 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
DrSharkey
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Jackson, Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Agnostic, Southern Baptist (sorta), church of Christ, looking Romeward |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 1st, 2007 11:59 pm |
|
I saw on the news today that the US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case involving contraceptives. If I'm not mistaken, the New York law in question makes it illegal for an organization to refuse to pay for contraception based on religious objections. With the USSC refusing to hear the case, the appeals Court finding is final, meaning that it is indeed illegal for Catholic charities to refuse to provide contraceptives as part of their medication coverage.
I realize that no one here really know the answer to this, but I thought it would be an interesting discussion. Does anyone think that this mean that Catholic charities that provide prescription coverage will just cancel all coverage of medications as a way of not paying for Birth control pills?
And, if I'm not mistaken, didn't Catholic adoption agencies in the Northeast stop all their adoptions a couple of years ago when the courts said that they couldn't refuse to work with homosexual couples?
____________________
http://sharkeysworld.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1611 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 12:29 am |
|
| What would the penalty be if they disregarded the ruling and refused to distribute the contraceptives? Would that give them a new avenue to the USSC?
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 344 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2007 01:51 am |
|
| Odd them ruling that because almost 20 years ago when I had insurance it didn't pay for contraceptives because they were considered preventitive care and the plan didn't pay for any preventative care, perhaps that was why. That might be a route to get around the ruling although it is harsh because it doesn't pay for well baby visits or vaccinations either. It didn't pay for any of the baby's costs in the hospital after birth either which can be quite a chunk and it forced me to check out of the hospital within 24 hours of the birth(which is now illegal in my state). I hope they don't have to go that route as it sort of defeats the moral good of not paying for contraception to then not pay for baby care. Thankfully, my current insurance is much better.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
Current time is 09:59 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
