Maybe all these religious groups should put some of their tax free slush funds towards an insurance system that doesn't have to respect people's rights, and instead dictates their followers health care based on their own interpretation of what the Sky Wizard may have said.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
195 points (99.0% liked)
News
23284 readers
3847 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They already have that. I get Medi-share ads on my local radio station all the time.
After reading the entire decision, all 26 pages, the head scratcher here is why the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany is doing this. Their challenge is, basically, that the Religious Exemption is too narrow but when you read the definition it would almost certainly apply to them
“An entity for which each of the following is true: (1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity[;] (2) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity[;] (3) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity[;] (4) The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033 (a) (2) (A) i or iii, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended”
What's even weirder to me is that not only would it seem that the Diocese already qualifies for the exception that it seems to want but it has never claimed it!
That's right, on pages 5/6 of the decision the Court writes "Plaintiffs, who have neither tried to invoke the “religious employer” accommodation nor expressly stated that they do not qualify for it, commenced a second action against DFS challenging the amended regulation."
So what is the Diocese spending all this time and money litigating for exactly?
To overturn the whole thing and make every provider able to deny care.
The title is confusing. I read it the wrong way initially.
How is it confusing?
I read it as the doctors performing the abortions must carry insurance specific to the procedure. That’s probably how OP read it too
I initially read it as the patients needing insurance to receive those abortions. Or in other words, them not getting medically required abortions if uninsured.
Yep, this is how i read it.