affordable care act » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘affordable care act’
August 26, 2015 0

Holocaust Analogies Continue To Taint Discourse On Wide Range Of Issues

The charged polit­i­cal debates over issues rang­ing from Iran to abor­tion con­tinue to be tainted by inap­pro­pri­ate invo­ca­tions of Hitler, Nazis, and gen­eral Holo­caust imagery.huckabee-israel-holocaust-oven-tweet-twitter

These mis­placed and offen­sive com­par­isons, made by politi­cians, pun­dits, and oth­er pub­lic fig­ures,  triv­i­al­ize this unique tragedy in human his­tory.  They not only rely on his­tor­i­cally incor­rect premises and exag­ger­a­tions, but also deflect atten­tion away from impor­tant national discussions.

For exam­ple, U.S. Sen­a­tor and Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Ted Cruz recently sent let­ters to pas­tors through­out the U.S. to encour­age them to speak out against Planned Par­ent­hood, claim­ing that abor­tion rep­re­sents an “ongo­ing holo­caust.” Of course, invok­ing the Holo­caust in the dis­cus­sions on abor­tion is noth­ing new.

The Iran deal is also an area where offen­sive Holo­caust analo­gies have been increas­ingly crop­ping up. On July 26, for exam­ple, Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Mike Huck­abee stated in an inter­view that Pres­i­dent Obama’s poli­cies on Iran will “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” Huckabee’s cam­paign also high­lighted this inap­pro­pri­ate com­par­i­son in a graphic on Twitter.

The analo­gies are not only used by politi­cians.  In a sign of how our pub­lic dis­course has coars­ened, crit­ics of pub­lic offi­cials also invoke Nazi analo­gies.  When New York Con­gress­man Jer­rold Nadler pub­licly sup­ported the pro­posed agree­ment on Iran, he report­edly was swamped with hate­ful mes­sages on social media.  One com­men­ta­tor referred to him as a “kappo,” a ref­er­ence to Jews who worked for the Nazis in con­cen­tra­tion camps.  curt-schilling-muslims-hitler-tweet-twitter

The Holo­caust com­par­isons are not lim­ited to the polit­i­cal world either. On August 25, ESPN “Sun­day Night Base­ball” ana­lyst and for­mer major league pitcher Curt Schilling shared a post on Twit­ter that com­pared extrem­ist Mus­lims to Nazis. The tweet sug­gested that a sim­i­lar per­cent­age of Mus­lims are extrem­ists as Ger­mans were Nazis. It also included an image of Hitler.

Such inap­pro­pri­ate Holo­caust ref­er­ences seem to sur­face around almost any con­tro­ver­sial issue. For exam­ple, dur­ing the charged polit­i­cal debate over gun con­trol in the after­math of the Sandy Hook Ele­men­tary School shoot­ing, there was a flurry of inap­pro­pri­ate invo­ca­tions of Hitler, Nazis, and gen­eral Holo­caust imagery by pub­lic fig­ures.  Oppo­si­tion to Pres­i­dent Obama’s Afford­able Care Act engen­dered sim­i­larly offen­sive comparisons.

Pub­lic dis­course today is seri­ously lack­ing in civil­ity and respect for dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives on impor­tant issues.  One unfor­tu­nate exam­ple of this lack of civil­ity is repeated inap­pro­pri­ate ref­er­ences to the Holo­caust.  It is long past time for pub­lic offi­cials and pub­lic offi­cials to stop invok­ing the Holo­caust in an effort to score polit­i­cal points.

* As a 501(c )(3) non-profit orga­ni­za­tion, the Anti-Defamation League does not sup­port or oppose can­di­dates for polit­i­cal office.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 20, 2014 0

Good D.C. Circuit Ruling on ACA Contraception Mandate Opt-Out Rule

The influ­en­tial U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis­trict of Colum­bia recently rejected legal claims by reli­gious non­prof­its assert­ing that even the min­i­mal require­ments for opt­ing out of the Afford­able Care Act’s (ACA) con­tra­cep­tion man­date vio­late their reli­gious free­dom rights.

DC Circuit Court of Appeals Building

DC Cir­cuit Court of Appeals Building

The ACA requires employer-provided health insur­ance to cover all FDA– approved pre­scrip­tion con­tra­cep­tion at no cost to employ­ees.  Houses of wor­ship and other sec­tar­ian insti­tu­tions are wholly exempted from this require­ment.  And religiously-affiliated orga­ni­za­tions may opt out of the con­tra­cep­tive man­date by merely sub­mit­ting a one-page form or oth­er­wise pro­vid­ing notice to its health plan issuer or the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices (HHS).  In that cir­cum­stance, the health insur­ance com­pany or a third-party admin­is­tra­tor pays for and admin­is­ters the coverage.

Despite this nom­i­nal require­ment, plain­tiffs in the case called Priests for Life v. U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices claim that it “sub­stan­tially bur­dens” their reli­gious exer­cise in vio­la­tion of the fed­eral Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act (“RFRA”).  They assert that the opt-out notice require­ment “trig­gers” sub­sti­tute cov­er­age and thereby – makes them “con­duits” for pro­vid­ing con­tra­cep­tion cov­er­age in vio­la­tion of their reli­gious beliefs.

The Court soundly rejected this claim.  It found that the fil­ing of the form excuses plain­tiffs “… from play­ing any role in the pro­vi­sion of con­tra­cep­tion ser­vices, and they remain free to con­demn con­tra­cep­tion in the clear­est terms.”  And it fur­ther deter­mined that the ACA  — not the opt-out notice –oblig­ates health insur­ance com­pa­nies or HHS through third-party admin­is­tra­tors to pro­vide con­tra­cep­tion cov­er­age.  As a result, the Court cor­rectly con­cluded that:

Reli­gious objec­tors do not suf­fer sub­stan­tial bur­dens under RFRA where the only harm to them is that they sin­cerely feel aggrieved by their inabil­ity to pre­vent what other peo­ple do to ful­fill reg­u­la­tory objec­tives after they opt out.  They have no RFRA right to be free from the unease, or even anguish, of know­ing that third par­ties are legally priv­i­leged or oblig­ated to act in ways their reli­gion abhors.

The Court also deter­mined that the con­tra­cep­tion require­ment advances the com­pelling inter­ests of “pub­lic health and gen­der equal­ity” and the opt-out rule is the least restric­tive way to achieve these  inter­ests because it “requires as lit­tle as it can from the objec­tors while still serv­ing the government’s com­pelling state interests.”

The Court’s deci­sion appro­pri­ately ref­er­ences the real­ity of our nation’s reli­giously diverse work­force, stat­ing “[r]eligious non­prof­its like Plain­tiff orga­ni­za­tions employ mil­lions of Amer­i­cans — includ­ing indi­vid­u­als who do not share their beliefs.”   Given this diver­sity and our plu­ral­is­tic democ­racy, the Court’s deci­sion strikes the right bal­ance between reli­gious lib­erty and civil rights.

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court’s dis­turb­ing Hobby Lobby deci­sion,  the Court in this case prop­erly rec­og­nized the true leg­isla­tive intent of RFRA: to shield to reli­gious prac­tice — not to serve as a sword to impose reli­gious beliefs on others.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 25, 2014 1

The Hobby Lobby Case — It’s Not Okay To Discriminate In The Name of Religion

This week, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argu­ments in two con­sol­i­dated cases where own­ers of for-profit, sec­u­lar cor­po­ra­tions chal­lenge the fed­eral Afford­able Care Act’s (ACA) con­tra­cep­tion man­date as a vio­la­tion of their reli­gious free­dom rights.

The names of the two cases are Sebe­lius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Con­estoga Wood Spe­cial­ties Corp. v. Sebe­lius. hobby lobby

The ACA requires cov­ered employ­ers to pro­vide a full range of pre­ven­ta­tive health care and screen­ing ser­vices, includ­ing con­tra­cep­tives and birth con­trol, in their employer-sponsored health care plans. Refer­ring to the con­tra­cep­tion cov­er­age as a “man­date” is actu­ally a mis­nomer because employ­ers have the option of pay­ing a mod­est tax instead of pro­vid­ing com­pre­hen­sive health insur­ance. And that tax is often less expen­sive than pro­vi­sion of employee health insurance.

How­ever, rec­og­niz­ing reli­gious sen­si­bil­i­ties sur­round­ing con­tra­cep­tion and abor­tion, the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion worked hard to accom­mo­date dif­fer­ing reli­gious views. The so-called ACA con­tra­cep­tive man­date does not apply to non-profit reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions (like a church or syn­a­gogue) and religiously-affiliated orga­ni­za­tions (like church-affiliated schools) can eas­ily opt out of the require­ment by sign­ing and fil­ing a one-page form.

The fervently-religious own­ers of Hobby Lobby, a large chain of arts and crafts stores that employs over 13,000 peo­ple at over 500 loca­tions, brought suit against the man­date because they object to cer­tain forms of con­tra­cep­tion. The Tenth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals upheld their chal­lenge, decid­ing that the fed­eral Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act (RFRA) applies to cor­po­ra­tions and that the fed­eral gov­ern­ment ACA con­tra­cep­tive man­date sub­stan­tially bur­dens the own­ers’ reli­gious practice.

The own­ers of Con­estoga Wood, a com­pany that employs hun­dreds of peo­ple that makes cab­i­nets and other wood­work­ing prod­ucts, sim­i­larly object, on reli­gious grounds, to pro­vid­ing con­tra­cep­tives to their employ­ees. How­ever, in this case, the Third Cir­cuit Court of Appeals, in con­trast to the Tenth Cir­cuit, decided that for-profit sec­u­lar cor­po­ra­tions can­not engage in reli­gious speech and are there­fore not pro­tected under the RFRA.

RFRA requires the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to demon­strate a com­pelling inter­est where it “sub­stan­tially bur­dens” a person’s reli­gious exer­cise. ADL strongly sup­ported the enact­ment of this 1993 statute, which was intended to be a shield against reli­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion. But in this case, the own­ers of Hobby Lobby and Con­estoga are attempt­ing to use RFRA as a sword – giv­ing them license to impose their reli­gious beliefs on oth­ers. That under­mines the pur­pose of the statute, and turns reli­gious free­dom on its head. There is no doubt that RFRA could not have been enacted into law if it had been antic­i­pated that it would later be used by cor­po­rate own­ers to thwart anti-discrimination laws or the reli­gious free­dom of com­pany employees.

ADL joined a coali­tion brief with a diverse group of more than two dozen faith-based orga­ni­za­tions. The brief, pre­pared by Amer­i­cans United for Sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State, argues that apply­ing the con­cep­tion reg­u­la­tions to the cor­po­ra­tions does not sub­stan­tially bur­den reli­gion. For-profit cor­po­rate enti­ties do not prac­tice reli­gion. And because the legally dis­tinct cor­po­ra­tions would actu­ally pay for and pro­vide the com­pre­hen­sive health insur­ance, any reli­gious bur­den on their own­ers is min­i­mal. Not to men­tion that the own­ers have the option of their cor­po­ra­tions pay­ing a mod­est tax instead of pro­vid­ing com­pre­hen­sive insurance.

The brief fur­ther asserts that Amer­i­cans do not lose their reli­gious free­dom when they estab­lish for profit busi­nesses. But the reli­gious beliefs of these employ­ers should not be imposed on third par­ties – their employ­ees – and the own­ers’ rights can­not trump the reli­gious rights of their employees.

It would be hard to over­state the stakes for reli­gious lib­erty and equal­ity in these two cases. The Amer­i­can work­force is highly diverse. Allow­ing sec­u­lar cor­po­rate own­ers to restrict access to afford­able con­tra­cep­tives on the basis of reli­gion dis­crim­i­nates against women and lim­its their equal­ity and inde­pen­dence. Approval of this action by the Court would also be a grave blow to reli­gious free­dom in this coun­try – and open the door to the specter of work­place dis­crim­i­na­tion and for-profit com­pa­nies deny­ing cov­er­age for other essen­tial med­ical ser­vices that some own­ers might deem reli­giously offen­sive, such as blood trans­fu­sions, psy­chi­atric care, and vaccinations.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,