Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2015, 11:49:21 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Bob Enright)
| | |-+  Catholic Institutions Contraception Mandate
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Catholic Institutions Contraception Mandate  (Read 518 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35727
United States


View Profile WWW
« on: March 28, 2012, 12:29:19 am »
Ignore

I thought about this while on a panel tonight: Couldn't Bob Jones University v. United States be used as a precedent to say that Catholic institutions receiving federal money have to play by federal rules, meaning that if the federal government wants to mandate contraception being covered by insuracne companies, religious institutions receiving federal money would have to go along with it?

If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know, so I'm curious what our legal experts feel on this issue.
Logged
Bob Enright
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30121
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2012, 09:52:21 am »

Unless I'm mistaken, not all Catholic institutions receive Federal monies, whereas the contraception mandate affects all them regardless of whether they do or not.  Hence the BJU case doesn't serve as a model for this particular issue without some new law being passed by Congress.  Incidentally, being beholden to Federal funds is precisely why a number of religious institutions were not happy about W's faith-based initiatives.  They were concerned that if they became dependent upon them to do their work, a future administration would do something similar to what you proposed.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.

Now in rehersals
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35727
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2012, 02:51:22 pm »
Ignore

Unless I'm mistaken, not all Catholic institutions receive Federal monies, whereas the contraception mandate affects all them regardless of whether they do or not.  Hence the BJU case doesn't serve as a model for this particular issue without some new law being passed by Congress.  Incidentally, being beholden to Federal funds is precisely why a number of religious institutions were not happy about W's faith-based initiatives.  They were concerned that if they became dependent upon them to do their work, a future administration would do something similar to what you proposed.

Right - I'm just talking about those which do receive Catholic money (which many of them receive some).  But for those that do, is my interpretation of BJU v. US sound?
Logged
Bob Enright
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30121
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2012, 05:43:52 pm »

While I didn't explicitly say so, I thought it was fairly clear in my previous reply that I thought the approach you mentioned would work.  About the only way it would fail to work would be if to obtain the desired funds the religious institutions were required to do things that areligious institutions were not required to do.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.

Now in rehersals
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines