Comments on: Misunderstanding Begets Misunderstanding

By: Provision, Payment, and Prevarication: A Response to Grant Gallicho » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:58:35 +0000

[...] a week ago in this space, I criticized Grant Gallicho for saying, at the dotCommonweal blog, that the Obama administration’s recent [...]

By: N.D.

N.D. — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:37:12 +0000

Thus, with all due respect, your entire argument, based upon a false premise, would be in error.

By: N.D.

N.D. — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:45:49 +0000

Grant Gallicho, it is important to note that the Government does not have the authority to demand that every Insurance Company must provide contraception because according to Hosanna-Tabor, the EEOC and Title VII does not apply unless there is unjust discrimination, thus that initial misunderstanding of the spirit of the Law, has led to the erroneous HHS contraception mandate.

By: N.D.

N.D. — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:56:10 +0000

Charles, on what basis can the Government impose a tax on those persons who do not want to purchase Insurance from an Insurance Company that provides contraception coverage because it violates their Religious or moral values?

By: N.D.

N.D. — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:48:05 +0000

David, you are correct, I meant to say Health Insurance.

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:52:35 +0000

I’m afraid the Court will call a fee a tax to avoid fulfilling the enemy role cast for them by the president and his loyal press. I’m afraid the stewards of justice are lacking in courage to uphold our form of government and will submit to the liberal elitist populist revolution.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 20:34:22 +0000

Nobody really,

Okay, but your four meaty paragraphs simply assumed that covering contraception would lead to a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. I have yet to see any evidence for this. It assumes that people who do not have contraception coverage cannot just walk into the nearest drug store and buy some out of pocket. Given that even Nancy Pelosi admits that no one seems to have any problem getting contraception (to say nothing of the CDC and the Alan Guttmacher Institute), that assumption seems to be entirely unfounded.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 19:30:55 +0000

in order to purchase or provide Life Insurance for oneself or one’s family, or one’s employee,

Nancy,

There is no dispute over life insurance.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 19:29:27 +0000

And, sorry, there is no wait and see clause in the Constitution. In fact, the current legal framework is clear that the government faces a significant task to assuage any conflicts with religious freedom.

Charles,

As I have said any number of times, if this version, or any future proposed version, of the “contraceptive mandate” is unconstitutional, it will be found so by the courts. Since there are already conflicting court rulings from lower courts, it appears almost certain the question will be decided by the Supreme Court. Don’t you trust the Supreme Court to make the right decision? Is there someone better qualified? Is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops a more reliable interpreter of the Constitution than the Supreme Court (with six Catholic members)?

For those who are convinced the Obama administration is trying to pull off something that is patently unconstitutional, what is it you are afraid of?

By: N.D.

N.D. — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:29:48 +0000

What does it profit a man, if he must condone that which is not Life-affirming, and Life-sustaining, in order to purchase or provide Life Insurance for oneself or one’s family, or one’s employee, when there is no compelling reason to violate one’s Religious and Moral values when one desires to purchase Life Insurance, to begin with?