Supreme Court finds in FAVOR of Hobby Lobby

[StaceyinLA]

I don't know how to post a news link (maybe someone who isn't internet challenged could do so), but the decision is in their favor and against Obamacare mandate.

[Lavandula]

Well, that's not a surprise. Here's a link.

[Excelsior! Academy]

:hurray:

[QueenCat]

Just remember that this only applies to privately held companies that are "closely held" (generally means within one extended family), not publicly held companies. People seem to not be getting the difference, from what I've seen elsewhere today.

[scwendy]

I personally feel it sets a dangerous legal precedent, and there are others who feel the opposite.

 

As far as Hobby Lobby as a company, I boycotted them years ago. 

[SeaConquest]

Sickening.  ETA: And they just found the bodies of the 3 Israeli boys. Not sure this day could get much worse.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think this is a big blow for individual religious freedom. How can a ruling that says your employer's beliefs supersede your own be pro-freedom? I don't understand the thought process. And I do find the decision (especially the full written out decision) shocking. I find this statement from Justice Ginsberg to be one of the aspects that is more surprising:

 

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

 

But, I am most surprised that they received this by when they *were* offering these forms of bc up until they got a call from a lawyer for a lobbying group that is fighting ACA. The fact that they were offering it before doesn't show a sincerely held belief, IMO.

[SemiSweet]

I personally feel it sets a dangerous legal precedent, and there are others who feel the opposite.

 

As far as Hobby Lobby as a company, I boycotted them years ago.

ITA. There is nothing good about this and I feel fairly certain that when it comes to other religions that have a sincerely held belief about say, blood transfusions or medical care altogether, people may be singing a different tune. I have zero faith in the Supreme Court right now since the unlimited campaign donations case. We are living in oligarchy that's somewhat likely to become a theocracy to some degree when we give more weight to corporations and religions than we do to people.

[Moxie]

I think this is a big blow for individual religious freedom. How can a ruling that says your employer's beliefs supersede your own be pro-freedom? I don't understand the thought process. And I do find the decision (especially the full written out decision) shocking. I find this statement from Justice Ginsberg to be one of the aspects that is more surprising:

 

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

 

But, I am most surprised that they received this by when they *were* offering these forms of bc up until they got a call from a lawyer for a lobbying group that is fighting ACA. The fact that they were offering it before doesn't show a sincerely held belief, IMO.

 

How is this a blow to religious freedom??  You are still allowed to buy whatever you want and do whatever your want.

 

[IdahoHomeschooler]

From what I have read, this really only applies to IUD's and Plan B. Plan B is available OTC, now, so I doubt most insurances are covering it these days, anyways. All other forms of contraception, including sterilization and most BC pills are covered. So not as big of a 'win' as I initially feared, but I will still plan to give my money to other stores instead of Hobby Lobby.

[momacacia]

No one is being prohibited from buying birth control, it's just that no one is being forced by the government to pay for it against their beliefs either. How that is anti-freedom, I have a hard time seeing.

[SeaConquest]

Quoting Ginsburg: 

 

"The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."

[Mergath]

Then do not go to work for Mardel or the University of Notre Dame is your religion is that important to  you.  I would NEVER go work for planned parenthood.  As someone mentioned this is only a specific type of company.    Do go work for them.  They are STRONGLY Christian.

 

One of these days, someone is going to have to explain to me how a business entity can have a religious belief.

[shawthorne44]

I feel like buying something at Hobby Lobby right now

[SemiSweet]

I also want to add that when a person is denied birth control they are going to be more likely to have an abortion, at some point. The IUD is considered one of the safest and most effective contraceptives on the market. It is rather expensive, Hobby Lobby's *opinion* that it causes abortions is not a fact. What is a fact is that contraception, especially long term, implanted contraception, goes a long way toward preventing abortion. So if they truly cared about the issue of abortion and not making a political statement they would continue covering it as they did before Obama(!) mandated it.

 

http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/

[SeaConquest]

One of these days, someone is going to have to explain to me how a business entity can have a religious belief.

 

Come on, you wouldn't believe the conversations about transubstantiation I've had with Hobby Lobby while waiting for Christmas services to begin or the filioque throw-down Conestoga Wood and I had on Palm Sunday (CW can throw some real shade). I can't believe liberals would question these persons' sincerely held beliefs. They should just sit down with the corporations, and have a real heart-to-heart, you know, like "persons" do.

[Lavandula]

People are also conveniently ignoring the fact that Hobby invested in contraception manufacturers. Obviously a real strong belief.

One of these days, someone is going to have to explain to me how a business entity can have a religious belief.

:iagree:

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Do you really want your decisions being made by your employer instead of your doctor?

 

Do you not understand the potential for this to affect other people outside of the employ of HL? That if these prescriptions are considered abortifacient (and they are not by most *scientists*), then that definitely has the potential to affect everyone with government health care since government funding cannot be used to pay for abortions.

 

And did you not read and/or understand the quote that I posted? Showing a preference of one religious belief over another is an extremely dangerous precedent. Or did you not read the full decision from Justice Alito, so you don't understand that is happening?

[Murphy101]

FABULOUS!!!!!! YAY!!!!

Thank you Hobby Lobby!

:)

[Guest]

No one is being prohibited from buying birth control, it's just that no one is being forced by the government to pay for it against their beliefs either. How that is anti-freedom, I have a hard time seeing.

 Totally agree.

[redsquirrel]

and the decision also said that the Government is free to pay for the contraception mandate for the women who need it, so Hobby Lobby taxes will go to pay for contraception.

[poppy]

Corporations are protected by the constitution now. And of course they use that freedom to make policy based on women's uteruses. What a sad day for the US.

[dirty ethel rackham]

One of these days, someone is going to have to explain to me how a business entity can have a religious belief.

 

I believe this only applies to closely-held corporations (more than 51% of the shares held by a small number of persons in the same family.)  Not all corporations. 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

and the decision also said that the Government is free to pay for the contraception mandate for the women who need it, so Hobby Lobby taxes will go to pay for contraception.

Except that is an outright *lie* since the government is already prohibited from paying for abortion and this case declares those drugs to be abortifacient in nature (against all science to the contrary, mind you).

[La Texican]

So do Hobby Lobbys get to go to Heaven when they die?

[Delirium]

Where is the line though?

 

"Would the exemption…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 (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

 

Quoted from here.

[redsquirrel]

Except that is an outright *lie* since the government is already prohibited from paying for abortion and this case declares those drugs to be abortifacient in nature.

 

It is not a lie that the court made that ruling. It may be in conflict with a current law but...laws can be changed, especially if the court has made a ruling.

 

and there already is a workaround for religious institutions. That might end up applying to these 'closely held' companies.

[JoJosMom]

:hurray:

[Mrs Mungo]

It is not a lie that the court made that ruling. It may be in conflict with a current law but...laws can be changed, especially if the court has made a ruling.

Hm, it *would* be an interesting turn of events, if that bit of the decision over-turned the Hyde Amendment, making abortions more accessible.

[Mrs Mungo]

Vaccination is specifically excluded from what I have read

It says that the decision should not be interpreted to extend to vaccinations, that doesn't *at all* mean that the law cannot be challenged with regard to vaccinations. Of course, a company that would rather pay for pertussis hospitalizations instead of vaccinations is downright idiotic.

[Murphy101]

I think employers should never have to provide any insurance whatsoever for employees.

[Mrs Mungo]

So do Hobby Lobbys get to go to Heaven when they die?

Obviously, durrr.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think employers should never have to provide any insurance whatsoever for employees.

That matter was decided separately in the courts and SCOTUS disagreed with you on that point.

[redsquirrel]

Vaccination is specifically excluded from what I have read

 

This court loves extremely specific rulings. It doesn't mean vaccinations or blood transfusions or cancer treatment or anything else won't be excluded in the future. It just means they are waiting for the right case to come along.

[TechWife]

Do you really want your decisions being made by your employer instead of your doctor?

 

Do you not understand the potential for this to affect other people outside of the employ of HL? That if these prescriptions are considered abortifacient (and they are not by most *scientists*), then that definitely has the potential to affect everyone with government health care since government funding cannot be used to pay for abortions.

 

And did you not read and/or understand the quote that I posted? Showing a preference of one religious belief over another is an extremely dangerous precedent. Or did you not read the full decision from Justice Alito, so you don't understand that is happening?

 

The issue is not whether or not these medications are available. The issue is whether or not someone can get them paid for by their insurance company that is provided by their employer. If they want different insurance, perhaps they should visit the exchange. 

 

I sure would like to see what scientists would consider Plan B and an IUD to not abortifacients. It is very clear that they  prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, this is horrifying. 

 

I am unclear how this is showing preference to one religious belief over another. What religion promotes abortions as part of their faith system? I've never heard anyone say that their religion required them to get an abortion. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Then do not go to work for Mardel or the University of Notre Dame is your religion is that important to  you.  I would NEVER go work for planned parenthood.  As someone mentioned this is only a specific type of company.    Do go work for them.  They are STRONGLY Christian.

 

 

People are also conveniently ignoring the fact that Hobby invested in contraception manufacturers. Obviously a real strong belief.

:iagree:

 

I just learned this today. Sickening.

 

I am staunchly pro-life. I just am, always will be as a Christian. I don't want legislation mandating employer coverage of abortion. I don't want anyone being forced to do business in a way that conflicts with their conscience.

 

But as far as I can see, as more facts have become known, THIS is not THAT.

 

I don't think businesses are a religion. I think hypocrisy is worse than birth control.

 

This country is screwed up.

[TechWife]

One of these days, someone is going to have to explain to me how a business entity can have a religious belief.

 

A business can't have a religious belief and that is not what this ruling says. This ruling has to do with the religious freedom of the owners of a privately held company. Practicing their faith impacts the way that they run their company. If it did not, they would by hypocrites. 

[Lavandula]

I sure would like to see what scientists would consider Plan B and an IUD to not abortifacients. It is very clear that they  prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, this is horrifying. 

"Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming."

 

Addressing the issue in a 2005 memorandum, Dr. Steven Galson, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, wrote that studies “conclusively demonstrate†that Plan B’s ability to block ovulation, is “responsible for most, if not all, instances in which emergency contraception prevents pregnancy.â€

 

By 2007, scientific consensus was building that morning-after pills did not block implantation. In one study using fertilized eggs that would have been discarded from fertility clinics, Dr. Gemzell-Danielsson found that adding Plan B in a dish did not prevent them from attaching to cells that line the uterus.

 

Later, in 2007, 2009 and 2010, researchers in Australia and Chile gave Plan B to women after determining with hormone tests which women had ovulated and which had not.

None who took the drug before ovulation became pregnant, underscoring how Plan B delays ovulation. Women who had ovulated became pregnant at the same rate as if they had taken no drug at all. In those cases, there were no difficulties with implantation, said one of the researchers, Gabriela Noé, at the Instituto Chileno de Medicina Reproductiva in Santiago. Dr. Blithe of the N.I.H., said, “No one can say that it works to inhibit implantation based on these data.â€

 

There's more here. And in many other links. I won't bother pasting it all because it'll take up pages.

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

The issue is not whether or not these medications are available. The issue is whether or not someone can get them paid for by their insurance company that is provided by their employer. If they want different insurance, perhaps they should visit the exchange.

I do think that these types of cases will probably eventually lead to government health care for all. Do you think that is what these companies intend?

 

I sure would like to see what scientists would consider Plan B and an IUD to not abortifacients. It is very clear that they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, this is horrifying.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

I am unclear how this is showing preference to one religious belief over another. What religion promotes abortions as part of their faith system? I've never heard anyone say that their religion required them to get an abortion.

Is that a joke? Or do you really not understand?

 

Just in case, I will explain. Alito's decision states that the exclusion for this purpose doesn't imply exclusions for blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc. That shows a preference for one religious belief over another.

[TechWife]

I also want to add that when a person is denied birth control they are going to be more likely to have an abortion, at some point.

 

No one is denying anyone birth control. This case has nothing to do with the availability of birth control. It is about who has to pay for the birth control. 

[SemiSweet]

Hm, it *would* be an interesting turn of events, if that bit of the decision over-turned the Hyde Amendment, making abortions more accessible.

That's exactly the kind of thing they should want to avoid. You cannot logically be against abortion, many contraceptives, and sex education. When a person (or corporation) is against all those things there is a strong indication that the ultimate goal is to make sure women remain under their control, stuck in a patriarchal society that aims to punish them for having s3x. Which leads right back into our country turning into some kind of theocracy/oligarchy where men and money make all the rules. Ugh, this stuff makes me so angry inside. I cannot fathom how anyone can think this is a good thing. It is just beyond me. I know darn well that had it been a Muslim company and related issue, it wouldn't been have been heard by the Supreme Court much less decided in favor of. This country absolutely makes considerations for Christians and Christians only. I agree with the dissent quote you posted. It's a dangerous precedent that some people seem unable to see. I'm really glad I deactivated my Facebook before this.

[Murphy101]

That matter was decided separately in the courts and SCOTUS disagreed with you on that point.

Yeah well I don't have to agree with them. :)

[Wheres Toto]

Where is the line though?

 

"Would the exemption…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 (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

 

Quoted from here.

 

This is what worries me.  Bad precedent.

 

Do people not realize that saying that your insurance, which you may be paying big bucks for even if it's a employer plan, does not need to pay for certain medicines and procedures, for many people DOES mean that you will not be able to get that medication/procedure.  Not everyone can afford the premium payments AND to pay out-of-pocket for expensive procedures or medicines.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yeah well I don't have to agree with them. :)

Certainly not, but is a moot point when discussing *this* decision. I think it is better to keep the two discussions separate.

[Murphy101]

Certainly not, but is a moot point when discussing *this* decision. I think it is better to keep the two discussions separate.

I don't think it's moot. Courts change. Laws change.

[LisaKinVA]

This is what worries me.  Bad precedent.

 

Do people not realize that saying that your insurance, which you may be paying big bucks for even if it's a employer plan, does not need to pay for certain medicines and procedures, for many people DOES mean that you will not be able to get that medication/procedure.  Not everyone can afford the premium payments AND to pay out-of-pocket for expensive procedures or medicines.

 

But this happens all the time, period.  

 

Very few (if any) health care plans cover 100% of everything, anywhere, at any time.  Obamacare didn't change this, that's why there are different levels of care from which people choose.  They don't all include the same things.  For example, a friend who has T-2 Diabetes had to choose a Gold plan to get her meds covered at the same rate they were pre-ACA (based upon what was available in her area).  Neither Bronze nor silver covered it at the same levels.  Yet, I don't see people getting up in arms about THAT. 

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think it's moot. Courts change. Laws change.

Of course they do, but I think the discussion belongs in a different thread instead of derailing this one.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Also we've learned that Hobby Lobby covered Plan B and ELLA before 2012, and then blamed Obamacare for forcing them to start.

 

I never saw THAT in the mainstream press nor in the religious right journals that I do personally follow.

 

 

[eternalsummer]

I do think that these types of cases will probably eventually lead to government health care for all. Do you think that is what these companies intend?

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Is that a joke? Or do you really not understand?

 

Just in case, I will explain. Alito's decision states that the exclusion for this purpose doesn't imply exclusions for blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc. That shows a preference for one religious belief over another.

 

No, it shows a preference for one health procedure over another (or rather, it shows a preference for the government's need to have a controlling interest in one health procedure and the lack of need to have a controlling interest over another).

 

Basically, access to transfusions and vaccinations are important enough that the government's interest in mandating access to them overwhelms the religious freedom to refuse them; access to birth control does not meet the same standard.

[AlmiraGulch]

No one is denying anyone birth control. This case has nothing to do with the availability of birth control. It is about who has to pay for the birth control. 

 

Where does it end, though?  No coverage for STDs?  No pre-natal care unless the mother is married?  

 

It's ludicrous that an employer would be allowed to make these sorts of moral judgments, particularly in a country where health insurance is largely employer-provided, by federal mandate.  The individual preferences and beliefs of the majority owners should not ever trump women's health issues, which is exactly what this ruling allows.