Skip to comments.A Two-Page Form Spawns a Contraceptive Showdown
Posted on 07/13/2014 1:17:44 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
A two-page federal form has provoked a titanic clash between the government and many religious organizations.
The form allows some religious organizations to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage, which many insurers and group health plans are required to provide under the Affordable Care Act and related rules.
The opt-out sounds like a way to accommodate religious beliefs. But many religious employers like Wheaton College and the Little Sisters of the Poor are unwilling to sign the form. By signing it, they say, they would authorize their insurers or plan administrators to pay for contraceptives, including some that they believe may cause abortion.
Fights over the form are playing out in dozens of courtrooms around the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
do we need a form to get a Constitutional right?
Thank you for referencing that article Citizen Zed. Given the remote possibility that you have not seen the following excerpts from Supreme Court opinions that clarify that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes, you may find them interesting.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added] Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. Justice Barbour, New York v. oo., 1837.
Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress. Linder v. United States, 1925.
And for those federal Democrats and RINOs who argue that if the Constitution doesnt say that they cant do something then they can do it, constitutionally indefensible
Obamacare Democratcare such an example, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Powers not expressly delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, are prohibited.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
This is all a setup as the election gets closer.
War on women part 2.
Actually 0 and the rats have declared a war on normal, on hard workers, on white people, and they get away with it because normal hard working white people gave been cowed into being afraid of being called names.
What a stupid Progressive douche ... they don’t have Prophet Mo’s people signing anything to opt out ... they got a bye for religious reasons ... think that would ring a bell with stupid?
Say some woman wants a gun to shoot her husband. The Constitution says she has a right to bear arms. So she goes to her employer and says, "Give me a gun to shoot my husband."
The employer says, "No, that goes against my conscience."
The woman says "You've got to. because I have a constitutional right. But I'll give you an accommodation. You can sign this 2-page "mostly boilerplate" form that requires somebody else to give me a gun."
"It's still against my conscience."
"How could it be? This makes no imposition on you! It costs you nothing! It's just signing a form!"
Oh, it's all too silly. The whole thing is such a crock.
Only a Muzzie like Obama could invent such an intellectually and morally dishonest idea.
Just as Muzzies “game” Islam in order to borrow or hire a prostitute, this scheme games one’s moral objections.
1. You have to buy insurance.
2. You can say that you are opting out of part of it.
3. If you do opt out, your insurer automatically adds it back, and you pretend that you aren’t paying for it.
In Islam, this sort of thing is the norm. Only people with real moral objections would still object.
I totally agree
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.