US Supreme Court "Hobby Lobby" decision on contraception

[kimmy]

There's a lot of chatter about this in the status updates, so I thought I would start a thread for a more thorough discussion.

Here's a news article about it.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-19-15

Some of the key points:

-this ruling only applies where the ownership is, essentially, an individual or small group:

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners, like the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain...

So this ruling won't apply to most large businesses.

-it doesn't mean that every religious belief would be exempted in similar fashion.

Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "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," Alito said.

I'm not clear on why views on contraception should be accommodate while some other beliefs-- say, against blood transfusions-- wouldn't.

-the authors of the majority decision suggested several work-arounds whereby the government could still ensure contraception is covered without violating Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs:

He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.

Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

...

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to emphasize that the administration can solve its problem easily. "The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it," Kennedy said. He said that arrangement "does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs."

-k

[Michael Hardner]

They are not employed by the owners but by the corporation - with all the legal benefits of corporation. There shouldn't be religious rights for corporations.

[bush_cheney2004]

Non-profit corporations have long enjoyed religious rights upheld by the courts. Is is any different in Canada ?

[Moonlight Graham]

This decision among the judges seemed to be split along conservative/liberal lines once again, which is really disturbing. The law should NOT be interpreted with a judge's personal political ideology as a significant contributing factor. The law is the law, and should be interpreted objectively based on what the law says or is meant to say, not what a particular judge wants it to mean. The US Supreme Court is filled with judges with political and ideological agendas...even the 4 "liberal" judges who voted the other way. I really question their qualifications as judges and constitutional/law experts.

I don't know enough about the case to take a legal view on the decision itself.

[Bitsy]

Non-profit corporations have long enjoyed religious rights upheld by the courts. Is is any different in Canada ?

Hobby Lobby is not a non-profit corporation.

In a nut shell.

"This is a deeply troubling decision. For the first time, the highest court in the country has said that business owners can use their religious beliefs to deny their employees a benefit that they are guaranteed by law," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU."Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but that freedom does not include the right to impose beliefs on others. In its ruling today, the Court simply got it wrong."

Edited June 30, 2014 by Bitsy

[bush_cheney2004]

Hobby Lobby is not a non-profit corporation.

The general point is about corporations not having "religious rights" (see above)....they do, and will continue to do so.

[TimG]

This decision among the judges seemed to be split along conservative/liberal lines once again, which is really disturbing.

At least the US has ideological diversity among its judges. In Canada we have a full slate of progressive liberal ideologues.

[TimG]

"Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but that freedom does not include the right to impose beliefs on others."

Total nonsense. Please explain why choosing to exclude certain items from a corporate health plan equates to "imposing beliefs on others"? The corporation is not telling employees that they can't use it. They just have to pay for it. Are you really arguing that the ability to have a belief depends on the willingness of others to pay for it? Because that is what you are saying with your argument and it is absurd. Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Total nonsense. Please explain why choosing to exclude certain items from a corporate health plan equates to "imposing beliefs on others"? The corporation is not telling employees that they can't use it. They just have to pay for it. Are you really arguing that the ability to have a belief depends on the willingness of others to pay for it? Because that is what you are saying with your argument and it is absurd.

If the reason is idiological rather than economic, it is trying to impose a belief. Basically it says corporations can impose idiology on imployees the same a churches.

[TimG]

Basically it says corporations can impose idiology on imployees the same a churches.

The corporation is not telling employees that they are not allowed to use contraceptives. Just that the have to pay for them if they do. There is no parallel to be made with corporate restrictions that actually prevent an employee from engaging in legal activities. If the latter was the case then I could have an issue with it. Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[Bitsy]

The general point is about corporations not having "religious rights" (see above)....they do, and will continue to do so.

Non-profit have different rules....this ruling was that for profits corporations had religious rights.

[Bitsy]

Total nonsense. Please explain why choosing to exclude certain items from a corporate health plan equates to "imposing beliefs on others"? The corporation is not telling employees that they can't use it. They just have to pay for it. Are you really arguing that the ability to have a belief depends on the willingness of others to pay for it? Because that is what you are saying with your argument and it is absurd.

The ACA is the law of the land, allowing a for profit corporation to deny a guaranteed benefit based on religion is the real absurdity and a slippery slope, an argument that I dislike using but in this case, applicable.

[Bonam]

This decision among the judges seemed to be split along conservative/liberal lines once again, which is really disturbing. The law should NOT be interpreted with a judge's personal political ideology as a significant contributing factor. The law is the law, and should be interpreted objectively based on what the law says or is meant to say, not what a particular judge wants it to mean. The US Supreme Court is filled with judges with political and ideological agendas...even the 4 "liberal" judges who voted the other way. I really question their qualifications as judges and constitutional/law experts.

Indeed, it is very disturbing. It's also one of the reasons that I'm reluctant to agree when people say that because a court decided something, it must be legally sound and not to question the decision (which people say all the time on this board). The supreme court aptly illustrates that judges are prone to biases and the law is subject to interpretation in many ways.

[TimG]

The ACA is the law of the land, allowing a for profit corporation to deny a guaranteed benefit based on religion is the real absurdity and a slippery slope

Here you have a better argument. Religion should not be an exemption from regulation. The trouble in this case is the only reason provision is in the ACA because the democrats wanted to impose their religious views on the entire nation (the clause has limited public heath benefit given the other options available). So we have a battle between religious ideologues and it is hard to pick sides. I tend to go with the individual/corporation over government. Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

The corporation is not telling employees that they are not allowed to use contraceptives. Just that the have to pay for them if they do. There is no parallel to be made with corporate restrictions that actually prevent an employee from engaging in legal activities. If the latter was the case then I could have an issue with it.

If the reason they don't want to pay is a religious principle, they are trying to impose their idiology on a benefit their employees would otherwise be entitled to.

[Bonam]

Here you have a better argument. Religion should not be an exemption from regulation. The trouble in this case is the only reason provision is in the ACA because the democrats wanted to impose their religious views on the entire nation (the clause has limited public heath benefit given the other options available).

Come again? I think your sentence there is missing a few words but are you saying covering contraception has no public health benefit?

[Wilber]

Come again? I think your sentence there is missing a few words but are you saying covering contraception has no public health benefit?

Of course not, supplying boner pills to guys who can't get it up is far more important than preventing unwanted pregnancy's

[Shady]

This is a narrow ruling, involving a small sliver of employers, involving not contraception but really abortifacients.

[Shady]

Of course not, supplying boner pills to guys who can't get it up is far more important than preventing unwanted pregnancy's

Who's supplying boner pills? Who's advocating that?

[TimG]

Come again? I think your sentence there is missing a few words but are you saying covering contraception has no public health benefit?

From a public health perspective people are better off using condoms and they are not covered. You can argue the pill is better than nothing but if you are going to exclude the better option because of queasiness then you can't really argue that you making decisions based on public health needs.

[TimG]

Of course not, supplying boner pills to guys who can't get it up is far more important than preventing unwanted pregnancy's

Is viagra coverage mandatory in ACA?

[bush_cheney2004]

Non-profit have different rules....this ruling was that for profits corporations had religious rights.

That's because they do, given the limitations enumerated by the court. U.S. federal funding for abortions is already limited by law, so I don't know why for-profit corporations would be held to a different standard vis-a-vis contraception. It was politicized long before the courts got hold of it.

[Bonam]

From a public health perspective people are better off using condoms and they are not covered. You can argue the pill is better than nothing but if you are going to exclude the better option because of queasiness then you can't really argue that you making decisions based on public health needs.

First, a condom is far from a guarantee. Secondly, contraceptives pills have other health benefits for many women. Thirdly, it puts control in the hands of the person who may get pregnant. Fourth, it is not something that has to be thought about and used "in the moment".

[Wilber]

Is viagra coverage mandatory in ACA?

No but the fact that more than half of Viagra prescriptions in the US are covered by insurance and birth control isn't makes it pretty clear a lot of Americans think so. Be interesting to know if this company's plan is one of them.

[Bonam]

Of course not, supplying boner pills to guys who can't get it up is far more important than preventing unwanted pregnancy's

To be honest, while this comment is often made derisively, I would think that for people that need "boner pills", getting those is a significant issue that affects their life and health considerably. I don't think there's any point comparing what should be more important, but to me it seems obvious that both should be covered, to hell with what some religious zealots want to impose on their employees (better yet would be de-coupling healthcare from employers of course).