prevails, and that is why we at least, theoretically, have checks and balances.

What you consider good or evil is not necessarily what the majority of Americans or the rest of the civilized world considers good or evil. What gives you the right to force your opinion on them?

If one has the opinion that nothing is good or evil, one is a moral relativist. One is also a hypocrite, otherwise why one care. Good luck when some jackass next decides to bomb something. You and Ayers would make good buds. Actually, not, because while he's a maggot, he's a maggot with a point of view. Not all world views are beneficial. And as much as you appear to disdain the sovereignty of the US, it will bite you in the ass eventually. Go Sunnis! Go Shiites! Go Saudis! Go Yemen! Good luck with that. Why aren't you concerned with women's rights over there?

I did not say nothing is good or evil at all! I said what you think is good/evil is not necessarily what others think is good/evil.

[Beebs52]

What you consider good or evil is not necessarily what the majority of Americans or the rest of the civilized world considers good or evil. What gives you the right to force your opinion on them?

If one has the opinion that nothing is good or evil, one is a moral relativist. One is also a hypocrite, otherwise why one care. Good luck when some jackass next decides to bomb something. You and Ayers would make good buds. Actually, not, because while he's a maggot, he's a maggot with a point of view. Not all world views are beneficial. And as much as you appear to disdain the sovereignty of the US, it will bite you in the ass eventually. Go Sunnis! Go Shiites! Go Saudis! Go Yemen! Good luck with that. Why aren't you concerned with women's rights over there?

I did not say nothing is good or evil at all! I said what you think is good/evil is not necessarily what others think is good/evil.

And I answered that with the moral relativism thing. If everybody's good and evil is equal, why debate anything ? You have to have some sort of guideline you live by. And, yes that means I'll make a judgment. Otherwise what's the point?

[Bob Juch]

If one has the opinion that nothing is good or evil, one is a moral relativist. One is also a hypocrite, otherwise why one care. Good luck when some jackass next decides to bomb something. You and Ayers would make good buds. Actually, not, because while he's a maggot, he's a maggot with a point of view. Not all world views are beneficial. And as much as you appear to disdain the sovereignty of the US, it will bite you in the ass eventually. Go Sunnis! Go Shiites! Go Saudis! Go Yemen! Good luck with that. Why aren't you concerned with women's rights over there?

I did not say nothing is good or evil at all! I said what you think is good/evil is not necessarily what others think is good/evil.

And I answered that with the moral relativism thing. If everybody's good and evil is equal, why debate anything ? You have to have some sort of guideline you live by. And, yes that means I'll make a judgment. Otherwise what's the point?

I never said they were equal! I give up. I'm going to bed.

[Beebs52]

Sorry you don't understand. Nighters

[Bob78164]

The section in color is what the plaintiffs object to. According to their suits, it authorizes their insurance administrators to provide contraception coverage, at no cost to the employer. I think the courts will be able to come up with a compromise.

Justice Sotomayor got this exactly right. It's a BS argument, and shame on the Court majority for buying it. What requires (not authorizes) the insurance administrators to provide contraception coverage isn't the form, or anything the organization does. It's the administrative regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act.

It's like a conscientious objector saying, "Not only can't you draft me, you can't draft anyone in my place, because then I'd be contributing to the conduct of war, contrary to my sincerely held beliefs."

It's almost as if the Court majority is going out of their way to make the Affordable Care Act as cumbersome and administratively difficult, if not unworkable, as possible. But no, no one in government could possibly be that cynical. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for a benefit, not a right. If you cannot understand that I'm flummoxed. Insurance is not a basic human right. It's a perk and a commodity.

Medical insurance is a payment mechanism. Basic medical care is a right, at least in most of the civilized world, and, after a fashion, in the United States. Obamacare chose to use a highly flawed mechanism to fund that right, but one that was within their purview to do so.

[silverscreenselect]

The U.S. Supreme Court men have done it again, temporarily barring the government from enforcing the contraception mandate in Obamacare, granting an injunction for Wheaton College, a Christian college in Illinois. Specifically, this college and other religious organizations have filed suit saying that having to complete federal forms that they have to send to insurers and plan administrators is a religious burden because doing so makes them complicit in providing the evil birth control. In granting the injunction, the majority said that Wheaton College merely has to inform the government in writing that it qualifies for the exemption.

I'd caution against reading too much into this decision. It's common practice for the Supreme Court to send other pending decisions back to lower courts for reconsideration in light of major rulings it makes. The injunction was intended by the majority to preserve the status quo, and the rules on how the Court acts in such cases differ from how they ultimately consider a case on the merits.

Apparently, Justice Scalia would have gone further (he concurred in the result only), an indication that at least some of those in the majority may not be inclined to vote in favor of Wheaton if the case gets back to the Supreme Court on a substantive appeal.

[Bob78164]

The U.S. Supreme Court men have done it again, temporarily barring the government from enforcing the contraception mandate in Obamacare, granting an injunction for Wheaton College, a Christian college in Illinois. Specifically, this college and other religious organizations have filed suit saying that having to complete federal forms that they have to send to insurers and plan administrators is a religious burden because doing so makes them complicit in providing the evil birth control. In granting the injunction, the majority said that Wheaton College merely has to inform the government in writing that it qualifies for the exemption.

I'd caution against reading too much into this decision. It's common practice for the Supreme Court to send other pending decisions back to lower courts for reconsideration in light of major rulings it makes. The injunction was intended by the majority to preserve the status quo, and the rules on how the Court acts in such cases differ from how they ultimately consider a case on the merits.

Apparently, Justice Scalia would have gone further (he concurred in the result only), an indication that at least some of those in the majority may not be inclined to vote in favor of Wheaton if the case gets back to the Supreme Court on a substantive appeal.

I don't think it's possible to read Justice Sotomayor's dissent and remain sanguine about this. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Sorry you don't understand. Nighters

I don't understand how you can read the words I write and come up with an entirely different meaning.

[jarnon]

I don't think it's possible to read Justice Sotomayor's dissent and remain sanguine about this. --Bob

Well, I'm still sanguine. (That's just my nature.) Sure, Republicans are saying "the Court has exposed another flaw in Obamacare," and Democrats are calling it "an attack on women's rights." But these two Court decisions concern the details of implementation of HHS regulations for Obamacare, which can be fixed. And the current accommodation is already convoluted and cumbersome, so I doubt it will get worse. Here's what I'm more worried about:

• The entire contraception mandate is just a regulation, which can be repealed by a Republican administration.
• Other flaws in Obamacare, like the holes in Medicaid coverage, cannot be fixed administratively, and Congress won't fix them.
• The Court has extended many civil rights to corporations, now including religious rights. I'm concerned about what this trend will lead to.

[Bob78164]

I don't think it's possible to read Justice Sotomayor's dissent and remain sanguine about this. --Bob

Well, I'm still sanguine. (That's just my nature.) Sure, Republicans are saying "the Court has exposed another flaw in Obamacare," and Democrats are calling it "an attack on women's rights." But these two Court decisions concern the details of implementation of HHS regulations for Obamacare, which can be fixed. And the current accommodation is already convoluted and cumbersome, so I doubt it will get worse. Here's what I'm more worried about:

• The entire contraception mandate is just a regulation, which can be repealed by a Republican administration.
• Other flaws in Obamacare, like the holes in Medicaid coverage, cannot be fixed administratively, and Congress won't fix them.
• The Court has extended many civil rights to corporations, now including religious rights. I'm concerned about what this trend will lead to.

My concern is that the Court appears to be using these Rube Goldberg decisions supported by very little logic to make the Affordable Care Act administratively unworkable. I am still at a loss to understand the logic of the decision allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

For a supporter of PPACA to critise someone else of Rube Goldbergian manipulation is laughable. Hint: it only exists because it is the tax that is not a tax.