A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit
A federal appeals court said Tuesday it will hold the Obama administration to its promises to change Obamacare’s controversial contraceptives mandate for certain religiously affiliated employers such as colleges. I guess the judges are now part of the “war on women.”
If so, they are joined by the Obama administration itself — which, as the court noted in its Tuesday order:
represented to the court that it would never enforce [the rule] in its current form against the appellants [Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College] or those similarly situated as regards contraceptive services. … There will, the government said, be a different rule for entities like the appellants …
But promises aren’t enough. The court said it took the administration’s pledge during oral arguments to create a different rule for the colleges and similar organizations to be “a binding commitment,” and it ordered the administration to provides updates about progress made toward the creation of the new rule every 60 days.
This ruling does not necessarily mean the administration will rewrite the rule completely to the liking of the colleges or other entities that view the mandate to subsidize contraceptives for their employees, in violation of their consciences, as an infringement on their religious liberty. Nor does it mean the colleges would necessarily prevail in the courts if they were to continue their lawsuits after the new rule is introduced.
But Tuesday’s ruling is important because the Obama administration is now legally obligated to follow through with its promise to rewrite the rule to accommodate religious liberty.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
217 comments Add your comment
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
12:52 pm
If those colleges ONLY hired Catholics, then you and the universities would have a point.
Kyle Wingfield
December 19th, 2012
12:53 pm
President: I don’t know the specifics you’re asking about. But all your questions seem to betray an ignorance, or at least an ignoring, of the difference between actions that are voluntary and those that are coerced.
I dare say, for instance, virtually all the people who opposed Obamacare’s individual mandate already voluntarily purchased health insurance for themselves. That didn’t make them hypocrites any more than the colleges in your examples, if I infer your point correctly.
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
12:54 pm
Kyle
How about the Archdicese of NY, Marquette University and others that offered coverage before any state law mandated it?
Nope, you don’t see any discrepancies in that “payer conscience” diatribe…
Dusty
December 19th, 2012
12:55 pm
Aquagirl,12:23
I am not a registered observer of “fat butts” you described, but how do you tell the difference between Republican and Democratic “fat butts” among the vast unknown?
I asked because you seem to have such skill in these observations.
Whatever
December 19th, 2012
12:55 pm
It is possible for those employees who don’t want to work for religious institutions to find employment elsewhere. If you don’t like the employers coverage then go somewhere else.
“But I shouldn’t have to do that. They should be forced to violate their conscience for me.”
Kyle Wingfield
December 19th, 2012
12:55 pm
Peadawg @ 12:52: Why? Does their hiring of non-Catholics make the institutions themselves — founded, run and financially supported for the most part by Catholics — any less Catholic? Should they only teach or, in the case of hospitals, treat Catholics? Would you really prefer that to exempting them from one mandate related to health insurance?
Fwiw, I’m not Catholic. Nor is Wheaton College a Catholic institution.
Whatever
December 19th, 2012
12:56 pm
Peadawg,
If those employees don’t like the rules of the Catholic employer then they can go work somewhere else.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 19th, 2012
12:57 pm
Peadawg, you’re missing the point (as usual).
The churches don’t want to have to pay for something they do not agree with for the purposes for which they are used. You may not like it, but that’s THEIR belief.
If someone CHOOSES to work for them, they CHOOSE to abide by the strictures of that institution, or they can CHOOSE to not be hired by that institution.
But according to the Constitution, the religious institution gets to make their own rules, so long as it doesn’t affect someone’s life, liberty or property. Not paying fr contraceptives affects none of those things, as they are all available independent of the institution.
You’re efforts hold no logical nor legal water.
BenDaho
December 19th, 2012
12:57 pm
Or are you all counting on the administration to try to weasel out of it by coming up with a rule change that represents a distinction without a difference?
Of course they are going to weasel out of it. Politicians are weasels by nature. It’s like a chronic liar that lies for no reason other than the thrill of lying…
Beyond The Middle of the Road
December 19th, 2012
12:58 pm
I completely, utterly disagree with Religious Hospitals and Doctors not performing or covering via health insurance necessary or even recommended medical procedures and prescriptions. Yes, that includes both abortions and birth control. This doesn’t in any way impinge upon their constitutional rights. The situation is not unlike the one with the Mormon church when they felt the practice of polygamy was covered under the First Amendment. Per Wiki: In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,[5] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.”
Cherokee
December 19th, 2012
12:59 pm
Matz @ 12:07 makes an excellent poinit, Kyle.
Where do you draw the line? If a business owner is Seventh Day Adventist, and a vegan because of his beliefs, should he be able to refuse to purchase health care for his employees’ heart attacks, since a vegetarian diet is better for the heart?
How about a Jehovah’s Witness, who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions? Should he be able to restrict his employees’ insurance coverage to exclude blood transfusions?
No, this isn’t about religious freedom – it’s simply a way for cons to toss out barriers for people who need health insurance.
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
12:59 pm
“Nor is Wheaton College a Catholic institution.” – My bad, a Christian liberal arts college. My argument still stands nonetheless. Small technicality.
“Does their hiring of non-Catholics make the institutions themselves — founded, run and financially supported for the most part by Catholics — any less Catholic?” – No that’s not what I’m saying at all. They shouldn’t be exempt from providing contraception coverage for the non-Catholic/non-Christian employees though.
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
1:01 pm
“If those employees don’t like the rules of the Catholic employer then they can go work somewhere else.” – Yup b/c getting a job just like that is sooooo easy these days.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
1:01 pm
Why? Does their hiring of non-Catholics make the institutions themselves — founded, run and financially supported for the most part by Catholics — any less Catholic?
As a matter of fact it does. IMO
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
1:02 pm
Kyle
No you are being “ignorant” or “at least ignoring” the facts. You want to talk about “payer conscience” and “religious liberty”! Yet before any law mandate coverage the Catholic Church was already doing it in numerous places.
Had they only done it where mandated, which is not the case, your “religious liberty” stance might hold a little more water than a paper bag.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
1:02 pm
No, this isn’t about religious freedom – it’s simply a way for cons to toss out barriers for people who need health insurance.
Exactly. This is the sort of loophole they look for. Pretty soon every business in America will just ignore Obamacare because of Religious loopholes.
BenDaho
December 19th, 2012
1:03 pm
No, this isn’t about religious freedom – it’s simply a way for cons to toss out barriers for people who need health insurance.
Birth control is integral to health insurance? Has anyone ever whipped out their insurance card to buy a box of rubbers?
Whatever
December 19th, 2012
1:03 pm
Peadawg,
I don’t care if it’s easy or not. It’s also not easy to fund and run a hospital but they are doing it for their communities. How about you give them a little bit of a break as a show of thanks.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
1:03 pm
Same with Boehner.
He wants to close loopholes instead of raising marginal rates.
Why ? Because its easier to open them back up in a few years when nobody is looking.
Whatever
December 19th, 2012
1:04 pm
That whole Bill of Rights thing really sticks in the liberal craw doesn’t it? Religious freedom and gun freedom would be out the window if that document were written today.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
1:05 pm
Birth control is integral to health insurance?
To poor single mothers it is.
BTW if you want to cut down on abortions.
Pass out condoms.
Morality?
December 19th, 2012
1:05 pm
Never turn your back on a SOCIALIST.
BenDaho
December 19th, 2012
1:06 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
1:02 pm
No, this isn’t about religious freedom – it’s simply a way for cons to toss out barriers for people who need health insurance.
Exactly. This is the sort of loophole they look for. Pretty soon every business in America will just ignore Obamacare because of Religious loopholes.
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/16/hows-that-obamacare-waiver-workin-out-for-ya/
Might as well join the businesses and unions. Or would you like to deny them the opportunity to obtain a waiver based on your hatred of the concept of god and bigotry toward religious people and their rights?
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
1:07 pm
Kyle
And for the record, the Catholic Church or anyone else has the right to legally fight whatever they wish. However it is laughable the grounds they are fighting under and you portray in this article.
As always, thanks for the exchange.
Have a great day
Whatever
December 19th, 2012
1:07 pm
Cheesy,
How about people make wiser choices with their bodies instead of unprotected sex all the time?
Couldn’t do that because it puts responsibility of the individual. Sorry, I got it now.
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
1:09 pm
“BTW if you want to cut down on abortions.” – Stop having unprotected sex. Take responsibility for your actions. Etc. Etc.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
1:09 pm
That whole Bill of Rights thing really sticks in the liberal craw doesn’t it? Religious freedom and gun freedom would be out the window if that document were written today.
Total nonsense.
By the way its right to bear arms.
Not guns.
Big difference.
That was written when at most you could get off 2 shots a minute and the British might be back soon.
Not even relevant to today
And its freedom FROM religion. Not freedom to oppress me with your silly superstitions about men in robes in the clouds.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
1:10 pm
How about people make wiser choices with their bodies instead of unprotected sex all the time?
Couldn’t do that because it puts responsibility of the individual. Sorry, I got it now.
Yup you got it. Come off your high horse and realize that in the real world people have sex.
Sometimes they get pregnant.
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
1:11 pm
BenDaho
You are aware that the waivers are not never ending and when those orgs have to comply, they are not exempt from portions of the ACA as is being discussed here today right?
Aquagirl
December 19th, 2012
1:12 pm
But according to the Constitution, the religious institution gets to make their own rules, so long as it doesn’t affect someone’s life, liberty or property
Try opening KKK Kollege and deny African-Americans and Jews under your policy. Good luck with that, you probably won’t even make it to court to argue your case.
That’s the issue here…a group of people is included in a benefit or service, and one part of the group is being denied access on account of their gender. If you want to discriminate you’re free to do so in an actual church (like Catholics, who exclude women from certain roles) or in your own little bubble.
When you start running a business—especially one that accepts tax money—don’t start shrieking about the evil secular society forcing you do do X, Y, or Z. Wheaton College has no moral qualms about ACCEPTING money from secular godless sources. And now they want to SPEND it according to their personal beliefs. How convenient.
Wheaton and other institutions like them are nothing more than self-righteous hypocrites. Jesus had a bit to say about that, apparently they’re too busy reading court transcripts instead of their Bibles.
Speaker of the House Nasty Pelosi
December 19th, 2012
1:12 pm
I wonder if the press pays for it’s employees contraception? Kyle, does the AJC?
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
1:14 pm
“in the real world people have sex.
Sometimes they get pregnant.”
No s*t. But the point is to take responsibility. Don’t use abortion as birth control.
Matz
December 19th, 2012
1:15 pm
Mr. Wingfield: “This isn’t about any decisions made in the privacy of a doctor’s office. This is about the federal government telling a religious college or hospital that it has to pay for something in violation of the religious beliefs upon which it was built.”
Bullpatties. This is about legalizing gender-based discrimination in the workplace. A group health insurance policy that excludes a category of drugs used to treat illnesses specific to women — on some alleged “moral” basis — is setting a different standard of access to care for its male and female employees. These prescriptions prevent and treat conditions that are painful, incapacitating, and potentially fatal. Your argument that it’s not about what happens in the doctors office flies right out the window the minute you acknowledge that it might be okay if it’s “medically necessary.” If the doctor prescribes it and she uses it, then it IS necessary. The specific reason is not her employer’s business, and it’s not yours.
One cannot pretend to be for equal rights under the law and say it’s legal for employers to provide for medical coverage for male, but not female employees because they “believe” their hangups about the sexual behavior of others somehow their business.
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
1:16 pm
Aquagirl
December 19th, 2012
1:12 pm
In the words of Tundra…
B
O
O
M
!
Don't Tread
December 19th, 2012
1:21 pm
“Religious freedom and gun freedom would be out the window if that document were written today.”
Judging by the posts from the Left on this and other blogs, the Constitution wouldn’t even be written at all. The phrases “limited government power” and “individual freedom” send them into conniption fits.
Speaker of the House Nasty Pelosi
December 19th, 2012
1:26 pm
Looks like obozo put his top mental health expert on the job -
President Obama has tapped Vice President Joseph R. Biden to lead an administrationwide effort to curb gun violence in the aftermath of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., on Friday.
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
1:30 pm
Agreed.
We simply have to crack down on these sluts, prostitutes and FemiNazis, Kyle.
And for $49.99 (plus shipping and handling) Mr. Limbaugh will send you his videos of them in action!
It’s all good though. Seriously, it is.
The Misogynist Party has not won a majority of female voters in this country for seven straight elections. And it looks like they never will again. At least not until the worst of these old guard bigots all die off, anyway.
And to the extent that the electoral results for the tea soaked neocons are the same as they were in this most recent one, I am thrilled.
BTW, the disgusting Mssrs. Akin and Mourdoch say hello from the unemployment line! Hopefully the mooches in the 47% (LOL!) will find a job before their benefits run out!
Aquagirl
December 19th, 2012
1:30 pm
In the words of Tundra…
B
O
O
M
!
Only because I beat Matz to the same point by 3 minutes.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out “hey, if men and women are both included in an insurance policy, excluding certain things to women based on your fee-fees is complete and utter crap. Screw your fee-fees, you better come up with a logical reason.”
But please, run with that, Republicans and conservatives. You’ll get another n#tshot in the next election. And you’ll keep getting them until you understand being a white male no longer means unquestioned acceptance of your marching orders, just because you FEEL that way.
getalife
December 19th, 2012
1:32 pm
Attaboy Kyle,
Stay the course and keep moving backwards.
I am going to crawl out on a limb and predict the gop will lose the next election.
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
1:34 pm
You greedy Democrats should pony up and start a charity to provide free contraceptives to those who can’t afford them. Why wait for the government to do what you can do for yourself.
Oh forgot, that’s the Democrat raison d’être.
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
1:37 pm
Would someone tell the terminally ignorant Lil BB, the issue was whether the group insurance that women PAY FOR will cover contraceptives.
I guess when you are a Republican, being an inveterate liar is easier, though…
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
1:40 pm
If contraceptives aren’t covered by insurance, the insurance company isn’t building those costs into the price of the policy. Women aren’t paying for something they aren’t getting. What’s the issue here?
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
1:41 pm
What’s the issue here?
That you are an incessant liar.
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
1:43 pm
I guess I made too much sense for JamVet.
Kyle Wingfield
December 19th, 2012
1:43 pm
Aquagirl @ 1:12: If you want to compare the KKK to the Catholic Church and think you made a valid point about religious freedom, suit yourself.
Kyle Wingfield
December 19th, 2012
1:46 pm
getalife @ 1:32: Perhaps you missed the part where the administration of “our President Obama” pledged to do what the plaintiffs requested. Is Obama now “moving backwards,” too?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 19th, 2012
1:46 pm
“And its freedom FROM religion.”
You may not re-write the Constitution, Cheesy.
Just as there is no verbiage in the Constitution about the “separation of church and state”, there is none which states “freedom FROM religion”; merely that Congress shall not establish a national religion or create laws that restrict someone from practicing their beliefs.
Nice try, though.
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
1:48 pm
No, Barry your lies make NO sense.
In spite of your juvenile nonsense, Ms. Fluke et al only want these organizations to provide – via their PAID coverage – comparable services that men get.
You keep lying and saying they want their birth control for free.
Of course you should be ashamed for your endless lies, but you are not. You ar eproud of them.
And the misogynist Rush LOVES you!
And to my earlier point about there being electoral consequences, so do I…
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
1:51 pm
JamVet: You keep lying and saying they want their birth control for free.
———
Shouldn’t be a problem for you to show us where I did that.
Aquagirl
December 19th, 2012
1:55 pm
If contraceptives aren’t covered by insurance, the insurance company isn’t building those costs into the price of the policy.
Unless they exclude childbirth and other pregnancy-related costs, everyone is paying more. So you’re forcing women (along with men) to pay MORE and women personally get less coverage.
Go ahead Wheaton, exclude childbirth and coverage of children. Be honest. Why should ‘lil Barry Bailout pay for someone’s b@stard child?
And Lil’ Barry B, you really should avoid attempts at logic—-it’s not pretty, and the big hole in your foot runs up medical coverage costs for everyone.