Obama Admin. "downright obsessed" with trying to make Catholic universities cover contraception

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Internal Government Emails Reveal Intentions for Contraceptive Mandate

by CARRIE SEVERINO January 8, 2016 2:02 PM

Next Monday I will file an amicus brief in Zubik v. Burwell, the contraceptive mandate case that Ed Whelan has so thoroughly discussed in this space this week. My brief will criticize the Administration for adopting an irrelevant tax provision that exempts some entities from filing tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 6033) as the mechanism for determining which religious groups are exempt from the contraceptive mandate and which must beg the Department of Health and Human Services for an “accommodation.”

Structuring the exemption this way was always puzzling, and now we know why. As the brief will explain, internal government emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate precisely what the government was thinking. Spoiler alert: It wasn’t because they wanted to accommodate religious interests.

Administration health policy officials were downright obsessed with figuring out which Catholic institutions would fit within the section 6033-based exemption. As early as October 2011, the White House was trying to figure out how to structure the exemption so that Catholic universities would be forced to provide student contraceptives in student health plans. In July 2012, emails show officials trying to make sure that the contraceptive mandate would treat the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops – the spiritual leaders of Roman Catholic entities in the United States – differently from the colleges, charities, and other groups that they lead. The documents were originally discovered during congressional inquiries into the sharing of tax information between the IRS and the White House.

As I argue in the forthcoming amicus brief, section 6033 has exactly zero relevance to religious freedom interests. These documents are fatal to the Administration’s claim that structuring the contraceptive mandate this way was an effort to respect the religious groups’ religious objections. In fact, it was an arbitrary choice that failed to take into account the virtually identical religious freedom interests shared by groups granted and denied an exemption from the mandate.

For a preview of what’s being filed next week, you can find my cert-stage amicus brief here.

http://www.nationalr...ceptive-mandate

[AURaptor 1,137]

Fits right in w/ Hillary's comments about religion and tossing aside old traditions.

She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz3wofZL2ZJ

[homersapien 12,910]

Internal Government Emails Reveal Intentions for Contraceptive Mandate

by CARRIE SEVERINO January 8, 2016 2:02 PM

Next Monday I will file an amicus brief in Zubik v. Burwell, the contraceptive mandate case that Ed Whelan has so thoroughly discussed in this space this week. My brief will criticize the Administration for adopting an irrelevant tax provision that exempts some entities from filing tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 6033) as the mechanism for determining which religious groups are exempt from the contraceptive mandate and which must beg the Department of Health and Human Services for an “accommodation.”

Structuring the exemption this way was always puzzling, and now we know why. As the brief will explain, internal government emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate precisely what the government was thinking. Spoiler alert: It wasn’t because they wanted to accommodate religious interests.

Administration health policy officials were downright obsessed with figuring out which Catholic institutions would fit within the section 6033-based exemption. As early as October 2011, the White House was trying to figure out how to structure the exemption so that Catholic universities would be forced to provide student contraceptives in student health plans. In July 2012, emails show officials trying to make sure that the contraceptive mandate would treat the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops – the spiritual leaders of Roman Catholic entities in the United States – differently from the colleges, charities, and other groups that they lead. The documents were originally discovered during congressional inquiries into the sharing of tax information between the IRS and the White House.

As I argue in the forthcoming amicus brief, section 6033 has exactly zero relevance to religious freedom interests. These documents are fatal to the Administration’s claim that structuring the contraceptive mandate this way was an effort to respect the religious groups’ religious objections. In fact, it was an arbitrary choice that failed to take into account the virtually identical religious freedom interests shared by groups granted and denied an exemption from the mandate.

For a preview of what’s being filed next week, you can find my cert-stage amicus brief here.

http://www.nationalr...ceptive-mandate

I don't quite get the issue here. What did the author mean by "It wasn’t because they wanted to accommodate religious interests."?

Assuming that the ultimate cause of the administration is to ensure organizations - presumably receiving federal support - are offering the full range of available services. I am sure the women involved here would agree with that, as would I.

I also get the tension between some religious groups providing such aid and contraception deriving from beliefs, so it's not surprising to me that some sort of political compromise was devised.

So what's the specific beef here?

[homersapien 12,910]

Fits right in w/ Hillary's comments about religion and tossing aside old traditions.

She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz3wofZL2ZJ

Yeah, like treating women as second class citizens.

And aren't you regularly bringing up the unfair treatment of women by Islamists? :-\

[AURaptor 1,137]

Fits right in w/ Hillary's comments about religion and tossing aside old traditions.

She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz3wofZL2ZJ

Yeah, like treating women as second class citizens.

And aren't you regularly bringing up the unfair treatment of women by Islamists? :-\

Yes, I am , but you know what ? That seems to totally fly over Hillary's head, and yet some how it's the CHRISTIANS who, in her eyes, need to be brought up to speed on how things work in the 21st century.

[homersapien 12,910]

Fits right in w/ Hillary's comments about religion and tossing aside old traditions.

She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz3wofZL2ZJ

Yeah, like treating women as second class citizens.

And aren't you regularly bringing up the unfair treatment of women by Islamists? :-\

Yes, I am , but you know what ? That seems to totally fly over Hillary's head, and yet some how it's the CHRISTIANS who, in her eyes, need to be brought up to speed on how things work in the 21st century.

Well gee, she's running for president of the U.S., not the Islamic caliphate. :-\

[AURaptor 1,137]

So, only Christians need to toss away old customs ? Not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists ?

[TitanTiger 22,262]

I don't quite get the issue here. What did the author mean by "It wasn’t because they wanted to accommodate religious interests."?

It means that rather than approaching this in a genuine spirit of accommodation, they went into it purposely trying to craft it in a way as to force every religious institution they could get away with doing so into having to cover contraception.

Assuming that the ultimate cause of the administration is to ensure organizations - presumably receiving federal support - are offering the full range of available services. I am sure the women involved here would agree with that, as would I.

But it didn't just affect organizations receiving federal support. And even if it did, the federal government originally came to these organizations because they were doing a good job at providing needed charitable services to people and it was better to partner with existing groups than to reinvent the wheel. That should not give the government carte blanche to uproot and overturn the religious group's core tenets and policies.

I also get the tension between some religious groups providing such aid and contraception deriving from beliefs, so it's not surprising to me that some sort of political compromise was devised.

So what's the specific beef here?

It wasn't a compromise and from the reading of the emails, compromise was never the objective. It was to craft a wording of the law that would make the exceptions extremely narrow so as to force more religious non-profits into having to cover things that violate their beliefs. It was a disingenuous move spun as an accommodation.

[homersapien 12,910]

So, only Christians need to toss away old customs ? Not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists ?

Are you suggesting that's anywhere near my position?

If so, this is another one of your misinterpretation flights of fancy.

[homersapien 12,910]

I don't quite get the issue here. What did the author mean by "It wasn’t because they wanted to accommodate religious interests."?

It means that rather than approaching this in a genuine spirit of accommodation, they went into it purposely trying to craft it in a way as to force every religious institution they could get away with doing so into having to cover contraception.

Well, the aims of the administration are exactly that. I don't really get this "spirit of accommodation" issue. That seems rather subjective if not nebulous. But I can understand why your upset if you feel religious accommodation is more important.

[AURaptor 1,137]

So, only Christians need to toss away old customs ? Not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists ?

Are you suggesting that's anywhere near my position?

If so, this is another one of your misinterpretation flights of fancy.

Yes Homer. This is not a caliphate, is it? Not yet at least.

[homersapien 12,910]

Assuming that the ultimate cause of the administration is to ensure organizations - presumably receiving federal support - are offering the full range of available services. I am sure the women involved here would agree with that, as would I.

But it didn't just affect organizations receiving federal support. And even if it did, the federal government originally came to these organizations because they were doing a good job at providing needed charitable services to people and it was better to partner with existing groups than to reinvent the wheel. That should not give the government carte blanche to uproot and overturn the religious group's core tenets and policies.

If it didn't affect organizations receiving federal support, why would they pay any attention to it in the first place?

And if the the religious group feels the government is "uprooting and overturning their core tenets and policies", they they should opt out of federal support altogether.

[homersapien 12,910]

So, only Christians need to toss away old customs ? Not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists ?

Are you suggesting that's anywhere near my position?

If so, this is another one of your misinterpretation flights of fancy.

Yes Homer. This is not a caliphate, is it? Not yet at least.

Then you are lying. This is a prime example of the sort of routine lying you do on this forum every day.

You don't bother to ask if that's what I meant you simply double down on your distortion and insist that's what I meant. If that's not lying, it's certainly the intellectual equivalent.

You made a criticism of Hillary criticizing practices in the U.S. by implying she's overlooking worse practices elsewhere. My point is that she's not running for president in those countries, she's running here. It's perfectly legitimate for her to discuss our practices without having to juxtapose them against the practices of other countries. There'll be plenty of time for her to criticize these other countries later, especially if she's elected.

So your train of argument is logically false. And your characterization of my statements is both logically false and absurd.

[homersapien 12,910]

I also get the tension between some religious groups providing such aid and contraception deriving from beliefs, so it's not surprising to me that some sort of political compromise was devised.

So what's the specific beef here?

It wasn't a compromise and from the reading of the emails, compromise was never the objective. It was to craft a wording of the law that would make the exceptions extremely narrow so as to force more religious non-profits into having to cover things that violate their beliefs. It was a disingenuous move spun as an accommodation.

Well, if the problem here is that the administration presented this as a compromise when it's not, well, bad on them. But that's what politicians do. Again, I can see where that might upset you if you would prefer a more meaningful compromise. Personally, I don't see where religious groups are entitled to such a compromise. They are always free to operate independently.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Assuming that the ultimate cause of the administration is to ensure organizations - presumably receiving federal support - are offering the full range of available services. I am sure the women involved here would agree with that, as would I.

But it didn't just affect organizations receiving federal support. And even if it did, the federal government originally came to these organizations because they were doing a good job at providing needed charitable services to people and it was better to partner with existing groups than to reinvent the wheel. That should not give the government carte blanche to uproot and overturn the religious group's core tenets and policies.

If it didn't affect organizations receiving federal support, why would they pay any attention to it in the first place?

And if the the religious group feels the government is "uprooting and overturning their core tenets and policies", they they should opt out of federal support altogether.

You're misunderstanding. It was affecting Catholic non-profits that don't receive federal support. The exemption was written (purposefully) so narrow that unless you were basically a church, you had to cover it. They were treating them just like any old business entity.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I'm not lying. We don't have 1 religion. We have freedom , remember ? Hillary can't speak of doing away with some religious customs & not others. Or can we ? Wait until it becomes a problem, then limit their customs ?

So, we make Catholics fund abortions, but allow Muslims to mutilate young women's reproductive parts ?

[homersapien 12,910]

I'm not lying. We don't have 1 religion. We have freedom , remember ? Hillary can't speak of doing away with some religious customs & not others. Or can we ? Wait until it becomes a problem, then limit their customs ?

So, we make Catholics fund abortions, but allow Muslims to mutilate young women's reproductive parts ?

That's insane gibberish.

[homersapien 12,910]

Assuming that the ultimate cause of the administration is to ensure organizations - presumably receiving federal support - are offering the full range of available services. I am sure the women involved here would agree with that, as would I.

But it didn't just affect organizations receiving federal support. And even if it did, the federal government originally came to these organizations because they were doing a good job at providing needed charitable services to people and it was better to partner with existing groups than to reinvent the wheel. That should not give the government carte blanche to uproot and overturn the religious group's core tenets and policies.

If it didn't affect organizations receiving federal support, why would they pay any attention to it in the first place?

And if the the religious group feels the government is "uprooting and overturning their core tenets and policies", they they should opt out of federal support altogether.

You're misunderstanding. It was affecting Catholic non-profits that don't receive federal support. The exemption was written (purposefully) so narrow that unless you were basically a church, you had to cover it. They were treating them just like any old business entity.

How was it affecting them exactly?

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Assuming that the ultimate cause of the administration is to ensure organizations - presumably receiving federal support - are offering the full range of available services. I am sure the women involved here would agree with that, as would I.

But it didn't just affect organizations receiving federal support. And even if it did, the federal government originally came to these organizations because they were doing a good job at providing needed charitable services to people and it was better to partner with existing groups than to reinvent the wheel. That should not give the government carte blanche to uproot and overturn the religious group's core tenets and policies.

If it didn't affect organizations receiving federal support, why would they pay any attention to it in the first place?

And if the the religious group feels the government is "uprooting and overturning their core tenets and policies", they they should opt out of federal support altogether.

You're misunderstanding. It was affecting Catholic non-profits that don't receive federal support. The exemption was written (purposefully) so narrow that unless you were basically a church, you had to cover it. They were treating them just like any old business entity.

How was it affecting them exactly?

By purposely tailoring the exemptions so narrowly that they didn't qualify for them, forcing them into offering plans that covered contraception, Plan B and similar services that violate their religious beliefs.

[homersapien 12,910]

Assuming that the ultimate cause of the administration is to ensure organizations - presumably receiving federal support - are offering the full range of available services. I am sure the women involved here would agree with that, as would I.

But it didn't just affect organizations receiving federal support. And even if it did, the federal government originally came to these organizations because they were doing a good job at providing needed charitable services to people and it was better to partner with existing groups than to reinvent the wheel. That should not give the government carte blanche to uproot and overturn the religious group's core tenets and policies.

If it didn't affect organizations receiving federal support, why would they pay any attention to it in the first place?

And if the the religious group feels the government is "uprooting and overturning their core tenets and policies", they they should opt out of federal support altogether.

You're misunderstanding. It was affecting Catholic non-profits that don't receive federal support. The exemption was written (purposefully) so narrow that unless you were basically a church, you had to cover it. They were treating them just like any old business entity.

How was it affecting them exactly?

By purposely tailoring the exemptions so narrowly that they didn't qualify for them, forcing them into offering plans that covered contraception, Plan B and similar services that violate their religious beliefs.

So what was "forcing" them into offering these plans? Concerns for profit?

Seems to me, if they have a religious objection to offering a such a plan, then they wouldn't offer it period. It they were willing to be "forced" to offer them, their religious objection is suspect.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I'm not lying. We don't have 1 religion. We have freedom , remember ? Hillary can't speak of doing away with some religious customs & not others. Or can we ? Wait until it becomes a problem, then limit their customs ?

So, we make Catholics fund abortions, but allow Muslims to mutilate young women's reproductive parts ?

That's insane gibberish.

Over your head again, hmm ?

[TitanTiger 22,262]

So what was "forcing" them into offering these plans? Concerns for profit?

Seems to me, if they have a religious objection to offering a such a plan, then they wouldn't offer it period. It they were willing to be "forced" to offer them, their religious objection is suspect.

"Coerce" may be a preferable word for you if pedantics is your game.

They are being coerced into offering such plans or risk facing hefty fines. Most of these religious non-profits are not in a position to pay such fines. They operate on razor-thin margins as it is. So the end what they are really choosing between is complying with an evil order or closing down and no longer being able to fulfill their mission. Or, as a subset of crappy choices, they can pay the fines and not offer their employees any health coverage at all, or offer it with the coverage in it that violates their beliefs. This also goes against their beliefs because most of them feel that offering health coverage to their people is a moral issue as well. And because of the fines, they can't just bump up everyone's pay to allow them to go out and buy coverage themselves. So in every respect, this violation of their beliefs puts them in terrible positions.

It appears that the vast majority are fighting it so they don't have to make such choices, but if they are forced to choose, they will pay the fines which will hinder their mission or they'll shut down until they can figure out some other way to accomplish it that doesn't put them in the crosshairs of this law. And that's a shame. It doesn't have to be that way.

[homersapien 12,910]

So what was "forcing" them into offering these plans? Concerns for profit?

Seems to me, if they have a religious objection to offering a such a plan, then they wouldn't offer it period. It they were willing to be "forced" to offer them, their religious objection is suspect.

"Coerce" may be a preferable word for you if pedantics is your game.

They are being coerced into offering such plans or risk facing hefty fines. Most of these religious non-profits are not in a position to pay such fines. They operate on razor-thin margins as it is. So the end what they are really choosing between is complying with an evil order or closing down and no longer being able to fulfill their mission. Or, as a subset of crappy choices, they can pay the fines and not offer their employees any health coverage at all, or offer it with the coverage in it that violates their beliefs. This also goes against their beliefs because most of them feel that offering health coverage to their people is a moral issue as well. And because of the fines, they can't just bump up everyone's pay to allow them to go out and buy coverage themselves. So in every respect, this violation of their beliefs puts them in terrible positions.

It appears that the vast majority are fighting it so they don't have to make such choices, but if they are forced to choose, they will pay the fines which will hinder their mission or they'll shut down until they can figure out some other way to accomplish it that doesn't put them in the crosshairs of this law. And that's a shame. It doesn't have to be that way.

I am not being pendantic. Force is the same as coerce for the sake of this discussion.

My point is they do have the choice of not offering coverage at all. No one is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. If they have a religious objection to offering contraception then don't offer coverage at all. Their employees can find coverage elsewhere. No one should have to accept less than the minimum standard in their healthcare coverage due to the religious belief of their employers.

[homersapien 12,910]

I'm not lying. We don't have 1 religion. We have freedom , remember ? Hillary can't speak of doing away with some religious customs & not others. Or can we ? Wait until it becomes a problem, then limit their customs ?

So, we make Catholics fund abortions, but allow Muslims to mutilate young women's reproductive parts ?

That's insane gibberish.

Over your head again, hmm ?

Well, if you are referring to my ability to interpret insane gibberish, yes.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Yeah, why should they be able to offer coverage just as they've always done before because one or two people want things paid for by others?

Geez homer, it's incredible that you so calmly and obliviously will offer up this tripe as a excuse for this administration & its policies .