PPACA's Religious Impact

[whell]

It is a real issue, and should be separated from the drama of personalities and argued on its own merits. Therefore, just for fun, it now has its own thread.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The religious freedom issue is the red herring. The health care statute and regs do not place any requirements on churches. They place requirements on employers, including those operating health care and educational institutions. It becomes a establishment clause issue when a religious institution seeks special treatment in light of an otherwise universal application of a requirement for employers.

Regards,

D-Ray

D-ray, either you know that the post above is BS, or you're simply misinformed.

First, its not about the establishment clause. Its about the words that proceed it in the 1st Amendment, specifically "...the free exercise thereof." The Federal government can't establish a religion, but the Feds do have a constitutional duty not to restrict religious expression.

Second, there are precedents where educational institutions that "deliver a secular product" must still be treated as religious entities if their primary mission is non-secular.

Third, the language in PPACA did not establish an exemption for religious institutions, and was seen as one of the significant flaws in the PPACA when it was first enacted. Religious organizations had been working with the Feds (via the Dept of HHS) to reach an accommodation, but the HHS came up with the horse manure compromise, suggesting that somehow the organization paying the healthcare premiums were disconnected from the health care product that they would ultimately be forced to buy, or pay a significant tax...er...umm....penalty to avoid buying. The Obama administration defends this "compromise."

Fourth, religious organizations may ultimately need to litigate, possibly under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to receive injuctive relief from the requirements of the PPACA/HHS.

Predictably, there is also legislation being introduced during this Congress - that is not likely to see the light of day given the current occupants of the White House and majority in the Senate - that recognizes the over-reach of the PPACA and the HHS.

This is far from a red herring. It is a real issue with read consequences for people of faith...

...as opposed to the BS about the imaginary and fraudulent arguments of the left's latest poster child.

[barbara]

D ray was spot on. This is about employers, not religion.

[piece-itpete]

So in order to be 'free', a church cannot hire anyone?

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by barbara

D ray was spot on. This is about employers, not religion.

Right on. These institutions are perfectly free to practice their religion but they are not free to impose it on people of other faiths or of no faith at all. The Catholic Church has been itching to pick a fight with Obama from the very day he was elected.

[neophyte]

barbara, don't go dismissing the fantasies of the "people of faith". In the absence of fantasy, delusion, double talk and general mumbo jumbo, the ruse they so desperately cling to is laid bare. Misogyny is rooted in theism.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by neophyte

barbara, don't go dismissing the fantasies of the "people of faith". In the absence of fantasy, delusion, double talk and general mumbo jumbo, the ruse they so desperately cling to is laid bare. Misogyny is rooted in theism.

Well they did blame all the problems on poor Eve.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Right on. These institutions are perfectly free to practice their religion but they are not free to impose it on people of other faiths or of no faith at all. The Catholic Church has been itching to pick a fight with Obama from the very day he was elected.

No chuch is imposing their faith on anyone in this instance - that is a straw dog argument. It's really the other way around: the HHS is attempting to impose requirements on people of faith / institutions of faith that they find intollerable.

The admit ration granted waivers to PPACA for any number of reasons to many different organizations. It has the power to grant waivers to employers of faith - based organizations whose teachings and traditions are inconsistent with PPACA. The administration's refusal to engage in a reasonable compromise is also an issue.

[whell]

Originally Posted by neophyte

barbara, don't go dismissing the fantasies of the "people of faith". In the absence of fantasy, delusion, double talk and general mumbo jumbo, the ruse they so desperately cling to is laid bare. Misogyny is rooted in theism.

Wow. Hate runs deep on the left.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

D ray was spot on. This is about employers, not religion.

So, why wasn't it about "being an employer" for the various companies, unions, etc that were granted waivers to PPACA?

[Charles]

Although I consider PPACA to be a miserable excuse for legislation, I pretty much plead ignorance and apathy on this particular issue.