"Hobby Lobby Ruling comments

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,673
Reaction score
5,115
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Melissa Clouthier ‏@MelissaTweets 3h
Btw, Hobby Lobby pays for birth control which is more than my parents GM insurance paid back in the heady days of Cadillac coverage.


RedskinHoneyBeeKoch™ ‏@HoneyBeeWarrior 3h
Hobby Lobby is about abortifacients, not the 16 out of 20 contraceptives they have provided insurance coverage for since way b4 Obamacare :)


Betcha most of the media isn't telling you that HL still provides and has long provided many many methods of contraception under their insurance plan. I wonder why?


Women who work at Hobby Lobby still have a choice. They can go down to the drugstore and buy the $10-$50 the morning after pill. I don't think a prescription is even required, you just have to be over 17. If abortions or morning after pills were illegal then and only then would women have "no choice". Employer provided insurance is a benefit not a right. Complaining that HL doesn't provide morning after pills and saying that means women have no choice in their sexual reproductive life because of that is like saying that you have NO CHOICE and cannot save for your own retirement because the company 401 k gives you a choice of 4 funds to invest in but since you don't like any of them your rights are being trampled.
 

Steve-o

TACOS
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
26,313
Reaction score
897
Points
113
Location
L-dot-A-dot
Hobby Lobby is dead wrong, and has no business determining science.

The emergency contraception they were opposed to works by PREVENTING OVULATION. They DO NOT prevent implantation of fertilized eggs.

Hobby Lobby should stick to selling yarn, because scientists, they are not.
 
OP
HSanders

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,673
Reaction score
5,115
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
That's an interesting note and perhaps HL corporate is a bunch of nutjobs. Regardless, it's their money and they have the right to provide whichever benefits they want. I would consider it their "determining science" only if they were a body with the power to outlaw those methods of contraception.

Angry Black Man® ‏@wife3kidsnodogs 24h
Dear Hobby Lobby employees,

Target sells birth control pills for $9/month WITHOUT insurance coverage.
 

Steve-o

TACOS
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
26,313
Reaction score
897
Points
113
Location
L-dot-A-dot
That's an interesting note and perhaps HL corporate is a bunch of nutjobs. Regardless, it's their money and they have the right to provide whichever benefits they want. I would consider it their "determining science" only if they were a body with the power to outlaw those methods of contraception.

Angry Black Man® ‏@wife3kidsnodogs 24h
Dear Hobby Lobby employees,

Target sells birth control pills for $9/month WITHOUT insurance coverage.

Where does it end?

From Ginsberg's dissent:

“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 (some Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?”

So, either it applies to all religions, and we allow all of the kookiest objections to reject employee's health services, or we do as I suspect we will do, and only allow certain objections. Which is to show a strong preference for one religion. Which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

The Hobby Lobby ruling was not even based in the Constitution. They based their decision on some religious freedom act passed by Congress.

This is a dangerous decision.
 
OP
HSanders

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,673
Reaction score
5,115
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Steve-O I get your point, I really do. I am an atheist and pro choice. I just don't think an employee benefit when an employee is still free actually to pursue their own choices is something I'm worried about religions getting control of people over. Employment at whichever company is a choice, usage of BC/abortion is a choice. Those choices are not being restricted by religions. If government has simply stayed out of healthcare altogether, this wouldn't even have become an issue for the courts.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,318
Points
113
Location
Sharon
HS, I'm not going to talk about the comments that people are making because they're so polar opposite in viewpoints that it's almost fruitless. What I would like to comment on is the fact that the Supreme Court of these United States, at least the five male members, deemed it lawful to ascribe "religious beliefs" to a corporation.

It is a slippery slope.
 
OP
HSanders

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,673
Reaction score
5,115
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
PFL , in what sense to they mean that? Did they define it? As far as I am aware if one is an employer, one should have a legally vetted employee handbook or risk litigation. If employees of HL are given copies and sign as approval I think they should have no complaints, even if there are religious aspects. They don't have to accept the position. Now if HL has not clearly defined the role religion would play in their precepts, then that's definitely their problem. I mean our financial advisor company is religious based (they don't know I am an atheist, lol) Their precepts, if I remember right, have religious phrases included, and I get the idea that the people they have employed are also of a similar religious background/belief system. Is this wrong? I don't think so...as long as it has been disclosed and agreed to.

Though I am not religious, I try my best to look at religion as ANOTHER belief system, like political beliefs, child rearing beliefs, employee behavior beliefs, company precepts, etc. Yes no workplace has the right to force their beliefs on you, but if they tell you their expectations and you agree to abide while at the workplace, I don't view that as a hostile or imbalanced relationship, nor one without choice.

I'm not fond of some of the snide remarks in this article (hysteria on either side of the aisle detracts from arguments IMO) , so I eliminated the comments I thought were eyeroll bait but I think the comparison is apt:

But Hobby Lobby’s policy is no different than, say, walking into the cafeteria at Yeshiva University and demanding a bacon cheeseburger.

“I am sorry,” the cafeteria manager replies. “We keep kosher. If you want a chicken sandwich or some brisket, we can help. Indeed, our prices are subsidized. So, we will help you buy those items. But if you want to mix milk and meat and bite into a pork product, please purchase a bacon cheeseburger at the restaurant across the street. When you are done, please come back to work.”

Likewise, if one were on staff at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and tried to order veal scaloppini at its internal lunch counter, the chef likely would say, “We consider it unethical to kill calves, cook them, and eat them. If you disagree, please enjoy your veal off site and then come back here to help us defend other animals.”

Those who are screaming themselves hoarse after the Hobby Lobby decision would agree that Yeshiva need not serve unkosher food, and PETA need not include calf meat on its menu. Yes, somehow, Hobby Lobby is evil because it pays for 16 kinds of contraceptives, and expects its employees themselves to purchase four others


http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...coverage-its-employees-deroy-murdock#comments
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
16,880
Reaction score
8,035
Points
113
HS, I'm not going to talk about the comments that people are making because they're so polar opposite in viewpoints that it's almost fruitless. What I would like to comment on is the fact that the Supreme Court of these United States, at least the five male members, deemed it lawful to ascribe "religious beliefs" to a corporation.

It is a slippery slope.

While I agree to an extent that yes they did ascribe limited "religious beliefs" to a privately owned cooperation they did not ascribe them to any publicly owned cooperations and made that clear in their ruling. I can see the slippery slope point and understand your point. Had the government not forced ACA by threat of penalty on privately owned corporations, and stayed out of private company affairs we wouldn't be here today. I find an equally slippery slope having the government force me to purchase anything personally or business wise by threat of penalties.

Slippery slopes indeed.

~Dee~
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,803
Reaction score
2,599
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Where does it end?

From Ginsberg's dissent:



So, either it applies to all religions, and we allow all of the kookiest objections to reject employee's health services, or we do as I suspect we will do, and only allow certain objections. Which is to show a strong preference for one religion. Which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution.


No, this ruling does not set up any possible religious claim a blank check to skirt any given law.

Have you actually read the decision?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “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.”

Clearly the RFRA sets limits on when a claim of religion can trump any given law.

It also establishes a burden on the government for imposing the law under these circumstances.

The Majority addressed this.

Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.


So tell me Steve-o, why can't Hobby Lobby do the same thing that HHS has already established for religious non-profits?


The Hobby Lobby ruling was not even based in the Constitution. They based their decision on some religious freedom act passed by Congress.

This is a dangerous decision.

So what's so wrong with saying law A has an impact on law B?

Show me where in the Constitution it says how to resolve a conflict between two legally enacted laws?

It doesn't.

The SCOTUS ruled in a fashion to try and implement both laws.

If HHS hadn't already said non-profit religious groups had an out, then perhaps they would have to have played King Solomon and split the baby, deciding which law had precedent.

HHS made this decision easy.

Any other claim of religious exemption would face the same question regarding the two criteria of RFRA.

1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.​

Unless the government had already shown an alternative as they did in this case, then the question would have to be evaluated for these two questions.

None of Ginsberg's hypotheticals would automatically be implemented due to this ruling.

Every single one of them would face the challenge of the two questions above and be decided on how the rules relate to those two questions.
 

Pyxis

First one at MY house
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
19,245
Reaction score
2,197
Points
113
Location
Texas, Bitches
Hobby Godly invests and profits from the birth control the deny their employees. And it's none of their business who has babies.

You ready for the radical Islamic Fundamentalist business owners to take their stab at mandates?

That's another thread for another time, which is coming.

Live healthy America. Someone will be coming for you soon.

Who will it be? Can't wait for the bitchfest to come!

Toodles!!
Posted via Mobile Device
 

mikiemo83

The Future
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
75,984
Reaction score
7,801
Points
113
Location
Gillette Stadium Basement
Funny but when my insurance was from the archdiocese of Boston and I was not offer coverage of certain things I man'd up and paid out of pocket. I didn't expect everyone else to pay for the BC or later my vasectomy... This is insane that so many people can't get basic coverage today and the rants I see are about BC, morning after pill but not infant care, preventive screening...

Hell if you want to fvck then either wrap or pay for the BC out of pocket, prevent the pregnancy is a hell of a lot cost effective than ending it after because you (both man and women) were too lazy to prepare to boink safely.

I get the issue, I understand the concern but until every child is cared for it is selfish to demand the luxury of adding to the cost for everyone because you can't wrap the Mickey before mounting it. Again this is to both men and women.

Too many kids are not getting proper care, fight for that.
 

Coltsfan2theend

Custom Titles, we don't need no custom titles
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
9,626
Reaction score
2,141
Points
113
I did a search on CVS' website. Plan B emergency contraceptive is 49.99 and over the counter. If you don't preplan, 49.99 is a cheap alternative to the potential actions that is takes. My wife and I talked about our plans for kids and took action before we got married. We made an adult decision. We even had double protection until we made sure only one of us had to be. The only instance where this isn't a choice is rape, and in that instance, the emergency contraceptive should be covered by the government and tacked on the violators fine to pay for it once convicted.

Also, no one is forcing Hobby Lobby employees to take their insurance. Employees can buy their own insurance if they don't like the benefits they provide (or find another job that has better benefits). The only one forcing insurance is the government forcing businesses to provide it to employees as an option.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,318
Points
113
Location
Sharon
Eye opening...what issues cause US citizens to use this phrase.
Think about that.

Usually legal issues.

But why don't you explain it to me. It's always interesting to read your take on certain issues. A lesson for us all.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,318
Points
113
Location
Sharon
I did a search on CVS' website. Plan B emergency contraceptive is 49.99 and over the counter. If you don't preplan, 49.99 is a cheap alternative to the potential actions that is takes. My wife and I talked about our plans for kids and took action before we got married. We made an adult decision. We even had double protection until we made sure only one of us had to be. The only instance where this isn't a choice is rape, and in that instance, the emergency contraceptive should be covered by the government and tacked on the violators fine to pay for it once convicted.

Also, no one is forcing Hobby Lobby employees to take their insurance. Employees can buy their own insurance if they don't like the benefits they provide (or find another job that has better benefits). The only one forcing insurance is the government forcing businesses to provide it to employees as an option.

This isn't about how much something does or doesn't cost. This is an issue that further blurs the crisp line that was once a separation of church and state. And for anyone that doesn't recognize that, you're just fooling yourselves.

And while this narrowly focuses on privately held corps, how many more mom and pops or cottage shops do you think there are out there in comparison to publicly held corporations? I would venture a guess at many. So we can talk all we want about Hobby Lobby, but there are legions more privately held corporations out there.

Frankly, the entire turn that is taking place sickens me. I hope the GOP realizes the damage that it is doing to itself because the chances of a Republican getting the opportunity to keep a conservative majority on the Supreme Court once one of the justices retires or dies are slim to none. Women are outraged, and you can be assured their vote will reflect it.

But Jesus saves, right? Let's see if he can save the Republican party in the future.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,803
Reaction score
2,599
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
This isn't about how much something does or doesn't cost. This is an issue that further blurs the crisp line that was once a separation of church and state. And for anyone that doesn't recognize that, you're just fooling yourselves.

And while this narrowly focuses on privately held corps, how many more mom and pops or cottage shops do you think there are out there in comparison to publicly held corporations? I would venture a guess at many. So we can talk all we want about Hobby Lobby, but there are legions more privately held corporations out there.

Frankly, the entire turn that is taking place sickens me. I hope the GOP realizes the damage that it is doing to itself because the chances of a Republican getting the opportunity to keep a conservative majority on the Supreme Court once one of the justices retires or dies are slim to none. Women are outraged, and you can be assured their vote will reflect it.

But Jesus saves, right? Let's see if he can save the Republican party in the future.

Actually, I would think this was more in line with the first Amendment.

It says the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This ruling essentially states that since the HHS had found an alternative method of funding this particular item for non-profits, then imposing the requirement on for profits would violate the RFRA. The RFRA essentially restates the part of the first Amendment in bold, and establishes criteria for how the government can infringe on one's religious beliefs.

Why do you think this ruling reduces the separation between church and state?
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,318
Points
113
Location
Sharon
Actually, I would think this was more in line with the first Amendment.

It says the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This ruling essentially states that since the HHS had found an alternative method of funding this particular item for non-profits, then imposing the requirement on for profits would violate the RFRA. The RFRA essentially restates the part of the first Amendment in bold, and establishes criteria for how the government can infringe on one's religious beliefs.

Why do you think this ruling reduces the separation between church and state?

Where are you seeing a prohibition of the free exercise of religion? Nobody was stopping the principals of this corporation from exercising their religion. They can practice it all they want. And now they can practice it through their corporation, which is not an individual that cannot in and of itself exercise its religious practices.
 

patswin

WTF
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
12,169
Reaction score
2,584
Points
113
Location
Gelatinous, Mass
I think the ACA is going to be the death of employer sponsored insurance anyway, so in the long term this issue isn't really that big a deal. It will likely be the death of many small businesses as well, and it wouldn't be a stretch to think that some of those that are involved in this case would be affected.
 
Top