Hobby Lobby win teh day

[Hurlshort]

So the Supreme Court just sided with Hobby Lobby on this contraceptive issue.  Maybe I'm having trouble understanding the case fully, but it basically looks like a corporation is getting to choose what kind of health care options are available for their employees, and they are claiming it is 'religious freedom'.  

 

What about the personal freedom to not have a corporation tell me what my health care options are?

 

I have no problem with Hobby Lobby having informational campaigns that discourage certain forms of contraception, but when they get to make the decision about what is available to female workers, I get pretty worried. 

[BruceVC]

So the Supreme Court just sided with Hobby Lobby on this contraceptive issue.  Maybe I'm having trouble understanding the case fully, but it basically looks like a corporation is getting to choose what kind of health care options are available for their employees, and they are claiming it is 'religious freedom'.  

 

What about the personal freedom to not have a corporation tell me what my health care options are?

 

I have no problem with Hobby Lobby having informational campaigns that discourage certain forms of contraception, but when they get to make the decision about what is available to female workers, I get pretty worried. 

 

I''m not familiar with this case but what does it mean when you say religious freedom? Are you saying the mandatory medical aid the company provides won't pay for abortions if there is a health risk  or is this something else. Also what type of contraceptions are you talking about that they won't pay for?

 

In South Africa every employee has to have medical aid but the debate is how much the company contributes. This varies from company to company. And obviously there are medical aid companies that are better than others but you have to go with the medical aid company the business uses unless you are on someone else's medical aid, like your wife or husband

[Amentep]

So the Supreme Court just sided with Hobby Lobby on this contraceptive issue.  Maybe I'm having trouble understanding the case fully, but it basically looks like a corporation is getting to choose what kind of health care options are available for their employees, and they are claiming it is 'religious freedom'.

 

Hobby Lobby is a privately owned corporation, owned and run at the top by a single family. The family are conservative Christians who believe that specifically the mandate that would require the company to cover "day after pills" or emergency contraceptives that, essentially, abort a fertilized egg would force them to be a party to the killing of babies.

 

The government's argument, that Hobby Lobby could hire a private insurance company and they wouldn't have to be responsible for what that company did, was rejected as still being essentially that the family would be forced by the government to do something that their religious convictions said was immoral.

 

What about the personal freedom to not have a corporation tell me what my health care options are?

To be fair, no one is forcing an employee to work for Hobby Lobby, as far as I know.

 

I have no problem with Hobby Lobby having informational campaigns that discourage certain forms of contraception, but when they get to make the decision about what is available to female workers, I get pretty worried.

 

As far as I know the issue was never contraceptives, in general, but the emergency contraceptives that would essentially do an abortion, from the family's perspective.

[Sofaking]

So the Supreme Court just sided with Hobby Lobby on this contraceptive issue.  Maybe I'm having trouble understanding the case fully, but it basically looks like a corporation is getting to choose what kind of health care options are available for their employees, and they are claiming it is 'religious freedom'.  

 

What about the personal freedom to not have a corporation tell me what my health care options are?

 

I have no problem with Hobby Lobby having informational campaigns that discourage certain forms of contraception, but when they get to make the decision about what is available to female workers, I get pretty worried. 

 

Well, there is some pretty interesting history leading up to all this.

 

1990 Employment Division vs Smith

 

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213

 

"Question 

Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

 

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws."

 

So 1990 your religion cannot exempt you from following federal or state laws.

 

1993 Enter The Regligious Freedom Restoration Act If the government does set rules restricting religious pratices "that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest."

 

So come 1993, if you have a compelling reason which meets strict scrutiny you can get an exemption to the law for religious reasons.

 

Today: The requirement for 'closely held' businesses to cover contraceptives is not the "least restrictive" since the feder government could (and IMO should) provide these services themselves.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Sofaking

[Amentep]

So 1990 your religion cannot exempt you from following federal or state laws.

 

That's not true, as I understand it. What the ruling on the 1990 case says is that

• states have the power to accommodate illegal acts done in pursuit of religious pursuits
• states are not required to make those accommodations.

Its important to note that the Hobby Lobby case is not regarding a state, but the federal government, so its not exactly the same thing (and as I understand it the RFRA is specific to the federal government; states would have to pass a state version for it to be applied at the state level).

[Gorgon]

Why would contraception be covered by insurance anyway. Much easier to make sure they are available cheaply for anyone who wants them. 

[Amentep]

Why would contraception be covered by insurance anyway. Much easier to make sure they are available cheaply for anyone who wants them.

'cause that just how we roll.

[Gorgon]

This about the 'morning after pill' again and pretending to be about something else. 

[Amentep]

Yes Hobby Lobby's complaint, as far as I know, was not about contraceptives in general (although I believe Catholic Schools and hospitals DID have concern about contraceptives in general under the AHCA)

[Sofaking]

 

So 1990 your religion cannot exempt you from following federal or state laws.

 

That's not true, as I understand it. What the ruling on the 1990 case says is that

• states have the power to accommodate illegal acts done in pursuit of religious pursuits
• states are not required to make those accommodations.

Its important to note that the Hobby Lobby case is not regarding a state, but the federal government, so its not exactly the same thing (and as I understand it the RFRA is specific to the federal government; states would have to pass a state version for it to be applied at the state level).

 

 

Maybe 'does not' would have been a better choice of words than 'cannot'. In 1990 the state was not required to accommodate the use of peyote and it did not, even though it had the power to. Enter the RFRA and various state level laws which followed, which now compels the government to make rules in the least restrictive ways.

 

RFRA, and similar state laws, were clearly sparked by the Oregon Vs Smith case. Since peyote can now be used by natives and businesses don’t cover contraceptives.

 

I mostly found it interesting because of Scalia’s statement in the 1990 ruling. “The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws, to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races, The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this.”

 

So it appears that prospect has been blown wide open.

[Sofaking]

Why would contraception be covered by insurance anyway. Much easier to make sure they are available cheaply for anyone who wants them. 

 

This is basically what the SCOUTS said, the government could provide the contraception themselves and still fulfill their goal of giving access to everyone. There is no need to force an employer to do it.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Sofaking

[JadedWolf]

 

Why would contraception be covered by insurance anyway. Much easier to make sure they are available cheaply for anyone who wants them. 

 

This is basically what the SCOUTS said, the government could provide the contraception themselves and still fulfill their goal of giving access to everyone. There is no need to force an employer to do it.

 

 

I am butting into something here that I don't claim to understand and that isn't my business, but... If the claim by businesses is that because of their religious value system they feel they cannot -and should not-  in any way be forced to help their employees to get contraceptives, wouldn't they still be in the same position if the government did it with money funded from taxes that were in part raised from these businesses?

[Amentep]

Maybe 'does not' would have been a better choice of words than 'cannot'. In 1990 the state was not required to accommodate the use of peyote and it did not, even though it had the power to. Enter the RFRA and various state level laws which followed, which now compels the government to make rules in the least restrictive ways.

 

RFRA, and similar state laws, were clearly sparked by the Oregon Vs Smith case. Since peyote can now be used by natives and businesses don’t cover contraceptives.

 

Yeah, that's basically my understanding. The RFRA was put in place after Oregon v Smith, then there was a justice ruling that RFRA only applied to federal law (in a case of a church that imported an illegal tea that was used at the home of the church in South America) and so a bunch of states made their own RFRAs.

 

 

I mostly found it interesting because of Scalia’s statement in the 1990 ruling. “The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws, to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races, The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this.”

 

So it appears that prospect has been blown wide open.

 

Perhaps, though I'm not so sure that it will follow naturally since the tests of RFRA have typically three points to consider:

• Strict scrutiny
• Religious liberty can only be limited for a compelling government interest
• If religious liberty is to be limited, it must be done in the least restrictive manner possible

I suppose the real test is for someone to form "The Church of Debauchery" and see what they can get away with.

[JadedWolf]

I suppose the real test is for someone to form "The Church of Debauchery" and see what they can get away with.

 

 

Hey, there's always Bacchus. He's cool with debauchery.

[Nepenthe]

I'm waiting with detached amusement for the inevitable decision by SCROTUM that corporations have an inaliable right to get married.

[Amentep]

^suppose the big question is - will the corporations be allowed to get married if the corporations are gay or not...?

 

 

What about the personal freedom to not have a corporation tell me what my health care options are?

To be fair, no one is forcing an employee to work for Hobby Lobby, as far as I know.

 

Reading a bit more, it seems the concern comes not from the two companies in this suit, but that 90% of US companies could meet the "closely held" status and what that means for the workforce.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Amentep

[Monte Carlo]

You Americans and your Kulture Wars. So cute.

[ShadySands]

I'm waiting with detached amusement for the inevitable decision by SCROTUM that corporations have an inaliable right to get married.

 

and can they just call a merger a marriage and side step any antitrust laws?

[Sofaking]

 

 

Why would contraception be covered by insurance anyway. Much easier to make sure they are available cheaply for anyone who wants them. 

 

This is basically what the SCOUTS said, the government could provide the contraception themselves and still fulfill their goal of giving access to everyone. There is no need to force an employer to do it.

 

 

I am butting into something here that I don't claim to understand and that isn't my business, but... If the claim by businesses is that because of their religious value system they feel they cannot -and should not-  in any way be forced to help their employees to get contraceptives, wouldn't they still be in the same position if the government did it with money funded from taxes that were in part raised from these businesses?

 

 

It’s not that they can’t, in any way, be forced to, the idea is that if the government mandates something that is objectionable to a religious group, they should do it in a way that is the least restrictive way. So taxes are less restrictive than making the employer buy coverage directly.

 

So the government has mandated women be provided with contraceptive coverage, the least restrictive way they could do this is to provide it themselves.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Sofaking

[Gromnir]

"So come 1993, if you have a compelling reason which meets strict scrutiny you can get an exemption to the law for religious reasons."

 

1993?  this been the standard o' judicial review in free exercise cases for a long time... much further back than 1993. lawyers and legal scholars joke, "strict in name, but fatal in practice." with strict scrutiny, Government has burden o' showing that the state action is designed to achieve a compelling government interest by narrowly tailored means and must be using the least restrictive means to achieve the govt's interest. money & cost is never a compelling government interest-- think on that for a second. there is some noteworthy cases wherein government wins when they got strict scrutiny to overcome, but they is few and far between... and is very controversial. the famous japanese internment case were one wherein the government utilized strict scrutiny to uphold government action.

 

 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_korematsu.html

 

rational basis (government wins) and heightened or intermediate scrutiny (black jack odds) is your other options for judicial review o' constitutional questions. nobody knows when or why the Court will create a new category o' heightened scrutiny. gender discrimination gets heightened scrutiny. is some cases where the mentally retarded got heightened scrutiny. is often seeming that heightend scrutiny is the conscience-saving option for the Court when addressing fundamental rights.

 

hobby question were actual quite profound and potential far reaching. the Court decided that a for-profit corporation can gets full protection o' the First Amendment  free exercise clause. is not a decision that says ALL for-profit corporations deserve such protections, so am expecting that it will be some time before we know full ramifications o' this case, but regardless, the Court were quite clear that qualities o' for-profit and corporation does not preclude First Amendment protection.

 

once the Court decided that the corporation gots benefit o' strict scrutiny, then government were gonna lose. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 1, 2014 by Gromnir

[Nepenthe]

 

I'm waiting with detached amusement for the inevitable decision by SCROTUM that corporations have an inaliable right to get married.

 

 

and can they just call a merger a marriage and side step any antitrust laws?

Bingo

[Sofaking]

You Americans and your Kulture Wars. So cute.

 

Hey, don't make me come over there and give you some freedom.

[Gromnir]

aside

 

oregon v. smith is a much misunderstood case. the subsequent religious freedom restoration act and its amendments is even more troublesome as is unconstitutional in application to States, and has questionable validity regarding the Fed.  is best to think o' oregon v. smith as akin to the free speech case o' united states v. o'brien, 391 U.S. 367... got a cf cite as a matter o' fact. scalia's "hybrid" rationale were puzzling however.

 

regardless, the standard o' review for free exercise since at least 1972 is strict scrutiny. the Court in oregon v. smith were claiming that it weren't actual a true free exercise issue. Scalia rare engages in such fuzzy legal reasoning. were almost a unique decision for him. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 1, 2014 by Gromnir

[Enoch]

regardless, the standard o' review for free exercise since at least 1972 is strict scrutiny. the Court in oregon v. smith were claiming that it weren't actual a true free exercise issue. Scalia rare engages in such fuzzy legal reasoning. were almost a unique decision for him. 

 

Peyote does strange things to jurists. 

[Gromnir]

 

regardless, the standard o' review for free exercise since at least 1972 is strict scrutiny. the Court in oregon v. smith were claiming that it weren't actual a true free exercise issue. Scalia rare engages in such fuzzy legal reasoning. were almost a unique decision for him. 

 

Peyote does strange things to jurists. 

 

yeah, am wondering if Scalia wrote the decision for oregon v. smith while in a peyote filled sweat tent/lodge.  

 

that being said, we will be reading hobby very close 'cause after our first few readings, it looks... childish.  you got ginsburg claiming that the decision will open the gates o' hell and set lose the dogs o' war on the rights o' women and minorities. alito responds by saying that she is wrong. is very little we can find that gives scope to the decision.

 

http://www.thereason4hope.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/nuh-uh-vs-yes-huh.jpg

 

is actual good for business, but...

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!