The Supreme Court Case That Could Bankrupt Religious Schools and Hospitals

[rug]

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton pits financially strained organizations against their own workers, who fear their promised pensions may not be there when they retire.

EMMA GREEN
4:50 AM ET

A new case on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket could potentially involve millions of American employees and lead to billions of dollars’ worth of litigation. The justices’ decision could affect the viability of religiously affiliated orphanages, hospitals, schools, and nursing homes, and it could also threaten the financial security of a generation of their workers, fast heading toward retirement.

On its face, Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton and the two other cases it’s consolidated with may seem boring—after all, they’re about federal regulations on pension plans for church-affiliated hospitals. But these cases are actually the culmination of a new, vicious fight over the rights of employers that are loosely affiliated with religious institutions, and how they should have to pay retirement benefits to their employees in accordance with federal law.

The three consolidated cases in question seem likely to turn on something deceptively simple: the single word “established.” In 1974, Congress passed a law called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which, among other things, created guidelines for defined-benefit retirement plans, otherwise known as pensions. The two most relevant requirements in these cases have to do with good planning and risk mitigation: Employers have to put money into their employees’ retirement plans in a responsible way, so that they can afford to pay out big sums of money once those employees get old. But, if a company is in financial trouble when it comes time to pay out the promised benefits, there’s a safety net: ERISA established the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, which is effectively a government insurance agency for underfunded pension plans.

These rules do not apply to houses of worship. Benefit plans “established and maintained” by these groups are exempt. The reasons for this are a bit opaque, said Norman Stein, a law professor at Drexel University, but an early draft of the law suggests Congress “didn’t want churches to have to open their books to the government.” Legislators also figured religious groups weren’t the problem: “People felt that it’s the church—it’s not going to let its plan fail and screw its employees,” he said. “Some of the writing about the statute has speculated that this was a reason, too—churches are moral institutions that are going to stand behind their promise [to pay for people’s pensions], because that’s what religions do.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/advocate-health-care-erisa/510218/

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/advocate-health-care-network-v-stapleton/

[mercuryblues]

1. who knew

that paying the promised pensions to employees would make the Catholic church go broke?

[rug]

2. It will close the hospitals not the Church.

[mercuryblues]

4. Who owns those hospitals

They were exempted because they were owned by churches. They thought that the church would honor their financial promises to employees, being a holy institution and all.

You can't get an exemption based on being owned by a church. Then turn around and say our pension fund is wiped out and because we are a separate entity from the church, we have no money to pay employees.

[rug]

5. Actually most of them were founded by individual congregations, not the Church.

And they are all not-for-profit corporations as are thousands of nonreligious corporations.

The exemptions are based on their eleemosynary nature, not their religious origins.

All of which is why your last paragraph is resting on straw.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. No, it's called a 'church plan' in the act; it is about religion, not charity or non-profit status

http://www.pensionrights.org/sites/default/files/docs/senate_provision_from_1974.pdf

Let's stick to facts.

[rug]

8. No it isn't. It's about organizations associated with a religion and the application of ERISA.

Issue: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's church-plan exemption applies so long as a pension plan is maintained by an otherwise-qualifying church-affiliated organization, or whether the exemption applies only if, in addition, a church initially established the plan.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/advocate-health-care-network-v-stapleton/

Let's stick to issues. You'll get your chance to make gratuitous attacks on religion in the next thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I'm confused by your use of the word 'no'

With all the rest of your post, you admit I am right - that your claim it's about 'non-profit' or 'eleemosynary' (ie charitable) entities is wrong, and that it's "about organizations associated with a religion", "church-affiliated organization" and/or "a church initially established the plan"; and the phrase used is "church plan". And yet you say "no it isn't". I think that must be a typo for "yes, it is".

[rug]

14. You said: "it is about religion, not charity or non-profit status".

To which I said, "no".

I hope that clears up your confusion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. No

[rug]

18. .

[Lordquinton]

43. "Let's stick to facts"

"Let's stick to issues"

The mask is slipping, admitting that facts are not to be the focus.

[mercuryblues]

9. Again

you can not claim an exemption under the church then claim no affiliation to the church to get out of a promise. Non religious hospitals or corporations do not qualify for this exemption. Even if they are non-profit. Talk about straw.

Name me one solitary congregation in the US that can entirely fund and operate a hospital. Maybe a clinic, but never a full hospital with over 2,000 people on staff.

One of the hospitals named in the lawsuit also run 7 high school, 3 middle schools a university and a hospital associated with it. Oh. wait. the hospital doesn't run it with money from a congregation. The diocese runs all those I mentioned, including the health care system in question. Last I heard a diocese was part of the church.

[rug]

10. The hospital runs 3 middle schools?

You may be confusing the hospital, which has no affiliation with a middle school, with the religious order that founded the hospital and several schools.

If I'm wrong, by all means name the hospital and the 3 middle schools it runs.

[mercuryblues]

11. now I get it.

you missed this part of my post.


. Oh. wait. the hospital doesn't run it with money from a congregation. The diocese runs all those I mentioned,

Name me one single congregation that runs a complete hospital system.

[rug]

16. The Alexians for one.

The Camillians for another.

[mercuryblues]

20. I should have asked you to define congregation

The definition you are using is a conglomerate of churches under the authority and sponsorship of the catholic church. As with the Alexians, they are supported and funded by the church. Hardly a stand alone church.

I have been referring to a congregation as a singular church and it's parishioners.

So please explain to me how a hospital is allowed an exemption based on being part of a religious organization, yet deny that it is a religious organization when it wants to get out of its obligation.

[rug]

21. No, Congregation has a specific meaning under Canon Law.

Loosely, it's a religious order.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM

The issue here is not whether "a hospital is allowed an exemption based on being part of a religious organization, yet (can) deny that it is a religious organization when it wants to get out of its obligation."

The issue presented on page 18 of the pdf of one of the appellants' petitions is whether a church affiliated organization is exempt from ERISA only if the organization was originally established by a church. The answer used to be "no" until two Circuit Courts of Appeal recently said "yes".

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/16-74-Advocate-Cert-Petition.pdf

It's really a rather arcane issue, albeit with significant consequences either way, and not a very good poster child for the evils of religion, Catholic or otherwise.

[mercuryblues]

22. what

That is what it comes down to. They used the church sponsorship and funding to get an exemption to not pay insurance to the government program if their pension plan went kaput. The church should pay the for pensions. The hospitals are funded and run by the churches.

They can't have it both ways. They either a part of the church or they aren't. If they aren't where pensions are concerned, then they shouldn't be when it comes to women's health issues like getting exemptions from insurance companies offering birth control coverage.

[rug]

23. This is about pensions not contraception.

[mercuryblues]

24. Well if the

church uses religion to be exempt from paying for pension fund insurance, then the church pension plan goes belly up, the church itself should pay the pension. That is one reason they got the exemption to begin with, they are part of the church and the church honors its word. You are saying no, because they aren't really part of the church, the church isn't responsible. If they aren't really a part of the church, then they can't get religious exemptions for anything, including women's health.

They can't have it both ways.

[rug]

25. I'm pretty sure the Church opposes having it both ways.

[mercuryblues]

40. they don't want to pay

pension insurance and don't want to pay out promised pensions. I call that wanting it both ways.

[rug]

41. Not to mention paying for it.

[okasha]

42. Also Sisters of Mercy.

In the Anglican/Episcopal Church, the Companions of Mary.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. "churches are moral institutions that are going to stand behind their promise"

Legislators also figured religious groups weren’t the problem: “People felt that it’s the church—it’s not going to let its plan fail and screw its employees,” he said. “Some of the writing about the statute has speculated that this was a reason, too—churches are moral institutions that are going to stand behind their promise (to pay for people’s pensions), because that’s what religions do.”

Ah, the touching naivete of people on the subject of churches.

[rug]

6. That quote from Stein is a paraphrase of what he says unnamed people have speculated.

Hardly a firm foundation on which to plant this: "Ah, the touching naivete of people on the subject of churches." (Smiley deleted.)

[AtheistCrusader]

13. There is no organization better at firewalling off itself from litigation risk.

Didn't become the single richest private organization in the world by being careless with legal responsibility.

None of this will touch 'the church'.

[rug]

17. Glad to see you disagree with your cohorts.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I have a more pessimistic view of how the church views responsiblity for its dogma.

All of the reward, none of the risk.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

26. There shouldn't be any religious schools or hospitals

[rug]

28. Who do you want to take them over?

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

30. People that don't talk to dead people?

[rug]

31. That's an astute political criticism.

What an asset.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I would like the University of Washington Physicians to be free of them.

They aren't owned by the catholic health care systems around here yet, but they have a joint operating and billing system in place that requires catholic ethics rules.

I want them free of that again, a secular, medical university program again.

I'm not going back to UW Physicians until they are.

[Angry Dragon]

27. No where is it written in the Bible that churches can own corporations

[rug]

29. And?

[Angry Dragon]

32. If someone wants to own and run a business fine, however they need to run it the same as everyone

else and not use their religion to circumvent the laws

[rug]

33. Is that in the Bible somewhere?

[Angry Dragon]

34. Owning a business has nothing to do with the Bible

and you must feel it does

[rug]

35. That explains post 27.

[Angry Dragon]

36. Jesus said: Render unto Caesar that is Caesar's

If a religious person can not serve all the people then they should not own a business

[rug]

37. Caesar's can serve everyone who walks through the door.

[Angry Dragon]

38. It seems you believe it is okay for religious people to decide which laws they wish to obey

[rug]

39. Seems is such a weasely word. Maybe you can just point to a post that even hints at that.

[Angry Dragon]

44. I find that 'seems' is no more weasely than I 'believe'

and it is hard to point to anything you might have said because it 'seems' you have a hard time answering a direct question
For the most part you answer a question with a question and that truly is weasely

Do you feel that based on religious beliefs one should be able to run their business on their beliefs??

[rug]

45. Oh, it's much more weasely.

It invokes empirical observation but then backs away from stating the observation. Because it's . . . . weasely.

I have no trouble at all answering a direct question. It's so rare that I encounter one. For example, you asked a policy question based on a feeling about belief. That's as absurd as the answer to the question you were attempting.

[Angry Dragon]

47. You really do like to weasel ...................... I BELIEVE

[Lordquinton]

48. "I have no trouble at all answering a direct question."

Ha, haha...

HHAHAHAHAHAHABHAHAHAHH!!!

You never answer direct questions, but let's test it out here and now rug:

What does LGBTQIA mean?

[rug]

49. Correct. I have no trouble at all ignoring trolls either.

[Lordquinton]

50. Are you calling me a troll?

[rug]

51. I have much more precise terms for you.