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

[Scott Lloyd]

Correct if I'm wrong, but I thought the US was the richest nation in the world.

I don't know; maybe. If it is, I don't see why it should be a matter of irritation to you or why it gives you any special dispensation to prescribe our public policy.

But you don't have universal coverage for medical needs, or medicines?? Where's the problem?

We have a system of private health insurance. It's not perfect, but neither is socialized medicine. Given the choice, I'll take what we've got and try to iron out the problems, thank you very much, especially if it means avoiding the erosion of religious liberty.

The rest of your post seems to be pure political propaganda, which is beyond the scope of this discussion board. My guess is the moderators are on the verge of shutting down this thread as it is; I won't hasten that outcome by engaging in a point-for-point political argument with you.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

"Where's the problem?"

Malpractice insurance for one thing. Drives medical costs through the roof.

If the law cut down on how easy it is to sue doctors and put reasonable maximums....Instead lawyers themselves ask for huge amounts because they share in the result, and then there is the insurance lobby and no one wanting to risk losing their benefits but demanding others make the sacrifice.

To add on universal health care without reforming the insurance business to begin with...insane IMO.

Edited June 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Correct if I'm wrong, but I thought the US was the richest nation in the world.

But you don't have universal coverage for medical needs, or medicines?? Where's the problem?

If someone gets sick in the US, it sounds like there a very confusing pile of stipulations whether or not that person can get the treatment they need, depending upon the religious beliefs of their employer, or the state they live in, etc, etc.

I lived 5 of my adult years in the US, and 43 of my adult years in two other countries that have universal medical coverage. So there are probably a miriad of situations in the US that I don't understand, but I just don't get the idea that we aren't our brother's keeper. Shouldn't we willingly contribute for equal medical treatment for all citizens?

I pay taxes (in the country I live in) and expect that when I get sick I get the best treatment possible and it doesn't cost anything. No cost for x-rays, no cost for doctor treatment or surgeries, no cost for hospital stays, no cost for anything (well, actually the government has recently introduced a €10, one-time, fee at registration).

Now, granted, hospital food isn't that great, but when I had a ruptured appendix and was close to death, food wasn't really on my mind. But I never had to worry about coverage, hidden fees, the insurance company trying to squirm out of paying for my treatment, or anything like that. The federal insurance even covered the ambulance fees.

Hospital, medical, doctor expenses for the births of my six children= 0.

For my foster child, in my family for 15 years, with severse medical problems, often requiring very involved surgeries twice a year, there were never any medical costs. Even her medicines were free.

My wife became ill with a kidney infection while we were visiting Norway. She received treatment at two different hospitals (plus ambulence between them), plus medicines, and our national coverage in our country covered the expenses.

While on vacation in Thailand I received an injury from being dragged across a coral reef by waves. Our national coverage covered the expenses. (The hospital in Thailand, by the way, was quick and efficient)

What I don't understand is that the richest country in the world doesn't offer anything like that to its citizens. Maybe it makes sense to you that live there but I just don't get it.

We would have to pay more for taxes, in addition to what we're already paying for taxes, to be paying for universal health care coverage at no cost, and if we did that we would no longer be the richest country, monetarily speaking, on Earth.

You do realize we can't balance our government revenue with expenditures, don't cha?

Were you thinking the money to pay for it all would be free?

[Scott Lloyd]

Mola Ram, I have you on ignore for a reason.

I have informed you privately that "pooned" is a sexual term in reference to an "extreme" sexual act; the first time you used the phrase was in reference to a posting by Bluebell. The first hit in a google search of term "pooned" demonstrates the term is a sexual term.

I also informed you that perhaps you mean "p0wned or "pwnd" or some form thereof. What you are trying to convey is gamer slang for "owned". You responded with vulgar and inappropriate language to my suggestion that you stop using a sexual term.

When I searched it, I found (and it was an early hit) that it is a derivative of "owned," which means:

 

 

v. owned, 0wned, pwned, 0wn3d, pwn3d, own3d.

v. tr.

To be made a fool of; To make a fool of; To confound or prove wrong; embarrasing someone: Being embarrased.

I owned you in counter-strike. You were owned at the party yesterday.

 

I see no sexual connotation here, but I admit to being no expert on pop vernacular. 

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

If someone in a same sex couple needs a morning after pill the SCOTUS can announce it as a miracle, or else announce that someone has cheated on their same sex partner.

 

[USU78]

Would you 2 please take it elsewhere?

 

For Heaven's sake, this is supposed to be a discussion on a matter of considerable importance, the preservation or continued erosion of religous observance free of tyrannical governments' impositions.

 

Liberty is at stake here, and we're getting all gritchy over whether pooned is a sexual or nonsexual "spiking of the ball"?  PUHlease!

 

:aggressive:

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for moving the goal post.

What are the first two hits? I used four different browsers and google as the search engine and got the same results in all four browsers.

First hit:

pooned

Source - Urban dictionary

Context - sexual

Second hit:

pooning

Source - Urban dictionary

Context - sexual

Again what are the first two hits of the google results?

My definition was from the Urban Dictionary. It was the first of two definitions. I admit, when I scrolled down just now, I saw the second one was vulgar. But I see no reason why it is mandatorily so, given the first (and presumably preferred) definition.

 

But as I've already acknowledged upfront, I'm no expert on pop vernacular. And frankly, this conversation is boring me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Would you 2 please take it elsewhere?

 

For Heaven's sake, this is supposed to be a discussion on a matter of considerable importance, the preservation or continued erosion of religous observance free of tyrannical governments' impositions.

 

Liberty is at stake here, and we're getting all gritchy over whether pooned is a sexual or nonsexual "spiking of the ball"?  PUHlease!

 

:aggressive:

Sorry. As you'll note from my subsequent post, the exchange is boring to me, and I have no intention of continuing it, either here or elsewhere.

[frank_jessop]

USUS78 in your legal analysis, do you see this ruling as a basis for sole proprietors to claim exemption from State laws?

In your legal opinion, would the supremacy of Federal law (RFRA) or by extension a ruling from the Supreme Court, permit a sole proprietor to challenge STATE non-discrimination laws under RFRA?

Is it correct to say that the courts must use a "strict scrutiny" analysis when examining challenges under RFRA?

Edited June 30, 2014 by frank_jessop

[mnn727]

 

 

The law didn't destroy the free market. Laissez Faire Capitalism did. 

What?!?!?!  I think you need to research what "Laissez Faire Capitalism " actually is/means.

[Walden]

The decision, though flawed to a point that it is almost laughable, at least has one perk.....it brings us one step closer to a single payer healthcare system for all.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again goal post moving. Are you willing to state what the first result is when using google.com as the search engine? Is the top result "pooned" and the link is to a vulgar definition in the Urban Dictionary?

I think USU already asked you to take this elsewhere. I've already bowed out.

[USU78]

The decision, though flawed to a point that it is almost laughable, at least has one perk.....it brings us one step closer to a single payer healthcare system for all.

 

Why laughable?

 

Is it the distinction being made between the closely-held corporation and the public corporation?

 

Is it the exception based upon liberty and free exercise clauses from the employer mandate in ACA?

 

Or do you just not like those of a conservative, noninterventionist bent?

[ELF1024]

The decision, though flawed to a point that it is almost laughable, at least has one perk.....it brings us one step closer to a single payer healthcare system for all.

 

Just what we need... the VA for everyone... 

[USU78]

USUS78 in your legal analysis, do you see this ruling as a basis for sole proprietors to claim exemption from State laws?

In your legal opinion, would the supremacy of Federal law (RFRA) or by extension a ruling from the Supreme Court, permit a sole proprietor to challenge STATE non-discrimination laws under RFRA?

Is it correct to say that the courts must use a "strict scrutiny" analysis when examining challenges under RFRA?

 

I think I'm starting to believe the Chief Justice's dictum insisting that the SCOTUS is going to start bowing out of being the engine pulling the circuits into socialist social engineering land:  they learned something from the decades-long war over abortion caused by their arrogance in Roe v Wade, and we're seeing the fruit today.  They refused to intervene in Prop 8, leaving it to the locals to sort out.  They aren't going to fix what CA's socialist government did over the objections of its people, even if the lower federal court's let the state get away with it:  there was a legal remedy, a Writ of Mandamus, which would have compelled CA to defend its own constitution, and nobody bothered to seek it.  This was a terrible error, IMNSHO.

 

Next we had them upholding ACA as a tax scam trumpeted as a Socialism Lite version of single payer [3% impost on real property transactions to fund health care?  Really?  Didn't we fight a revolution over such things?], essentially saying, "You made this mess, Congress and the American people.  Why should we stick our noses in to fix what you're fully capable of fixing?"

 

Now, I bring this up in the context of the instant decision to give a flavor of what the Court seems to be thinking:  a bare majority by sneaky/clever and some say underhanded means passed ACA by the thinnest of margins in the Senate, and if the GOP wins the senate back this Fall and can keep both houses and the presidency in 2016 (certainly within the realm of possible), ACA is gonzo.  So why should the SCOTUS, given their new view of their role in government, interfere with the natural course of events, especially where there is a compelling liberty/free exercise interest at stake?

[Garden Girl]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I may be pointing out... yet again... something that someone else has already pointed out...

And that is, that as I watched the news reporting on the decision, a "liberal" woman was saying how this was an assault against women's right to "birth control" ... blah blah blah...

Talk about being disingenuous!!  Hobby Lobby already provides for its employees, 16 out of 20 forms of birth control drugs... the reason they fought this to the Suprene Court was that Obamacare tried to force them to provide the "morning after" pill also, which to HL was a form of abortion, and abortion is against their religious beliefs.  But none of these liberal women bemoaning the decision ever bring up the other forms of birth control covered by HL employee insurance...

 

GG

[frank_jessop]

As I understand the ruling, the "test" the Court used was "strict scrutiny"; it is my understanding this test was mandated by Congress in the language of RFRA.

Sexual Orientation cases have been determined, as I understand it, based on a "test" that is less than "strict scrutiny".

If the above is correct, a religious person which operates a closely held corp, would not be required to follow a State non-discrimination laws - specifically sexual orientation discrimination - because the rationale or basis for enforcing the law, is less than or lower than the basis for requiring compliance under RFRA.

It seems to me, the baker in Colorado and Catholic Charities in Boston, each should file suits under RFRA and claim exemption from State non-discrimination laws.

Edited July 1, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Stone holm]

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?

So now if a Jehovah Witness family owns a closely held corporation they can object to providing coverage that provides for blood transfusions?

[BCSpace]

So now if a Jehovah Witness family owns a closely held corporation they can object to providing coverage that provides for blood transfusions?

 

Yes, they should be able to.  An employee should also be able to purchase their own insurance coverage and the company should not be forced to provide any coverage at all, that's the point.  However, this ruling is no tremendous victory for conservatives nor is it a tremendous defeat for liberals.

 

7 Reasons You Shouldn't Buy Media's Supreme Court Hype

[mormonnewb]

This case seems like a sharp departure from previous jurisprudence when it comes to the free exercise of religion in that it protects expenditures of funds for common purposes. For example, a person with pacifist religious beliefs is NOT exempt for paying federal income taxes, even though part of such moneys will go to war expenditures. However, such person would be exempt from more direct involvement, such as serving in the military.

In this case, an employer gets to avoid buying a certain insurance policy for its employees because a tiny portion of those premiums will go to furnishing a form of birth control that the employer finds objectionable. This greatly extends the "conscious" protections that have been argued for pharmacists and others who might have to DISPENSE this medicines directly. Once again, normally free exercise protection covers active involvement and not the payment of moneys into a general fund.

The good news is that the ruling is extremely narrow and certainly won't apply to, say, JW or Christian Science employers. After all, everyone knows those aren't "real" religions

Oops, CONSCIENCE protections. Apparently, I'm Englishnewb as well.

Edited July 1, 2014 by mormonnewb

[revelstoked]

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.

The reduce ovulation, not prevent it. And that is only one of many things they do to prevent pregnancy, preventing implantation is another key process, the one that has Hobby Lobby concerned because they are in the "life begins at conception" camp. Whereas the US medical profession draws the line at an implanted fertilized embryo somewhere around 1970. The medical definition of abortifacient is carefully worded so that preventing implantation is not being an abortifacient.

(CFR: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/28/whats-abortifacient-disputes-birth-control-fuel-obamacare-fight/).

[thesometimesaint]

It is, as long as you do not interfere with anyone else's rights.

 

Nah!

When you drive, you may injure someone else.

When you go with out health insurance, you don't put anyone at risk of injury.

 

True, but the issue is is it religious freedom to force others to not buy a legal product with their own money?

 

Yes I am by forcing others to pay for my care when I become sick or injured.

[thesometimesaint]

The reduce ovulation, not prevent it. And that is only one of many things they do to prevent pregnancy, preventing implantation is another key process, the one that has Hobby Lobby concerned because they are in the "life begins at conception" camp. Whereas the US medical profession draws the line at an implanted fertilized embryo somewhere around 1970. The medical definition of abortifacient is carefully worded so that preventing implantation is not being an abortifacient.

(CFR: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/28/whats-abortifacient-disputes-birth-control-fuel-obamacare-fight/).

 

Incorrect. The Pill prevents ovulation. It is 99.9% effective. So all we're really discussing is which religion is a valid religion in the eyes of the USSC.

[Calm]

Incorrect. The Pill prevents ovulation. It is 99.9% effective.

No, you are incorrect:

"Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation."

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills

Edited July 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

So now if a Jehovah Witness family owns a closely held corporation they can object to providing coverage that provides for blood transfusions?

 

The  USSC opened a whole can of worms. It now gets to decide what is a legitimately held religious belief. Does anyone else see a problem with that?