Supreme Court rules against Obama in contraception case By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 11:11 AM EDT, Mon June 30, 2014
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees, ending its term with a narrow legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court's conservatives essentially ruled that some for-profit corporations have religious rights.
The owners of Hobby Lobby, furniture maker Conestoga Wood Specialties and Christian bookseller Mardel argued that the Affordable Care Act violates the First Amendment and other federal laws protecting religious freedom because it requires them to provide coverage for contraceptives like the "morning-after pill," which the companies consider tantamount to abortion.
The decision, which comes two years after the justices narrowly preserved the Affordable Care Act and its key funding provision, could serve as a primer for other pending challenges to the health law.
The issue before the justices was whether Obamacare could mandate contraception coverage specifically for certain businesses that object for religious reasons.
"This case isn't that practically important, except for the employees and businesses involved. There just aren't a huge number of those," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a Washington appellate attorney.
"But everyone can agree the social questions presented -- about when people can follow their religious convictions, and when people are entitled to contraception care -- are truly important," he said.
The section of law in dispute requires for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay.
A number of companies equate some of the covered drugs, such as the so-called morning-after pill, as causing abortion.
The specific question presented was whether these companies can refuse, on the sincere claim it would violate their owners' long-established moral beliefs.
The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
"How does a corporation exercise religion?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor at March's oral arguments, summarizing perhaps the key constitutional question at hand.
"This is a religious question and it's a moral question," added Justice Samuel Alito, suggesting the businesses have such a right. "You want us to provide a definitive secular answer."
Conestoga, Hobby Lobby
The justices have a good deal of discretion to frame the competing issues and could reach a limited "compromise" through narrow statutory interpretation.
They could conclude individual owners can make the religious freedom claim, bypassing the corporate rights argument, but still give female workers the flexibility to get covered drugs.
The court weighed two related appeals from Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinet maker, and Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based retail giant that will have more than 700 arts-and-crafts stores nationwide by year's end.
Both corporations emphasized their desire to operate in harmony with biblical principles while competing in a secular marketplace. That includes their leaders' publicly stated opposition to abortion.
The case presented a complex mix of legal, regulatory, and constitutional concerns over such thorny issues as faith, abortion, corporate power, executive agency discretion, and congressional intent.
Health law impact
The political stakes are large, especially for the future effectiveness of the health law, which marks its fourth anniversary this year.
The botched rollout last fall of HealthCare.gov, the federal Obamacare website, has become another political flashpoint along with other issues that many Republicans say proves the law is unworkable.
They have made Obamacare a key campaign issue in their fight to overtake the Senate, and retain control of the House.
Supporters of the law fear a high court setback on the contraception mandate will lead to other healthcare challenges on religion grounds, such as do-not-resuscitate orders and vaccine coverage. More broadly, many worry giving corporations religious freedom rights could affect laws on employment, safety, and civil rights.
The abortion link
The Hahn family, owners of Conestoga, and the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, said some of the mandated contraception prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman's womb, which the plaintiffs equate with abortion.
That includes Plan B contraception, which some have called the "morning after" pill, and intrauterine devices or IUDs used by an estimated 2 million American women.
A key issue for the bench was interpreting a 1993 federal law requiring the government to seek the "least burdensome" and narrowly tailored means for any law that interferes with religious convictions.
Monday's decision comes two years after the justices allowed the law's "individual mandate" to go into effect.
That provision requires most Americans to get health insurance or pay a financial penalty. It is seen as the key funding mechanism to ensure near-universal health coverage.
Under the Affordable Care Act, financial penalties of up to $100 per day, per employee can be levied on firms that refuse to provide comprehensive health coverage. Hobby Lobby, which has about 13,000 workers, estimates the penalty could cost it $475 million a year.
The church-state issue now in the spotlight involves rules negotiated between the Obama administration and various outside groups. Under the changes, churches and houses of worship are completely exempt from the contraception mandate.
Other nonprofit, religiously affiliated groups, such as church-run hospitals, parochial schools and charities must either offer coverage or have a third-party insurer provide separate benefits without the employer's direct involvement. Lawsuits in those cases are pending in several federal appeals courts.
Second generation
Monday's decision could signal how the court will approach other lawsuits against the health care law.
"We're now getting the second generation of challenges to Obamacare -- about the actual adoption of the statute, and its core provisions," said Goldstein. "We're probably going to see cases over the next five to ten years, as more and more details about the law get put into effect."
streamdragon wrote: The supreme court decided in the favor of large companies, while shifting costs to the tax payer?
Wasn't that the point of the ACA?
Yes, Dreadclaw69. That was exactly the point Dreadclaw69. You, Dreadclaw69 have dropped a veritable truthbomb in here by using words and smileys arranged solely by Dreadclaw69 (that's you, Dreadclaw69).
Kanluwen wrote: So how many companies are suddenly going to start talking about their "closely held values"?
Only closely held companies... ie, family-ran for-profit institutions.
It doesn't do jack gak for larger companies, ie GE.
Technically family has nothing to do with it, just that the majority of the shares are held by 5 or less people. Doesn't require that those 5 people be family.
streamdragon wrote: The supreme court decided in the favor of large companies, while shifting costs to the tax payer?
Wasn't that the point of the ACA?
Did I have to specify corporate costs? And given the limits that ACA put on insurers avoiding payment (e.g., preexisting conditions, increasing the age you can stay on parent's policy, etc. etc.) I'm going with "no".
Kanluwen wrote: So how many companies are suddenly going to start talking about their "closely held values"?
Only closely held companies... ie, family-ran for-profit institutions.
It doesn't do jack gak for larger companies, ie GE.
Technically family has nothing to do with it, just that the majority of the shares are held by 5 or less people. Doesn't require that those 5 people be family.
Right... "closely held corporations" (however that's defined) like the for-profit corporations (ie, Hobby Lobby) cannot be compelled under RFRA to provide contraception coverage in violation of their religious beliefs. It's a very narrow win for Hobby Lobby.
Kanluwen wrote: So how many companies are suddenly going to start talking about their "closely held values"?
Only closely held companies... ie, family-ran for-profit institutions.
It doesn't do jack gak for larger companies, ie GE.
Technically family has nothing to do with it, just that the majority of the shares are held by 5 or less people. Doesn't require that those 5 people be family.
Right... "closely held corporations" (however that's defined) like the for-profit corporations (ie, Hobby Lobby) cannot be compelled under RFRA to provide contraception coverage in violation of their religious beliefs. It's a very narrow win for Hobby Lobby.
I agree that it's a narrow win for Hobby Lobby. I also think it's a terrible decision, which while narrow, continues a precedent that should never have been set: that corporations are people.
I believe that that precedent had been set quite a while ago??
streamdragon wrote:I agree that it's a narrow win for Hobby Lobby. I also think it's a terrible decision, which while narrow, continues a precedent that should never have been set: that corporations are people.
Lol, what I'm saying is that once a precedent has been set, following the guidance it "provides" is no longer precedent, but more of a par for the course sort of thing. Unless some huge groundbreaking decision is made to reverse the norm (ie. brown v. Board of Education)
The thing about precedent is that the more and more it is built, the stronger it gets. Rulings can go against precedent, but the stronger it is (i.e., the more times it has been established) the harder and harder it is to break. It's not just a one-and-done kind of thing.
Hence why the fewer things that establish coprorations as people, the better for America as a whole.
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
As someone who is an insurance broker, I can tell you that more often than not, employer medical coverage is gak, and you're better off getting your own. And in getting your own coverage, you can still have access to whatever you "need"
I believe that that precedent had been set quite a while ago??
Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) Is the earliest court case where this thought can be found in US Law but it was never an established precedent until Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888 - No Wiki Article) in which the Fourteenth Amendment was declared to apply to corporations concerning the 14th use of 'person.' Over time other court cases were made until finally Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs (1906) ended with the declaration that corporations are legal persons from SCOTUS.
This was eventually established as law in the United States Code Title 1.1.
streamdragon wrote: The thing about precedent is that the more and more it is built, the stronger it gets. Rulings can go against precedent, but the stronger it is (i.e., the more times it has been established) the harder and harder it is to break. It's not just a one-and-done kind of thing.
Hence why the fewer things that establish coprorations as people, the better for America as a whole.
Do you feel that the people should have the right to sue corporations?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: This will bring us 1 step closer to Single Payer.
Do you feel that the people should have the right to sue corporations?
The law could easily account for how to sue a corporation without declaring them a person. Dogma I think has several times proposed that the law create a line between legal persons (as in things that are 'persons' because the law makes them so) and natural persons (who are persons because, well people when they're born are typically considered persons), which is a solid way to go about it.
"The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs,"
What about people that are neither men, nor women?
And that's well before I dig into how absurd RFRA is.
Do you feel that the people should have the right to sue corporations?
The law could easily account for how to sue a corporation without declaring them a person. Dogma I think has several times proposed that the law create a line between legal persons (as in things that are 'persons' because the law makes them so) and natural persons (who are persons because, well people when they're born are typically considered persons), which is a solid way to go about it.
Ruling us one step closer to a single payer system? Actually shocking...
You're the 3rd person to think that... why are we closer to single payer? (not that I'm opposed to really, just don't understand why this ruling would have any bearings on this).
Also... via powerlineblog:
UPDATE: Our friend Mark Arnold, a distinguished appellate attorney, writes that the decision in Hobby Lobby is “all smoke and mirrors” because “the less restrictive alternative that the majority settled on is a certification by Hobby Lobby that it opposes contraceptive coverage, after which the insurance company must provide that coverage for free.” Accordingly, “the premium charged to Hobby Lobby will necessarily include the cost of the free contraception.”
It's a big win for Hobby Lobby, but it sets a pretty narrow precedent. Not all SCOTUS decisions lead to a mudslide of exapnsion. Plenty of borderline or outrigth incorrect decisions either are overturned in whole (Lochner being by far the most major of those, wiht Plessy v. Ferguson in second), whittled down with exceptions (PP vs. Casey, nearly all automobile 4th amendment cases), or outright ignored as addressing too narrow a fact pattern to really build anything on (the immortal Bong Hits 4 Jesus).
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.
Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.
Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.
Agreed... but I'd need a 1000 page Excel speadsheet to outline what rights Corporations specifically would/wouldn't have compared to "normal people"
The saddest thing about this whole case is that people can force a SCOTUS ruling based on the simple fact that they are too stupid to know how medicines actually work, and that there was not a single judge that had the balls to throw the case out based on the fact that it deals with something that is factually wrong to begin with.
It's like saying that you shouldn't have to provide antibiotics because your religion is against guns and the SCOTUS saying "protect his religion, nobody should be forced to pay for antibiotics that will result in more gun deaths!"
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.
Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.
I know I have made that argument in the past and I think we pretty much agreed back then as well.
I think it was basically "You shouldn't get to file paperwork removing yourself from your business so that if somebody falls in your store and sues you you can say 'you can't have my house because you fell in 'Me, Inc' and I'm not 'Me, Inc' I'm just me and we are two completely separate legal entities and then turn around and say 'Me, Inc' shouldn't have to do something that I don't like because 'Me, Inc' and me are actually the same person".
On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby on the company's challenge to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, ruling that the mandate, as applied to "closely held" businesses, violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But the divided court's 5-4 decision included a dramatic dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called the majority opinion "a decision of startling breadth." Ginsburg read a portion of her decision from the bench on Monday.
Addressing the majority of her colleagues — including all but one of the six men sitting on the Supreme Court — Ginsburg wrote:
In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.
The justice goes on to criticize the opinion's interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that "until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'"
The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.
"In sum," Ginsburg adds about the free exercise claims at the heart of this case,“‘[y]our right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.’”
Justice Alito got a little prickly in his majority opinion about Ginsburg's strong criticism of their take on the case:
As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 1 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “disadvantages . . . on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.” Post, at 1–2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that “RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.” Post, at 2.1 The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.
Ginsburg seems to reply to Alito by suggesting that what Alito sees as a narrow, limited decision is essentially an invitation for lots of future challenges on religious grounds: "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations," she writes, "its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate."
Ruling us one step closer to a single payer system? Actually shocking...
You're the 3rd person to think that... why are we closer to single payer? (not that I'm opposed to really, just don't understand why this ruling would have any bearings on this).
Because the ruling basically said that if the Government thinks that providing a medical service is important enough as a public policy, then they can provide it and just have the taxpayers pay for it.
skyth wrote: It's really sad that 'Freedom of Religion' is now defined as being able to force other people to follow the dictates of your religion.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.
Nobody is saying you can't buy X contraceptive. its that while you work for the company they will not pay for X contraceptive(but Y and Z are still available BTW)
You can pay for X out of your own pocket and use it.
The ruling is actually that a corporation can't be forced to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
You're an attorney...right?
So, if corporations don't enjoy those rights, what's to stop having its board meetings stormed and broken up by police. What's to stop the government from seizing company assets?
See what I mean?
I think it's silly at this point to respond back by saying "Corporations are not people!!!!"
Ruling us one step closer to a single payer system? Actually shocking...
You're the 3rd person to think that... why are we closer to single payer? (not that I'm opposed to really, just don't understand why this ruling would have any bearings on this).
Because the ruling basically said that if the Government thinks that providing a medical service is important enough as a public policy, then they can provide it and just have the taxpayers pay for it.
whembly wrote: So, if corporations don't enjoy those rights, what's to stop having its board meetings stormed and broken up by police. What's to stop the government from seizing company assets?
Laws.
I think it's silly at this point to respond back by saying "Corporations are not people!!!!"
It's also silly to respond "but if they're not people terrible things will happen to them!"
No one is arguing corporations should have no rights. Some people argue that treating them as though they were an individual person is becoming very senseless and problematic.
Ruling us one step closer to a single payer system? Actually shocking...
You're the 3rd person to think that... why are we closer to single payer? (not that I'm opposed to really, just don't understand why this ruling would have any bearings on this).
Because the ruling basically said that if the Government thinks that providing a medical service is important enough as a public policy, then they can provide it and just have the taxpayers pay for it.
whembly's brain goes *click*.
Gotcha.
I can see that now... thanks.
it's just a tiny portion of the opinion but here it is:
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for
the Government to assume the cost of providing the four
contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to
obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to
their employers’ religious objections. This would certainly
be less restrictive of the plaintiffs’ religious liberty, and
HHS has not shown, see §2000bb–1(b)(2), that this is not a
viable alternative. H
It might be a stretch, but the SCOTUS is not exactly a stranger to slippery slope applications of their rulings...
it's just a tiny portion of the opinion but here it is:
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for
the Government to assume the cost of providing the four
contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to
obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to
their employers’ religious objections. This would certainly
be less restrictive of the plaintiffs’ religious liberty, and
HHS has not shown, see §2000bb–1(b)(2), that this is not a
viable alternative. H
It might be a stretch, but the SCOTUS is not exactly a stranger to slippery slope applications of their rulings...
Yep... that does give us indications that if Congress decides to pass single-payer system, the court wouldn't object.
The ruling is actually that a corporation can't be forced to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.
Well, it rules that a person who doesn't know how medications work can pull out their Bible and say that they don't want to pay for something that doesn't cause abortions because they don't believe in abortions.
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
You're an attorney...right?
So, if corporations don't enjoy those rights, what's to stop having its board meetings stormed and broken up by police. What's to stop the government from seizing company assets?
See what I mean?
I think it's silly at this point to respond back by saying "Corporations are not people!!!!"
Easy killer. Corporations are legal persons, and clearly need to enjoy some of the rights of a person. The right to speech, press (!), assembly, and presenting government with greivances are pretty clear. 4th amendment seizure rights and 5th amendment takings rights are pretty key. Some rights make no sense for a corp to have (voting...yet) and bearing arms (god lets hope it doesn't come to that).
(I also doubt that companies would be forced to quarter soldiers. The 3rd Amendment is the real Tito Jackson of the Bill of Rights)
The reason I feel this is a dopey ruling, and not a bad ruling, is because most corporations don't exist as publically traded monoliths. They are small, with ownership groups that are personally close. While I think it's not the best issue to raise cain about, I'm okay living in a world were the owners of Hobby Lobby can sleep at night, not tormented by the thoughts of paying for morning after pills and the like.
BTW: in most states, a low income person would likely qualify for quasi-medicaid contraception (but not abortion). My ex-girflriend got a free IUD on that program.
it's just a tiny portion of the opinion but here it is:
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections. This would certainly be less restrictive of the plaintiffs’ religious liberty, and HHS has not shown, see §2000bb–1(b)(2), that this is not a viable alternative. H
It might be a stretch, but the SCOTUS is not exactly a stranger to slippery slope applications of their rulings...
Yep... that does give us indications that if Congress decides to pass single-payer system, the court wouldn't object.
Good find.
Even if it doesn't go as far as a single payer system, it definitely provides a legal argument in favor of a public option IMO.
The ruling is actually that a corporation can't be forced to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.
Well, it rules that a person who doesn't know how medications work can pull out their Bible and say that they don't want to pay for something that doesn't cause abortions because they don't believe in abortions.
Which really is my biggest beef with this.
Just curious. What if a business wanted to say, deny health coverage to employees based on race citing X religious belief as a basis for doing so assuming they met the same "Close Holding" criteria as hobby lobby?
To take it a step further, what if a similarly held company wanted to ignore other established law on the basis of Y religious belief, family-owned real estate business that owned the majority of the housing in a given town only wanted to rent to certain kinds of people and not to others that might be of one or more protected classes?
Exactly how far does this ruling reach (or imply this court is generally willing to rule in favor of), in terms of allowing businesses to say "The law does not apply to us, because [INSERT RELIGIOUS BELIEF HERE].
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.
Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.
Agreed... but I'd need a 1000 page Excel speadsheet to outline what rights Corporations specifically would/wouldn't have compared to "normal people"
Really? They can sign and enforce legal contracts. They can sue and be sued, and their owners are protected from direct legal liability. Thats it.
The ruling is actually that a corporation can't be forced to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.
Well, it rules that a person who doesn't know how medications work can pull out their Bible and say that they don't want to pay for something that doesn't cause abortions because they don't believe in abortions.
Which really is my biggest beef with this.
Yeah... just don't tell 'em what Misoprostol does off-label.
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
You're an attorney...right?
So, if corporations don't enjoy those rights, what's to stop having its board meetings stormed and broken up by police. What's to stop the government from seizing company assets?
See what I mean?
I think it's silly at this point to respond back by saying "Corporations are not people!!!!"
Ruling us one step closer to a single payer system? Actually shocking...
You're the 3rd person to think that... why are we closer to single payer? (not that I'm opposed to really, just don't understand why this ruling would have any bearings on this).
Because the ruling basically said that if the Government thinks that providing a medical service is important enough as a public policy, then they can provide it and just have the taxpayers pay for it.
whembly's brain goes *click*.
Gotcha.
I can see that now... thanks.
Same reason police can't do that to partnerships, sole proprietors and plain jane people now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The 3rd Amendment is the real Tito Jackson of the Bill of Rights)
The ruling is actually that a corporation can't be forced to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.
Well, it rules that a person who doesn't know how medications work can pull out their Bible and say that they don't want to pay for something that doesn't cause abortions because they don't believe in abortions.
Which really is my biggest beef with this.
Just curious. What if a business wanted to say, deny health coverage to employees based on race citing X religious belief as a basis for doing so assuming they met the same "Close Holding" criteria as hobby lobby?
To take it a step further, what if a similarly held company wanted to ignore other established law on the basis of Y religious belief, family-owned real estate business that owned the majority of the housing in a given town only wanted to rent to certain kinds of people and not to others that might be of one or more protected classes?
Exactly how far does this ruling reach (or imply this court is generally willing to rule in favor of), in terms of allowing businesses to say "The law does not apply to us, because [INSERT RELIGIOUS BELIEF HERE].
1. Business corporations are potentially covered by RFRA: Hobby Lobby is a 5-to-4 decision on the bottom line, but only 5-to-2 on whether for-profit corporations may bring RFRA claims, or whether owners of those corporations may sue based on restrictions imposed on those corporations. Justices Breyer and Kagan expressly say that they do not express an opinion on the issue; they think Hobby Lobby should lose regardless of how the issue is decided. Here’s part of the majority’s explanation of why it concluded that for-profit corporations are covered (paragraph breaks added):
As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.”
But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another.
When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations’ financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.
And here’s part of the Justice Ginsburg’s and Sotomayor’s explanation of their contrary view:
The Dictionary Act’s definition, [which defines “person” to usually include corporations], controls only where “context” does not “indicat[e] otherwise.” Here, context does so indicate. RFRA speaks of “a person’s exercise of religion.” Whether a corporation qualifies as a “person” capable of exercising religion is an inquiry one cannot answer without reference to the “full body” of pre-Smith “free-exercise caselaw.” There is in that case law no support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations….
Reading RFRA, as the Court does, to require extension of religion-based exemptions to for-profit corporations surely is not grounded in the pre-Smith precedent Congress sought to preserve. Had Congress intended RFRA to initiate a change so huge, a clarion statement to that effect likely would have been made in the legislation. The text of RFRA makes no such statement and the legislative history does not so much as mention for-profit corporations.
2. The Affordable Care Act substantially burdens these particular claimants’ practice of religion (as to the requirement that they provide insurance plans that pay for contraceptives that they view as abortion-producing): Here’s a key excerpt from the majority; note that both Hobby Lobby (owned by the Greens) and Conestoga Wood (owned by the Hahns) claimed religious exemptions in this case:
Because RFRA applies in these cases, we must next ask whether the HHS contraceptive mandate “substantially burden[s]” the exercise of religion. 42 U.S.C. §2000bb– 1(a). We have little trouble concluding that it does….
As we have noted, the Hahns and Greens have a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception. They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that, as HHS acknowledges, may result in the destruction of an embryo. By requiring the Hahns and Greens and their companies to arrange for such coverage [on pain of severe financial levies; details omitted -EV], the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs….
HHS’s main [contrary] argument (echoed by the principal dissent) is basically that the connection between what the objecting parties must do (provide health-insurance coverage for four methods of contraception that may operate after the fertilization of an egg) and the end that they find to be morally wrong (destruction of an embryo) is simply too attenuated. HHS and the dissent note that providing the coverage would not itself result in the destruction of an embryo; that would occur only if an employee chose to take advantage of the coverage and to use one of the four methods at issue. [Footnote: This argument is not easy to square with the position taken by HHS in providing exemptions from the contraceptive mandate for religious employers, such as churches, that have the very same religious objections as the Hahns and Greens and their companies.]
This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents (whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable). The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another.
Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step…. “Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine … the plausibility of a religious claim[.]” …
Moreover, in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div. (1981), we considered and rejected an argument that is nearly identical to the one now urged by HHS and the dissent. In Thomas, a Jehovah’s Witness was initially employed making sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but he was later transferred to a job making turrets for tanks. Because he objected on religious grounds to participating in the manufacture of weapons, he lost his job and sought unemployment compensation.
Ruling against the employee, the state court had difficulty with the line that the employee drew between work that he found to be consistent with his religious beliefs (helping to manufacture steel that was used in making weapons) and work that he found morally objectionable (helping to make the weapons themselves). This Court, however, held that “it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.”
Similarly, in these cases, the Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial. Instead, our “narrow function … in this context is to determine” whether the line drawn reflects “an honest conviction,” and there is no dispute that it does.
Here’s an excerpt from the dissent’s response:
[T]he connection between the families’ religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial. The requirement carries no command that Hobby Lobby or Conestoga purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable. Instead, it calls on the companies covered by the requirement to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans. Those plans, in order to comply with the ACA, must offer contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, just as they must cover an array of other preventive services.
Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. Should an employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. But “[n]o individual decision by an employee and her physician — be it to use contraception, treat an infection, or have a hip replaced — is in any meaningful sense [her employer’s] decision or action.”
It is doubtful that Congress, when it specified that burdens must be “substantia[l],” had in mind a linkage thus interrupted by independent decisionmakers (the woman and her health counselor) standing between the challenged government action and the religious exercise claimed to be infringed. Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.
3. Applying the ACA’s requirement is not the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest: The Court concludes that granting the requested exemption will not materially undermine the government interest in providing cost-free contraceptives (including the ones that claimant employers don’t want to have to cover under their insurance plans) — the government can both make sure all such contraceptives are provided and avoid substantially burdening the claimants’ religious freedom. Under RFRA, when such a reconciliation is possible, the government must grant the exemption. Here’s the key excerpt from the majority opinion (some paragraph breaks and bold emphasis added):
Since the HHS contraceptive mandate imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, we must move on and decide whether HHS has shown that the mandate both “(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest” [quoting RFRA].
HHS asserts that the contraceptive mandate serves a variety of important interests, but many of these are couched in very broad terms, such as promoting “public health” and “gender equality.” RFRA, however, contemplates a “more focused” inquiry: It “requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’ — the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” This requires us to “loo[k] beyond broadly formulated interests” and to “scrutiniz[e] the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants” — in other words, to look to the marginal interest in enforcing the contraceptive mandate in these cases.
In addition to asserting these very broadly framed interests, HHS maintains that the mandate serves a compelling interest in ensuring that all women have access to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing. Under our cases, women (and men) have a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives, and HHS tells us that “[s]tudies have demonstrated that even moderate copayments for preventive services can deter patients from receiving those services.” …
We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA [despite the fact that employers with grandfathered plans and employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempted from the Affordable Care Act], and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” …
The least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding, and it is not satisfied here. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases. See §§2000bb–1(a), (b) (requiring the Government to “demonstrat[e] that application of [a substantial] burden to the person … is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest” (emphasis added)).
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections. This would certainly be less restrictive of the plaintiffs’ religious liberty, and HHS has not shown that this is not a viable alternative.
HHS has not provided any estimate of the average cost per employee of providing access to these contraceptives, two of which, according to the FDA, are designed primarily for emergency use. Nor has HHS provided any statistics regarding the number of employees who might be affected because they work for corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel. Nor has HHS told us that it is unable to provide such statistics.
It seems likely, however, that the cost of providing the forms of contraceptives at issue in these cases (if not all FDA-approved contraceptives) would be minor when compared with the overall cost of ACA. According to one of the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent forecasts, ACA’s insurance coverage provisions will cost the Federal Government more than $1.3 trillion through the next decade. If, as HHS tells us, providing all women with cost-free access to all FDA-approved methods of contraception is a Government interest of the highest order, it is hard to understand HHS’s argument that it cannot be required under RFRA to pay anything in order to achieve this important goal.
HHS contends that RFRA does not permit us to take this option into account because “RFRA cannot be used to require creation of entirely new programs.” But we see nothing in RFRA that supports this argument, and drawing the line between the “creation of an entirely new program” and the modification of an existing program (which RFRA surely allows) would be fraught with problems. We do not doubt that cost may be an important factor in the least-restrictive-means analysis, but both RFRA and its sister statute, RLUIPA, may in some circumstances require the Government to expend additional funds to accommodate citizens’ religious beliefs. Cf. §2000cc–3(c) (RLUIPA: “[T]his chapter may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.”). HHS’s view that RFRA can never require the Government to spend even a small amount reflects a judgment about the importance of religious liberty that was not shared by the Congress that enacted that law.
In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections. Under that accommodation, the organization can self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services. If the organization makes such a certification, the organization’s insurance issuer or third-party administrator must “[e]xpressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan” and “[p]rovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered” without imposing “any cost-sharing requirements … on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.” …
[Such an approach] does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well. Under the accommodation, the plaintiffs’ female employees would continue to receive contraceptive coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives, and they would continue to “face minimal logistical and administrative obstacles,” because their employers’ insurers would be responsible for providing information and coverage.
Here is an excerpt from the principal dissent:
Then let the government pay (rather than the employees who do not share their employer’s faith), the Court suggests…. The ACA, however, requires coverage of preventive services through the existing employer-based system of health insurance “so that [employees] face minimal logistical and administrative obstacles.” Impeding women’s receipt of benefits “by requiring them to take steps to learn about, and to sign up for, a new [government funded and administered] health benefit” was scarcely what Congress contemplated.
Moreover, Title X of the Public Health Service Act, “is the nation’s only dedicated source of federal funding for safety net family planning services.” “Safety net programs like Title X are not designed to absorb the unmet needs of … insured individuals.” Note, too, that Congress declined to write into law the preferential treatment Hobby Lobby and Conestoga describe as a less restrictive alternative.
And where is the stopping point to the “let the government pay” alternative? Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work? Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection?
Because the Court cannot easily answer that question, it proposes something else: Extension to commercial enterprises of the accommodation already afforded to nonprofit religion-based organizations. “At a minimum,” according to the Court, such an approach would not “impinge on [Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga’s] religious belief.” … [But] the “special solicitude” generally accorded nonprofit religion-based organizations that exist to serve a community of believers … [has] never before [been] accorded to commercial enterprises comprising employees of diverse faiths….
4. What about other exemption claims? The majority stresses that, under RFRA, each exemption claim is to be treated on its own terms. One could argue that courts shouldn’t be in the business of carving out such religious exemptions, and that any religious exemptions must be created directly by Congress, or not at all. Indeed, the Court in Employment Division v. Smith generally held that courts shouldn’t be in the business of carving out religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause. But Congress, in RFRA, mandated that courts indeed carve out such exemptions as a matter of statutory right (under the RFRA statute itself); and that, the majority said, is what it was doing here. From the majority opinion:
The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith[, which argued that] … applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind[.]” …
But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on this matter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.
From earlier in the majority opinion,
HHS and the principal dissent argue that a ruling in favor of the objecting parties in these cases will lead to a flood of religious objections regarding a wide variety of medical procedures and drugs, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions, but HHS has made no effort to substantiate this prediction. HHS points to no evidence that insurance plans in existence prior to the enactment of ACA excluded coverage for such items. Nor has HHS provided evidence that any significant number of employers sought exemption, on religious grounds, from any of ACA’s coverage requirements other than the contraceptive mandate….
In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.
And from the main dissent:
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga surely do not stand alone as commercial enterprises seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs. [The dissent cited cases claiming religious exemptions from bans on race discrimination, marital status discrimination, sex discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination. -EV] Would RFRA require exemptions in cases of this ilk? And if not, how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not? Isn’t the Court disarmed from making such a judgment given its recognition that “courts must not presume to determine … the plausibility of a religious claim”?
Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases … would have to be evaluated on its own … apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.
The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should note understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment.
There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” United States v. Lee (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged … substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.”
Still working on the lead dissenting opinion; I plan to have more excerpts from it up shortly.
Jihadin wrote: In a nutshell. What does this do with ACA.
Very little actually, to be honest.
I think somebody on the radio did an excellent job summarizing why it is a passionate argument all over the news:
"It combines Sex, God, Government, Obama and the Constitution. So it is a perfect storm for passionate responses."
But in practical terms regarding the ACA? It doesn't really do hardly anything except leave a certain set of women without direct access to those specific drugs that an employer doesn't want to pay for based on their religion. It doesn't really do anything at all about anything else...
skyth wrote: It's really sad that 'Freedom of Religion' is now defined as being able to force other people to follow the dictates of your religion.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.
Nobody is saying you can't buy X contraceptive. its that while you work for the company they will not pay for X contraceptive(but Y and Z are still available BTW)
You can pay for X out of your own pocket and use it.
The ruling is actually that a corporation can't be forced to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.
Incorrect. The ruling is saying that you don't have to follow a law if the law allows someone else to do something contrary to your religious beliefs. The law is not forcing the owners of the company to use the birth control. The law just mandates that it is available to other people through their health insurance. The ruling basically says that you are allowed to use your religious beliefs to affect someone else. That is all sorts of wrong.
Sorry, but your religious beliefs cannot be violated by the actions of someone else.
Frazzled wrote: No one is being forced to do anything. That was the point of the suit. Evidently logic is not your strong suit.
I dont think the people frothing at the mouth care much for logic frazz...
They want to hear that THEIR secular beliefs are untouchable, that they can never be forced to pray or do anything against their own beliefs,
but that its a-ok to force a person who believes strongly in not getting abortions/certain forms of birth control, to pay for abortions/ morning after pills/ ect
the state cannot hold religious beliefs, so having single payer where its all through the state,eliminates the possibility of forcing madam christian from paying for madam seculars morning after pill.
personally,
this is why you have to have single payer... seriously... this is why I have been critisizing obama care all along, its a rediculous, stupid, ineffectual half measure....
obama has numerous examples of successful social insurance schemes to emulate/copy yet he comes up with some frankenstein system that fails to do anything well.
this is fallout from that in a way.
copy a system that works, heck, canada is right next door and is happy to show you how its done, and would love to cut down on the people crossing the border just to get our medical care.
strangly enough, despite all of us getting medical care, id pay slightly more taxes in the states then I would here.
easysauce wrote: the state cannot hold religious beliefs, so having single payer where its all through the state,eliminates the possibility of forcing madam christian from paying for madam seculars morning after pill.
...
You do realize that government-run health care would be funded by taxes, right? And that all the whiny s of the religious right would have to pay those taxes to fund "abortion"?
easysauce wrote: the state cannot hold religious beliefs, so having single payer where its all through the state,eliminates the possibility of forcing madam christian from paying for madam seculars morning after pill.
...
You do realize that government-run health care would be funded by taxes, right? And that all the whiny s of the religious right would have to pay those taxes to fund "abortion"?
OFC i know that, think it through a bit
in the same way every whiney pacifist is forced to pay for bombs/drones to kill children in afghanistan/pakistan/ect , same way every taxpayer has to pay for some welfare/foodstamps/ect even if its against their own preferred morality.
But you are 100% wrong, it doesnt actually force people to pay for anything.
it forces the government to pay for it, taking the "guilt" off the taxpayer.
that the government is funded by taxes is irrelevant, esp since many of the people under this program pay little to no taxes due to income levels.
I mean, if you want to think of it that way, the people who pay the most taxes should have the most say in how the govenment spends those taxes... but that is most definatly not the case.
easysauce wrote: the state cannot hold religious beliefs, so having single payer where its all through the state,eliminates the possibility of forcing madam christian from paying for madam seculars morning after pill.
...
You do realize that government-run health care would be funded by taxes, right? And that all the whiny s of the religious right would have to pay those taxes to fund "abortion"?
OFC i know that, think it through a bit
in the same way every whiney pacifist is forced to pay for bombs/drones to kill children in afghanistan/pakistan/ect , same way every taxpayer has to pay for some welfare/foodstamps/ect even if its against their own preferred morality.
But you are 100% wrong, it doesnt actually force people to pay for anything.
it forces the government to pay for it, taking the "guilt" off the taxpayer.
that the government is funded by taxes is irrelevant, esp since many of the people under this program pay little to no taxes due to income levels.
I mean, if you want to think of it that way, the people who pay the most taxes should have the most say in how the govenment spends those taxes... but that is most definatly not the case.
Couldn;t your exact same argument be applied to a Corporation? The owner's of Hobby Lobby could sleep easy knowing that they weren;t providing the drugs, just their corporate entity? However, that argument didn;t seem to be good enough for them, so why should it be any different when it is the Government?
Dang, i hav eno idea if I am making any sense right now.
So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.
Easy E wrote: Couldn;t your exact same argument be applied to a Corporation? The owner's of Hobby Lobby could sleep easy knowing that they weren;t providing the drugs, just their corporate entity? However, that argument didn;t seem to be good enough for them, so why should it be any different when it is the Government?
Exactly. We're in the exact same situation with a corporation paying for something the corporation's owners/employees/whatever disagree with, and somehow the "I'm not directly responsible" thing doesn't apply. And we've already seen how the religious right gets outraged at the thought of government-funded abortions, or even the government giving money to anyone who supports or provides abortions despite the money being limited to funding non-abortion services.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.
But Jesus didn't say that, so it will get laughed out of court. Because we all know that in this context "religious freedom" means "conservative Christians should never have to experience anything that disagrees with their religion".
jasper76 wrote: So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.
First you have to wrestle with IRS
For example, most agree that Scientology isn't really a religion, even though it has long called itself that. The IRS (after a lengthy court battle and a final out-of-court settlement in the '90s) finally granted Scientology non-profit status as a religion under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code; but those who considered it a religion considered it so long before that, and ever since. And most in the US will at least treat it as a religion out of courtesy. But there's no government recognition involved... not even by the IRS. Its decision is based on how the group handles its money; whether it truly complies with the requirements of a "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" entity. I make that point to show that even whether or not the IRS grants "non-profit" status isn't really recognition as a religion. Many non-profit organizations are secular; and non-profit status by the IRS is not required in order for a religion to call itself that.
jasper76 wrote: So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.
Not sure if its been mentioned yet but I would recommend checking out the twitter feed for SCOTUSblog, they have been dropping serious snark all day on people that think that are an official blog of the supreme court
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog
jasper76 wrote: So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.
They don't have to provide healthcare now.
Was under the impression that the ACA came with a healthcare mandate for companies above a certain # of employees.
Closely held compaines can be pretty friggin big: Dell Computers, Heinz foods. to name a couple
jasper76 wrote: So, next up, somebody invents a religion (or utilizes an existing one) where any and all healthcare is tabboo, and doesn't have to pay for any healthcare for its employees, so long as they are a closely held company...all according to the logic used in this ruling.
They don't have to provide healthcare now.
Was under the impression that the ACA came with a healthcare mandate for companies above a certain # of employees.
Not quite... the PPACA empowers the HHS agency to determine what to mandate.
Closely held compaines can be pretty friggin big: Dell Computers, Heinz foods. to name a couple
True... but, that doesn't mean those companies will be putting healthcare programs on the chopping block.
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
True... and in many case, it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty. It's just a matter of if they can retain their skilled talents.
Fun fact: Employer based healthcare benefit packages started in WW2 when wages remained stagnent. It was meant to lure talent with better benefit packages.
Alito wrote:
A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.
So it isn't a human being, and therefore cannot be considered a natural person; at least assuming the personage of human beings is not to be left to the US Federal Government.
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
I do believe this bill was passed when both House and Senate was controlled by Democrats. No Republicans voted for it. I could be wrong
Republicans have made a few minor fixes to actually keep it alive since it passed. Grandstanding against it is just for votes at this point.
Republicans are not talking about the things they have done to keep it working because they don't want to lose voters. Democrats are not talking about what republicans have done to keep it working because they don't want to piss them off.
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
I do believe this bill was passed when both House and Senate was controlled by Democrats. No Republicans voted for it. I could be wrong
That's fairly irrelevant. The composition of the House and Senate were voted in, just like any other time. Obama won reelection after the ACA was law, so the people had their chance to oust him over it, and they just didn't.
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.
Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.
Agreed... but I'd need a 1000 page Excel speadsheet to outline what rights Corporations specifically would/wouldn't have compared to "normal people"
Really? They can sign and enforce legal contracts. They can sue and be sued, and their owners are protected from direct legal liability. Thats it.
Aside from legal contracts, civil suits and the like, how much freedom of speech does a corporation have? We've seen repeatedly people having issue with "Microsoft Corp" donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week], but not with Bill Gates donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Like I mention before. They need to get it together to fine tune ACA before it becomes a monster
As a new insurance adviser, let me tell you ACA is ALREADY a monster... But right now it's looking more like a Chimaera, but is turning into a Hydra pretty quickly.
It's a dopey ruling, but I feel that when you do business as a corporation, you lose a lot of the rights you enjoy as a person.
Outsanding logic. I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.
Congress could make that a law and invalidate a lot of problems.
Agreed... but I'd need a 1000 page Excel speadsheet to outline what rights Corporations specifically would/wouldn't have compared to "normal people"
Really? They can sign and enforce legal contracts. They can sue and be sued, and their owners are protected from direct legal liability. Thats it.
Aside from legal contracts, civil suits and the like, how much freedom of speech does a corporation have? We've seen repeatedly people having issue with "Microsoft Corp" donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week], but not with Bill Gates donating funds to [Local Politician of the Week]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Like I mention before. They need to get it together to fine tune ACA before it becomes a monster
As a new insurance adviser, let me tell you ACA is ALREADY a monster... But right now it's looking more like a Chimaera, but is turning into a Hydra pretty quickly.
Democrats better find some common grounds with Republicans to hold voter base and Republicans better meet them halfway to keep their voter base
Democrats better find some common grounds with Republicans to hold voter base and Republicans better meet them halfway to keep their voter base
Get rid of ALL 24 hour news networks, and I think more Politicians could make some deals that they currently won't due to the current media environment.
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...
Shush you... maybe they'll think the ACA is overturned... or something.
Best zinger so far:
Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby
10:07 AM - 30 Jun 2014
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...
Shush you... maybe they'll think the ACA is overturned... or something.
Best zinger so far:
Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby
10:07 AM - 30 Jun 2014
Lets not screw around with Executive Orders and SCOTUS. Tempting bad Mojo. Lets see how Boehner lawsuit is written
Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby
I suppose that is a zinger if we restrict the definition of 'zinger' to "a sentence with words". It also makes the idea of 'best' somewhat more nebulous as well.
Gov. Bobby Jindal ✔ @BobbyJindal
Follow
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby
I suppose that is a zinger if we restrict the definition of 'zinger' to "a sentence with words". It also makes the idea of 'best' somewhat more nebulous as well.
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...
The larger issue is that now, a company has a Supreme Court stamp of approval to dream up any reason they can think of to break the law, so long as it is on the basis of religion, which lets face it is tennis without a net, and so long as they are 50% owned by a "true" religious family. Despite Scalia's attempt to narrow down the decision, it distinctly does not exclude the possibility of state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of such important issues as age, sexual preference, and many other common forms of discrimination, purely on the basis of religious objections by companies owned by 50% family who can pass some vague religious litmus test (which in itself is a very, very scary business for our government to get involved in, and is, indeed, unconstitutional).
This decision is bizarre in so many ways. The fact that Scalia did enter those exemptions into the majority decision proves that he knows, however much he conceals it from himself, that this case is no different.
P.S. I may seem heartless by saying what I said, but the real villains in this situation are the Hobby Lobby owners. They know they pay their employees gak wages. They know full well that they employ many many women, and not all of them share their voodoo beliefs about birth control. Yet they are the one's jamming down their beliefs on people who don't share them by seeking special treatment from the courts to exempt the mandate for coverage of common medication that is noone's business but doctor/patient.
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...
The larger issue is that now, a company has a Supreme Court stamp of approval to dream up any reason they can think of to break the law, so long as it is on the basis of religion, which lets face it is tennis without a net, and so long as they are 50% owned by a "true" religious family. Despite Scalia's attempt to narrow down the decision, it distinctly does not exclude the possibility of state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of such important issues as age, sexual preference, and many other common forms of discrimination, purely on the basis of religious objections by companies owned by 50% family who can pass some vague religious litmus test (which in itself is a very, very scary business for our government to get involved in, and is, indeed, unconstitutional).
This decision is bizarre in so many ways. The fact that Scalia did enter those exemptions into the majority decision proves that he knows, however much he conceals it from himself, that this case is no different.
The court simply affirmed RFRA... a law sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton.
Drugs for Central Nervous System, Respiratory products, Oncology (made one of the meds that saved my ass), Women Health Products (mention in the article posted), pain meds for cancer which also helped my ass, and transplant meds.
I didn't think they, Teva deal solely with just Women Health Meds. As for the Health insurance companies. Is there any that does not have abortion in one of their policies?
Frazzled wrote: They can just pay the penalty and not provide anything.
If this is the case, then the law already makes an accommodation for Hobby Lobby. They should have put their money where their mouth is, paid the fine. Instead, we get the will of the people as manifested by their elected representatives overturned, with a clear precedent of special religious pleading that will flood the courts for years and years and years.
So for wont of four kinds of birth control out of 20 you have a company wack everyone's health insurance? I don't know, heartless bastard comes to mind...
The larger issue is that now, a company has a Supreme Court stamp of approval to dream up any reason they can think of to break the law, so long as it is on the basis of religion, which lets face it is tennis without a net, and so long as they are 50% owned by a "true" religious family. Despite Scalia's attempt to narrow down the decision, it distinctly does not exclude the possibility of state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of such important issues as age, sexual preference, and many other common forms of discrimination, purely on the basis of religious objections by companies owned by 50% family who can pass some vague religious litmus test (which in itself is a very, very scary business for our government to get involved in, and is, indeed, unconstitutional).
This decision is bizarre in so many ways. The fact that Scalia did enter those exemptions into the majority decision proves that he knows, however much he conceals it from himself, that this case is no different.
The court simply affirmed RFRA... a law sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton.
II take it your reading into things that I'm a Democrat, but that is incorrect. Is it quite possible that if the RFRA itself is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional? I think so. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means exactly what is says to me.
Drugs for Central Nervous System, Respiratory products, Oncology (made one of the meds that saved my ass), Women Health Products (mention in the article posted), pain meds for cancer which also helped my ass, and transplant meds.
I didn't think they, Teva deal solely with just Women Health Meds. As for the Health insurance companies. Is there any that does not have abortion in one of their policies?
And they make abortion drugs, paid for by Hobby Lobby investment money.
II take it your reading into things that I'm a Democrat, but that is incorrect. Is it quite possible that if the RFRA itself is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional? I think so. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means exactly what is says to me.
In fact, the RFRA has been denounced by state courts as unconstituional. So far as I can tell from basic searching, the constiutionality of that law has never been tried in federal court.
So are you arguing that the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually all of property rights?
II take it your reading into things that I'm a Democrat, but that is incorrect. Is it quite possible that if the RFRA itself is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional? I think so. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means exactly what is says to me.
In fact, the RFRA has been denounced by state courts as unconstituional. So far as I can tell from basic searching, the constiutionality of that law has never been tried in federal court.
So are you arguing that the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually all of property rights?
Nope. IMO, the very idea that a business or corporation is considered a "person" is perverse and illogical, almost Orwellian, at face value, and the fact that it is so commonly referred to as an accepted normalcy is quite disturbing to me. All I am saying, is that if you form a corporation and open for business, your corporation should be subject to the same exact federal laws as every other corporation, no matter what your religious convictions happen to be, no matter how sincere or fraudulent they may be.
whembly wrote: So are you arguing that the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually all of property rights?
No, YOU do not lose any rights. The corporation losing rights is not the same thing as the owners or employees losing rights. For example, those "lost" property rights do not affect you in any way because you do not own the corporation's property. In fact, that's the whole point of forming a corporation, to put a hard line between your personal property and the corporation's property. Similarly, a restriction on what the corporation can say is not in any way a restriction on your right to free speech. The corporation being forced to pay for "abortions" is not imposing on your freedom of religion because you are not paying for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: IMO, the very idea that a business or corporation is considered a "person" is perverse and illogical, almost Orwellian, at face value, and the fact that it is so commonly referred to as an accepted normalcy is quite disturbing to me.
As a legal fiction that makes certain things work more efficiently it makes a lot of sense. For example, it's very helpful if the corporation itself can sign a contract or have a bank account, and the most straightforward way to do that is to treat it as a "person" for those purposes. Corporate personhood only becomes a problem when you start to introduce the absurd idea of this legal construct having the same human rights as a real person and use it as an excuse for why you don't have to follow the rules.
jasper76 wrote: IMO, the very idea that a business or corporation is considered a "person" is perverse and illogical, almost Orwellian, at face value, and the fact that it is so commonly referred to as an accepted normalcy is quite disturbing to me.
As a legal fiction that makes certain things work more efficiently it makes a lot of sense. For example, it's very helpful if the corporation itself can sign a contract or have a bank account, and the most straightforward way to do that is to treat it as a "person" for those purposes. Corporate personhood only becomes a problem when you start to introduce the absurd idea of this legal construct having the same human rights as a real person and use it as an excuse for why you don't have to follow the rules.
I couldn't agree with you more on this point. Perhaps it would be best if we just legally codified what exact rights a corporation has, and differentiate them, perhaps even constitutionally, from the rights a citizen has.
Listening to people trying to explain why corporations are people under the constitution hurts my brain as much as listening to sovereign citizens trying to explain why they are not...
However small, this ruling has set a precedent that it is OK to break the law if your religion conflicts with it. Not only that, but you or your company can be found without fault when actually taken to court.
Frankenberry wrote: However small, this ruling has set a precedent that it is OK to break the law if your religion conflicts with it. Not only that, but you or your company can be found without fault when actually taken to court.
Amen...its one small step from "My archaic form of Catholicism teaches me contraception is bad, so I won't cover it for my employees" to "My archaic form of Mormonism teaches me that black people don't have souls, so I won't employ them".
I'm right with you, because I know now that I can form a corporation, and raise any objection to any number of federal laws to save $$$ on the make-believe basis of "I really, really believe I shouldn't have to obey this law, because God Himself prohibits me from doing so", and have my day in court....no matter whether I believe that or not.
Probably the best summation of the reaction to this ruling has been this;
Sean Davis wrote:"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
The really frightening thing is how many people seem to have honestly internalized the idea that Tyranny is employers offering their employees the compensation packages they think are appropriate.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
I was opposed to that part of the ACA from the start, simply because it's bad policy for government to decide something is important and then tell companies they have to pay for it. Same reason I think the employer mandate is a terrible idea. But this ruling is really, really terrible. The idea that an employer's private religious beliefs can be used to dictate how he will pay secular employees is a really terrible principle to enshrine in precedent.
Personally, I think the corporation element of this is a complete red herring, if this case were a private individual who directly employed 13,000 people, then it would be just as bad.
Simple reality is that this states that an employer gets to use his own private religious beliefs to determine how they pay their staff. That's fethed. You pay someone to do a job completely separate from your religious beliefs, then you can't use your religious convictions to put limits on how you pay that employee. There used to be a system where companies would pay men for a day's work, but tell them they could only spend that money in the places the company wanted them to spend it. We called that system Company Towns, and we made it illegal because that system was really fething exploitative.
And the other issue, as I pointed out in the ACA thread and others have mentioned in this thread, is how selective this ruling is. JW have been paying for healthcare coverage for their employees for years, and that coverage included blood transfusions, and no-one gave a gak despite blood transfusions being against their religious beliefs. But if something is perceived as infringing on the religion of a majority group, well then gak gets done. All this shows is that anyone who believes religious freedom is about every religious group, no matter how minor, is absolutely kidding themselves.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
d-usa wrote:Listening to people trying to explain why corporations are people under the constitution hurts my brain as much as listening to sovereign citizens trying to explain why they are not...
Carried over from Boehner thread eh. Because I am somewhat not liking the job. I feel avenged from you updating me on Dumbee
Frankenberry wrote:However small, this ruling has set a precedent that it is OK to break the law if your religion conflicts with it. Not only that, but you or your company can be found without fault when actually taken to court.
Did it go under as a Tax law though from SCOTUS decision?
If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.
Well, it's not 'break the law' so much as 'exempt from the law.'
Realistically, I doubt someone will be able to claim "I don't believe in taxes because of my religion, so I shouldn't ahve to pay them" and get it. The issue of abortion is one of the longest standing religious conflicts in the US, and there aren't that many like it, so I think being worried that this will lead to great and terrible things is jumping the gun a little. Religion can get away with this because it's abortion. Who knows if it'll go farther than that.
LordofHats wrote: Well, it's not 'break the law' so much as 'exempt from the law.'
Realistically, I doubt someone will be able to claim "I don't believe in taxes because of my religion, so I shouldn't ahve to pay them" and get it. The issue of abortion is one of the longest standing religious conflicts in the US, and there aren't that many like it, so I think being worried that this will lead to great and terrible things is jumping the gun a little.
I understand where you are coming from, but the exact same logic for the taxes is the same for contraception.
The specific issue here, by the way, is not abortion. It is contraception. But I think the larger issue of religious entitlement to exemption from law is the more interesting issue, and it is certainly why the outcome of this case is so profound and worrisome in its implications.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?
Yeah, that was raised in the ACA thread as well. And it's what makes such a ridiculous joke of Hobby Lobby's claim that their religious liberty has been offended.
Thing is, Hobby Lobby probably didn't even know that some of the companies they invested in made abortion and contraception materials... because investing involves putting money in a lot of companies, and you can't be expected to know absolutely every facet of each of the companies you invest in. Anyone who's ever looked in to ethical investments knows it is a lot harder than you'd think. It's basically just a reality of the modern world - any action you take will have all sorts of unknown knock on effects that you'll never be aware of.
And I think it's more than a bit ridiculous to claim someone has breached their religious standards when they weren't even aware of what a third party was doing. But then, that's exactly why Hobby Lobby's claim in this case is so fething ridiculous.
I mean, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church said he'd go to jail to stop having to pay for contraception for any of his staff. Only to be quietly told that actually under California law he'd been providing those benefits to his staff for years without ever knowing about it.
If it can happen without you even knowing about, then it really, really isn't a breach of your religious liberty.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?
Federal Government does not have a list of recognize religion. The US Military does how ever. I think an off the wall religion would not stand a chance but a main line religion will. As an individual though one cannot fund legal representation for themselves to get "exempt" from laws of this caliber
jasper76 wrote: I understand where you are coming from, but the exact same logic for the taxes is the same for contraception.
Yeah it's the same logic, but that doesn't mean a court will buy it. If a corporation can't be forced to provide one kind of medical coverage because it violates their beliefs, it's the same logic they shouldn't be forced to provide any, but the court didn't strike down the ACA and a lot of people make claims about religion saying they shouldn't have to give a man a fish.
The specific issue here, by the way, is not abortion. It is contraception.
They made the argument that the contraception is tantamount to abortion which isn't an argument they created. It's as old as the abortion debate and contraception itself. They go hand in hand. This case presents an unusual convergence of special interests. It very well could end there and go no further.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.
On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?
Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?
No, I was attempting to show through a ridiculous comparison the fault of your argument....perhaps it was ungentlemanly to do so.
I certainly do not agree with you. IMO, religion is whatever the person with religious beliefs says it is...tennis without a net...anything goes...what you say is objectively not any more believable than anything I can come up with off the top of my head, because there is no way to dispute unfalsifiable claims. The fact that religiously-run corporations, who make money off of the back of their employees who don't share their beliefs, are successfully procuring exemptions from federal law on the basis of their version of the "Spaghetti Monster's will" is on its face abhorrent.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?
Federal Government does not have a list of recognize religion. The US Military does how ever. I think an off the wall religion would not stand a chance but a main line religion will. As an individual though one cannot fund legal representation for themselves to get "exempt" from laws of this caliber
I don't know what this is meant to mean: not being snarky, I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
LordofHats wrote: Realistically, I doubt someone will be able to claim "I don't believe in taxes because of my religion, so I shouldn't ahve to pay them" and get it. The issue of abortion is one of the longest standing religious conflicts in the US, and there aren't that many like it, so I think being worried that this will lead to great and terrible things is jumping the gun a little. Religion can get away with this because it's abortion. Who knows if it'll go farther than that.
Is a fair point, though I'd counter that 'corporations as people' had a limited basis for years, until all of a sudden it started being given a much greater expanded meaning.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?
Federal Government does not have a list of recognize religion. The US Military does how ever. I think an off the wall religion would not stand a chance but a main line religion will. As an individual though one cannot fund legal representation for themselves to get "exempt" from laws of this caliber
I don't know what this is meant to mean: not being snarky, I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
My fault. I should have bold this
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Federal Government does not have a list of recognize religion. The US Military does how ever. I think an off the wall religion would not stand a chance but a main line religion will.
The only difference between an off-the-wall religion and a mainstream religion, in essence, is the passage of time and the number of people who follow it. This differentiation is more easily typed in a sentence than argued in court. The fact that the courts or the federal government are getting in the game of ruling on whether some religion is "off-the-wall" (my God is his own dad), or "mainstream" (my God is his own dad) s something that should scare the gak out of all of us.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?
No, I was attempting to show through a ridiculous comparison the fault of your argument....perhaps it was ungentlemanly to do so.
I certainly do not agree with you. IMO, religion is whatever the person with religious beliefs says it is...tennis without a net...anything goes...what you say is objectively not any more believable than anything I can come up with off the top of my head, because there is no way to dispute unfalsifiable claims. The fact that religiously-run corporations, who make money off of the back of their employees who don't share their beliefs, are successfully procuring exemptions from federal law on the basis of their version of the "Spaghetti Monster's will" is on its face abhorrent.
Ah. So it was less ironic agreement then agreement through example: that is to say that the divide is so great, you can't even understand the other side.
Not to be too provocative, but if you fundamentally disagree with the exercise of that right the founders saw fit to enshrine in the First Amendment, perhaps you have greater argument with both this nation's jurisprudence and your fellow citizens then the straightforward application of RFRA, eh?
Is a fair point, though I'd counter that 'corporations as people' had a limited basis for years, until all of a sudden it started being given a much greater expanded meaning.
Yes it happens with a lot of things and it doesn't happen with a lot of other things. A single passage doesn't form a trend at all, so there's no reason to believe that more ridiculous things will come of religion because of this. On the other hand, this itself does continue the long trend of corporate personhood getting worse, though I'd consider this a blip compared to other recent decisions.
Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.
This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.
The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?
No, I was attempting to show through a ridiculous comparison the fault of your argument....perhaps it was ungentlemanly to do so.
I certainly do not agree with you. IMO, religion is whatever the person with religious beliefs says it is...tennis without a net...anything goes...what you say is objectively not any more believable than anything I can come up with off the top of my head, because there is no way to dispute unfalsifiable claims. The fact that religiously-run corporations, who make money off of the back of their employees who don't share their beliefs, are successfully procuring exemptions from federal law on the basis of their version of the "Spaghetti Monster's will" is on its face abhorrent.
Ah. So it was less ironic agreement then agreement through example: that is to say that the divide is so great, you can't even understand the other side.
Not to be too provocative, but if you fundamentally disagree with the exercise of that right the founders saw fit to enshrine in the First Amendment, perhaps you have greater argument with both this nation's jurisprudence and your fellow citizens then the straightforward application of RFRA, eh?
My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).
Yeah, that was raised in the ACA thread as well. And it's what makes such a ridiculous joke of Hobby Lobby's claim that their religious liberty has been offended.
Thing is, Hobby Lobby probably didn't even know that some of the companies they invested in made abortion and contraception materials... because investing involves putting money in a lot of companies, and you can't be expected to know absolutely every facet of each of the companies you invest in. Anyone who's ever looked in to ethical investments knows it is a lot harder than you'd think. It's basically just a reality of the modern world - any action you take will have all sorts of unknown knock on effects that you'll never be aware of.
And I think it's more than a bit ridiculous to claim someone has breached their religious standards when they weren't even aware of what a third party was doing. But then, that's exactly why Hobby Lobby's claim in this case is so fething ridiculous.
I mean, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church said he'd go to jail to stop having to pay for contraception for any of his staff. Only to be quietly told that actually under California law he'd been providing those benefits to his staff for years without ever knowing about it.
If it can happen without you even knowing about, then it really, really isn't a breach of your religious liberty.
if it's important enough for you to end up at the Supreme Court then you would think that at some point they would have made it a point to tell the plan administrators about their personal morals to ensure that they are not giving their money to something that conflicts with their religion.
My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).
Again, not put too fine a point on it, but you seem to have no real understanding of what RFRA does. RFRA imposes a specific test standard (Strict Scrutiny), it doesn't provide an absolute shield against Federal Law.
Moreover, RFRA has been disproportionately invoked by non-Christian minorities: "Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of religious membership in the U.S., make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion."
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.
On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?
Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?
Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court
hotsauceman1 wrote: If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.
On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?
Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?
Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court
I would rather posit there aren't that many issues other than this one that would make it to the supreme court like this. The Abortion/Contraception debate isn't purely Christian, but in the US the two are inextricably linked, so there is a ring of truth that another issue that is less 'Christian' is unlikely to have gotten this.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.
On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?
Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?
Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court
That's a big leap there Hotsauce
I dont think so. If a Muslim lead company tried something like this.
Can you imagine the uproar from Conservative outlets? "at 11, A Muslim Business man is forcing his beliefs on his good god fearing employees"
hotsauceman1 wrote: If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.
On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?
Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?
Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court
That's a big leap there Hotsauce
I dont think so. If a Muslim lead company tried something like this.
Can you imagine the uproar from Conservative outlets? "at 11, A Muslim Business man is forcing his beliefs on his good God fearing employees"
Fixed. Though I find the comment a little funny
Edit
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
I am though looking at this and seeing why SCOTUS decision more on the right then wrong
Yeah, that was raised in the ACA thread as well. And it's what makes such a ridiculous joke of Hobby Lobby's claim that their religious liberty has been offended.
Thing is, Hobby Lobby probably didn't even know that some of the companies they invested in made abortion and contraception materials... because investing involves putting money in a lot of companies, and you can't be expected to know absolutely every facet of each of the companies you invest in. Anyone who's ever looked in to ethical investments knows it is a lot harder than you'd think. It's basically just a reality of the modern world - any action you take will have all sorts of unknown knock on effects that you'll never be aware of.
And I think it's more than a bit ridiculous to claim someone has breached their religious standards when they weren't even aware of what a third party was doing. But then, that's exactly why Hobby Lobby's claim in this case is so fething ridiculous.
I mean, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church said he'd go to jail to stop having to pay for contraception for any of his staff. Only to be quietly told that actually under California law he'd been providing those benefits to his staff for years without ever knowing about it.
If it can happen without you even knowing about, then it really, really isn't a breach of your religious liberty.
if it's important enough for you to end up at the Supreme Court then you would think that at some point they would have made it a point to tell the plan administrators about their personal morals to ensure that they are not giving their money to something that conflicts with their religion.
What makes you think that investing in companies like TEVA pharmaceuticals "conflicts with their religion"?
The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products. This seems silly on it's face: by that standard Hobby Lobby would seem to bare moral responsibility for any immoral actions of their employees, since you are describing a moral system where payment of any sort carries moral weight.
Please note that Hobby Lobby does not endorse this notion: they claim moral responsibility only for those things over which they have direct control, such as the elements of their health plans.
This is a very small and silly point, but it also exemplifies the larger point I made above: here Hobby Lobby is being condemned by people who seem remarkably disinterested in the moral system that would either permit or condemn these actions. Instead a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked".
hotsauceman1 wrote: If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.
On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?
Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?
Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court
That's a big leap there Hotsauce
I dont think so. If a Muslim lead company tried something like this.
Can you imagine the uproar from Conservative outlets? "at 11, A Muslim Business man is forcing his beliefs on his good god fearing employees"
I would suggest you scroll up to my post where I point out that non-Christian minorities are over-represented in RFRA suits.
Beyond that... what the heck? Did you not even read the bit about "which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote,"? The entire law comes out of a case involving Native Americans. As an attorney, I can personally attest that lots of cases spring out non-Christians getting harmed by laws passed by Christians, and those laws then getting trimmed back.
The notion that sinister Christian forces are in control of our legal system is so divergent from reality as to border on paranoid conspiracy.
LordofHats wrote: Yes it happens with a lot of things and it doesn't happen with a lot of other things. A single passage doesn't form a trend at all, so there's no reason to believe that more ridiculous things will come of religion because of this. On the other hand, this itself does continue the long trend of corporate personhood getting worse, though I'd consider this a blip compared to other recent decisions.
My issue is more with the precedent that an employer can now say 'I will give you money for this, but not for this, because that's how I think Jesus thinks you should spend your money'. I agree that as currently stated its pretty limited, but any chance of expansion should be seen as a dangerous thing, IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: if it's important enough for you to end up at the Supreme Court then you would think that at some point they would have made it a point to tell the plan administrators about their personal morals to ensure that they are not giving their money to something that conflicts with their religion.
They might have. And for all I know their plan administrators might have even tried to do that, and got it wrong. If you go look at the ethical funds available out there you'll see it happens all the time, they're constantly getting called on investments that turn out to use to child labour for some supply, or whatever else.
Point being, it makes no sense to feign any kind of great and serious breach of one's personal religious liberty when a third party takes an action. If you provide health care and an employee uses that to get the morning after pill, or you pay an employee in cash and they use that to purchase a morning after pill, you won't even fething know, and so to claim that either of those cases is a breach of your personal religious liberty is beyond ridiculous.
LordofHats wrote: Yes it happens with a lot of things and it doesn't happen with a lot of other things. A single passage doesn't form a trend at all, so there's no reason to believe that more ridiculous things will come of religion because of this. On the other hand, this itself does continue the long trend of corporate personhood getting worse, though I'd consider this a blip compared to other recent decisions.
My issue is more with the precedent that an employer can now say 'I will give you money for this, but not for this, because that's how I think Jesus thinks you should spend your money'. I agree that as currently stated its pretty limited, but any chance of expansion should be seen as a dangerous thing, IMO.
Congress can still amend RFRA to exclude for-profit companies... if they have the political will.
Obviously, the SC chose not to touch that with even a borrowed dick.
Here's an exercise:
If corporations can’t have religious beliefs, then it follows that they can’t believe in climate change, sustainable investment, gender/racial quota or any other beliefs embraced by the corporate social responsibility movement. Its just pure, unadulterated for-profit motive... period.
Buzzsaw wrote: The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products. This seems silly on it's face: by that standard Hobby Lobby would seem to bare moral responsibility for any immoral actions of their employees, since you are describing a moral system where payment of any sort carries moral weight.
Yep, it is silly on its face, and I completely agree that having money available that a third party chooses to use on something you find immoral does not mean you have breached your own personal religious convictions.
Which is why, of course, the Hobby Lobby complaint that paying for specific forms of contraception to be available to their stuff was so fething stupid in the first place.
The majority concedes that a "corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.” What ends do human beings, “including shareholders, officers, and employees,” come together to pursue under the form of a for-profit corporation? In Dodge v. Ford, the Court ruled that a "business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." Given the diversity of interests and values among owners, the Court realized that one corporate goal must trump all others (even if there may be others). Such diversity is presumed non-existent by the majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby because the corporations at issue are closely held. In reaching its ruling, the majority undermines Dodge v. Ford concerning closely-held, for-profit corporations, giving examples of how such corporations forego substantial profits in order to perpetuate the religious values of their owners. The perpetuation of religious values may therefore be legally equally valid to the pursuit of profit.
At the same time, the majority feigns ignorance as to the distinction between religious organizations and non-profit corporations on one hand and for-profit corporations on the other. But surely the distinction is similarly a matter of diversity of interests and values: all members of the former category are presumed to share the same values at issue concerning their membership and, whether this is actually true or not, the same certainly cannot be said even hypothetically about the latter. The majority never considers that employees, which is to say, the subjects of health care benefits under the ACA, work for a corporation not to perpetuate any religious values (including their own) but rather to make a living. This at least is in keeping with Dodge v. Ford, which eschews the interests and values of non-owners altogether. It appears that the majority evokes the “rights and obligations” of employees merely to brush them off, which seems odd in light of the underlying subject matter of employee health benefits.
But it is not odd at all, given the jurisprudence flowing from Dodge v. Ford. The majority is not concerned with who receives (or does not receive) health benefits but rather who pays for them. This is simply because the burden imposed by the law is paying for benefits.
whembly wrote: Here's an exercise:
If corporations can’t have religious beliefs, then it follows that they can’t believe in climate change, sustainable investment, gender/racial quota or any other beliefs embraced by the corporate social responsibility movement. Its just pure, unadulterated for-profit motive... period.
Right?
No, not even a little bit. I would argue that a company can be free to act under its religious beliefs or whatever other beliefs it might have, but what it doesn't have is religious protections.
Oh, and of course my original argument is that no-one's religious protections should allow them to dictate what an employee can spend their remuneration on.
If for-profit corporations can be exempted in order to perpetuate their owners' religious values, I don't think the Sisters have anything to worry about.
whembly wrote: Here's an exercise:
If corporations can’t have religious beliefs, then it follows that they can’t believe in climate change, sustainable investment, gender/racial quota or any other beliefs embraced by the corporate social responsibility movement. Its just pure, unadulterated for-profit motive... period.
Right?
No, not even a little bit. This ruling is about whether a company can be exempt from a federal law for religious reasons, no matter how that was decided it wouldn't impact the ability of companies to balance profit making with corporate responsibility.
Two things:
A) The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest. Employees remain free to use their wages to purchase those other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby will not cover. They remain free to find other jobs, too, if they want employer-provided insurance coverage that includes the abortifacients(sp?) to which Hobby Lobby objects.
B) There are absolutely *costs* associated of business that chooses to participate in any elective corporate responsibility activities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: If for-profit corporations can be exempted in order to perpetuate their owners' religious values, I don't think the Sisters have anything to worry about.
Yeah... good point. Just curious of the courts will still use the RFRA act...
Anyone who says corporations can only pursue profit under US law is legally wrong. They would be wrong in 1919, when the Court said that is the primary purpose of "business corporations," and wrong today.
Buzzsaw wrote: The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products.
Hobby Lobby is not distributing any products under the health care plan.
Please note that Hobby Lobby does not endorse this notion: they claim moral responsibility only for those things over which they have direct control, such as the elements of their health plans.
The fact that they refuse to take responsibility for something does not mean that they are not responsible for it. And if the elements of their health plans are under their direct control then so are the elements of their investment plans.
Instead a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked".
I don't give a about the fine details of their "worldview". They're wrong, and they need to STFU.
whembly wrote: A) The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest. Employees remain free to use their wages to purchase those other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby will not cover. They remain free to find other jobs, too, if they want employer-provided insurance coverage that includes the abortifacients(sp?) to which Hobby Lobby objects.
1) There is no substantial burden. There is only the usual whining and crying from the religious right about how unfair it is and how they're all poor little oppressed martyrs if everyone else doesn't do what Jesus tells them to do.
2) There is no less-burdensome way. "They can spend their own money" is not an alternative, just like it wouldn't be an alternative if a company refused to allow their health care plan to cover blood transfusions. Nor is "they can find another job". Those two excuses could cover literally any demand for exemption, which means that any sensible interpretation of the requirement has to take a more limited scope when defining what an alternative is.
2) There is no less-burdensome way. "They can spend their own money" is not an alternative, just like it wouldn't be an alternative if a company refused to allow their health care plan to cover blood transfusions. Nor is "they can find another job". Those two excuses could cover literally any demand for exemption, which means that any sensible interpretation of the requirement has to take a more limited scope when defining what an alternative is.
Really they can, as opting out of an employer health plan is nearly always an option. Often times, from what I've seen thus far, you may save a bit of coin on the surface by having your employer plan in place, but people are generally not covered as well, as compared to a similar health plan under their own personal insurance plans.
whembly wrote: Two things: A) The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest. Employees remain free to use their wages to purchase those other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby will not cover.
And that's the comedy of this very silly situation. Hobby Lobby hands over pay, employee goes and spends it on kinds of contraception that the owners of Hobby Lobby find objectionable to their religion, Hobby Lobby knows nothing about it and the possibility that this could be happening with Hobby Lobby pay does not bother the religious principles of the owners at all. But if Hobby Lobby hands over money to fund insurance coverage, and then an employee uses that insurance coverage to access specific kinds of contraception that Hobby Lobby owners find objectionable, Hobby Lobby knows nothing about it... but the possibility that it could be happening with insurance provided by Hobby Lobby is a grave infringement of their religious principles.
B) There are absolutely *costs* associated of business that chooses to participate in any elective corporate responsibility activities.
Yep. Not sure what your point is, though.
Anyhow, I edited my answer to something much better, but you got in too fast
Anywhere, here it is again, "I would argue that a company can be free to act under its religious beliefs or whatever other beliefs it might have, but what it doesn't have is religious protections.
Oh, and of course my original argument is that no-one's religious protections should allow them to dictate what an employee can spend their remuneration on."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: 2) There is no less-burdensome way. "They can spend their own money" is not an alternative, just like it wouldn't be an alternative if a company refused to allow their health care plan to cover blood transfusions. Nor is "they can find another job". Those two excuses could cover literally any demand for exemption, which means that any sensible interpretation of the requirement has to take a more limited scope when defining what an alternative is.
I think the argument is that the the less burdensome way for government to provide the compelling interest of subsidised contraception would be for government to directly subsidise it themselves. Which to be honest is an argument I've got a lot of time for - if government decides that subsidised contraception meets its overall population health goals (as it should) then it should be government stumping up the cash for that program.
sebster wrote: I think the argument is that the the less burdensome way for government to provide the compelling interest of subsidised contraception would be for government to directly subsidise it themselves. Which to be honest is an argument I've got a lot of time for - if government decides that subsidised contraception meets its overall population health goals (as it should) then it should be government stumping up the cash for that program.
Why should citizens be forced to use their money to pay for the bad deeds of bad actors breaking laws based on something as esoteric and mutable as religious convictions? Where does it stop?
sebster wrote: I think the argument is that the the less burdensome way for government to provide the compelling interest of subsidised contraception would be for government to directly subsidise it themselves. Which to be honest is an argument I've got a lot of time for - if government decides that subsidised contraception meets its overall population health goals (as it should) then it should be government stumping up the cash for that program.
Why should citizens be forced to use their money to pay for the bad deeds of bad actors breaking laws based on something as esoteric and mutable as religious convictions? Where does it stop?
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
Am I missing something?
Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
Am I missing something?
Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.
Its not about abortion, but didn't know you were a medical doctor. They interfere with fertilized eggs, which is viewed as life. I do too but since I can't stand you people in the first place (insert mandatory Dogs Rule All Other Life Drools here) and constantly wonder when the panthers will come to thin out the herd, I don't have a problem with it.
And it interferes by preventing the release of an egg to get fertilized in the first place. So nothing gets fertilized in the first place. "Egg already released" is the time where all of them say they don't work in the first place. Some people "think" it prevents implantation, but the science isn't there.
So they can cause abortions in the same way type tylenol or antibiotics can cause abortions. Or lifting a heavy box at hobby lobby when you don't realize you are pregnant. hobby lobby directly causes more abortions than any of their drugs.
d-usa wrote: If it does you better erase your post about Plan B causing abortions.
General labor and stocking shelves will cause more abortions than Plan B. That's not libel, that's knowing how medicines work and how your body works.
Yeah... that's a load of crap.
Ensuring a fertilized egg doesn't attach to the uterus is just the same thing. Sure, the egg may not in the general course of things, but taking efforts to keep it from happening is still killing the egg after its been fertilized.
And if you're going to argue semantics, look up the definition of abortion.
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy
Stocking shelves, which may lead to one miscarriage a decade if we're being serious here, is not a deliberate action to terminate pregnancy.
And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.
They are not abortion inducing drugs.
If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.
And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.
Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.
d-usa wrote: And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.
They are not abortion inducing drugs.
If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.
And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.
Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.
Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
Am I missing something?
Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.
Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.
But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.
My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).
Again, not put too fine a point on it, but you seem to have no real understanding of what RFRA does. RFRA imposes a specific test standard (Strict Scrutiny), it doesn't provide an absolute shield against Federal Law.
Moreover, RFRA has been disproportionately invoked by non-Christian minorities: "Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of religious membership in the U.S., make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion."
Well, here's tha applicable part of the RFRA statute:
.U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US CodeNotesUpdatesAuthorities (CFR)prev | next
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
Shall we count the ways this violates the 1st Amendment? It should be an easy task for anyone to do.
On top of that, as written, I can't find anything that states that this law applies to corporations...we only get there by accepting the absurd and perverse notion that corporations are persons who are capable of excercising a religion to begin with.
d-usa wrote: And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.
They are not abortion inducing drugs.
If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.
And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.
Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.
Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.
If you talk out of your rear, which you do quite a bit, I will call you out on it when it is clear that it is made-up crap. According to your own standards it is all made up crap because you never list any of your credentials.
If you know who I am feel free to look up my credentials, they are on the state website.
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
Am I missing something?
Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.
Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.
But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.
At much higher doses than those prescribed.
So all drugs are against their religions because they all are drugs for suicide, at much higher doses than those prescribed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.
My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).
Again, not put too fine a point on it, but you seem to have no real understanding of what RFRA does. RFRA imposes a specific test standard (Strict Scrutiny), it doesn't provide an absolute shield against Federal Law.
Moreover, RFRA has been disproportionately invoked by non-Christian minorities: "Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of religious membership in the U.S., make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion."
Well, here's tha applicable part of the RFRA statute:
Spoiler:
.U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US CodeNotesUpdatesAuthorities (CFR)prev | next
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
Shall we count the ways this violates the 1st Amendment? It should be an easy task for anyone to do.
On top of that, as written, I can't find anything that states that this law applies to corporations...we only get there by accepting the absurd and perverse notion that corporations are persons who are capable of excercising a religion to begin with.
So do it. It'll be interesting to see where you think preventing the government from burdening religious observance constitutes "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause (b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause (c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]
So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.
Buzzsaw wrote: The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products.
Hobby Lobby is not distributing any products under the health care plan.
Please note that Hobby Lobby does not endorse this notion: they claim moral responsibility only for those things over which they have direct control, such as the elements of their health plans.
The fact that they refuse to take responsibility for something does not mean that they are not responsible for it. And if the elements of their health plans are under their direct control then so are the elements of their investment plans.
Instead a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked".
I don't give a about the fine details of their "worldview". They're wrong, and they need to STFU.
Did you mean to strike a fascist pose, or was it a happy accident?
Not a joke: you've not only discarded RFRA here, but the fundamentals of the First Amendment and its guarantees of plurality. "They're wrong, and they need to STFU" is the very essence of tyranny.
All that aside, it is rather nice to have my point that what is going on is "a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked" was so cleanly and completely illustrated.
d-usa wrote: And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.
They are not abortion inducing drugs.
If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.
And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.
Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.
Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.
If you talk out of your rear, which you do quite a bit, I will call you out on it when it is clear that it is made-up crap. According to your own standards it is all made up crap because you never list any of your credentials.
If you know who I am feel free to look up my credentials, they are on the state website.
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
Am I missing something?
Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.
Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.
But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.
At much higher doses than those prescribed.
So all drugs are against their religions because they all are drugs for suicide, at much higher doses than those prescribed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.
So we've established you're not a doctor, but insist on yelling at everyone else, none of whom I can find are making the claim this is about abortion. A for effort.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.
Okay... I'll bite again.
So what?
Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?
Or are you really arguing the slippery slope arguments that "Now that they can do this... what else can they get away with?".
Let's try something else here...
My right to bear arms is clearly defined in the Constitution under the Second Amendment. This is undisputed.
Since this is a right, should an employer be forced to pay for my ammunition? Because... damn... the cost of ammunition has skyrocketed over the past couple of years making it harder for me to purchase (Thanks Obama!).
So... under prevailing logic that the HHS agency used to justify this mandate... this would seem like an applicable request or a “right” to assume. Yes? If not, how is it any different?
Maybe it's my conservative persona peeking through... but I believe in personal responsibility. Therefore, I believe that I am fully capable of buying my own ammunition, with my own money directly out of my own bank account.. I would never think of demanding an employer to help me stock my own arsenal to exercise a very explicit 2nd amendment right. Why then does those who reject this ruling believe that their employer should be forced to pay for birth control, even if it violates their owner's personal beliefs?
Don't get me wrong, access to birth control is an important issue. The good news is, nothing changed after this decision. You can still purchase birth control. You just may have to pay the cost for it youself. No rights were trampled upon.
whembly wrote: Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC? ...Why then does those who reject this ruling believe that their employer should be forced to pay for birth control, even if it violates their owner's personal beliefs?
First off, you are aware that this nation has untold masses of poverty-stricken women, right?
Second, a corporation is not a person with personal beliefs.
d-usa wrote: And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.
They are not abortion inducing drugs.
If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.
And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.
Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.
Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.
If you talk out of your rear, which you do quite a bit, I will call you out on it when it is clear that it is made-up crap. According to your own standards it is all made up crap because you never list any of your credentials.
If you know who I am feel free to look up my credentials, they are on the state website.
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
Am I missing something?
Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.
Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.
But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.
At much higher doses than those prescribed.
So all drugs are against their religions because they all are drugs for suicide, at much higher doses than those prescribed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.
So we've established you're not a doctor, but insist on yelling at everyone else, none of whom I can find are making the claim this is about abortion. A for effort.
If you claim that this case was not about abortion, then the SCOTUS is either completely wrong by talking about abortion, the plaintiffs are wrong by raising an objection to abortion as the reason for bringing the case, and everybody that has talked in this thread about these drugs causing abortions is also wrong for talking about it.
Or you are just purposefully trolling at this point because you know that an objection to abortion is the cornerstone of this case.
I have also never claimed to be a doctor, so nice attempt at trying to distract and discredit. I do however work in the medical field and I am licensed to do so. Which necessitates an in depth knowledge of physiology and pharmacology.
U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause (b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause (c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]
So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.
Wait, so.. your point is that any action taken to ensure the free exercise clause is followed is a violation of the establishment clause? Are you joking?
Your reading of the First Amendment makes it self-negating.
Put another way, by your reading of the First Amendment, the decision of HHS to exempt "religious employers", (defined "narrowly to include only nonprofit entities that are churches; integrated auxiliaries of churches, conventions, or associations of churches; or the exclusively religious activities of religious orders.") from the contraception mandate is itself a violation of the First Amendment, yes?
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.
Okay... I'll bite again.
So what?
Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?
Birth control gets prescribed for things other than simply birth control.
Absolutely. (I know a thing or two about drug formulary)
Did you know most institutions who don't pay for BC to prevent pregnancies, WILL pay for it if used off-label? In fact, my ex is a school teacher at a Catholic School. Obviously, she couldn't get BC if it was prescribed for birth control... but, if she needed it for other treatments, the Diocese will cover it with a waiver signed by her doctor.
So... accomodation do exists.
Just like sometimes Viagra is prescribed to women with heart issues.
whembly wrote: Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC? ...Why then does those who reject this ruling believe that their employer should be forced to pay for birth control, even if it violates their owner's personal beliefs?
First off, you are aware that this nation has untold masses of poverty-stricken women, right?
Poverty-stricken women who are working for a company that offers healthcare packages? My head is starting to hurt...
Second, a corporation is not a person with personal beliefs.
You keep saying that... but, the courts disagrees with you.
U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause (b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause (c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]
So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.
Wait, so.. your point is that any action taken to ensure the free exercise clause is followed is a violation of the establishment clause? Are you joking?
Your reading of the First Amendment makes it self-negating.
Put another way, by your reading of the First Amendment, the decision of HHS to exempt "religious employers", (defined "narrowly to include only nonprofit entities that are churches; integrated auxiliaries of churches, conventions, or associations of churches; or the exclusively religious activities of religious orders.") from the contraception mandate is itself a violation of the First Amendment, yes?
Nope, actually, I believe this law is unconstitutional because it contains explicit provisions to "substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion".
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
It seems to me, and correct me if 'm wrong, that your whole argument hinges on the fact that corporations are "persons" entitled to the same rights enumerated for actual persons. We won't see eye to eye on this issue, as IMO it is absurd and even pernicious on its face.
sebster wrote: Thing is, Hobby Lobby probably didn't even know that some of the companies they invested in made abortion and contraception materials... because investing involves putting money in a lot of companies, and you can't be expected to know absolutely every facet of each of the companies you invest in. Anyone who's ever looked in to ethical investments knows it is a lot harder than you'd think. It's basically just a reality of the modern world - any action you take will have all sorts of unknown knock on effects that you'll never be aware of.
As someone researching his pension options because of an employer lead change this is very true
whembly wrote: First off, you are aware that this nation has untold masses of poverty-stricken women, right?
Poverty-stricken women who are working for a company that offers healthcare packages? My head is starting to hurt...
Yup...can't figure it out? Think harder about the situations a woman might be in (multiple children, for example) by which even though she may have a low paying job, such as a Hobby Lobby clerk, she is still in poverty.
U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause (b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause (c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]
So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.
Wait, so.. your point is that any action taken to ensure the free exercise clause is followed is a violation of the establishment clause? Are you joking?
Your reading of the First Amendment makes it self-negating.
Put another way, by your reading of the First Amendment, the decision of HHS to exempt "religious employers", (defined "narrowly to include only nonprofit entities that are churches; integrated auxiliaries of churches, conventions, or associations of churches; or the exclusively religious activities of religious orders.") from the contraception mandate is itself a violation of the First Amendment, yes?
Nope, actually, I believe this law is unconstitutional because it contains explicit provisions to "substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion".
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Well, then congratulations! You have an understanding of the First Amendment completely divergent from either the "liberals" or "conservatives" on the Supreme Court, indeed, divergent from basically any element of the legal establishment I have encountered as an attorney.
Given that the law in question is over 15 years old and has survived multiple legal challenges... well, we live in a free country, and just as the owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their idiosyncratic beliefs, so are you.
Buzzsaw wrote: Well, then congratulations! You have an understanding of the First Amendment completely divergent from either the "liberals" or "conservatives" on the Supreme Court, indeed, divergent from basically any element of the legal establishment I have encountered as an attorney.
Given that the law in question is over 15 years old and has survived multiple legal challenges... well, we live in a free country, and just as the owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their idiosyncratic beliefs, so are you.
Lovely how that works out, isn't it?
Smug much?
Anyway, can you please tell me how creating a law explicitly enabling the goverment to impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion does not violate the Establishment Clause? I've tried to answer every question you've put to me, so please answer me this.
Buzzsaw wrote: Well, then congratulations! You have an understanding of the First Amendment completely divergent from either the "liberals" or "conservatives" on the Supreme Court, indeed, divergent from basically any element of the legal establishment I have encountered as an attorney.
Given that the law in question is over 15 years old and has survived multiple legal challenges... well, we live in a free country, and just as the owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their idiosyncratic beliefs, so are you.
Lovely how that works out, isn't it?
Smug much?
Anyway, can you please tell me how creating a law explicitly enabling the goverment to impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion does not violate the Establishment Clause? I've tried to answer every question you've put to me, so please answer me this.
... what?
I... what?
Okay, fair enough: if you think RFRA works that way, then you have no idea how RFRA works. I'm sorry, there is no simpler explanation then that. RFRA does not work the way you state.
jasper76 wrote: ...
It seems to me, and correct me if 'm wrong, that your whole argument hinges on the fact that corporations are "persons" entitled to the same rights enumerated for actual persons. We won't see eye to eye on this issue, as IMO it is absurd and even pernicious on its face.
And again, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it one that is not widely shared by the legal profession, at least with regards to this jurisprudence.
Anyway, can you please tell me how creating a law explicitly enabling the goverment to impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion does not violate the Establishment Clause? I've tried to answer every question you've put to me, so please answer me this.
... what?
I... what?
Okay, fair enough: if you think RFRA works that way, then you have no idea how RFRA works. I'm sorry, there is no simpler explanation then that. RFRA does not work the way you state.
You are evading my question. The law explicitly enables the goverment to impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion under a set of circumstances. We can all read:
"Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
Perhaps a rephrasing of the question is in order.
Can you please explain how this:
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
does not violate this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
jasper76 wrote: ...
It seems to me, and correct me if 'm wrong, that your whole argument hinges on the fact that corporations are "persons" entitled to the same rights enumerated for actual persons. We won't see eye to eye on this issue, as IMO it is absurd and even pernicious on its face.
And again, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it one that is not widely shared by the legal profession, at least with regards to this jurisprudence.
For what its worth, I do know that corporations are considered persons legally. It is absurd, illogical, and pernicious that this is so, and I am in support of any legal or constitutional effort to separately enumerate the rights of corporations, so we are not left with the absurd notion that corporations are entitled to the same rights that the founders spelled out for citizens.
I have a serious question. When a corporations rights to speech, religion etc are infringed upon who's rights are beign infringed? Is it the stockholders, employees, executives, the board, exemp workers, non-exempt workers, community members, etc? That is what I don't understand about the Corporate personhood rulings.
In this case, the owners ( of a closely held corporation) seem to be the rights being infringed upon. However, by the ruling a closely held coroporation is 5 or less people owning more than 50% of the stock. So, those 5 peopels rights outweight everyone elses?
Easy E wrote: I have a serious question. When a corporations rights to speech, religion etc are infringed upon who's rights are beign infringed? Is it the stockholders, employees, executives, the board, exemp workers, non-exempt workers, community members, etc? That is what I don't understand about the Corporate personhood rulings.
In this case, the owners ( of a closely held corporation) seem to be the rights being infringed upon. However, by the ruling a closely held coroporation is 5 or less people owning more than 50% of the stock. So, those 5 peopels rights outweight everyone elses?
Yes. No one else has a right in the situation in the first place, appears to be the argument. As noted this was not even a requirement under the actual ACA law, but made up out of whole cloth by the Obama administration. HL isn't even required to provide healthcare at all.
EDIT: The simple answer of course is to go to a Canadian system. I call dibs on the maple donuts!
There seems to be some confusion about the RFRA here.
The act does not place a burden on anyone's free exercise of religion. Government has always been able to do that. The Court developed a pretty severe limit on it during the 1960s, however, requiring that the government show it has a compelling interest in doing so. The Court then narrowed this "compelling interest" test in 1990 by requiring that the law at issue target a particular religious practice. Congress was not persuaded this adequately protected free exercise and so passed the RFRA.
Manchu wrote: There seems to be some confusion about the RFRA here.
The act does not place a burden on anyone's free exercise of religion. Government has always been able to do that. The Court developed a pretty severe limit on it during the 1960s, however, requiring that the government show it has a compelling interest in doing so. The Court then narrowed this "compelling interest" test in 1990 by requiring that the law at issue target a particular religious practice. Congress was not persuaded this adequately protected free exercise and so passed the RFRA.
So do you not think that the following exerpt from the RFRA gives explicit license for the government to indeed place substantial burdens on a person's exercise of religion, so long as they meet the criteria for doing so? I'm not talking about design or intent, here, just the actual law itself.
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Nothing about the RFRA licenses the government to burden free exercise. That license is already a given. For example, FLDS men are not allowed to marry more than one wife.
The RFRA sets higher standard (than the Supreme Court circa 1990) on what the government must show in order to burden free exercise.
Easy E wrote: I have a serious question. When a corporations rights to speech, religion etc are infringed upon who's rights are beign infringed? Is it the stockholders, employees, executives, the board, exemp workers, non-exempt workers, community members, etc? That is what I don't understand about the Corporate personhood rulings.
In this case, the owners ( of a closely held corporation) seem to be the rights being infringed upon. However, by the ruling a closely held coroporation is 5 or less people owning more than 50% of the stock. So, those 5 peopels rights outweight everyone elses?
Yes. No one else has a right in the situation in the first place, appears to be the argument. As noted this was not even a requirement under the actual ACA law, but made up out of whole cloth by the Obama administration. HL isn't even required to provide healthcare at all.
EDIT: The simple answer of course is to go to a Canadian system. I call dibs on the maple donuts!
Okay. Seems wierd but our system does try to protect the minority opinion from that of the majority opinion.
Also, I see you also agree that this ruling brings us closer to a single-payer system.
Manchu wrote: Nothing about the RFRA licenses the government to burden free exercise. That license is already a given. For example, FLDS men are not allowed to marry more than one wife.
The RFRA sets higher standard (than the Supreme Court circa 1990) on what the government must show in order to burden free exercise.
Which just seems weird to me.
We went from the Supreme Court saying "nobody is discriminating against you, it applies to anybody equally so deal with it" which sounds like it should have just nipped that law in the butt once it made it to the Supreme Court the first time. But go figure.
I think it will probably bring us to a single-payer system via the public option.
Step one: "Don't want to provide stuff? I guess we will make a Government health insurance plan that provides it instead."
Step two: "Oh look, we can subsidize this plan with some taxes and base it on a sliding scale. I guess we are going to be a lot cheaper than all those other plans out there..."
Step three: "All the other plans are broke and no longer on the market? I guess we are the only one left. Might as well keep it that way..."
Going back to the OP: the Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't affect, of all things, sterilization or all uses of the most common EC (levonorgestrel); which renders the majority dissent impotent at best.
dogma wrote: Going back to the OP: the Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't affect, of all things, sterilization or all uses of the most common BC (levonorgestrel); which renders the majority dissent impotent at best.
It actually covers all forms of birth control.
Edit:
After all the justifications in the majority opinion and all the legal talk, the actual ruling is just three sentences long. Specifically:
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held
corporations, violates RFRA.
Which means that this ruling does not just cover the four items that were specifically addressed, but all forms of birth control. This was even mentioned during oral arguments.
whembly wrote: Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?
Are you seriously arguing that an employer should get to decide what goods and services an employee may spend their remuneration on?
Simple reality is, the employer provides cash to the employee. This may be spent on all kinds of things the employer finds immoral. The employer just has to deal with that. That really doesn't change when the employer is providing health insurance as well as cash.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As someone researching his pension options because of an employer lead change this is very true
Yep. And a basic of life is that we do what we can to negate that, but ultimately we are very limited in how much we can control our money and understand what that money does once we put it out there in the world.
Unless, of course, that money is spent on insurance for our employees. Then apparently we have a direct moral responsibility for what insurance services those employees access, and that moral responsibility is so strong it can be supported by the Supreme Court.
This is a very scary decision, and if I was in the US I'd be very worried.
Setting aside the contraception issue, what it boils down to is that if your employer's religion doesn't like a treatment, you (potentially) can't have it on your insurance.
Diabetic? Sorry, that insulin comes from pigs, that's against Islam.
Need a blood transfusion? Sorry, not if your employer is a JW.
It's a slippery slope.
marv335 wrote: This is a very scary decision, and if I was in the US I'd be very worried.
Setting aside the contraception issue, what it boils down to is that if your employer's religion doesn't like a treatment, you (potentially) can't have it on your insurance.
Diabetic? Sorry, that insulin comes from pigs, that's against Islam.
Need a blood transfusion? Sorry, not if your employer is a JW.
It's a slippery slope.
Don't worry, the ruling explicitly states that only things that "mainstream" conservative Christians hate can be excluded.
marv335 wrote: This is a very scary decision, and if I was in the US I'd be very worried.
Setting aside the contraception issue, what it boils down to is that if your employer's religion doesn't like a treatment, you (potentially) can't have it on your insurance.
Diabetic? Sorry, that insulin comes from pigs, that's against Islam.
Need a blood transfusion? Sorry, not if your employer is a JW.
It's a slippery slope.
Even more scary...your employer doesn't have to provide insurance.
marv335 wrote: This is a very scary decision, and if I was in the US I'd be very worried.
Setting aside the contraception issue, what it boils down to is that if your employer's religion doesn't like a treatment, you (potentially) can't have it on your insurance.
Diabetic? Sorry, that insulin comes from pigs, that's against Islam.
Need a blood transfusion? Sorry, not if your employer is a JW.
It's a slippery slope.
Even more scary...your employer doesn't have to provide insurance.
In five years it won't.
Which is a good thing.
Good companies will continue to provide good benefits to keep good people, regardless of government mandate (of which there should be none.)
Setting aside the contraception issue, what it boils down to is that if your employer's religion doesn't like a treatment, you (potentially) can't have it on your insurance.
Not true at all. As long as ACA is on the books, this means that, as long as employers must provide, or have some arrangement that gets you health insurance coverage, that there are certain things that must be covered in order to meet the "ACA requirements"
If you look very closely at a current Metal plan from an ACA provider, you'll see some pretty major fething gaps in the coverage.
whembly wrote: Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?
Are you seriously arguing that an employer should get to decide what goods and services an employee may spend their remuneration on?
Simple reality is, the employer provides cash to the employee. This may be spent on all kinds of things the employer finds immoral. The employer just has to deal with that. That really doesn't change when the employer is providing health insurance as well as cash.
Isn't it past time for us to bring back the Company Store and Company Script?
whembly wrote: Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?
Are you seriously arguing that an employer should get to decide what goods and services an employee may spend their remuneration on?
Simple reality is, the employer provides cash to the employee. This may be spent on all kinds of things the employer finds immoral. The employer just has to deal with that. That really doesn't change when the employer is providing health insurance as well as cash.
Isn't it past time for us to bring back the Company Store and Company Script?
I think there's a narrow strip of ground when it comes to non-cash benefits that are mandated. I'm sure companies would try to restrict how their employees spend their paychecks if they could.
But there's at least something to the idea that the government shouldn't force somebody to buy something they find immoral. I don't find it super compelling, but it's a legit debate for me.
marv335 wrote: This is a very scary decision, and if I was in the US I'd be very worried.
Setting aside the contraception issue, what it boils down to is that if your employer's religion doesn't like a treatment, you (potentially) can't have it on your insurance.
Diabetic? Sorry, that insulin comes from pigs, that's against Islam.
Need a blood transfusion? Sorry, not if your employer is a JW.
It's a slippery slope.
Even more scary...your employer doesn't have to provide insurance.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I mean, why would they have to stop providing insurance in five years?
He reckons that's how long ACA/ "Obamacare" will last... after 5 years, the law will be replaced or gotten rid of, so employers will no longer be required to offer health plans.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I mean, why would they have to stop providing insurance in five years?
He reckons that's how long ACA/ "Obamacare" will last... after 5 years, the law will be replaced or gotten rid of, so employers will no longer be required to offer health plans.
No way Jose... no Republican will be able to overcome Hillary Clinton. She's running bro and she ain't signing off any PPACA repeal.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I mean, why would they have to stop providing insurance in five years?
He reckons that's how long ACA/ "Obamacare" will last... after 5 years, the law will be replaced or gotten rid of, so employers will no longer be required to offer health plans.
No way Jose... no Republican will be able to overcome Hillary Clinton. She's running bro and she ain't signing off any PPACA repeal.
In order to repeal the ACA, Republicans will actually have to win the White House. They've so alienated themselves from so much of the population, its hard to imagine this happening anytime soon without a sincere rehabilitation of their platform.
They may be able to change parts of the law they don't like, but they'll have to actually work with the opposition to do so.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I mean, why would they have to stop providing insurance in five years?
He reckons that's how long ACA/ "Obamacare" will last... after 5 years, the law will be replaced or gotten rid of, so employers will no longer be required to offer health plans.
No way Jose... no Republican will be able to overcome Hillary Clinton. She's running bro and she ain't signing off any PPACA repeal.
In order to repeal the ACA, Republicans will actually have to win the White House. They've so alienated themselves from so much of the population, its hard to imagine this happening anytime soon without a sincere rehabilitation of their platform.
They may be able to change parts of the law they don't like, but they'll have to actually work with the opposition to do so.
The ACA of today will not be the same as the ACA in the future. Even both sides admit its a work in progress. Then there's the issue of the non Dem/Rep IG report, and parts of the Law not in effect yet but are coming. Right after Mid Term
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, I mean, why would they have to stop providing insurance in five years?
He reckons that's how long ACA/ "Obamacare" will last... after 5 years, the law will be replaced or gotten rid of, so employers will no longer be required to offer health plans.
Actually no thats how long I figure most companies will have plans and not just punt off the plans to the exchanges. That was one likely impact of the ACA, per that weird guy who helped write it.
skyth wrote: It's really sad that 'Freedom of Religion' is now defined as being able to force other people to follow the dictates of your religion.
No ones forcing religon on anyone, 16 out the 20 contraceptives are provided, only ones the owners deemed as being abortions did they morally object to and said we wont pay for those we cant morally do it. Its not like the workers of hobbly lobby cant pay for the stuff themselves(gasp!!!!! people paying for their own stuff), its just the owners didnt want their money being used to pay for things that they have a moral objection to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also on getting a right wing person in the white house, ben carson.
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: Its not like the workers of hobbly lobby cant pay for the stuff themselves(gasp!!!!! people paying for their own stuff)
You seriously cannot imagine a situation in which a female who works a low wage clerk job at Hobby Lobby would not have any money to put together to pay for medication? F#&% em, I guess, right?
And in this situation, the employee would be paying for it themselves. Employer-provided health insurance didn't become free with the ACA, did it? It's just that she's not getting the same services as everyone else, because of her corporate overlords' esoteric religious beliefs.
Notice how Hobby Lobby is being viewed as no Birth Control is being provided by them. How the left is not mentioning the other 16 being provided by Hobby Lobby but saying basically none is being provided
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: Its not like the workers of hobbly lobby cant pay for the stuff themselves(gasp!!!!! people paying for their own stuff)
You seriously cannot imagine a situation in which a female who works a low wage clerk job at Hobby Lobby would not have any money to put together to pay for medication? F#&% em, I guess, right?
If that was the view they wouldn't provide health care now would they...
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: Its not like the workers of hobbly lobby cant pay for the stuff themselves(gasp!!!!! people paying for their own stuff)
You seriously cannot imagine a situation in which a female who works a low wage clerk job at Hobby Lobby would not have any money to put together to pay for medication? F#&% em, I guess, right?
If that was the view they wouldn't provide health care now would they...
But it became part if health care when it was regulated by the FDA and available by prescription and was used to treat many other conditions other than "I don't want no baby".
jasper76 wrote: You seriously dont think using medication prescribed by a doctor to avoid pregnancy is healthcare?
What, pray tell, then is it?
Nope. There is no illness to address. Plastic surgery is also prescribed. People get butt lifts, boobs jobs, face lifts. Other than related to surgery (for example mastectomies) plastic surgery actually violates the hyppocratic oath of do no harm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Why ask me, I don't know jack according to you.
Google it and don't be lazy and quit pretending that there are no other uses just because you don't know about something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And no part of the ACA has ever required anybody to fund abortion.
Now you're getting all butthurt again. Get some cream or something.
I didn't ask if the ACA required it. I asked if YOU think they should be required to.
jasper76 wrote: You seriously dont think using medication prescribed by a doctor to avoid pregnancy is healthcare?
What, pray tell, then is it?
Contraception.
Of which there are many forms.
Including not fething people you don't want to have a kid with.
But, you know, condoms work, too.
I do acknowledge some forms of birth control (coincidentally, the ones that Hobby Lobby DOES Cover) are used for hormone regulation and for dermatological purposes.
d-usa wrote: See how the right keeps on saying "only those four are affected" even though the ruling affects all of them?
Okay....
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees, ending its term with a narrow legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.
That some but not all.
So it becomes a lower court battle over the interpretation of SCOTUS decision. Think one might want to jump on revising a portion of ACA concerning this matter then just screaming and yelling at each other
d-usa wrote: See how the right keeps on saying "only those four are affected" even though the ruling affects all of them?
Okay....
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees, ending its term with a narrow legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.
That some but not all.
So it becomes a lower court battle over the interpretation of SCOTUS decision. Think one might want to jump on revising a portion of ACA concerning this matter then just screaming and yelling at each other
No, it's all.
I posted the ruling. Read the thread, read the ruling, or don't bother me.
C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.
You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?
You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?
You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?
SOME forms of birth control.
Not all.
To bad the Supreme Court didn't make that distinction.
Agreed.
But I do think it's important to note that the forms that Hobby Lobby in particular disapproves of are the ones with the specific purpose of aborting a "insert phrasing for egg+sperm combo here".
I think it's also important to note that much of the media is conveniently leaving that part out.
But then again, I fall pretty squarely in the camp that employers shouldn't be forced to provide health care at all.
cincydooley wrote: I do acknowledge some forms of birth control (coincidentally, the ones that Hobby Lobby DOES Cover) are used for hormone regulation and for dermatological purposes.
Well, I'm sure the medical community will be relieved to know you acknowledge 2 of the non-contraceptive applications of birth control medication.
But why don't we just leave these issues to trained medical professionals and their patients, shall we?
C'mon man...I'm getting the impression you're just pulling my leg.
You are aware that there are women for whom pregnancy carried to term would be a death sentence, right?
You are aware that the older a woman gets, the health risks associated with pregancy begin to grow exponentially, right?
You are aware that birth control has several medical uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy, right?
SOME forms of birth control.
Not all.
To bad the Supreme Court didn't make that distinction.
Agreed.
But I do think it's important to note that the forms that Hobby Lobby in particular disapproves of are the ones with the specific purpose of aborting a "insert phrasing for egg+sperm combo here".
I think it's also important to note that much of the media is conveniently leaving that part out.
But then again, I fall pretty squarely in the camp that employers shouldn't be forced to provide health care at all.
Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.
They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.
At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.
At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide
Polonius wrote: Seems to me that paying for an IUD is a whole lot cheaper than paying for a pregnancy, not to mention raising a kid.
Stupid policy question: why do we not simply offer on demand contraception in this country? It's way cheaper than the alternatives.
That is beginning to look like one of the possible compromise solutions. It was even suggested as a possibility by Scalia in his opinion, IIRC, for the poeple who work for folks with religious objections (govt buys them birth control meds)
Of course, single payer, whatever they are calling Medicare for all these days, would make all of this go away.
Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?
Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.
Because it's used for plenty of other reasons than "fething".
But you already know that and just choose to ignore it.
so what, non farking use is there for birth control?
im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...
what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!
I do think single payer is the way to go here though, precisely because its simpler, cheaper, more effective, is proven to work, and gets rid of issues like this where one party doesnt want to participate.
Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.
They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.
At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.
At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide
I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?
Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?
Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.
You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.
If someone is allergic to grass, why should I be forced to subsidize them walking out of their house to go to work? Just deal with your allergies buddy, tough luck.
With all due respect otherwise, if you're not joking, I can't really take you seriously on this subject anymore.
You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor abstain from sexual activity.
No, he didn't. He suggested that someone who needs birth control medication should pay for it on their own.
If someone is allergic to grass, why should I be forced to subsidize them walking out of their house to go to work? Just deal with your allergies buddy, tough luck.
Exactly. Why should you be forced to pay for their allergy medication?
You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.
Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?
Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.
They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.
At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.
At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide
I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?
lets put it another way. Should they be forced to fund abortions as health care?
Only in cases of Medical Necessity. It's quite literally the SAME as plastic surgery.... if you are getting plastic surgery because you survived a motorcycle wreck that destroyed your jaw, well, that's not plastic surgery, that's reconstructive surgery and is covered by necessity. If a woman is pregnant and carrying the fetus/child to full term presents significant risk to her life/health, it can be medically necessary to abort.
You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.
Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?
Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.
They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.
At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.
At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide
I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?
Yes, and AFAIK was never required to be covered.
You know what, you're right. I was thinking of ella.
But again, the semantic argument is there that both ella and Plan-B have the specific purpose of terminating a pregnancy.
You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.
Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?
You never put that question to me in the first place.
Condoms can prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
As for the rest, I don't know. I'm a guy. The subject doesn't come up between me and my doctor. Maybe a woman you know, or your doctor, would be willing to fill you in on the details. And there's also the internet.
lets put it another way. Should they be forced to fund abortions as health care?
Only in cases of Medical Necessity. It's quite literally the SAME as plastic surgery.... if you are getting plastic surgery because you survived a motorcycle wreck that destroyed your jaw, well, that's not plastic surgery, that's reconstructive surgery and is covered by necessity. If a woman is pregnant and carrying the fetus/child to full term presents significant risk to her life/health, it can be medically necessary to abort.
You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.
Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?
You know how to google big boy, go do it.
In other words, you can't find one. Your honor I move for a directed verdict.
As for the rest, I don't know. I'm a guy. The subject doesn't come up between me and my doctor. Maybe a woman you know, or your doctor, would be willing to fill you in on the details. And there's also the internet.
There it is!
Penis? No opinion valid!
Win, America!
I'm glad the War on Women through this outcome is being battled so fiercely.
You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.
Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?
You know how to google big boy, go do it.
In other words, you can't find one. Your honor I move for a directed verdict.
In other words there is zero reason to waste my time with someone who doesn't know what he is talking about and already declared that anything I type is fake because he doesn't believe my background.
Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.
They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.
At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.
At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide
I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?
Yes, and AFAIK was never required to be covered.
You know what, you're right. I was thinking of ella.
But again, the semantic argument is there that both ella and Plan-B have the specific purpose of terminating a pregnancy.
But they don't. Their specific purpose is to prevent ovulation and fertilization (aka: contraception) and not to terminate a pregnancy.
Frazzled wrote: Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.
You got pwoned by a guy who thinks he's a wiener dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH
(i guess its fitting the wiener dog got pwoned by the guy with the quirrel avatar - we'll get you one day tree dweller!)
Oh there are plenty of reasons. Sorry to disappoint you. We can all be thankful that the medical community doesn't have to rely on "random crap that Frazzled thinks he knows stuff about" to make important decisions.
Personally, my approval of this decision has far less to do with the actual findings, but more to do with the fact that it's a step closer to getting rid of the government mandate that employers provide healthcare.
I will admit, though, that the "war on women" nutjobs on my FB feed are cracking me up.
cincydooley wrote: Personally, my approval of this decision has far less to do with the actual findings, but more to do with the fact that it's a step closer to getting rid of the government mandate that employers provide healthcare.
I agree, other than TRICARE (for military people) the vast majority of employer group coverage options suck, when compared to individual coverage. It's a case where, you're part of a group, so you pay a bit less than if you were on your own, but you are also more limited in your options for *what* is covered.
so what, non farking use is there for birth control?
im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...
what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!
I do think single payer is the way to go here though, precisely because its simpler, cheaper, more effective, is proven to work, and gets rid of issues like this where one party doesnt want to participate.
In some cases it is not uncommon for a woman to be on birth control, including an IUD, because of irregular/heavy/painful periods. In this case under double effect the primary intention of the device is to assist the woman with her medical condition, the contraceptive benefit is not the main purpose
Abortions required as a medical treatment should be covered.
Aren't they all technically "medical treatments?"
I'm assuming you mean for "live saving" type situations and not "whoops I don't want to be pregnant anymore" situations.
Here in Ohio, there's a very sharp line between "life threatening" and not. Basically, unless the baby has a chance to kill you, and you're already in the hosptial, doctor's can't perform a medical abortion outside of an abortion clinic. The bar for medically necessary is really high, such that even if the pregnancy is doomed, and the woman is suffering, they can't help if she's not actually likely to die.
cincydooley wrote:Personally, my approval of this decision has far less to do with the actual findings, but more to do with the fact that it's a step closer to getting rid of the government mandate that employers provide healthcare.
Prepare to be disappointed. I doubt that's going anywhere. Certainly not in the courts, and likely not through legislative change either.
so what, non farking use is there for birth control?
im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...
what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!
I do think single payer is the way to go here though, precisely because its simpler, cheaper, more effective, is proven to work, and gets rid of issues like this where one party doesnt want to participate.
In some cases it is not uncommon for a woman to be on birth control, including an IUD, because of irregular/heavy/painful periods. In this case under double effect the primary intention of the device is to assist the woman with her medical condition, the contraceptive benefit is not the main purpose
right you are! I was being a bit tougne in cheek there,
although I do know of several ladies who actually got worse periods from IUD's too, I think there are specific medications for regulating periods ect but they are likely chemically similar to birth control, not 100% sure on that Ill have to ask my GF since shes the pharmacist.
either way... for the love of god, all you champions of obama care, realize that it is a horrible half measure that makes a bad situation worse... put some pressure on the democrats to actually impliment a working single payer system and be done with it... solves so many problems, causes none.
well, unless you are one of the people who likes paying to skip lines, but Im sure someone will still take your fistfulls of cash to skip lines
easysauce wrote: either way... for the love of god, all you champions of obama care, realize that it is a horrible half measure that makes a bad situation worse... put some pressure on the democrats to actually impliment a working single payer system and be done with it... solves so many problems, causes none.
How would you go about doing this? I mean, most democrats were all in favor of a single payer system. The Romneycare solution was the compromise. If Republicans were dead set against single payer before, have we seen any eveidence whatsoever that they are going to want to move to a single payer system now...because their buy-in will be needed.
jasper76 wrote: If Republicans were dead set against single payer before, have we seen any eveidence whatsoever that they are going to want to move to a single payer system now...because their buy-in will be needed.
Frazzled wrote: Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.
You got pwoned by a guy who thinks he's a wiener dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH
(i guess its fitting the wiener dog got pwoned by the guy with the quirrel avatar - we'll get you one day tree dweller!)
Oh there are plenty of reasons. Sorry to disappoint you. We can all be thankful that the medical community doesn't have to rely on "random crap that Frazzled thinks he knows stuff about" to make important decisions.
None of which you'll proffer evidently.
Frazzled wins X2!
"Never wrestle with a pig in a pigsty. You'll just end up muddy and the pig will enjoy it. "
Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.
Bolo One Page One
including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are
exempt from this contraceptive mandate.
Tracking on the four.
Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.
Still tracking on the four
were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons ” under RFRA,
RFRA
In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.
okay
Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Still tracking
HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.
So
A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.
vs
For Profit Corporation: A for-profit corporation or for-profit company is a corporation that is intended to operate a business which will return a profit to the owners. ...
Keyword is Corporation So I'm tracking
HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot“exercise . . . religion.”
but?
Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
So they fall under RFRA because
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
So still tracking
HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection.
Can say Hobby Lobby is the first because of ACA mandate
State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes.
State added to and not took any away. Still tracking.
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.
RFRA protects
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
Being
It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.
So tracking
HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses.
I can see the angle of this
The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable
I can see this angle to
(c)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
(1)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA.
I agree. 16 of 20 is provided. So still tracking
The Government could,e.g assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.
Understandable. There's other avenues of approach to provide the additional four
3)This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.
CYA
ugh. 90+ freaking pages
In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that its fundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself. The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post , at32–35. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith.494 U. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”). But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty andcompeting prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C.§2000bb(a)(5) The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on thematter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.
Hey now.....
you just posted..
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.
Bolo One Page One
including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are
exempt from this contraceptive mandate.
Tracking on the four.
Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.
Still tracking on the four
were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons ” under RFRA,
RFRA
In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.
okay
Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Still tracking
HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.
So
A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.
vs
For Profit Corporation: A for-profit corporation or for-profit company is a corporation that is intended to operate a business which will return a profit to the owners. ...
Keyword is Corporation So I'm tracking
HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot“exercise . . . religion.”
but?
Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
So they fall under RFRA because
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
So still tracking
HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection.
Can say Hobby Lobby is the first because of ACA mandate
State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes.
State added to and not took any away. Still tracking.
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.
RFRA protects
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
Being
It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.
So tracking
HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses.
I can see the angle of this
The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable
I can see this angle to
(c)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
(1)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA.
I agree. 16 of 20 is provided. So still tracking
The Government could,e.g assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.
Understandable. There's other avenues of approach to provide the additional four
3)This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.
CYA
ugh. 90+ freaking pages
In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that its fundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself. The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post , at32–35. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith.494 U. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”). But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty andcompeting prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C.§2000bb(a)(5) The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on thematter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.
Hey now.....
you just posted..
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
Protip: Learn how SCOTUS opinions and rulings work.
This is the actual ruling:
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
The contraceptive mandate (aka: every single drug and device you say they have to cover) violates RFRA. So it doesn't affect just the four, it affects all of them.
All the other stuff you quoted is not the ruling. It's their interpretation of the facts of the case, their opinion of those facts, their opinion on the law at question, what other cases they took into consideration, and how they justify the ruling.
The actual ruling, the legal part that is the most important part of the entire paper, is that tiny nugget:
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA.
Which doesn't say anything about any kind of drugs or devices. It just says that the mandate at large (which includes all of them) violates the law.
Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.
Bolo One Page One
including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are
exempt from this contraceptive mandate.
Tracking on the four.
Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.
Still tracking on the four
were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons ” under RFRA,
RFRA
In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.
okay
Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Still tracking
HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.
So
A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.
vs
For Profit Corporation: A for-profit corporation or for-profit company is a corporation that is intended to operate a business which will return a profit to the owners. ...
Keyword is Corporation So I'm tracking
HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot“exercise . . . religion.”
but?
Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
So they fall under RFRA because
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
So still tracking
HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection.
Can say Hobby Lobby is the first because of ACA mandate
State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes.
State added to and not took any away. Still tracking.
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.
RFRA protects
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
Being
It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.
So tracking
HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses.
I can see the angle of this
The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable
I can see this angle to
(c)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
(1)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA.
I agree. 16 of 20 is provided. So still tracking
The Government could,e.g assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.
Understandable. There's other avenues of approach to provide the additional four
3)This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.
CYA
ugh. 90+ freaking pages
In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that its fundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself. The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post , at32–35. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith.494 U. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”). But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty andcompeting prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C.§2000bb(a)(5) The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on thematter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.
Hey now.....
you just posted..
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
Protip: Learn how SCOTUS opinions and rulings work.
This is the actual ruling:
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
The contraceptive mandate (aka: every single drug and device you say they have to cover) violates RFRA. So it doesn't affect just the four, it affects all of them.
All the other stuff you quoted is not the ruling. It's their interpretation of the facts of the case, their opinion of those facts, their opinion on the law at question, what other cases they took into consideration, and how they justify the ruling.
The actual ruling, the legal part that is the most important part of the entire paper, is that tiny nugget:
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA.
Which doesn't say anything about any kind of drugs or devices. It just says that the mandate at large (which includes all of them) violates the law.
Why did you not post the relevant portions and posted just a sentence. Now I can see your stance on this.
Edit
Quote brackets and I posted the interpretation to see how they came to their decision. Now going over Ginsburg portion
The Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. See ante, at 16–49. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.”
Tracking
Instead, the Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000b bet seq. , dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’s decision endorses. In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.
Corporation definition though but I'm tracking still where she is going. Yet the "person" is not pressing their religion on those employed. Right?
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), in its initial form, specified three categories of preventive care that health plans must cover at no added cost to the plan participant or beneficiary. Particular services were to be recommended by the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts. The scheme had a large gap, however; it left out preventive services that “many women’s health advocates and medical professionals believe are critically important.”
First version fell short. Tracking to..
To correct this oversight, Senator Barbara Mikulski introduced the Women’s Health Amendment, which added to the ACA’s minimum coverage requirements a new category of preventive services specific to women’s health.
Tracking
As altered by the Women’s Health Amendment’s passage, the ACA requires new insurance plans to include coverage without cost sharing of “such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration
Tracking still
Women are consistently more likely than men to report a wide range of cost-related barriers to receiving . . . medical tests and treatments and to filling prescriptions for themselves and their families.”);id., at 103–104, 107 (pregnancy may be contraindicated for women with certain medical conditions, for example, some congenital heart diseases, pulmonary hypertension, and Marfan syndrome, and contraceptives may be used to reduce risk of endometrial cancer, among other serious medical conditions);id., at 103 (women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, and their children face “increased odds of preterm birth and low birth weight”).
Valid Justification
Any First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim Hobby Lobby or Conestoga 7 might assert is foreclosed by this Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v.
Smith
1990 case. RFRA came around 1993. If I remember correctly there's a allowable list of tribes who can do their "Quest" with ramification. Native American Church is not a tribe.
The ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement applies generally, it is “otherwise valid,” it trains on women’s well being, not on the exercise of religion, and any effect it has on such exercise is incidental.
I see the bearing but...
The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.
Wait..16 of 20..
Lacking a tenable claim under the Free Exercise Clause, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga rely on RFRA, a statute instructing that “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the government shows that application of the burden is “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling governmental interest.” 4
Free Exercise Clause
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Tracking
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Still somewhat tracking.
In RFRA, Congress “adopt[ed] a statutory rule comparable to the constitutional rule rejected in Smith
Tracking....
RFRA’s purpose is specific and written into the statute itself. The Act was crafted to “restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner , 374 U. S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.”
Okay but 1963, 1972 and RFRA was created in 1993
T]he compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.”);ante, at 48 (agreeing that the pre-Smith compelling interest test is “workable” and “strike[s] sensible balances”).
Why was RFRA created then?
The legislative history is correspondingly emphatic on RFRA’s aim. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 103–111, p. 12 (1993) (hereinafter Senate Report) (RFRA’s purpose was “only to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith ,” not to“unsettle other areas of the law.”);139 Cong. Rec. 26178 (1993) (statement of Sen. Kennedy) (RFRA was “designed to restore the compelling interest test for deciding free exercise claims.”). In line with this restorative purpose, Congress expected courts considering RFRA claims to look to free exercise cases decided prior to Smith for guidance.”
Rep. No. 103–111, p. 12 (1993) JULY 27 (legislative day ,JUNE30),1993.—Ordered to be printed. A Report on RFRA
There has been much debate about this act's relevance to the issue of abortion. Some have suggested that if Roe v. Wade 3 4 were reversed, the act might be used to overturn restrictions on abortion. While the committee ,like the Congressional Research Service, is not persuaded that this is the case,3 5 we do not seek to resolve the abortion debate through this legislation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 36 which describes the way under the Constitution in which claims pertaining to abortion are resolved, means that discussions about this act's application to abortion are academic. To be absolutely clear , the act does not expand, contract or alter the ability of a claimant to obtain relief in a manner consistent with the Supreme Courts's free exercise jurisprudence under the compelling governmental interest test prior to Smith.
RFRA was law Nov 1993. So how does a "report" bounce RFRA out of the field?
Congress expected courts considering RFRA claims to look to free exercise cases decided prior to Smith for guidance.”
I can see how prior decisions made before Nov 93 being used as a guidance. What if the decisions were wrong though?
Despite these authoritative indications, the Court sees RFRA as a bold initiative departing from, rather than restoring, pre-Smith jurisprudence. See ante, at 6, n. 3, 7, 17, 25–27. To support its conception of RFRA as a measure detached from this Court’s decisions, the Court points first to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
Alright. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use. It was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no written vote was taken.
WTH....
Which altered RFRA’s definition of the term “exercise of religion.” RFRA, as originally enacted, defined that term to mean “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
Free Exercise Clause. Tracking again
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 which grants special privileges to religious land owners
Back to not tracking
Next, the Court highlights RFRA’s requirement that the government, if its action substantially burdens a person’s religious observance, must demonstrate that it chose the least restrictive means for furthering a compelling interest. “y imposing a least- restrictive-means test,” the Court suggests, RFRA “went beyond what was required by our pre-Smith decisions.
Back to tracking but why was RFRA passed then?
But as RFRA’s statements of purpose and legislative history make clear, Congress intended only to restore, not to scrap or alter, the balancing test as this Court had applied it pre-Smith.
Alright
The Congress that passed RFRA correctly read this Court’s pre-Smith case law as including within the “compelling interest test” a “least restrictive means” requirement.
Alright. tracking..
Senate Report 5 (“Where [a substantial] burden is placed upon the free exercise of religion, the Court ruled [in Sherbert], the Government must demotrate that it is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest.”). And the view that the pre-Smith test included a “least restrictive means ”requirement had been aired in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by experts on religious freedom. See,e.g., Hearing on S. 2969 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., 78–7
Aired in testimony?
With RFRA’s restorative purpose in mind, I turn to the Act’s application to the instant lawsuits. That task, inview of the positions taken by the Court, requires consideration of several questions, each potentially dispositive of Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga’s claims: Do for-profit corporations rank among “person[s]” who “exercise . . . religion”?
Wait. Isn't Corporation consider a person though?
The Dictionary Act’s definition, however, controls only where “context” does not “indicat[e] otherwise.”
New on me but okay
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
[b]the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.
Tracking
Back to pre-Smith
RFRA speaks of “a person’s exercise of religion whether a corporation qualifies as a “person” capable of exercising religion is an inquiry one cannot answer without reference to the “full body” of pre-Smith “free-exercise caselaw.” Gilardi, 733 F. 3d, at 1212. There is in that case law no support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations.
A Report gives justification....okay
Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. 13 The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.
Yet "person" is defined
Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.”
Yet his word is not Law
Ugh more pages
The Court’s determination that RFRA extends to for profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. 19 Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood—combined with its other errors in construing RFRA—invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith
Yep. Its going to happen. Need to re-write that Contraceptive Mandate
Fourteen prominent faith leaders — including some of President Obama’s closest advisers — want the White House to create a religious exemption from his planned executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians in hiring.
A letter to the White House, sent Tuesday and made public Wednesday, includes the signatures of Michael Wear, faith director for Obama’s 2012 campaign; Stephen Schneck, a leader of Catholic outreach in 2012; and Florida megapastor Joel Hunter, whom Obama has described as a close spiritual counselor.
The letter reminds Obama of his own earlier faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as the government’s massive partnerships with faith-based social service groups that work on issues including housing, disaster relief and hunger.
“While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion,” said the letter.
“An executive order that does not include a religious exemption will significantly and substantively hamper the work of some religious organizations that are best equipped to serve in common purpose with the federal government.,” it said. “When the capacity of religious organizations is limited, the common good suffers.”
Obama announced last month that he would sign an executive order barring discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. He did this after failed efforts to get through Congress the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal under federal law to discriminate in the workplace — not just for contractors.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay equality advocacy group, nearly 90 percent of the Fortune 500 already ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. And while many see full gay legal equality as a foregone conclusion, this week’s decision at the Supreme Court — saying corporations may claim religious rights in denying workers contraception coverage — shows that legal tensions between religious liberty and rights around sexuality and reproduction are far from resolved.
The 14 signers of the letter include leaders of some of the country’s largest faith-based charities, notably Catholic Charities USA and World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals.
The signers said they supported the executive order — “we have great appreciation for your commitment to human dignity and justice, and we share those values with you” — but said an exemption is essential.
“Americans have always disagreed on important issues, but our ability to live with our diversity is part of what makes this country great, and it continues to be essential even in this 21st-century,” the letter said. “Without a robust religious exemption . . . this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.”
None of the groups mentioned in the letter have explicitly said they would pull out of their partnerships with the White House if they do not get an exemption.
The White House declined to comment, but Schneck said faith groups remain in conversation with the administration and are “hopeful.”
Schneck, who runs the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University, said he did not see any contradiction between supporting gay equality and the exemption.
“I think these things fit together pretty well,” he said. “Of all federal contracts, these [faith-based ones] are such a miniscule portion. The recognition of the divisive nature of these kinds of efforts [such as the executive order], it just makes perfect sense for the White House to give the faith-based groups time to work this out. It’s not that long ago when Obama himself was where these faith-based groups are now.”
Views are deeply divided. World Vision, a massive Christian relief nonprofit that received $179 million in 2013 from the government, announced a few months ago that it would allow employees to be in same-sex marriages and then immediately reversed itself after an outcry by donors.
tl;dr: Religious groups to Obama: "That's some nice cooperation you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it because you won't let us hate the gays."
Frazzled wrote: Sorry when is an IUD used for anything besides birth control.
Again, when did birth control become health care?
lets put it another way. Should they be forced to fund abortions as health care?
When you have a condition such as endomitriosis, coupled with focal migraines.
that's when.
The migraines mean that most of the oral contraceptives are contraindicated, and the IUD controls many of the symptoms of endomitriosis.
that's a couple of examples I know about because my wife is effected by both.
Definitely a healthcare issue.
Frazzled wrote: Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?
Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.
Because it's used for plenty of other reasons than "fething".
But you already know that and just choose to ignore it.
so what, non farking use is there for birth control?
im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...
what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!
My best friend is currently suffering from a recurrence of endometriosis, which is where the cells that line the uterus (endometrial cells) start to grow outside of the uterus (she has them growing on the lining of her bladder, and her lower intestinal tract). Because they are endometrial cells, they grow according to the menstrual cycle, and so after her surgery (which due to the unworkable behemoth that is the NHS, is tomorrow afternoon, less than three weeks after the diagnosis) she will need to be on birth control pills to halt her menstrual cycle in order to prevent the endometrial cells from growing back.
There. A use for birth control that isn't "farking".
Of course, you could also have found that out with a simple google search to find a use for birth control that isn't sex, and clicked on the top result; but that would have interrupted yours and frazzled's Two Stooges act. Seriously though; it's really fething simple guys.
Frazzled wrote: Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.
some childish babbling that I can't be bothered to quote
There you go, a purpose for them. Can you stop acting like a child now?
For the life of me. Through the last five years of my career as a Contract Oversight NCO dealing with Federal Contractors. I know of no faith base organization that's on contract with the Federal Government. Over seas or in the US.
whembly wrote: No way Jose... no Republican will be able to overcome Hillary Clinton. She's running bro and she ain't signing off any PPACA repeal.
She's out and campaigning and telling people her favourite book is the Bible, thereby managing to find that perfect Hillary trademarked balance between annoying people who would support her and gaining nothing from people who already don't like her. It's 2007 all over again.
Not that it matters one bit for ACA. There's 8 million people signed up through exchanges, and millions more signed up insurance schemes with expanded coverage over what they used to have, and many of them are dependant on ACA subsidies to make their payments. ACA is part of the system now, and you can't get rid of it without bringing in some else... and Republicans simply don't have an alternative scheme of their own.
Including not fething people you don't want to have a kid with.
Say you went to a doctor, and told him you had hurt your knee while rock climbing. Then a lunatic on the internet told you that wasn't healthcare because you could choose to not go rock climbing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Seems to me that paying for an IUD is a whole lot cheaper than paying for a pregnancy, not to mention raising a kid.
Stupid policy question: why do we not simply offer on demand contraception in this country? It's way cheaper than the alternatives.
Small population studies have shown that offering free contraception cuts the abortion rate by 80% or thereabouts. Free IUDs were most effective, because there's no scope for user error.
The finding was completely and utterly ignored by people who pretend to be morally horrified about abortion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: yes I expect others to support their arguments. Its kind of a thing.
No, you don't. You sometimes make noise about it because you can't think of any other way to protect your argument, and then when they collect evidence you just drop out of the thread. Sometimes you post pictures of weiner dogs or Barney first, but sure enough once the information appears you just disappear.
We've played that stupid game dozens of times, and ultimately it's just rude to demand information from people you aren't going to read in good faith.
Those guys are on the religious left, actually. Unless you think Obama had Republicans handling his campaign.
streamdragon wrote:How would you go about doing this? I mean, most democrats were all in favor of a single payer system. The Romneycare solution was the compromise. If Republicans were dead set against single payer before, have we seen any eveidence whatsoever that they are going to want to move to a single payer system now...because their buy-in will be needed.
Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.
Seaward wrote: Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.
ACA isn't government provided universal healthcare like progressives want, instead it was a market based solution like the right wing had been claiming it wanted for so long.
Sure, when actually proposed Republicans pretended the idea was horrible and tried to get as many people terrified of the idea, and in the end not one voted for the thing, but as a piece of policy it is what it is.
sebster wrote: ACA isn't government provided universal healthcare like progressives want, instead it was a market based solution like the right wing had been claiming it wanted for so long.
Sure, when actually proposed Republicans pretended the idea was horrible and tried to get as many people terrified of the idea, and in the end not one voted for the thing, but as a piece of policy it is what it is.
Yeah, I suppose it's a market-based solution in the sense that the Democrats did indeed use the word "market" a few times when talking about it.
But it's most definitely not a compromise. If I tell you I want to do Plan A, and you say no, and I counter by saying fine, I'll do Plan B, and you still say no, we haven't compromised. The Democrats have absolutely no one to blame but themselves for not going for universal health care when they had the chance to do so. They wanted token Republican votes, and chasing them was more important than pleasing the rabid progressive element. That's the call they made. It's fun to try and pin it all on Republicans, but it just ain't so.
Those guys are on the religious left, actually. Unless you think Obama had Republicans handling his campaign.
streamdragon wrote:How would you go about doing this? I mean, most democrats were all in favor of a single payer system. The Romneycare solution was the compromise. If Republicans were dead set against single payer before, have we seen any eveidence whatsoever that they are going to want to move to a single payer system now...because their buy-in will be needed.
Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.
Some, yes. Pretty sure the leader of the Catholic Charities isn't on Obama's staff though.
The 14 signers of the letter include leaders of some of the country’s largest faith-based charities, notably Catholic Charities USA and World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Also that second quote isn't me. Not sure who said it, but I didn't, FWIW.
Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.
This reminds me of an old saying...If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth. Romneycare originated from a Republican think tank and was originally implemented by a Republican governor. It represents the conservative idea of fixing health care via the market (The exchange IS a market believe it or not). Since it is not universal health care, it is very much a compromise.
It's funny, you hear about all the people that were unhappy with the ACA, but they neglect to mention that a large portion were unhappy because it WAS a compromise and not universal health care.
The finding was completely and utterly ignored by people who pretend to be morally horrified about abortion.
.
I think this is incredibly short sighted.
I live in a fairly Catholic area of the country, and I can assure you there's no pretending about the moral objections to abortion here. It goes so far that when our doctor asked us if we wanted to do the pre-birth screenings for various things and we turned it down because we wouldn't have aborted anyway, he commented, "Yeah, we have very few people do them here for the same reason."
For some of us, killing fetus' is really pretty reprehensible.
That's not to say that I'd ever legislate against someone else doing it (I wouldn't) but to claim there are lots of people "pretending" is a bit disingenuous, IMO.
But in that same vein, I wouldn't ever force anyone to provide it. Which is the instance here, and which is why I don't think the decision is as reprehensible as some other folk seem to.
Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.
This reminds me of an old saying...If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth. Romneycare originated from a Republican think tank and was originally implemented by a Republican governor. It represents the conservative idea of fixing health care via the market (The exchange IS a market believe it or not). Since it is not universal health care, it is very much a compromise.
It's funny, you hear about all the people that were unhappy with the ACA, but they neglect to mention that a large portion were unhappy because it WAS a compromise and not universal health care.
Speaking of telling lies...
1. Romney is anything but conservative.
2. No Republican gave input into the actual ACA. Remember "elections have consequences."
3. No Republican voted for it.
Sorry this is your baby completely and utterly. Instead of developing something that could get more buy in you made this monstrous beast by committee and bribe.
In the interest of moving forward to improve ACA, will you write to your Republican representatives and tell them to work with Democrats to fix the problems, rather than just obstructing everything?
Or are you kind of a "let the whole ship sink" sorta guy, as well?
Frazzled wrote: Speaking of telling lies...
1. Romney is anything but conservative.
Lie #1 from you.
2. No Republican gave input into the actual ACA. Remember "elections have consequences."
Lie #2 from you. It was based on the idea of a Republican idea. That is giving input.
3. No Republican voted for it.
Irrelevant. They wouldn't vote for anything that Obama wanted simply because he wanted it. Doesn't matter how much they get out of it or if it was their idea in the first place.
The finding was completely and utterly ignored by people who pretend to be morally horrified about abortion.
.
I think this is incredibly short sighted.
I live in a fairly Catholic area of the country, and I can assure you there's no pretending about the moral objections to abortion here. It goes so far that when our doctor asked us if we wanted to do the pre-birth screenings for various things and we turned it down because we wouldn't have aborted anyway, he commented, "Yeah, we have very few people do them here for the same reason."
For some of us, killing fetus' is really pretty reprehensible.
That's not to say that I'd ever legislate against someone else doing it (I wouldn't) but to claim there are lots of people "pretending" is a bit disingenuous, IMO.
But in that same vein, I wouldn't ever force anyone to provide it. Which is the instance here, and which is why I don't think the decision is as reprehensible as some other folk seem to.
It's just another attempt to discredit something he disagrees with - first it was if one religion (JWs) don't oppose healthcare then no other religion should, now it's that no one who objects to abortion actually cares about the ruling
I've heard the argument, here perhaps, that if you want to be a corp, you shouldn't have the rights of an individual. There's a lot of merit in that view.
s of the religious right would have to pay those taxes to fund "abortion"?
