Check out this article by Verily, Love and Living Green. We are becoming increasingly obsessed with organic, hormone free foods and products across the grocery stores - except when it comes to birth control.
You can make the comparison between birth control and other medication, saying that it's no more unnatural for us to use hormonal contraception to 'treat' various symptoms than it is for us to take a prescription antibiotic for an infection. I don't buy that at all. Please, try to convince me that fertility is a disease that needs to be cured.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
And So It Begins..
Oh, CNN. Why do you toy with me?
I am so glad I got this screenshot before they corrected it.
Here is the full text of the Supreme Court Decision on the ACA.
The page numbers below refer to the second document in the PDF (the first is only a few pages): the Opinion of the Court.
Perhaps this is why CNN got it wrong this morning. On p 27, "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”
woohoo! It is unsustainable! Oh, wait. It's just unsustainable under the Commerce Clause. But it's alright if we call it a tax.
I get that the ACA Individual Mandate can be interpreted as a tax. The Justices are supposed to interpret the law in a way that would keep it constitutional, if they can. That they did. Still, it's interesting that they have deemed it a tax.
It's a tax. Did you hear that? It IS a tax. So that's why this is so funny.
From the text again, end of page 31, "And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that
does not do so."
First meaning:
"The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance"
And at the top of 32: "Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause,
and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one."
That's the second interpretation.
Ok, makes sense.
"The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932)."
Oh. So the straightforward meaning of a law doesn't have to be the only interpretation, but 'fairly possible' interpretations are valid?
"As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). " p 32
I didn't know that - every possibility must be entertained before determining unconstitutionality. I suppose it's like deciding a 'guilty' verdict - innocent with reasonable doubt, and guilty only when no doubt remains. If there is a feasible alternative to a guilty verdict, the defendant (in this case the ACA Individual Mandate), must go free.
But then it doesn't matter what Congress' argument was in the first place? It doesn't matter that they argued that this was NOT a tax? Apparently not.
Bottom of 33:
"It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power."
I am so glad I got this screenshot before they corrected it.
Here is the full text of the Supreme Court Decision on the ACA.
The page numbers below refer to the second document in the PDF (the first is only a few pages): the Opinion of the Court.
Perhaps this is why CNN got it wrong this morning. On p 27, "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”
woohoo! It is unsustainable! Oh, wait. It's just unsustainable under the Commerce Clause. But it's alright if we call it a tax.
I get that the ACA Individual Mandate can be interpreted as a tax. The Justices are supposed to interpret the law in a way that would keep it constitutional, if they can. That they did. Still, it's interesting that they have deemed it a tax.
It's a tax. Did you hear that? It IS a tax. So that's why this is so funny.
From the text again, end of page 31, "And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that
does not do so."
First meaning:
"The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance"
And at the top of 32: "Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause,
and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one."
That's the second interpretation.
Ok, makes sense.
"The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932)."
Oh. So the straightforward meaning of a law doesn't have to be the only interpretation, but 'fairly possible' interpretations are valid?
"As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). " p 32
I didn't know that - every possibility must be entertained before determining unconstitutionality. I suppose it's like deciding a 'guilty' verdict - innocent with reasonable doubt, and guilty only when no doubt remains. If there is a feasible alternative to a guilty verdict, the defendant (in this case the ACA Individual Mandate), must go free.
But then it doesn't matter what Congress' argument was in the first place? It doesn't matter that they argued that this was NOT a tax? Apparently not.
Bottom of 33:
"It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power."
They cite several precedents to support this. Congress was wrong to deny that the penalties for non-compliance were a tax, but they are nonetheless, and it is within Congress' power to tax.
Here they are:
States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294 (1935): “Disregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.”
United ; cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 310 (1992) : “[M]agic words or labels” should not “disable an otherwise constitutional levy” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941): “In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it” (internal quotation marks omitted)
United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978): “That the funds due are referred to as a ‘penalty’ . . . does not alter their essential character as taxes”
That's how I read the ruling, anyway.
I have no doubt that a conservative majority could have found and worded a full justification for striking down the Individual mandate. After all, four of the nine Justices did not find the majority's argument sufficient. As it is now, I have only just realized the grave significance of the appointments of the most recent justices, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan by President Obama.
I don't know much at all about the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have been the deciding vote in this case, and he was appointed by George W. Bush.
I won't say this decision was wrong since I have no experience, no authority, and no comprehensive argument to support that. Right now my biggest disappointment is due to the fact that this is not over, and they fight for religious freedom must go forward. I was honestly hoping the ACA would be struck down just so all of the HHS lawsuits would be unnecessary.
Check out this graphic
I can't deny that the ACA has been helpful, but I am so worried about the costs, to both our finances and our liberty.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Common Arguments, Part 1
I would like to go into detail about some common arguments supporting the HHS contraception mandate and condemning opposition to the mandate:
1. Separation of Church and State
I found it interesting that "separation of church and state" is not a phrase found anywhere in the Constitution or it's amendments, the Bill of Rights. Rather, the first amendment reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In context, we see that Congress cannot make laws restricting this group of rights. The question is, which right is violated? Would a religious exemption to the HHS mandate be a law 'respecting an establishment of religion,' or does a law requiring an employer to provide a service against their conscience and religious beliefs "a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Well, what does it mean for a law to respect an establishment of religion? As I understand it, this law would have to apply to one establishment, one religion, one denomination. The Catholic Church has made the loudest objections to the mandate, but they are not alone.
In fact, USA today has an article outlining Protestant leaders' petition for a broader exemption to the birth control mandate. Signers of the petition include Evangelicals, Baptists, and other Christians.
Clearly, allowing for a broader exemption (that would exempt anyone who objected to the mandate on religious grounds) is something that would benefit many different religions. But are Christians the only ones objecting? If so, couldn't it be argued that a broader exemption would be a law respecting Christianity, as a religion, and no one else?
Let's see.. (Google searching..)
Ah yes. The Jewish Daily Forward has a call-to-arms to its readers to defend this injustice. This narrow exemption (that only includes churches, really) is a re-definition of a religious institution written by a department whose chairperson was appointed by our president. Catholicism, like Judaism, focuses on inward and outward service. This was mentioned in both the Protestant petition and the Jewish Daily Forward articles. Because of their outward service to the poor, hungry, young, old, students, homeless, sick, dying, or despairing people, they are labeled 'non-religious' by the current exemption.
I would like to make a quick point on 'religious exemptions' : There has always been a "conscience clause" for situations such as these. However, the department of Health and Human Services wrote an overriding, new exemption that only includes institutions that employ and serve people primarily of their own faith, "have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," and is non-profit under the IRC. This can be found on the HHS website - let me know if you want a search.
This is why schools, hospitals, and charities are not included. Even if they are non-profit, they still cannot satisfy the three other requirements: they employ teachers, doctors, social workers based on merit and character and not on religion; they enroll students, treat sick, and help poor people regardless of religion; and they, by mere definition, cannot declare their purpose to be the inculcation of religious values. They are schools, hospitals, and charities.
But wait! These are all religious groups. Changing the mandate would still be respecting a religion, right? No non-religious object to this ruling, right? Wrong. No one should be forced to pay for and provide a service that they morally oppose.
(Edit: I can't find a strictly atheist group against the mandate. I did find 'atheists against abortion,' and 'secular pro-life.' I also found an article on the first secular business to file a lawsuit against the department of Health and Human Services.)
I seem to have digressed from the question at hand. Would a broader exemption be a violation of separation of church and state? How could it be, when it has been in place for decades? The first conscience clause was established the same year that Roe v. Wade was settled.
One more question: why do we keep saying 'separation of church and state" when it isn't even in the Constitution? Good ol' Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, in 1802. Was he writing them to tell them 'sorry, but we can't write any laws protecting your special rights' ? No - exactly the opposite. The Danbury Baptists were afraid that they're religious practices might be regulated or controlled by the state. To quote,
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
1. Separation of Church and State
I found it interesting that "separation of church and state" is not a phrase found anywhere in the Constitution or it's amendments, the Bill of Rights. Rather, the first amendment reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In context, we see that Congress cannot make laws restricting this group of rights. The question is, which right is violated? Would a religious exemption to the HHS mandate be a law 'respecting an establishment of religion,' or does a law requiring an employer to provide a service against their conscience and religious beliefs "a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Well, what does it mean for a law to respect an establishment of religion? As I understand it, this law would have to apply to one establishment, one religion, one denomination. The Catholic Church has made the loudest objections to the mandate, but they are not alone.
In fact, USA today has an article outlining Protestant leaders' petition for a broader exemption to the birth control mandate. Signers of the petition include Evangelicals, Baptists, and other Christians.
Clearly, allowing for a broader exemption (that would exempt anyone who objected to the mandate on religious grounds) is something that would benefit many different religions. But are Christians the only ones objecting? If so, couldn't it be argued that a broader exemption would be a law respecting Christianity, as a religion, and no one else?
Let's see.. (Google searching..)
Ah yes. The Jewish Daily Forward has a call-to-arms to its readers to defend this injustice. This narrow exemption (that only includes churches, really) is a re-definition of a religious institution written by a department whose chairperson was appointed by our president. Catholicism, like Judaism, focuses on inward and outward service. This was mentioned in both the Protestant petition and the Jewish Daily Forward articles. Because of their outward service to the poor, hungry, young, old, students, homeless, sick, dying, or despairing people, they are labeled 'non-religious' by the current exemption.
I would like to make a quick point on 'religious exemptions' : There has always been a "conscience clause" for situations such as these. However, the department of Health and Human Services wrote an overriding, new exemption that only includes institutions that employ and serve people primarily of their own faith, "have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," and is non-profit under the IRC. This can be found on the HHS website - let me know if you want a search.
This is why schools, hospitals, and charities are not included. Even if they are non-profit, they still cannot satisfy the three other requirements: they employ teachers, doctors, social workers based on merit and character and not on religion; they enroll students, treat sick, and help poor people regardless of religion; and they, by mere definition, cannot declare their purpose to be the inculcation of religious values. They are schools, hospitals, and charities.
But wait! These are all religious groups. Changing the mandate would still be respecting a religion, right? No non-religious object to this ruling, right? Wrong. No one should be forced to pay for and provide a service that they morally oppose.
(Edit: I can't find a strictly atheist group against the mandate. I did find 'atheists against abortion,' and 'secular pro-life.' I also found an article on the first secular business to file a lawsuit against the department of Health and Human Services.)
I seem to have digressed from the question at hand. Would a broader exemption be a violation of separation of church and state? How could it be, when it has been in place for decades? The first conscience clause was established the same year that Roe v. Wade was settled.
One more question: why do we keep saying 'separation of church and state" when it isn't even in the Constitution? Good ol' Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, in 1802. Was he writing them to tell them 'sorry, but we can't write any laws protecting your special rights' ? No - exactly the opposite. The Danbury Baptists were afraid that they're religious practices might be regulated or controlled by the state. To quote,
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Sure it's open to interpretation, but within the context of the Baptists' concerns, I think it's clear that Jefferson would not be happy with the current state of affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)