separation of Church/State (unless you don't like Church policy)

[Usually Lurkin]

Push the Government into everything, and you have to take church out of everything. It's downright unconstitutional. Catholic Charities in California are not allowed to follow Catholic doctrine.

(and why in the world does insurance cover contraceptives in the first place?)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a precedent-setting decision, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Roman Catholic charity must offer birth-control coverage to its employees even though the church considers contraception a sin.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

Wait a minute.

This organization:
1. offers secular services
2. doesn't directly preach Catholic doctrine
3. doesn't even mandate that it's employees be Catholic,
but refers to itself as a Catholic organization?

I fail to see how anyone's rights are being infringed upon. If they hire a woman, knowing beforehand she isn't Catholic, then it's her business.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz
Wait a minute.
. . .
I fail to see how anyone's rights are being infringed upon. If they hire a woman, knowing beforehand she isn't Catholic, then it's her business.

Her business for them to give her money to do something they think is sin?

[Mavdog]

I'm guessing, but it is typical for an emploee to pay some of the premiums for the health insurance, so the Catholic Church and the employee are paying for the insurance coverage.

The issue it seems is if the Catholic Charities is a religious enterprise, which was specifically excluded from the law mandating such contraception coverage if I recall, or if the Charities is not a religious organization and thus included. The court ruled that due to the broad religious affiliation of the employees they didn't see them as a religious organization.

BTW insurance cos. should provide contraception just as they provide other preventive health benefits.

[Usually Lurkin]

You are right, Mavdog, the question is whether or not the Catholic Charities is a religious organization.
The dissenting judge wrote:
"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

from Catholic Charities press release:
"This case was never about contraceptives. It was never about insurance. It was about our ability to practice our religion—providing food, clothing and shelter to the neediest among us—as a religious organization which is part of the Catholic Church."

to them, what they are doing is preaching Catholic doctrine. This is part of their religion.
It seems a little restrictive (and forcibly discriminatory) to require that a religion's ministries have to be performed only by those in the religion, and only for those in the religion.



To the general question of contraceptives coverage:
If an employer must provide avenues to sexual enjoyment free from the consequences of disease and pregnancy, why is there any consequence that an employer does not have to protect their emplyees from? Why should employers not be allowed to define that list for themselves, even if their definition happens to be (gasp!) religiously derived?

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

I agree that the question is whether this charity is a religious organization. Whether or not they characterize themselves as such, the things in my previous post, qouted from the CNN article, make that assertion a little shaky.

That said, the Catholic Church doesn't approve of contraception.If they hire a woman who is not a Catholic, their responsibility is to make sure she knows they don't approve, not to deny the coverage outright.s group has 180 full time employees, not clergy, not volunteers, not even Catholic. That makes it a business, and it should be subject to the restrictions that "secular" businesses are.

The government is not mandating that the group's Catholic employees must abandon doctrine and use the birth control. Therefore, no one's rights are being intruded upon.

If I went to work for a Hindu, should he not give me a lunch break because he knows I'd go eat a hamburger?

[Usually Lurkin]

If a bunch of non-religious people join a religious organization, that does not make the organization non-religious. What makes an organization religious is the [source of] rules by which it operates.

There's a difference between denying and not providing. Catholic Charities already provides her the opportunity and means to obtain contraception. She could get that insurance herself, elsewhere or purchase her own contraception with the money she's paid.

The Hindu employer should provide you the opportunity to eat whatever lunch you choose. Should the Hindu be forced to buy you a hamburger?
(this metaphor is off-base, anyway. Sex is not an on-the-job benefit, and it is the church's position that it should not be considered a necessity.)

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

I don't think the metaphor is off base. My Hindu employer chooses to give me or deny me the oppertunity to do something he sees as a sin. It's that simple. the law says the group must provide it. It doesn't say they must condone it or that employees must break religious doctrine and use it.

What you are saying is that this organization shouldn't be under the same guidelines as other non-religious businesses. It's not about contraception. It's the church's place to set forth guidelines and to do charitable work, not to make that decision. That's the government's job, and that is what separation of church and state is about.

It's not about religious doctrine, and not about women's rights.

My point is that this group is a business. Like I said above, it has non-catholic full time employees, not volunteers, not clergy. As far as I can tell, it's not under direct control of the church. Their job is to make sure employees know they don't approve, not to make that call outright. If the law said other businesses don't have to provide the same coverage, I'd be on the other side of this.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz
I don't think the metaphor is off base.

Then answer the question: Should the Hindu employer be forced to buy you a hamburger?
A better parallel would be: You decide to take up (non-work related) motorcycle drag racing. Should your employer have the option of not buying you a helmet?
Or (from the church's perspective) you decide to go on a murderous shooting spree, killing countless innocent babies. Should your employer have the option of not providing you with protective clothing, so that you can safely avoid any consequences?

What you are saying is that this organization shouldn't be under the same guidelines as other non-religious businesses.

No. I'm saying that when you allow government to run things, you can't allow religion to run them. If the government is making decisions for a business, then a church cannot be. And yes, this is a not-for-profit business, organized around the Catholic Church, according to Catholic Doctrine, in order to perform Catholic ministry. This government imposition is an impediment to the ministry of the Catholic Church.

All businesses (religious or non) should be under the same government constraints (which is a minimum). Forced allocation of funds for the provision of contraceptives is ludicrous for any business. It is especially ludicrous to force a religious business into such an allocation when the purpose of such allocation is in direct opposition to the precepts upon which the business is founded. This highlights the hypocritic nature of an approach to government that simultaneously forces government into everything, and forces religion out of government. The net result is a forcing of religion out of everything.

It's the church's place to set forth guidelines and to do charitable work, not to make that decision. That's the government's job, and that is what separation of church and state is about.
. . .
If the law said other businesses don't have to provide the same coverage, I'd be on the other side of this.

A better approach would be to take decisions out of the government's hands, and place them into the hands of individuals. The notion that something is right just because it is in the form of a law is scary.

[LRB]

This is an absolutely horrible ruling by the California courts. Hopefully this will quickly be overturned by federal courts. I might consider the court justified in interfering with a for-profit organization, but a not-for-profit organization that is run by a religious organization to express and convey their religious beliefs should be totally out of bounds for government micromanagement at this level. The woman in question is totally free to chose to work for any number of for-profit organizations which would fall under the governments mandate that she be provided with free contraception.

This is precisely the reason why our founding fathers called for separation of state and church so that religion would not be forced on people. Certainly the woman has freedom to go work elsewhere so there is no enforcement of religion upon here. However the government is forcing Catholics to conform to the religious beliefs of the legislators and judges in California. It is quite clear to me that many liberal judges such as those in California have an agenda, which includes religious beliefs, that they wish to impose upon others. This whole lawsuit was not about a woman getting free contraception. It was about the liberal government controling a conservative religious organization.

[Mavdog]

This is an absolutely horrible ruling by the California courts. Hopefully this will quickly be overturned by federal courts. I might consider the court justified in interfering with a for-profit organization, but a not-for-profit organization that is run by a religious organization to express and convey their religious beliefs should be totally out of bounds for government micromanagement at this level. The woman in question is totally free to chose to work for any number of for-profit organizations which would fall under the governments mandate that she be provided with free contraception.

The Charities appears to not be "run by a religious organization to express and convey their religious beliefs", as many of its representitives weren't Catholic.

This is precisely the reason why our founding fathers called for separation of state and church so that religion would not be forced on people. Certainly the woman has freedom to go work elsewhere so there is no enforcement of religion upon here. However the government is forcing Catholics to conform to the religious beliefs of the legislators and judges in California. It is quite clear to me that many liberal judges such as those in California have an agenda, which includes religious beliefs, that they wish to impose upon others. This whole lawsuit was not about a woman getting free contraception. It was about the liberal government controling a conservative religious organization

The ruling was based on the fact that the employees who sought the birth control are not catholic, it is about the freedom of those employees to NOT have the Catholic Church impose its beliefs on them.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

As much as I respect both of your opinions, I just don't see this in the same light.

LRB, I don't see the overt forcing of anyone's religious beliefs on anyone else here. Non-Catholics working for (and being paid by) this organization deserve the same rights and priviledges given to others working at for-profit organizations. I don't think the court decision should be overturned...the law mandating coverage is a different question.

UL, While I don't see the forcing of anyone to adhere to (or conversely to break) religious beliefs, and thus don't have a problem with it, I could see how you do.

We can agree that the standard should be the same. Whether it is the government's place to decide this issue is another debate entirely. Lots of businesses and groups are founded on religious principles, but can't be looked upon as religious organizations. What I'm contending is that is this particular case, the distinction is blurred for the reasons I enumerated above. I'm not so sure it should qualify strictly as a religious organization, and that exceptions to the laws governing employee's insurance shouldn't be made here, or anywhere.

I don't see a question of faith here, just an entity that should have to give it's employees the same coverage that any other would.

[Mavdog]

Lurkin wrote

Then answer the question: Should the Hindu employer be forced to buy you a hamburger?
A better parallel would be: You decide to take up (non-work related) motorcycle drag racing. Should your employer have the option of not buying you a helmet?
Or (from the church's perspective) you decide to go on a murderous shooting spree, killing countless innocent babies. Should your employer have the option of not providing you with protective clothing, so that you can safely avoid any consequences?

Should the employer bar the employee from eating a burger because their beliefs conflict with such an act? Should the employer be able to tell its employee that they cannot use any of their wages to buy a burger because the employers beliefs arein conflict with that act?
No, the employer should not interfere with the employee in their personal decisions that have no bearing on their job performance.

[Caliente]

[quote]
[i]Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

(and why in the world does insurance cover contraceptives in the first place?)

UL, contraceptives have other uses besides birth control. They are sometimes used to regulate a woman's cycle and to relieve severe symptoms brought on by a woman's cycle. There are also health benefits associated with the hormones in birth control pills.

[LRB]

Mavdog is should make no difference if all the representatives or even if most representatives were Catholic. This was a charity, run to provide a service to the community and extend the Catholic church's beliefs, not to garner some profit. By determining that a certain percentage of the employees must be Catholic, the government is in fact dictating how the Catholic church can practice their religion. It may very well be as part of their outreach to the community is to provide jobs to those not of their faith.

The ruling was based on the fact that the employees who sought the birth control are not catholic, it is about the freedom of those employees to NOT have the Catholic Church impose its beliefs on them.

The employees were not prevented from using birth control before this ruling. Just the Catholic church didn't want to pay for it. The employees were free to terminate employment at any time. So in no way was the Catholic Church imposing their beliefs on their employees. The woman had many choices, the Catholic church was left with exceedingly few. Basically the Church could comply or they could cease the practice of their religion. The woman could have paid for contraception herself. She could have taken another job where contraception would have been paid for her. She could have requested that he sexaul partner pay for or provide the contraception. Just because someone won't give you something does not mean that they are imposing their will on you. If you don't give me 20 dollars, you aren't forcing your will on me. If my employer won't pay for my internet connection or my nonprescription allergy medicine above and beyond my normal wages, it certainly doesn't mean that they are are denying me my rights. No one was forcing the woman to do anything. However the government is forcing the Catholic church to do something that is against the religious principles.

Perhaps the church should just fire the woman. However if they did this I'm sure the same judges would continue their agenda and force the church the hire the woman back. People should be free to practice the tenants of their religion without government intervention unless they are unduely upsurping the rights of others. It is not a basic right to recieve free contraception.

[LRB]

UL, contraceptives have other uses besides birth control. They are often used sometimes to regulate a woman's cycle and to relieve severe symptoms brought on by a woman's cycle. There are also health benefits associated with the hormones in birth control pills.

Caliente, you are absolutely right that there are in fact valid medical reason to take contraceptive devices other than to prevent pregnancy. However, if a church doesn't believe in any medical care at all, and some do, I would think it would be fine not to provide any health insurance at all. That would stop individuals from getting the medical care, only prevent the church from paying for it.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz
As much as I respect both of your opinions, I just don't see this in the same light.

LRB, I don't see the overt forcing of anyone's religious beliefs on anyone else here. Non-Catholics working for (and being paid by) this organization deserve the same rights and priviledges given to others working at for-profit organizations. I don't think the court decision should be overturned...the law mandating coverage is a different question.

UL, While I don't see the forcing of anyone to adhere to (or conversely to break) religious beliefs, and thus don't have a problem with it, I could see how you do.

We can agree that the standard should be the same. Whether it is the government's place to decide this issue is another debate entirely. Lots of businesses and groups are founded on religious principles, but can't be looked upon as religious organizations. What I'm contending is that is this particular case, the distinction is blurred for the reasons I enumerated above. I'm not so sure it should qualify strictly as a religious organization, and that exceptions to the laws governing employee's insurance shouldn't be made here, or anywhere.

I don't see a question of faith here, just an entity that should have to give it's employees the same coverage that any other would.

Insurance coverage is not an inailiable right. Many don't have any insurance and have to pay for their own medical bills or rely on charity from the government or private organizations to pay for their treatment. Some even have to go without. Since government determines what the specifics are for working, that would give it control over any organization that hired people by your logic. Every church that has paid workers whether it be for cleaning, preaching, or playing the organ would fall under the control of the government. This would greatly limit the freedom of people to practice their religion.

If the Catholic church was not to pay for the woman's contraception, there are many ways she could still get the cotnraception. However if the Catholic Church is forced to pay for it, there is no way that the church can follow it's religious tenants. It is not a right to get a free ride. It is not a right to have others provide for your wants and needs. It is unjust for someone to take our possesions from us for the sake of imposing the religious beliefs of the many. And thinking that the woman has the "right" to free contraception is every much a religous belief as abstaining from sex outside marriage.

[Mavdog]

LRB, remember that these employees are helping pay for this insurance. The Church isn't "giving" them anything but compensation for the work done by the employee.

The Church employs these workers and offers them benefits. They are not volunteers, being catholic was not part of the criteria for getting the job, they are employees.

Among those benefits is health insurance. The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control. IF the employee wants it, it's available.

The ruling says as there is no religious criteria, the employees are not asked to be in the church, the employees are just that- employees- and the Church is subject to the State law.

This is about religious freedom of the employee to NOT be forced to adhere to the Church's doctrine. If the Church wishes to to employ only Catholics, they can. but they didn't, so they lost the case.

It doesn't matter that the Church is a not for profit, that it is doing what they feel their mission is, they are employers. It's about employee-employer, the employer just happens to be a church.

[Chiwas]

Twilight zone.

You're walking in a twilight zone. By definition, there is no definition there. Two opposite rules in the same place in the same moment.

But in a Sate of Law, the employees must be protected by the laboral laws.

"To Ceasar what is of Ceasar, to God what is of God".

[Chiwas]

I was reading last night a science book, in which in one of the chapters the author is analyzing the anachronism of Church related to the advance of the technology and the very society. I took a part of it, which he quoted from the German magazine Stern, that seemed very interesting:

The sexual appetite of the creatures of God disturbs the main representatives of the Church excessively. The catechism not only condemns the people who live in free love without conscience remorses, but that also recommends moderation to the marriages. The example that must be followed is the one of Tobias of the Old Testament, that before meeting in the bed with its wife, prayed to the creator.

Within the framework from this tradition, and in the "glory of the truth", it is gotten to affirm that the man is a impure being who has inherited his sinful nature from his first parents Adam and Eve, which let themselves seduce by the diabolic serpent and were punished with the expulsion of the Paradise. All sinners need the acquittal, on which the Church has the monopoly.

The last part, "All sinners need the acquittal, on which the Church has the monopoly", is the weakest link of my Church for me, and of any Church who could pretend to have the power of God in its hands.

[LRB]

For those of you interested in learning more about this case I would read the actual ruling from the court. Here's a link. Be warned it's very lengthy, 80 pages or so. I think the 1st 53 pages deal with the ruling and the majorities opinion. The next 23 contain the dissenting opinion. The rest just list the parties and other factual detail as such.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
LRB, remember that these employees are helping pay for this insurance. The Church isn't "giving" them anything but compensation for the work done by the employee.

The Church employs these workers and offers them benefits. They are not volunteers, being catholic was not part of the criteria for getting the job, they are employees.

Among those benefits is health insurance. The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control. IF the employee wants it, it's available.

The ruling says as there is no religious criteria, the employees are not asked to be in the church, the employees are just that- employees- and the Church is subject to the State law.

This is about religious freedom of the employee to NOT be forced to adhere to the Church's doctrine. If the Church wishes to to employ only Catholics, they can. but they didn't, so they lost the case.

It doesn't matter that the Church is a not for profit, that it is doing what they feel their mission is, they are employers. It's about employee-employer, the employer just happens to be a church.

Mavdog, the employees may pay for the insurance, but they are paying less because the insurance doesn't cover birth-control coverage. But whether they were paying for the insurance or not was not addressed in the court case.

The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control.

Actually this is not true. The law, which is called Women's Contraceptive Equality or WCEA, only requires nonreligious organizations to provide birth control and then only when the company provides prescription drug benefits as part of it's health plan. So for employess an working in a Catholic church building would be exempt from benefiting from WCEA. However a Catholic hospital founded and funded by a part of the Catholic church and being a nonprofit organization would need to provide contraceptive insurance if they provided prescription drug insurance. The stated intention of the law is address the percieved discrimination against women since they were shown by a state study to pay more for child birth and contraception on average than men. So the premise is following the 14th amendment in attempting to enforce equal rights. However the legislature allowed large exceptions of organizations which did not have to provide contraceptive insurance.

The 1st major task is discrepancy is whether the WCEA was in accordance to the 1st amendment in the extremely narrow definition that it gave to religion. This infact divided the Catholic church into separate parts, leaving some as religious and deeming others as secular. Another challange is to whether the benefit to society by forcing Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive insurance was sufficient to place the rights of the 14th amendment over the rights of the 1st amendment. In essence the government is forcing a religious based organization to go against it's concience because it conflicts with the expressed concience of the majority of citizens. The reason why we had the 1st amendment was to protect against invasions of the government in this manner. Certainly there are arguments about 14th amendment rights, but that does not justify completely throwing the 1st amendment out the window so to speak. It's quite clear that generally California is one of the more "liberal" states in the US just as Texas is one of the more "conservative". Californians tend to place equal rights for women over freedom of religion for all as a general rule. Certainly there are millions of exceptions, but we're talking about the majority of voters.

Now I know 1st hand that female contraceptive medication is very expensive from 1st hand knowledge of having to pay for it for my ex-wife for several years. And she was taking it for a medical condition and not for birth control, but our insurance still refused to pay for it despite the doctor's diagnois. However, this issue is not about taking it for medical reasons, but only for contraceptive ones. So we're talking about a economic disadvantage of fertile women who engage sexual intercouse with fertile men and who do not wish to become pregant. Now let's just consider women in this group who work for a nonprofit organization that is religiously based and falls outside the WCEA definition of a "religious organization". Now let's narrow it further by only including those organiztions which have prescription healthcare plans and currently don't provide contraceptive insurance. Not all Catholic Charities organizations refuse to provide contraceptive insurance, but some do. The difference is that they are controlled by the local hiearchy of the church and there are different interpretations on how they should handle this issue. Generally the courts have sided in the past with allowing the established church hierachy settle the matter in most religious conflicts. The courts have ruled that they are incompetent to decide matters of religious doctrine there being very few and rare exceptions. So we have a group of women and a religious group which both are relatively small compared to the entire population of California. It's discrimination of some women who chose to work for this religous group in certain capacities over some men who work for the same organization versus the right of the religous organization to follow it's concience. Or it would have been this if the WCEA didn't exempt religious organizations but narrowly define those organizations. This narrow definition alone poses the question whether some religions are being favored over others. In other words was the law a case of religious gerrymandering.

I don't see the relative rights of society in this case being near the level of importance of the right to follow their religious concience of the Catholic church. I would much rather have a governemnt that intrudes upon our lives as little as possible and still preserve our society. In this case, I believe it was wrong for the government to intervene.

[Mavdog]

LRB, re-read what you wrote;

Quote (from Mavdog post)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State law says all healthcare plans should include birth control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To which LRB responded:

Actually this is not true. The law, which is called Women's Contraceptive Equality or WCEA, only requires nonreligious organizations to provide birth control and then only when the company provides prescription drug benefits as part of it's health plan.

OK, there is a qualifier based on the religious org exemption.

So YES, the state law does make birth control mandatory if a) the group is non-religious and b) if prescription benefits are included. The first point is really what this case was all about, the question of if the Catholic Charities was a religious org or not. The second point is a duh...if the healthcare plan wasn't providing prescription benefits, it certainly wouldn't cover prescribed birth control.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz

Lots of businesses and groups are founded on religious principles, but can't be looked upon as religious organizations. What I'm contending is that is this particular case, the distinction is blurred for the reasons I enumerated above.

my contention is that the government is overregulating rights to medical coverage. When that happens, there will be a power struggle in any of the "blurry" areas, and there's no way that once an area is suitably "blurry" an encroaching government will relinquish power. The government will define what is "relgious" and "non-religious" in order to suit what is by definition a non-religious agenda. The government will then be making decisions that are otherwise considered religious choices. The true tragedy is that because the government has decided to regulate the matter of contraception, the business is no longer free to define itself as a religious organization (which is something they would clearly like to do). The consequence is that they cannot behave according to the religion that they choose. Our country is founded on free-will and self-determination and this is a clear limitation of both.



Originally posted by: Mavdog

Should the employer bar the employee from eating a burger because their beliefs conflict with such an act? Should the employer be able to tell its employee that they cannot use any of their wages to buy a burger because the employers beliefs arein conflict with that act?
No, the employer should not interfere with the employee in their personal decisions that have no bearing on their job performance.

Mavdog, you are making my point. Catholic Charities is not barring any employee from obtaining or using contraceptives. They are leaving that decision up to the employees. Catholic charities is paying wages to their employees with which the employees can purchase whatever they want, including burgers and contraceptives. In this way, the employer is not interfering with the employees personal decision.
You should still tell me whether or not you think the Hindu boss should be forced to pay for your hamburger.

As a matter of fact, to increase medical coverage would possibly result in a decrease in wages. This is forcing employees to allocate their own resources toward the purchase of contraceptives. To provide this coverage would definitely force others under the carrier to pay for some share of the purchase. Both of these are definite interference in employees decision making, and are a limitation on the employees religious decision of whether or not to pay for something they might consider a sin.

[Mavdog]

Lurkin wrote

my contention is that the government is overregulating rights to medical coverage. When that happens, there will be a power struggle in any of the "blurry" areas, and there's no way that once an area is suitably "blurry" an encroaching government will relinquish power. The government will define what is "relgious" and "non-religious" in order to suit what is by definition a non-religious agenda. The government will then be making decisions that are otherwise considered religious choices. The true tragedy is that because the government has decided to regulate the matter of contraception, the business is no longer free to define itself as a religious organization (which is something they would clearly like to do). The consequence is that they cannot behave according to the religion that they choose. Our country is founded on free-will and self-determination and this is a clear limitation of both.

The question of "overregulating" is in reality establishing equal access. Do you believe that the insurance industry can "police itself?
Wasn't the religious criteria included to protect the religious orgs? The issue here was that the Charities were determined to NOT be a religious org. The business CAN become a religious org by the way it hires/acts.

Mavdog, you are making my point. Catholic Charities is not barring any employee from obtaining or using contraceptives. They are leaving that decision up to the employees. Catholic charities is paying wages to their employees with which the employees can purchase whatever they want, including burgers and contraceptives. In this way, the employer is not interfering with the employees personal decision.
You should still tell me whether or not you think the Hindu boss should be forced to pay for your hamburger.

The hindu boss does pay for the hamburger because he pays wages to the employee.

By not allowing for the healthplan to pay for the prescribed birth control many employees would not be able to afford it. The denial of coverage effectively denies some employees, therefore "interfering". To these employees the Charities is denying them the use of birth control.

As a matter of fact, to increase medical coverage would possibly result in a decrease in wages. This is forcing employees to allocate their own resources toward the purchase of contraceptives. To provide this coverage would definitely force others under the carrier to pay for some share of the purchase. Both of these are definite interference in employees decision making, and are a limitation on the employees religious decision of whether or not to pay for something they might consider a sin.

Actually the insurers found that providing coverage for birth control actually saves them money, helping keep premiums lower for all the insured. Birth control is a lot cheaper than mothers having babies...

[LRB]

UL there are 2 major points of contention. 1) is the costitutionality of the WCEA law itself. 2) is the contitutioanlity of the way the California Surpreme court interpreted that law.

I would agree that WCEA was IMO an unecessary intrusion into private life. It's interesting some of the points that Catholic Charities makes towards this. Some Catholic charity groups do pay for birth control insurance while others don't. The difference being which ecclesiastical hierchy the Catholic Charities operates under. Some of the leaders interpret the Catholic doctrine different ways. However, those who do provid birth control generally felt they should be exempt from the law from what I've read. Yet they still provided birth control. Why? They felt they needed to do this to compete in the market place in hiring quality employees. There are controls that can be placed on business' without government prevention, and in most cases, including this one, I think the government would be best to mind it's own business. Let's face it the things that government needs to do, it could do much better. Instead of creating expensive programs that bring little real benefit to society as a whole, it should concentrate on doing well the things that we absolutely need government to do.

[LRB]

The issue here was that the Charities were determined to NOT be a religious org. The business CAN become a religious org by the way it hires/acts.

Actually this is not the case. The Charities were consistent with their actions before and after WCEA was implemented. The WCEA law drew a extremely narrow definition of religion. That definition is questioned by many, including myself, as being unconstitutional because of it's narrowness. As the dissenting opion spoke of that in past history courts have used the principle of individually looking at organizations to determine if they were religious or not. Cetainly the government has to have the power to determine what is and is not a religious organization or every orgainization would claim to be religious to claim the benefits. This would be an abuse of that right. However it is equally abusive if not more so for government to too narrowly construe a definition of what is a religion.

The government in this case essentially sent the message to Catholic Charities that they had to either change their behavior or be regarded as a nonreligious organization with respects to the provisions set forth in WCEA. Use of this power sets forth a legal precedent to discriminate against religion far worse than any percieved discrimination against women in not providing birth control coverage in a limited number of cases. The women at least have the freedom of market forces to help provide a sense of equality. ie if they want the benefit then they can go to work for an employer which provides it. Religion is robbed of it's ability to follow it's conscience unless it leaves the governments area of legal influence. This doesn't appear to be a very balance solution to the conflict of 2 sets of rights.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The question of "overregulating" is in reality establishing equal access. Do you believe that the insurance industry can "police itself?
Wasn't the religious criteria included to protect the religious orgs? The issue here was that the Charities were determined to NOT be a religious org. The business CAN become a religious org by the way it hires/acts.

As LRB is arguing, I believe the market can police the industry. If the gov. needs to enforce minimal requirements, then I might be open to that. If the government defines an organization in such a way as to prohibit the religious practices of the organization, then it does not matter what the original intent of the religious criteria were.
The issue here is that the government is forcing a business to answer in a certain way a question that has been treated as a religious question. This is not a separation of church and state. This is a removal of religion from business. There is no separation of church and business clause.

The hindu boss does pay for the hamburger because he pays wages to the employee.

Then Catholic Charities already pays for contraception because it pays wages to the employees.
By defending this metaphor, you are arguing against your own position.

You are ignoring the distinction between denying coverage and not providing coverage. The employer is not barring employees from seeking insurance coverage elsewhere. And because the employee is free to work where he or she wants, no one is forcing religion upon him or her.

[Mavdog]

As LRB is arguing, I believe the market can police the industry. If the gov. needs to enforce minimal requirements, then I might be open to that. If the government defines an organization in such a way as to prohibit the religious practices of the organization, then it does not matter what the original intent of the religious criteria were.
The issue here is that the government is forcing a business to answer in a certain way a question that has been treated as a religious question. This is not a separation of church and state. This is a removal of religion from business. There is no separation of church and business clause.

The insurance industry doesn't have a great record of self-policing, as there have been instances where they discriminated aginst ethnic groups by charging then higher premiums, or by not writing the policies at all, and treated women different than men.

The Cal. law (as I understand) madated that all healthcare plans w/prescription benefits must provide birth control coverage UNLESS that group were religious. This protected the true religious orgs from being forced to provide something that they objected to. The issue to the court was IF catholic charities qualified as a religious org...and the court determined that they were not, therefore subject to the law.


Mavdog wrote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hindu boss does pay for the hamburger because he pays wages to the employee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lurkin responded

Then Catholic Charities already pays for contraception because it pays wages to the employees.
By defending this metaphor, you are arguing against your own position.

I'm not seeing that i argue against my position in the least. The Hindu indirectly pays for his employee to eat the cow meat, the only way to prohibit that would be to either a) not pay wages or b) hire only similar thinking employees.

To avoid paying for the birth control the Charities shouldn't either a) pay any wages or b) not hire anyone who believes in contraception.
By not doing these they are facilitating the employees access to birth control. My position is that they should focus on actions that validate themselves as a religious org (actions spelled out in the Law I believe) or they act like every other employer.

You are ignoring the distinction between denying coverage and not providing coverage. The employer is not barring employees from seeking insurance coverage elsewhere. And because the employee is free to work where he or she wants, no one is forcing religion upon him or her.

It seems that when these employees were hired they weren't told that they couldn't get birth control covergage. The Charities did not make adherence to the Church doctrine a part of the job either. The law is there, the charities were able to follow the outline for qualifying as a religious org and being exempt from the mandate to provide birth control coverage. They didn't....it really is that simple.

[LRB]

You are ignoring the distinction between denying coverage and not providing coverage. The employer is not barring employees from seeking insurance coverage elsewhere. And because the employee is free to work where he or she wants, no one is forcing religion upon him or her.

As in my employer doesn't deny me the right to buy a new top of the line Mercedes Benz. However, at my current salary, that would be very difficult for me to afford and still meet the bills for rent, food, utilities and such. But I'm always free to get a higher paying job.

Also there are some medical treatments that would improve my health, but which I can't afford even though insurance covers a good bit. My employer is not preventing me from recieving those medical treatments. Again I can get a higher paying job, save my money, or find some other source to provide the funds.

The rational for forcing employers to pay for birth control is very convoluted and IMO basically flawed. It also is based on a sense of entitlement that is pervasive in our society today. The sad and hard fact about life is that it is not fair and no amount of legislation can make it fair. Certainly we can remove gross inequities that would be impossible for individuals to get around or at the very least extremely hard. However, when we get to the point of trying to legislate convience, I feel that we are going to far. Not everyone has availability to medicine and medical procedure needed to sustain life. In comparison to this, the ability to purchase a chose and luxurious form of birth control, is hardly warranted IMO. Maybe next employers should be expected to buy makeup insurance for women employees who desire the more expensive brands of makeup since men don't have to deal with this expense as much as women. Or how about having hair replacement insurance for men, since women don't have to deal with the expense of this problem as much as men. Of course I'm being facetious, but we can always find some minority group which has a lower level of something than the majority. If we determine this to always be discrimination and require the government to fix it through legislation then we will never succeed. Different doesn't necessarily mean unequal.

[LRB]

It seems that when these employees were hired they weren't told that they couldn't get birth control covergage.

Mavdog, this is not required under the law unless the employee was hired after WCEA went into force. Otherwise, employees only had to be informed prior to the renewal of the companies insurance contract with the insurer. However, neither side addressed this issue. So it appears that Catholic Charities complied with this provision of the WCEA law.

The insurance industry doesn't have a great record of self-policing, as there have been instances where they discriminated aginst ethnic groups by charging then higher premiums, or by not writing the policies at all, and treated women different than men.

Mavdog, with this law the state of California is not regulation insurance companies directly. They are instead regulating employers. A big difference as pertains to the argument hear at hand. If we let market forces decide the issue, then it be employers putting the pressure on the insurance companies to provide this insurance. If we continue with WCEA, it will still be employers putting the pressure on the insurance companies to provide this insurance. So in neither case are insurance companies deciding whether to offer this insurance or not. It is their customer the employer which is putting the pressure on the insurance companies in both cases.

All states have the authority to regulate insurance companies, and California is no exception. But this law deals with regulating employers not insurance companies. California could have made the law where insurance companies could not sell prescription insurance in the state of California without providing coverage for birth control. They chose not to do it that way. They instead of restricting the selling, chose to restrict the buying. The employers bear the responsibility of providing both coverages. The employer could well buy prescription insurance from one insurance company minus birth control, and then buy birth control only insurance from another insurance company.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: LRB
Different doesn't necessarily mean unequal.

In this case it is. Women do not get paid as much as men for the same job. Women are the ones who have to buy birth control (in general). You have put an unfair burden on one segment of the workforce and the government is attempting to even it out.

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The law is there, the charities were able to follow the outline for qualifying as a religious org and being exempt from the mandate to provide birth control coverage. They didn't....it really is that simple.

A perfect summation of the case as it has been presented so far.

If the organization wants the protection of being a religious organization then they should do whatever it takes to make the criteria. If they can't or won't then they are not a religious organization and should not get any protection from laws that the church feels violates their doctrine. As Mavdog says, pretty simple.

[Mavdog]

stumbled across this new release, thought it would be of interest. Ironically WCEA also is the Western Catholic Educational Assoc...

Attorney General Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Providing Equality for Women in the Workplace
State High Court Says Employers Who Provide Prescription Health Insurance Plans Must Cover Prescriptions for Contraceptives

March 1, 2004

04-028
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(916) 324-5500

(SAN FRANCISCO) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today praised a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a 1999 law requiring non-religious employers who provide prescription drug benefits to their employees also include insurance coverage for contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

"This is a huge victory for working women in California," Lockyer said. "California courts have consistently ruled that non-religious employers cannot use religion to discriminate against women in the workplace. Today's ruling upholds the principle that all people, including women, must be treated as equals."

The California Legislature in 1999 enacted the California Women's Contraception Equity Act (WCEA) requiring employers to include contraceptives if they provide prescription health insurance plans. The law exempts religious organizations if they meet four critieria:


Inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
The entity primarily employs individuals who share its religious tenets.
The entity serves primarily individuals who share its religious tenets.
The entity is deemed a religious non-profit organization under the Internal Revenue Code.
The WCEA was challenged in July 2000 by Catholic Charities of Sacramento. Although Catholic Charities claims it is part of the Catholic Church, and it is affiliated with Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, Inc., the Attorney General argued in briefs filed with the Supreme Court that it is a separately incorporated and administered organization and is not deemed a religious non-profit organization under the federal tax code. The Attorney General argued Catholic Charities is not exempt from the WCEA because it is a nonprofit public benefit corporation that receives substantial public funding and enters contracts with public agencies, it was not formed to inculcate religious values and it does not primarily employ or provide services to individuals who share the tenets of the Catholic Church.

In Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, S099822, the Supreme Court today ruled that Catholic Charities does not qualify as a religious employer because it fails to meet any of the four criteria. The ruling affirms similar decisions by the trial and appellate courts.

"This landmark law provides exemptions for true religious organizations," Lockyer said. "The law provides equality for women who have paid an average of 68 percent more in out-of-pocket medical expenses than men, primarily because they pay $400-$500 annually for contraceptives. It is plainly discriminatory for health and disability insurance plans to not cover contraceptives that were approved by the FDA almost 40 years ago, yet offer coverage for Viagra as soon as that drug was approved by the FDA."

The court noted that evidence presented shows 75 percent of Catholic Charities' employees do not share their employer's religious views. Had Catholic Charities succeeded in creating a broad exemption, it would have been able to apply the tenets of the Roman Catholic church on the majority of its female employees who do not share that belief.

"By preventing secular employers from imposing a system of discriminatory health benefits upon their employees, while exempting religious employers whose beliefs are shared by their employees, the law accommodates religious freedom, while advancing compelling societal interests in equality, public health and safety and reproductive autonomy," Lockyer said.

CA Atty General news release

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Max Power

In this case it is. Women do not get paid as much as men for the same job. Women are the ones who have to buy birth control (in general). You have put an unfair burden on one segment of the workforce and the government is attempting to even it out.

MP although a case could be made that women on average get paid less than men for comparable jobs, that is not what this case was about. Nor does this law attempt to address this inequity for all women, just for some women. But even the attempt may not be correct. Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not see this as an area that government needs to or should intervene. Nor do I see a clearcut case to prove unjust discrimination against women with not all employers not providing Birth Control insurance. And it certainly isn't the employers fault that women have to buy birth control more than men. Maybe California should pass a law making it illegal for a fertile man and a fertile woman to have sex without each paying 50% of the cost of any birth control used. Or how about making more strick laws and punishments against dead beat parents (mostly dads) who don't pay child support. In esscense this law makes those people who have no need of birth control perscriptions have to share the cost of those perscriptions. This would mean that the woman who is unable to have children has to help pay for the birth control perscriptions for those women who can. Birth control should be paid by the parties involved in the sexual act that necessitates it. By that I mean the man and the woman. They are the ones benefiting for this activity. Why should everyone else have to pay for it? I see this as descriminating against all people who are not involved in sexual activites where birth control medication is or would be used. But that discrimination is ok because it's polictically correct. Just as discrimination against the Catholic church is OK because it's politically correct.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Mavdog
The law is there, the charities were able to follow the outline for qualifying as a religious org and being exempt from the mandate to provide birth control coverage. They didn't....it really is that simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A perfect summation of the case as it has been presented so far.

If the organization wants the protection of being a religious organization then they should do whatever it takes to make the criteria. If they can't or won't then they are not a religious organization and should not get any protection from laws that the church feels violates their doctrine. As Mavdog says, pretty simple.

And the same "simple" logic would mean if the government said that all religions had to have all their members wear jewelry that are crosses that any religion which doesn't conform doesn't deserve their rights under the 1st admendment. Catholic charities existed long before the WCEA law. The law was created to specifically exclude Catholic charities and other organizations with religious affiliation as being legal religious organizations in the state of California. This conduct was expressly the reason that separation of church and state and freedom of religion was granted to us as citizens. In the name of advocating women's rights, the rights of freedom or religion has been trampled. You may see this as simple, but it is a very different way than I see it.

[LRB]

"This landmark law provides exemptions for true religious organizations," Lockyer said. "The law provides equality for women who have paid an average of 68 percent more in out-of-pocket medical expenses than men, primarily because they pay $400-$500 annually for contraceptives. It is plainly discriminatory for health and disability insurance plans to not cover contraceptives that were approved by the FDA almost 40 years ago, yet offer coverage for Viagra as soon as that drug was approved by the FDA."

Now we have a price that we can place on freedom of religion. And yet no solution has been found for the supposed inequality. Add best the inequity has slightly shifted to take advantage of new victims proving yet again that the government is highly unqualified to solve any issue as complex as the one they attempted to resolve.