Supreme Court Upholds Religious Exemption for Little Sisters of the Poor

[bsjkki]

Good news!

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3206101001?__twitter_impression=true

”WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Wednesday that nonprofit employers with religious or moral objections do not have to help provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.”

Edited July 8, 2020 by bsjkki

[Storm Rider]

It sure did seem like the Little Sisters of the Poor was targeted repeatedly on this issue. The Little Sisters is a group of Religious that are dedicated to serving the neediest of elderly women around the world. They consistently won their cases, but were hounded again and again. I hope this puts an end to it so that they might use their funds to serve the poor, rather than fight court cases. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Storm Rider

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Good news!

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3206101001?__twitter_impression=true

”WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Wednesday that nonprofit employers with religious or moral objections do not have to help provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.”

" In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that privately held corporations with religious objections, such as Hobby Lobby, also could opt out."  So it sounds like any employer with religious objection is exempt now.  

This is what Ginsberg said in her "rebuke of the court's ruling":

Quote

Today, for the first time, the court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree," she said. "This court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.

Just curious, what countervailing constitutional "rights" is she talking about?  What right guarantees that if we want something we shouldn't have to pay for it out of our own pockets, and that we have the right to transfer that burden to our employer?  What rights is she accusing the court of casting aside exactly?

[JamesBYoung]

This ruling seems sound to me; I am not sure I agree with the earlier one for Hobby Lobby.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

" In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that privately held corporations with religious objections, such as Hobby Lobby, also could opt out."  So it sounds like any employer with religious objection is exempt now.  

This is what Ginsberg said in her "rebuke of the court's ruling":

Quote

Today, for the first time, the court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree," she said. "This court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.

Just curious, what countervailing constitutional "rights" is she talking about?  What right guarantees that if we want something we shouldn't have to pay for it out of our own pockets, and that we have the right to transfer that burden to our employer?  What rights is she accusing the court of casting aside exactly?

I don't think employees have a constitutional right to have their contraceptives covered in their employer's insurance plan.

I think Justice Ginsberg's reference to "rights and interests" is indicative of her adherence to the "living Constitution" school of thought, which posits that "the Constitution ... holds a dynamic meaning, evolving and adapting to new circumstances, without being formally amended."

In practical terms, a tiny group of black-robed, unelected, life-tenured judges gets to read into the Constitution whatever they want, whenever they want, for any reason or no reason at all.  No need to bother with all that pesky "amendment" stuff.

As you might guess, I'm not a big fan of that approach to constitutional law.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2020 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

With the recent ruling in favor of Catholic schools in an employment discrimination case, and now this, it looks like at long last we have a SCOTUS that is a friend to religious liberty. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

" In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that privately held corporations with religious objections, such as Hobby Lobby, also could opt out."  So it sounds like any employer with religious objection is exempt now.  

This is what Ginsberg said in her "rebuke of the court's ruling":

Just curious, what countervailing constitutional "rights" is she talking about?  What right guarantees that if we want something we shouldn't have to pay for it out of our own pockets, and that we have the right to transfer that burden to our employer?  What rights is she accusing the court of casting aside exactly?

The constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Giving even nonreligious organizations like Hobby Lobby a line item veto on following federal law seems a little unjust to me. It is also sexist as Hobby Lobby still covers vasectomies which is male contraception and vasectomies are very rarely medically advisable for non-contraceptive reasons unlike birth control pills which have a lot of non-contraceptive uses as treatments.

Edited July 8, 2020 by The Nehor

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Giving even nonreligious organizations like Hobby Lobby a line item veto on following federal law seems a little unjust to me.

Equal treatment doesn't apply to unconstitutional laws.  Actually, this ruling now gives equal treatment under the law.  Now everyone is exempt.

Edited July 8, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Giving even nonreligious organizations like Hobby Lobby a line item veto on following federal law seems a little unjust to me.

Your comment presupposes that individuals have to leave their religious beliefs at the door when they exit their houses of worship. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Good news!

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3206101001?__twitter_impression=true

”WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Wednesday that nonprofit employers with religious or moral objections do not have to help provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.”

I wonder if this means that a non-profit by with Jehovah's Witness religious objections wouldn't have to provide insurance for blood transfusions?

[Kenngo1969]

I'm gratified by the ruling in this case, but the Court does seem rather inconsistent in its First Amendment religious jurisprudence.  That is to say, if the Court can find some countervailing consideration to which a majority believes that the First Amendment should take a back seat, it won't hesitate to "shuffle the passengers," so to speak.  Call me old-fashioned, but I always felt that the First Amendment was first, and that religious freedom is first in the First Amendment, for a reason.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if this means that a non-profit by with Jehovah's Witness religious objections wouldn't have to provide insurance for blood transfusions?

What if they do? I say caveat emptor for any prospective employee of that non-profit. 

[Storm Rider]

What is really strange is that during this entire nine year struggle, not a single employee of the Little Sisters ever came forward or registered any type of complaint about their health care insurance coverage. This was totally about the state's desire to force them to meet the standard of created by Obama.  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What if they do? I say caveat emptor for any prospective employee of that non-profit. 

So you don't know if it does or doesn't?

[pogi]

Nevermind

Edited July 8, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you don't know if it does or doesn't?

No, I don’t know. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

This is what Ginsberg said in her "rebuke of the court's ruling":

Quote

Today, for the first time, the court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree," she said. "This court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.

 

She should know better than to wax political.

[JamesBYoung]

"In practical terms, a tiny group of black-robed, unelected, life-tenure,d judges gets to read into the Constitution whatever they want," in theory, having been doing that since 1803.  The angst, SMAC, depends on which side of the ruling one lives.

I think the Little Sisters should be exempt, while Hobby Lobby should not be  exempt.

And Hobby Lobby provides male sexual elections.

Edited July 8, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Justice Ginsberg's reference to "rights and interests" is indicative of her adherence to the "living Constitution" school of thought, which posits that "the Constitution ... holds a dynamic meaning, evolving and adapting to new circumstances, without being formally amended."

In practical terms, a tiny group of black-robed, unelected, life-tenured judges gets to read into the Constitution whatever they want, whenever they want, for any reason or no reason at all.  No need to bother with all that pesky "amendment" stuff.

As you might guess, I'm not a big fan of that approach to constitutional law.

That is the way the Constitution has always been read and interpreted, by conservatives or liberals.  Conservatives give lip service to the Founding Fathers, but in reality conservative decisions take account of existing mores.  Otherwise, you'd have a constitution forbidding the court's role. 

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 It is also sexist as Hobby Lobby still covers vasectomies which is male contraception and vasectomies are very rarely medically advisable for non-contraceptive reasons unlike birth control pills which have a lot of non-contraceptive uses as treatments.

Interesting. Does it cover tubal ligation?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if this means that a non-profit by with Jehovah's Witness religious objections wouldn't have to provide insurance for blood transfusions?

After doing a little reading, I do think that blood transfusions are covered in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act as an "essential benefit"

Since this law suit only addressed birth control specifically (and not all essential benefits), it would have to be tried in court, I would guess. 

If the JW's win, next we will see Christian Scientists, who are opposed to all medical interventions, refusing to provide health insurance at all on religious grounds.  

Edited July 8, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

After doing a little reading, I do think that blood transfusions are covered in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act as an "essential benefit"

Since this law suit only addressed birth control specifically (and not all essential benefits), it would have to be tried in court, I would guess. 

If the JW's win, next we will see Christian Scientists, who are opposed to all medical interventions, refusing to provide health insurance at all on religious grounds.  

Thanks for checking.  That's what I was wondering, if there is anything health related that is considered essential that a religion could be forced to cover even if it's against their beliefs.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Giving even nonreligious organizations like Hobby Lobby a line item veto on following federal law seems a little unjust to me. It is also sexist as Hobby Lobby still covers vasectomies which is male contraception and vasectomies are very rarely medically advisable for non-contraceptive reasons unlike birth control pills which have a lot of non-contraceptive uses as treatments.

Hormonal birth control is often not covered by religious groups because it can result in a fertilized egg being aborted (because hormonal birth control doesn't necessarily stop fertilization, just implantation), so some groups see that as too close to an abortion for comfort.  That's why they sometimes don't want to cover hormonal birth control but are often o.k. with vasectomies.  

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your comment presupposes that individuals have to leave their religious beliefs at the door when they exit their houses of worship. 

No, it just assumes that employers don't get to make health decisions on behalf of their employees, forcing certain religious views by decree.

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

She should know better than to wax political.

In other words you wish she would shut up.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

Equal treatment doesn't apply to unconstitutional laws.  Actually, this ruling now gives equal treatment under the law.  Now everyone is exempt.

If it truly was an unconstitutional law they should have struck the whole thing down instead of granting exceptions.

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 11:20 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm gratified by the ruling in this case, but the Court does seem rather inconsistent in its First Amendment religious jurisprudence.  That is to say, if the Court can find some countervailing consideration to which a majority believes that the First Amendment should take a back seat, it won't hesitate to "shuffle the passengers," so to speak.  Call me old-fashioned, but I always felt that the First Amendment was first, and that religious freedom is first in the First Amendment, for a reason.

You're old fashioned! 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Daniel2