Hobby Lobby Wins! Gets To Exclude "morning After" Pill From Employee Coverage

[USU78]

As I look at the decision this morning, the faith-based exception is a narrow one, only for closely-held corporations [those with a very few owners], regardless how many employees those corporations may have.

 

Chick Fil A?  Will get the same treatment.

 

US Steel?  Won't get the same treatment.

 

Individuals are certainly entitled to the same First Amendment "free exercise" protection.

 

So . . . whither goeth SCOTUS on SSM/homosexuality anti-discrimination laws and regulations, in light of this ruling?

[Kenngo1969]

Quite frankly, that decision, in light of the trajectory seemingly established Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith and continued by Smith's progeny, is shocking.  Was it 5-4?  I look forward to reading the decision.

 

P.S.:  As I implied above, free exercise has been eroding since Smith.  Unfortunately, this is probably just a blip on the radar.  There is no shortage of people and entities who feel that religion is deserving of no more than equal protection.  In 20 years, people will still be saying, "Sure, religious exercise is protected by the First Amendment." [Wink-and-nod.]

Edited June 30, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

They sure opened a can of worms.  A JW boss now gets to exclude blood transfusions from his/her employees health insurance plans. If I own a small restaurant do I now get to exclude black people, because of my deeply held religious beliefs abut the inferiority of black people?

[Storm Rider]

They sure opened a can of worms.  A JW boss now gets to exclude blood transfusions from his/her employees health insurance plans. If I own a small restaurant do I now get to exclude black people, because of my deeply held religious beliefs abut the inferiority of black people?

 

What church has that doctrine, straw man?

[Scott Lloyd]

They sure opened a can of worms.  A JW boss now gets to exclude blood transfusions from his/her employees health insurance plans. If I own a small restaurant do I now get to exclude black people, because of my deeply held religious beliefs abut the inferiority of black people?

I don't agree you can definitively state any of the above. There are other laws and regulations that come to bear and that must be weighed in the balance when it comes to unlikely scenarios such as those you pose above.

 

Here is what one pundit wrote that seems to have bearing here:

 

Third, as noted above, the Court did not say that RFRA gives owners of companies like Hobby Lobby the right to refuse a whole host of items typically covered under a health insurance policy just because they might have a religious objection to those procedures. So, this case is not going to lead to Jehovah Witness employers refusing to cover blood transfusions or transplants. The Court also said that the holding should not be seen as meaning that a private employer of any kind could avoid liability for a claim of illegal discrimination based on their religious beliefs. This would seem to be addressed to concerns regarding people trying to use religion to avoid liability under laws banning discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. Obviously, what this decision actually means for future cases will depend on the facts of those cases and the Judges that hear them. However, it’s important to note that, just as it did in the Heller gun control case, the Supreme Court seems to be sending a signal here that its holding is not as broad as some advocates for one side or the other might hope or fear.

 

Finally, although it’s easy to understand why it is being characterized in this manner by political partisans, it is important to note that the Supreme Court did nothing today that actually impacts the ability of anyone to have access to birth control. You can still go to the pharmacy and buy the pills, you can still get an IUD implanted. All the Court has said is that, in these very limited set of circumstances, the religious objections of employers deserve protection. That is not “taking away birth control,” and I think it’s intellectually dishonest political hackery to characterize it in that manner.

 

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

They sure opened a can of worms.  A JW boss now gets to exclude blood transfusions from his/her employees health insurance plans. If I own a small restaurant do I now get to exclude black people, because of my deeply held religious beliefs abut the inferiority of black people?

You mean like this TSS?  http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/here_are_the_highlights_of_justice_ginsburgs_fiery_hobby_lobby_dissent/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

Ginsburg opens with a bang, immediately describing the decision as one that will have sweeping consequences:

In a decision of startling breadth, 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.

[Storm Rider]

 

You mean like this TSS?  http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/here_are_the_highlights_of_justice_ginsburgs_fiery_hobby_lobby_dissent/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

Ginsburg opens with a bang, immediately describing the decision as one that will have sweeping consequences:

In a decision of startling breadth, 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.

 

 

 

As long as individuals can get the same medication elsewhere.  It is not about access it is about who pays for it.  The SC stated that the closely held company did not need to pay for it and the government could.  

 

We are going to the the inevitable flood of sky-is-falling liberals that bring up slavery, back-alley abortions, etc.  Each of those things have nothing to do with this ruling.  This narrow ruling was about who pays for it; it has nothing to do with discrimination of any kind and every thing to do with the right to remain true to one's beliefs.  

[Scott Lloyd]

As long as individuals can get the same medication elsewhere.  It is not about access it is about who pays for it.  The SC stated that the closely held company did not need to pay for it and the government could.  

 

We are going to the the inevitable flood of sky-is-falling liberals that bring up slavery, back-alley abortions, etc.  Each of those things have nothing to do with this ruling.  This narrow ruling was about who pays for it; it has nothing to do with discrimination of any kind and every thing to do with the right to remain true to one's beliefs.  

And the fact that Ginsburg does not take cognizance of that does not reflect well on her legal mind. Her hand-wringing dissent seems more characteristic of the histrionic reaction of a political pressure group than it does of reasoned legal analysis.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

What church has that doctrine, straw man?

 

Blacks as an inferior race. Brigham Young, and Mark E. Peterson former Apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to name just two. Also the Book of Abraham has blacks as an inferior race. True; We have reinterpreted it to not mean that now, but such was not the case prior to 1978.

[thesometimesaint]

As long as individuals can get the same medication elsewhere.  It is not about access it is about who pays for it.  The SC stated that the closely held company did not need to pay for it and the government could.  

 

We are going to the the inevitable flood of sky-is-falling liberals that bring up slavery, back-alley abortions, etc.  Each of those things have nothing to do with this ruling.  This narrow ruling was about who pays for it; it has nothing to do with discrimination of any kind and every thing to do with the right to remain true to one's beliefs.  

 

Hate to bust anyone's bubble but it is NOT like you can get the same medication at your local 7-11. More the good reason why the ACA should have been Medicare for all.

 

Say I'm your boss, a JW, and I don't believe in blood transfusions. Does my right to remain true to my religion allow me to decline covering blood transfusions in your medical insurance plan? What if I'm a Christian Scientist, can I decline all medical help but prayer in your insurance plan? Do I decrease your work hours so I don't have to pay for your medical insurance like the Mormon Church did?

[BCSpace]

So . . . whither goeth SCOTUS on SSM/homosexuality anti-discrimination laws and regulations, in light of this ruling?

 

 

Hopefully in the direction of liberty.

 

 

Say I'm your boss, a JW, and I don't believe in blood transfusions. Does my right to remain true to my religion allow me to decline covering blood transfusions in your medical insurance plan?

 

 

It should.  We are trying to re-establish the liberty of making salary and benefit decisions for your own company.  An employer should not be forced to provide insurance or health care coverage. An employee, if not satifised, should be able to go to an outside or indepedent plan which are no longer available.  A good solution was already available in the form of PRA's which Obamacare has essentially abolished.

[BCSpace]

Also the Book of Abraham has blacks as an inferior race.

 

 

False.  There is nothing in the BoA about inferiority or lack of blessings, etc. being the result of skin color.

[BCSpace]

And the fact that Ginsburg does not take cognizance of that does not reflect well on her legal mind. Her hand-wringing dissent seems more characteristic of the histrionic reaction of a political pressure group than it does of reasoned legal analysis.

 

 

Her only argument seems to be 'havoc' which demonstrates the inability of those in her corner to understand what liberty and freedom of choice is all about.

[Scott Lloyd]

Her only argument seems to be 'havoc' which demonstrates the inability of those in her corner to understand what liberty and freedom of choice is all about.

Which seems to be endemic among activist judges.

[thesometimesaint]

Hopefully in the direction of liberty.

 

 

It should.  We are trying to re-establish the liberty of making salary and benefit decisions for your own company.  An employer should not be forced to provide insurance or health care coverage. An employee, if not satifised, should be able to go to an outside or indepedent plan which are no longer available.  A good solution was already available in the form of PRA's which Obamacare has essentially abolished.

Liberty is not the right swing your fist where ever you want.

 

The law says otherwise. The law established minimums of coverage. That is no different than requiring those that drive on public roads to have liability insurance at a certain level.

[Calm]

They sure opened a can of worms.  A JW boss now gets to exclude blood transfusions from his/her employees health insurance plans.

Do they? There is a significant difference between a morning after pill where there are generally other options (save in the case of rape) and a blood transfusion where there isn't if it is an emergency.

[Scott Lloyd]

Liberty is not the right swing your fist where ever you want.

 

The law says otherwise. The law established minimums of coverage. That is no different than requiring those that drive on public roads to have liability insurance at a certain level.

Well the rule of law now is that the government cannot force a small-business employer to pay for contraceptives. You seem to be very negative about this very recent ruling.

 

Are you disrespecting the rule of law?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[BCSpace]

Which seems to be endemic among activist judges.

 

The war in heaven continues to rage here on earth.

 

President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng

 

[BCSpace]

Liberty is not the right swing your fist where ever you want.

 

 

 

Nor is it the right to tell people how to run their business.

 

The law says otherwise. The law established minimums of coverage. That is no different than requiring those that drive on public roads to have liability insurance at a certain level.

 

 

The law destroyed the free market, which it's supporters claim they value, by forcing everyone to buy a product they didn't chose.  What has resulted is a subsidy for Big Insurance (the reason they lobbied heavily in support of it) because they now have a guaranteed supply customers being forced to buy, along with a mandated bailout just in case things don't work out.  This interference has also caused an unprecedented rise in premiums and a reduction in supply and quality. In addition, people who are unable to find the exceptions, such as faith-based medical sharing, are forced to pay for everyone else's lifestyle choices.

Edited June 30, 2014 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

Well the rule of law now is that the government cannot force an employer to pay for contraceptives. You seem to be very negative about this very recent ruling.

 

Are you disrespecting the rule of law?

 

Agreed that it is now the law. Actually insurance is just part of the employees compensation package. If I were your boss and a Christian Scientist I can now limit your employee medical insurance plan to just praying for your quick recovery.

 

Yes I am negative about this very recent ruling. I see it as opening up a whole big can of worms. Abraham Lincoln wanted to shoot the USSC because of the Dred Scot decision. I don't want to go that far.

 

Silly, and/or bad, laws need to be changed through peaceful legal means. I'm reasonably sure that the early Saints were just thrilled with the Extermination Order.

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed that it is now the law. Actually insurance is just part of the employees compensation package. If I were your boss and a Christian Scientist I can now limit your employee medical insurance plan to just praying for your quick recovery.

 

Yes I am negative about this very recent ruling. I see it as opening up a whole big can of worms. Abraham Lincoln wanted to shoot the USSC because of the Dred Scot decision. I don't want to go that far.

 

Silly, and/or bad, laws need to be changed through peaceful legal means. I'm reasonably sure that the early Saints were just thrilled with the Extermination Order.

So if I consider many of the provisions of Obamacare -- if not the entire package -- as "bad law," I am free to speak against them and work -- through "peaceful legal means" -- toward their repeal, just as you can about this recent ruling, right?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Nor is it the right to tell people how to run their business.

 

 

The law destroyed the free market, which it's supporters claim they value, by forcing everyone to buy a product they didn't chose.  What has resulted is a subsidy for Big Insurance (the reason they lobbied heavily in support of it) because they now have a guaranteed supply customers being forced to buy, along with a mandated bailout just in case things don't work out.  This interference has also caused an unprecedented rise in premiums and a reduction in supply and quality. In addition, people who are unable to find the exceptions, such as faith-based medical sharing, are forced to pay for everyone else's lifestyle choices.

 

Yes there is. It is embodied in LDS Scripture about our "Inspired" Constitution.

 

The law didn't destroy the free market. Laissez Faire Capitalism did. That is the sole function of government to force everyone to purchase products they don't choose. Everything  from ICBM's, to clean water to drink, to safe and effective medicines to put into our bodies. Big Insurance played both ends against the middle. You do remember the "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" morons?

 

Actually there has been an unprecedented decline in rate of growth in premium, and quality of care has remained virtually the same. The states that have experienced a decrease in availability are those that declined Medicaid expansion. Thanks again to our activist Supreme Court.  What we do have is a decrease in the number of uninsured going to the Emergency Room as their only health care provider.

 

Yours is a prescription for anarchy

[rameumptom]

Does this mean that as an individual, I can refuse the birth control/abortifacient requirements for my own insurance?

[thesometimesaint]

So if I consider many of the provisions of Obamacare -- if not the entire package -- as "bad law," I am free to speak against them and work -- through "peaceful legal means" toward their repeal, just as you can about this recent ruling, right?

 

Yep.

[thesometimesaint]

Does this mean that as an individual, I can refuse the birth control/abortifacient requirements for my own insurance?

 

No you can't refuse the requirements that you be covered. Yes you can refuse to use the birth control. BTW Birth control pills are not an abortifacient. They prevent ovulation.