February 25, 2013

If you operate a corporation, you give up your First Amendment rights [Darleen Click]

So argues Obama’s DOJ

While presenting an oral argument in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last fall, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department told a federal judge that the Obama administration believed it could force the judge’s own wife—a physician—to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice.

The assertion came in the case of Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, a challenge to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. […]

Judge Reggie Walton
: But considering the closeness of the relationship that the individual owners have to the corporation to require them to fund what they believe amounts to the taking of a life, I don’t know what could be more contrary to one’s religious belief than that.

Berwick: Well, I don’t think the fact this is a closely-held corporation is particularly relevant, your honor. I mean, Mars, for example–

Judge Walton:
Well, I mean, my wife has a medical practice. She has a corporation, but she’s the sole owner and sole stock owner. If she had strongly-held religious belief and she made that known that she operated her medical practice from that perspective, could she be required to pay for these types of items if she felt that that was causing her to violate her religious beliefs?

Berwick: Well, Your Honor, I think what it comes down to is whether there is a legal separation between the company and—

Judge Walton: It’s a legal separation. I mean, she obviously has created the corporation to limit her potential individual liability, but she’s the sole owner and everybody associates that medical practice with her as an individual. And if, you know, she was very active in her church and her church had these same type of strong religious-held beliefs, and members of the church and the community became aware of the fact that she is funding something that is totally contrary to what she professes as her belief, why should she have to do that?

Berwick: Well, your honor, again, I think it comes down to the fact that the corporation and the owner truly are separate. They are separate legal entities.

Judge Walton: So, she’d have to give up the limitation that conceivably would befall on her regarding liability in order to exercise her religion? So, she’d have to go as an individual proprietor with no corporation protection in order to assert her religious right? Isn’t that as significant burden?

Of course not, silly. She’d still have the right to worship — in the privacy of her home …

quietly, with the curtains drawn,

…least she offend others with the hatey-hatiness of her clinger, white trash, religionist, christer godbothering.

She should be grateful she would still be allowed to have her medical license at all.

Posted by Darleen @ 7:43pm
42 comments | Trackback

Tags: ,

Comments (42)

  1. She’d still have the right to worship — in the privacy of her home …

    quietly, with the curtains drawn,

    for a tutorial she should take a trip to saudi arabia

  2. More evidence, if any more were needed, that the Obama Administration sees the Bill of Rights primarily as an impediment to collective privileges, rather than a guarantor of individual liberty.

  3. yeah I don’t really see how having contraception or whatnot available through a health plan really jacks with your religious freedom

    it’s a bad example of that kind of infringement I think so I’m not expecting a lot of relief from the courts, especially as you the cases involve private employers or whatever

    it’s not a lot different than how you don’t get a choice about paying taxes to an amoral freedom-raping fascist government like the U.S. one

    life ain’t fair, lifeydoodles

    suck it up cupcakes

  4. you

    that word was not supposed to be there I don’t know what the deal on that is

  5. Well, if you don’t see it, griefer, I guess that’s all that matters.

  6. yeah you’re gonna have to sell me on this a little more

  7. Look at it this way happyfeet.

    People whose religion teaches that abortion is murder and/or contraception a sin generally feel the same way about paying for those types of things as you would if you were forced to support a state sponsored religion.

  8. yeah but how is that any different than my income tax example Mr. gahrie?

  9. Order a Baltimore Catechism and read up. Then you’ll have a clue about why this is so upsetting to so many.

  10. not so so so so many

    the fascists won the catholic vote remember

  11. Catholics are not a monolithic bunch. Besides, I keep reading that we are the fascists/nazis/homos, et al. You know, all the stuff the left is.

  12. well sometimes people resort to hyperbole when characterizing their political opponents

    it’s not right but you just have to slough it off

  13. The big problem with your income tax example is that the employers are being mandated to give their money to a third party non government agency to buy a product they don’t believe they should have to buy, because it goes against strongly held religious beliefs.

    This isn’t give the money to the govt and then the govt does what it wants.

    This is like telling a Mormon they must stock their cafeteria with coffee and booze, because …..because the govt says so. Pfffft

  14. well i say we just repeal this whole fascist obamacare perversion and call it a day

  15. That would be the best way. Sadly, the president is a whiny little bitch.

  16. If you’re going to do something do it right and obamacare ain’t right.

  17. griefer

    the OWNERS are not telling their employees that they can’t have abortions, they are just saying the OWNERS are not going to foot the bill.

    Employees are well aware of the compensation packages they will get when they sign on. Don’t like it, they can find another job.

    THEY didn’t build the business

  18. The notion that insurance should be tied to your employer is antiquated. The only reason it appeared in the first place is that tax rates were very high, but workers weren’t taxed for their insurance benefits. Providing better benefits would draw better people.

    Given the fact that people are much more mobile as far as jobs go these days, it would make more sense to have everyone be self-insured, and the difference in cost to the employer added to the person’s income. That would cure quite a few problems, but of course choice is bad so it will never happen with the fascists in charge.

  19. Exactly right, cranky. Straight up fee-for-service at the doc’s is a good way to contain costs though over usage of healthcare, too.

    Unfortunately, the citizens are not to be trusted. I hear it on the news all the time.

  20. i just can’t get excited about it in context of all the freedom-raping fascism going on Darleen

    but if other people want to get excited that’s ok I guess it’s not like they’re hurting the war effort

  21. and my sense is I’m not alone

    this whole religious freedom health care plan contraception thing isn’t exactly turning out to be the Egregious Provocation some would have it be

    yeah we talked about the catholic vote already

  22. actually cranky, you can blame FDR. He froze wages & salaries, so employers had to think of other benefits to offer to hire talent.

  23. griefer

    it is all of one piece, if u turn your back on one portion of the 1st amendment, why should anyone honor what YOU find a better portion of it?

  24. this whole country is going to hell in a hand basket is what my mom would say and furthermore she’d look the health care plan whiners right in the eye and say “this too shall pass”

    and you know what she’d be right

  25. why do you always hafta call me names Darleen I have feelings you know

  26. It’s not a poll driven thing. It’s a principle driven thing.

    Flip the argument. Why is it so important for some women to demand that contraceptives be universally covered in all insurance policies with absolutely no copays involved.

    Has to be a principle driven argument right?

    Is it an argument worth going to war over?

    or would it be better if wise people came up with an alternate that allowed both sides to maintain their principles without force from the government

  27. Why is it so important for some women to demand that contraceptives be universally covered in all insurance policies with absolutely no copays involved.

    because they’re fascist whores what can’t get no man to put a ring on their finger?

  28. I liked the exorcist’s idea about making the pill available over the counter

  29. I liked the exorcist’s idea about making the pill available over the counter

    I would be ok with that except that there are some risks involved and i think lawmakers & lawyers need someone to blame in case something goes horribly wrong.

  30. the floridageorgialine guys have a new video out today btw it has comely young womens and midgets

  31. there are some risks involved in everything that’s nanny bloomberg thinking Mr. BT

    not to be mean

    damn the torpedoes as Mr. Farragut was wont to mutter on the odd occasion

  32. There is always civil disobedience or bootlegging, take your pick.

  33. Midget wrestling is big at minor league baseball games, right before the fireworks.

  34. my favorite is nullification Mr. BT if I had to pick

  35. You have much more faith in the legal system than i do.

  36. yeah you’re gonna have to sell me on this a little more

    You seem to have mistaken us for people who give a damn what you think.

  37. You seem to have mistaken us for people who give a damn what you think.

    Bingo, to use the Catholic term. Not sure why anyone would bother–it has made its contempt abundantly clear.

    But that won’t stop this from running our to 100 comments, alas.

  38. I see we’re back in manic phase again. I say 500 comments, easy, at least a third of which are written by the drug-addled pikachu.

  39. I’m done trying to explain it to him. He’s just being a provocateur and refusing to educate himself so like a class clown, he needs to have his desk moved out into the halls so the rest of us may carry on.

    Of course when killing babies in the womb and buttsecks are the prime movers in one’s universe, why bother with him?

  40. Of course when killing babies in the womb and buttsecks are the prime movers in one’s universe, why bother with him?

    I’m thinking “Go fuck a cupcake, Cupcake” is the only appropriate response to the yellow rat bastard. Especially when he demands the respect he has yet to extend to his counterparts.

  41. Especially when he demands the respect he has yet to extend to his counterparts.

    Except he’s already getting the respect he deserves, it’s just not what he wants.

  42. Pingback: The NeoSexist · Today’s Quick Hits: 2013-02-26

Leave a Reply