Skip to main content

View Diary: Catholic bishops threaten to sue for their right to hate lady parts (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Having the right to go to court (10+ / 0-)

    doesn't mean you have the right to not be criticized for choosing to do so.

    I can acknowledge their right to go to court but still think it's a lousy idea.

    •  I guess that's where I disagree. I think it's the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ryanmcleod

      best way to handle this.  Certainly it's a far better solution than simply having the bishops continue to say, "our constitutional rights are being violated," and those on the left saying, "no they are not" which is the only other plausible option.  

      Telling people who disagree with you about their constitutional rights that they should simply shut up and go away is not a plausible option.  That's why we have courts.  If you think going to court to get this resolved is a "lousy idea," how would you suggest that a disagreement over whether someone's constitutional rights are being violated should be resolved?  

      There's a difference, it seems to me, between criticizing someone's position on the law and the constitution (ok with me) and criticizing them for going to court to get a constitutional question resolved (not as ok with me).

      •  Sigh (3+ / 0-)

        I think their position (that their constitutional rights are being violated by having to include birth control in their insurance coverage) is silly. That is why I think it is a lousy idea. I don't think going to court is a lousy idea inherently; just in this particular case. I also doubt that if they lose they are going to shut up about it, but it will be their constitutional right to whine about it just as it is my right and Kaili's and gchaucer's to do the same.

        •  It's not silly. The case cited by the diarist (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          is completely inapposite and has nothing to do w/ the subject at hand.  I don't think the gvt could mandate that the church purchase coverage for contraception (which is why churches were specifically excluded from the reach of the mandate); what this case is about is whether religiously affiliated orgs can be compelled to take actions that conflict w/ the church w/ which they're affiliated.

          I think the government can, in fact, compel an affiliate to do that, but to say it's totally obvious and frivolous is just goofy.

          •  Whatever. (4+ / 0-)

            I have lost any semblance of patience with anybody who is opposed to contraception on moral grounds (or pretends they are; I'm doubtful even they - the ones who plainly have no problem with child sex abuse - believe contraception is immoral). Kaili's post stems from the same point of view, I believe.

            •  I think this gets into the realm of (3+ / 0-)

              whether you can litigate about rights violations if the law is simply allowing others to do what is legal, in their own lives without interfering with anyone else's rights, because it violates your religious beliefs. At some point, using a specific religious belief to support or ban a law gets too close to establishing a state religion. The framers talked and wrote about the wall. They didn't put the words into the Constitution but there is no misunderstanding their intent based on the writings before and after.

              UUs have been advocating, performing, and celebrating gay unions since '73. I consider the bans against gay marriage an interference with our right to practice our beliefs. It doesn't require any other churches to honor or perform same sex marriages. It doesn't force or coerce any one to marry a person they don't want to. The government is actually better off having those marriages treated like heteros. We haven't gone to court over it on religious grounds. We fight using basic civil rights.

              If the Catholic hierarchy would work harder to stop wars and end the death penalty, I wouldn't consider them such a bunch of hypocrites. Meanwhile, they tie up the over burdened court system.

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:25:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  What actions? (0+ / 0-)

            The action of having a health insurer separately notify your employees that it will provide free contraceptive coverage? Gee, I can really see how the bishops might feel that threatens their religious freedom (not).

      •  Do you honestly believe (0+ / 0-)

        that the bishops would stop saying that their constitutional rights were being violated if the court were to rule against them?  IMO they would continue to whine and complain, and this proposed lawsuit is all about them having a hissy fit.

      •  It's not just about the Catholic church (5+ / 0-)

        It's also about any health care provider that wants to refuse treatment on moral grounds. I don't have all the details, but it seems most of these kinds of cases revolve around birth control of some kind or another )e.g., the "morning after" pill). Also, I'm not a lawyer, so I may be oversimplifying, but the bigger issue I see is when and under what circumstances can a health care provider refuse to render treatment on the basis of moral objections, when that treatment is a standard treatment?

        If the courts were to rule that the Catholic Church could refuse to offer provide birth control, doe that open the door for other providers to refuse treatment for other moral objections?

        •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Womantrust, Calamity Jean

          It would most assuredly not be limited to the Catholics, but to anyone who objected based upon religious grounds.  And, yes, I could see that easily extending to pharmacists.  And, if you are thinking, no big deal, just go to another pharmacist, consider the following:

          For some people, transportation is limited, so paying to take a bus or cab is a burden - to say nothing of the extra time.  And, some small towns have only one pharmacy.  

          Also, I always wonder if those little blue pills they make for men...  you know the ones... I wonder if those are covered.
          And, if the Church ever stops to worry how many of the men who take them will be using them as an aid for - gasp - sexual relations outside of their marriages...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site