There is a simple solution for this:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Obama’s rule requiring employer-based healthcare plans – even those sponsored by faith-based groups – to cover contraception infringes on the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The Kentucky Republican vowed to fight the policy until the White House “backs down.”
“In this country the government doesn’t get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority,” McConnell said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“So this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down. They don’t have the authority … to tell someone in this country, or some organization in this country, what their religious beliefs are. Therein lies the problem.”
Mitch McConnell should take the federal government and the 28 states that already mandate birth control coverage to court and see if he’s right that the Bill of Rights prevents any level of government from establishing standards for health care plans. In the meantime, he should shut his piehole.
Any number of court precedents establish the government’s right to trump religious belief in the name of compelling public interest, for everything from drug policy (peyote) to racial discrimination. If McConnell (or anyone else) takes it to court, they’d likely lose, which is why they’re pushing a legislative confrontation instead.
Have you lost your mind and political instincts, Boo? Here we have Turtle Boy McConnell saying that the GOP is coming after your birth control, and are gonna make you pay more or deny it altogether, and you want to shut him up?
I say “Go for it, Mitch!!!!” This is a huge winner for Democrats, as I believe the union-killing resolutions are. The gloves are off, the mask is removed – we see them for what they have pretended for these many many years not to be. I want them to go all in.
I’m tired of the anti-religious crap they throw at Obama.
Did you see the op-ed section of today’s Inky? Chaput needs a helping of STFU, also, too!!
link, please
Here’s the piece by way of Rocco.
I think this should do it:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20120212_HHS_mandate_insulting_and_dangerous.html
Booman, I was right. This all was intentional, and McConnell is too stupid to realize that he’s being rolled.
What employer wants employees to get pregnant? There are the expenses of the family medical leave act, the increased costs of insurance (these show in monthly bills) and the hassle of covering for an employee for months.
There’s a reason why insurers are happy to provide contraception for free.
Brer Rabbit indeed! All the “oops we’re sorry” from the White House over the past few days is 100% acting, and McConnell took the bait. Dumber than mud.
We’re going to win in November. This is the A Game, but it will be months before most people realize it. Really brilliant politics like we haven’t seen in a long time.
Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 (2004)
Great stuff, seabe.
There simply cannot be a religious test or exemption for employment. EEOC requires that no employment discrimination be made on the basis of gender, age, religion or other factors. This covers a lot of territory.
None of these rules are constitutional. When we allow a majority to make rules about a minority, we have lost our constitutional rules about equal protection.
If I recall correctly, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority. Funny how these things get turned around, aeh?
That is my recollection as well.
Is that a sarcasm? Hope so.
Not sarcasm, Constitutional Law 101.
not our Constitution because the bill of rights protect the minority from the majority
that’s why people say majority rule, minority rights
You are mis-informed.
What part of “Constitutional Law 101” didn’t you understand?
Ten, I’m afraid he’s right on this. The Bill of Rights is most certainly is for the purpose of protecting minorities against majority will. Nothing in the Bill of Rights provides any help for majorities in any sense. Going back to the Federalist papers, it is very clear that the entire Constitution is predicated around protecting minorities and their ability to participate in governance from the “tyranny of the majority,” while still allowing for majority will to have due influence on political processes. Just google “tyranny of the majority” and “Bill of Rights” and you’ll see your mistake. And every law professor I’ve ever met sees it that way.
I understand what those words mean, but I’m not sure you do. I was at least giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were referring to another country’s constitution since you were wrong about ours.
just gotta tell you, luv ya BooMan.
Once again, the propagandists of the Right are putrefying what they claim to be defending. By asserting some absolute right for anyone claiming religious belief as an excuse to do whatever they damn well please, they make a joke of the whole idea of freedom of religion. Their interpretation becomes a reductio ad absurdum that immunizes everyone from the law as long as they claim they’re acting on religious belief.
If Catholic side businesses don’t have to follow employment laws, what reasoning allows prosecution of polygamy, female genital mutilation, animal sacrifice, wife killing, or the killing of the unfaithful, to name just a few notions held by “religious” faithful today?
Personally I have little patience with religion, but value its viewpoints and defend its freedom. There will always be insoluble questions raised by this, or any, freedom, but this birth-control issue is nothing more than a weapon used in bad faith, intended to make a political point. The reality is, freedom of religion can only exist where everyone is subject to the same civil laws. Anything else is flimflam.
Hard not to wander into the weeds of the current threat of the leadership to allow any employer to cut coverage of insurance specifics based on moral conflict.
So when a non-drinking Mormon is the employer, will any coverage for alcoholism be denied?
I’m with Andrew Sullivan on this one. And besides, who could trust these guys to govern when they choose diving off a cliff at every turn?
There was the famous case of Muslim taxi drivers who were trying to be able to not convey to or from alcohol establishments. They were put down pretty emphatically. A service to the public cannot be done with a discrimination component.
Sounds to me like the GOP is working hard to allow some important parts of Sharia law to enter the American mainstream. Who knew McConnell was a secret Sharia advocate?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/13/freedom_of_conscience_and_its_limits.html