Nuns get partial win in U.S. Supreme Court contraception fight

Comments (27)
Greenspan2 wrote:

One only need to look to Islamic totalitarian states to see the result of allowing religious institutions to take precedence over civil law. Personal health care should not require approval by any religious institution or employer, unless of course, America is now officially a theocratic state. As I recall, that is exactly what Osama bin Laden was attempting to institute on a global scale.

Jan 24, 2014 8:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Good for the SCOTUS. The government has no business trying to dictate to religious groups. Forcing them to compromise their religious beliefs is just plain wrong. Hopefully the Little Sisters will prevail in the end.

Jan 24, 2014 8:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mulwillie wrote:

“We are delighted that the Supreme Court has issued this order protecting the Little Sisters,”

What about protecting women who use birth control medication for health reason not to prevent conception???

Maybe the sister could question any employees wanting birth control to bring a doctor’s note to make sure the use met with Catholic teachings?

Jan 24, 2014 10:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rainstained wrote:

Greenspan 2 well put. This is actually a violation of HIPPA which are the privacy laws put in place stating that no one (including an employer) has the rights to our medical records. Therefore in that same respect there are going to be Civil right lawsuits I imagine because of this and with good right too. It’s no body’s business what I use my health insurance, it’s mine and i pay for it. I would prefer that no employer cover insurance on anyone and we all buy it free market open style. This would avoid the whole issue. It would give the religious people less to gripe about but I’m sure they’d pick some other nonsense to fight over. Now if they took all that same energy and put it into good works noone would be starving, right? lol.
Whether they realize it or not this is taking religion back because it doesn’t violate my religion to have birthcontrol. However it does violate my rights to say I can’t get that. I’m sure they’ll get some real winners working for them. I’d be more concerned about how churches don’t have to (aren’t required by law) have a background check to make sure the people watching the kids in the church while you’re sitting in Sunday session or whatever could be a child crime offender. Personally if I was a church leader I’d be more worried about that. Sounds like the nuns are just trying to make points on the boys team again. I’m so glad I’m not religious what a waste of time!

Jan 24, 2014 11:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rainstained wrote:

So now in a job interview I guess it’d be okay to ask my boss his religion? Otherwise how am I to know if I’ll get the health coverage I expect to be paying for..

Jan 24, 2014 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sgt.JT wrote:

There are 78 million Catholics in the United States that is 25% of the Country how could the Government dictate to are belief that contraception is the right of parent and not of the state to supervise in its placement,since President Obama took office we have falling a great deal from what we use to be as a nation.We need leaders both Democrats and Republicans to bring this Great Country back to its Glory again. God Bless The U.S.A.

Jan 24, 2014 11:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Chagrined wrote:

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in “Democracy In America,” “The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy.” This country was founded by Protestants and Deists for Protestants and Deists and Catholic Churches were burned in the Colonial days. The question is not why did Catholics come to this Protestant country, but why did this Protestant country allow Catholics to come here? In America, a Protestant country, we are guided by our Constitution, not the Vatican.

Our Supreme Court for and by Protestants and Deists doesn’t have even one Protestant serving on a Court designed for and by them, thus the problem.

Our Founding Father, the enlightened, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the architects of our Constitutional separation of church and state. In their wisdom, our Constitution prohibits a state sponsored religion. Of course, this doesn’t deter Catholics. Thomas Jefferson knew that it was only a matter of time before Catholics would attempt to impose their religion on America and he put into our Constitution the wall of separation which the Catholics are distorting in an attempt to avoid adhering to our labor laws and at the same time abuse women. Protestant women are treasured as ‘brains’ to society not ‘uteri!’

Jan 25, 2014 12:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
umkomazi wrote:

So what? It’s not as if they’ll need it unless angel gabriel or jesus pitches up at the nunnery for a REAL WILD party with lots of debauchery….

Jan 25, 2014 12:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
MacMan wrote:

Isn’t it absurd that in the 21st Century, in a supposedly advanced, First World country, we still excuse unlawful behaviour because someone claims that they talk to and imaginary being?

To boot, we have a few Justices who also talk to imaginary beings (Roberts is devout and talks to “god” and Scalia thinks that there Devil walks on this planet!)

These are the people who basically make the laws (and the exceptions) which govern the rest of us!

Jan 25, 2014 1:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

The temporary stay is fine; keep the status quo until a judgement is made. However, while a person has the right to practice their religion free of government interference, they do not have to right to run a business free of government interference. The Sisters of the Poor do good work, but they don’t get to force their spiritual beliefs on their employees. I hope the Supreme Court, i.e. Justice Roberts, agrees.

Jan 25, 2014 3:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

4825 wrote:
“Good for the SCOTUS. The government has no business trying to dictate to religious groups. Forcing them to compromise their religious beliefs is just plain wrong. Hopefully the Little Sisters will prevail in the end.”

You didn’t read the article, did you? Just the headline and then typed out the party line.

If you had read the article you would have seen the line that says “The act makes an exception for religious institutions such as houses of worship that mainly serve and employ members of their own faith, but not for schools, hospitals and charitable organizations that employ people of all faiths.” which makes your whole comment look ridiculous.

As for the Little Sisters, if they don’t want to use contraception nobody is forcing them to. That is fine, but they are wanting to remove the choice. It is “I don’t like football, so you I want to ban footballs”.

Jan 25, 2014 4:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
RET_SFC wrote:

When the Puritans who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony stepped ashore, their intent was not religious liberty, but that they be allowed to persecute dissent and heresy as they wished, separately from the Anglican church that wanted a monopoly on it. It wasn’t long before Roger Williams was exiled and described the benefit — to religion — of staying out of civil governance.

It seems odd that an Order of nuns, who might reasonably be expected not to need birth control themselves, would nevertheless wish to disadvantage women who do need it, but they are following an American tradition of letting churches meddle with our right to choose good on our own.

Jan 25, 2014 6:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
alexpinca1 wrote:

What happened to the axiom that your rights end where my begin???

Jan 25, 2014 6:54am EST  --  Report as abuse

No Dictatorship Government has the right to force all peoples to buy anything, Individual Liberties are lost and then there are no Free Men, These Freedoms came from GOD, not two bit politicians.
Remember all the Men and Women in the Military that have at one point fought for you and your freedoms, don’t Give them away like they mean nothing, maybe you did not fight for this Republic, and have nothing vested. Many people have fought for to claim your piece of something for nothing.

Jan 25, 2014 7:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

The thoroughly corrupt, tax exempt Catholic church has a lot of nerve using our public resources to try to kick millions of Americans off of government subsided healthcare, while simultaneous receiving all of the funds to run their health care businesses from tax payers.
Why doesn’t the church remove that bulging and disgusting rampant pedophilia “plank from its own eye”, and its mafia ridden Vatican bank, and quit using our public institutions against the wishes of the American people who provide most of their funding. Nothing about the church I grew up in makes me anything but nauseous from disgust and loathing. Some nuns are obviously as evil as most of the priests and hierarchy, right up to their newest infallible pope, who deems women unworthy of anything but sitting in pews and cleaning the altars because it is inherently misogynic and bigoted.

Jan 25, 2014 7:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
feudipandola wrote:

One need only read these comments to see hatred in its ugliest form. SCOTUS has re-affirmed the primacy of the Constitutional ban on the federal government controlling religion. As much as that might offend the atheist community – Lord know why (sic) – it does comport with the law of the land and I hope the injunction is made permanent. I was born and raised poor in the worst public projects in this country BUT I always managed to buy my own condoms and the girls bought their own birth control pills. I NEVER expected the taxpayers to pay for me and I never will. It’s called informed citizenship and we are sorely lacking it today.

Jan 25, 2014 8:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
feudipandola wrote:

One need only read these comments to see hatred in its ugliest form. SCOTUS has re-affirmed the primacy of the Constitutional ban on the federal government controlling religion. As much as that might offend the atheist community – Lord know why (sic) – it does comport with the law of the land and I hope the injunction is made permanent. I was born and raised poor in the worst public projects in this country BUT I always managed to buy my own condoms and the girls bought their own birth control pills. I NEVER expected the taxpayers to pay for me and I never will. It’s called informed citizenship and we are sorely lacking it today.

Jan 25, 2014 8:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
feudipandola wrote:

One need only read these comments to see hatred in its ugliest form. SCOTUS has re-affirmed the primacy of the Constitutional ban on the federal government controlling religion. As much as that might offend the atheist community – Lord know why (sic) – it does comport with the law of the land and I hope the injunction is made permanent. I was born and raised poor in the worst public projects in this country BUT I always managed to buy my own condoms and the girls bought their own birth control pills. I NEVER expected the taxpayers to pay for me and I never will. It’s called informed citizenship and we are sorely lacking it today.

Jan 25, 2014 8:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
njglea wrote:

Religious institutions have no right to try to tell women what they can do with their own bodies. Why this attack on women? Where are the men who love them? Is this the United States of the catholic church? I think not. Six of the nine Supreme Court Justices are catholic and must recuse themselves from hearing any case on contracption or abortion because some have proven they cannot seperate personal preference from the law of the land. If the catholic church or any other religious group wants to control what women can do with their own bodies they can give up their non-profit status and stop using their non-taxed dollars to buy up the hospital competition in small markets where women will be denied contraception and abortion. Take care of your flock and leave the rest of us alone.

Jan 25, 2014 9:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

4825 wrote:
“@Bakhtin- Just because the word school, hospital or charitiable organization is in the sentence does not negate it from being a religious organization.”

Nobody is saying it does. They may be religious organisations, but you are completely missing the point. Schools, hospitals, and charities are unlikely to be single faith, unlike churches which almost certainly are.

4825 wrote:
“It appears to me that you are the foolish one”

Yeah… that totally explains why you failed to understand the point, and I understood it.

4825 wrote:
“It is more like “You like football and therefore try to force me to play it even though I don’t want to”.

Really? Then explain to us all precisely how the nuns are being forced to use contraception.

Jan 25, 2014 11:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
spoc69 wrote:

Bad for the SCOTUS. Religious groups have no business dictating to the rest of us and forcing us to compromise to their religious beliefs is just plain wrong. Hopefully the Little Sisters will fail in the end.

Jan 25, 2014 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse

I can understand why the Little Sisters don’t want contraceptives for themselves, but as employers they should be required to provide the same health coverage as everyone else in the country receives. In addition, the Little Sisters don’t provide the contraceptives, the doctors do in consultation with their secular patients. If religious institutions can create their own tax policy, then the churches should get taxed like any other business. They should lose their exemption.

Jan 25, 2014 1:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

Actually, every nun is married and, sometimes, she has sex albeit NOT with her ‘husband’!

The following is just a small part of “A Nun’s Testimony” by
Sister Charlotte Keckler (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nun.htm):

“The room was bare except for the inevitable statue of the Virgin Mary. The priest perched in a straight-backed chair and the nun must come in and kneel before him. If she got out without being defiled and forced into some unspeakable depravity she was fortunate. No one ever interrupted the priest and the woman, no matter what transpired. One after another the nuns would enter and leave the room.

At other times it was not unusual for the Mother Superior to usher in a drunken priest who would pick out a nun and take her to a cell with him for more liquor and sex. The Mother Superior was a hard and carnal woman who had borne numbers of illegitimate children of priests and usually she drank with the visitors. The priest was well fed, healthy, and strong and lived a relatively easy life; therefore a poor, weakened nun was no match for him, to fight him off. Because she was helpless, he did whatever he pleased and violated her any way he chose. There is no one to defend or help her and none to even care about her being forced into harlotry. Because Mother Superior locked the cell there was no way to escape.”

In view of the above, I think nuns DO need access to free contraception . . . :-)

Jan 25, 2014 4:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

Actually, every nun is married and, sometimes, she has sex albeit NOT with her ‘husband’!

The following is just a small part of “A Nun’s Testimony” by
Sister Charlotte Keckler (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nun.htm):

“The room was bare except for the inevitable statue of the Virgin Mary. The priest perched in a straight-backed chair and the nun must come in and kneel before him. If she got out without being defiled and forced into some unspeakable depravity she was fortunate. No one ever interrupted the priest and the woman, no matter what transpired. One after another the nuns would enter and leave the room.

At other times it was not unusual for the Mother Superior to usher in a drunken priest who would pick out a nun and take her to a cell with him for more liquor and sex. The Mother Superior was a hard and carnal woman who had borne numbers of illegitimate children of priests and usually she drank with the visitors. The priest was well fed, healthy, and strong and lived a relatively easy life; therefore a poor, weakened nun was no match for him, to fight him off. Because she was helpless, he did whatever he pleased and violated her any way he chose. There is no one to defend or help her and none to even care about her being forced into harlotry. Because Mother Superior locked the cell there was no way to escape.”

In view of the above, I think nuns DO need access to free contraception . . . :-)

Jan 25, 2014 4:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@njgle – Well said !! Can’t agree more !

Jan 25, 2014 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@4825 wrote: “You like football and therefore try to force me to play it even though I don’t want to”.

First of all, you should refrain from calling other contributors names for expressing their opinions, whether based on ‘facts’ as YOU believe they are or NOT.

Do you mean to say: If you like sex and therefore try to force me to have sex even though I don’t want to”???

Well, the question, in this regard, is – IF you decide to have sex, for whatever reason, DO YOU HAVE A CHOICE to use contraception????

Any organized movement to push through laws or regulations eliminating availability of a personal CHOICE – is very ignorant, thus selfish to possible need of another in a given situation that could establish itself ‘tomorrow’ regardless of today’s believe.

Jan 25, 2014 6:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I’m so happy to see people fighting for their first amendment right to impose their religious beliefs on others. Just like the founding fathers intended.

Jan 27, 2014 5:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.