Bible Publisher Won’t Have to Fund Birth Control Coverage

[rug]

By Tom Schoenberg - Nov 16, 2012 5:04 PM ET.

A Bible publisher won a temporary order blocking the health-care reform law’s requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in Washington today ruled that the law’s coverage mandate “substantially burdens” the religious exercise of Tyndale House Publishers Inc. by imposing “considerable” financial penalties for failing to offer birth control coverage to its 260 full-time employees.

The mandate “places the plaintiffs in the untenable position of choosing either to violate their religious beliefs by providing coverage of the contraceptives at issue or to subject their business to the continual risk of the imposition of enormous penalties for its noncompliance,” Walton wrote.

That “places substantial pressure on the plaintiffs to violate their beliefs,” the judge wrote in issuing a preliminary injunction

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/bible-publisher-won-t-have-to-fund-birth-control-coverage.html

[bunnies]

1. ok well...

my tax dollars going to fund wars and the military industrial complex places substantial pressure on me to violate my beliefs.

The tax mandate places the me in the untenable position of choosing either to violate my human beliefs by providing monies to fund the killing of others at issue or to subject me to the continual risk of the imposition of enormous penalties for my noncompliance.

Now what?

[rug]

2. The district courts have been all over the place on these lawsuits.

You have a good point about funding wars.

[bunnies]

4. honestly, Id love for these jackasses to open the door

to lawsuits like that. Whats the difference? My taxes fund shit I dont believe in, & Obamacare is a "tax" according to the wingers. So go on. Lets have this fight. Im pretty sure my taxes also fund some religious programs. Well, I dont believe in that either.

[LARED]

8. The difference between you being forced to fund wars

and being forced to fund insurance for certain types of contraceptives is;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.......

Perhaps a better amendment would have been;

"Congress shall make no law compelling a citizen to support wars established by congress."

[CurtEastPoint]

3. That co. is Protestant and I don't recall seeing 'no birth control'

as one of their tenets. I smell bullshit.

[rug]

5. Here's Tyndale's complaint.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TyndaleComplaint.pdf

Here is the pertinent part.

81. In the category of “FDA-approved contraceptives” included in the Mandate are
several drugs or devices that may cause the demise of an already-conceived but not-yet implanted
human embryo, such as “emergency contraception” or “Plan B” drugs (the so-called
“morning after” pill) as well as IUDs.

82. The FDA approved in this same “contraception” category a drug called “ella” (the
so-called “week after” pill), which studies show can function to kill embryos even after they
have implanted in the uterus, by a mechanism similar to the abortion drug RU-486.

83. The manufacturers of some such drugs, methods, and devices in the category of
“FDA-approved contraceptive methods” indicate that they can function to cause the demise of an
early human embryo.

84. The Mandate also requires applicable group health care plans to pay for the
provision of counseling, education

The claim is that certain classified contraceptives are abortifacients that destroy human embryos.

[cbayer]

6. This is a sticky wicket. While they would probably not object to actual

medications and methods that prevent any conceptions, there are indeed those that prevent implantation after conception.

There might be a need to make this distinction, and it really would not be that hard to do.

[rug]

7. You're right. It is a necessary distinction and there are multiple fixes available.