Remember how there's a Health and Human Services mandate in Obamacare that requires every employer to pay for abortions, contraceptives, sterilizations, and other things that are abhorrent to most religions? We've had certain places that have been spared, such as Tyndale House publishers, who print bibles.
Though it does beg the question: what does it take for an employer to be spared from this mandate? What level of religiosity is needed to be considered "religious"?
Apparently, a Catholic network founded by a nun, staffed with priests, doesn't qualify as religious enough.
From EWTN on Facebook.
Statement of Michael P. Warsaw, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of EWTN Global Catholic Network, in response to today’s decision by Judge Callie V.S. Granade of Mobile, Ala. denying EWTN protection from the government mandate that it must provide coverage of contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization as part of its employee health care coverage:
“We are extremely disappointed with the decision reached by the court in this case. The opinion issued is clearly inconsistent with the decisions reached in nearly all of the cases decided to date. The fact that the court has dismissed the serious issues of conscience and religious freedom that EWTN has raised is very troubling.
As an organization that was founded by Mother Angelica to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church, we do not believe that contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and voluntary sterilization should be defined as health care. We simply cannot facilitate these immoral practices. We have no other option but to continue our legal challenge of the mandate. We are making an immediate appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.”
I smell a Supreme Court case coming. Again.
Seriously, at this point, what does it take for a religious institution to be considered religious enough? Under the standards being applied -- which, granted, vary from judge to judge -- soon, a charity or a church would have to discriminate about who they give charity to. Give to a starving atheist? The exemption is revoked. Employ a Jewish secretary? That person better be Orthodox, or else.
This is insane. That's all. Simply insane. The conditions to be satisfied are arbitrary and capricious, vary wildly, and are so inconsistently applied as to make this law a spin at the roulette wheel.
A while back, a judge rules that New York's ban on large soft drinks was deemed illegal because the law was so inconsistently applied. Two stores on the same block could have two different rules applied to them. The HHS Mandate seems to be the exact same. Funny that.