Supreme court accepts Heartland Christian College et.Al. (Obamacare contraception)

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
In Heartland Christian College et.Al., several religious institutions claim that Obamacare (ACA) forces them to provide coverage for contraception, contrary to their fervently-held religious beliefs. But what's rather interesting about this case is that the ACA contains an exclusion provision, wherein a religious institution that doesn't want to pay for contraceptives as part of the insurance coverage it provides can write a letter to the ACA administrators making a statement to that effect, at which point the ACA will step in and pay for the contraception "rider" on the policy.

But the religious institutions say that's not sufficient, since that provision makes them a party to providing contraceptive services.

I think that's a pretty weak argument, and most of the federal courts who have heard these challenges have cited the Hobby Lobby in deciding for the ACA (in Hobby Lobby, the supreme court specifically mentioned in the decision that "closely held" corporations weren't being given the same "exclusion" option that religious institutions were). In other words, it was clear that the SCOTUS felt that having the exclusion available mitigated the conflict.

Unfortunately, one federal court (the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis) found for the plaintiffs, and today the SCOTUS accepted the case. But if the SCOTUS is consistent with what it stated in Hobby Lobby, it's difficult to see how the plaintiffs can prevail.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
In Heartland Christian College et.Al., several religious institutions claim that Obamacare (ACA) forces them to provide coverage for contraception, contrary to their fervently-held religious beliefs. But what's rather interesting about this case is that the ACA contains an exclusion provision, wherein a religious institution that doesn't want to pay for contraceptives as part of the insurance coverage it provides can write a letter to the ACA administrators making a statement to that effect, at which point the ACA will step in and pay for the contraception "rider" on the policy.

But the religious institutions say that's not sufficient, since that provision makes them a party to providing contraceptive services.

I think that's a pretty weak argument, and most of the federal courts who have heard these challenges have cited the Hobby Lobby in deciding for the ACA (in Hobby Lobby, the supreme court specifically mentioned in the decision that "closely held" corporations weren't being given the same "exclusion" option that religious institutions were). In other words, it was clear that the SCOTUS felt that having the exclusion available mitigated the conflict.

Unfortunately, one federal court (the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis) found for the plaintiffs, and today the SCOTUS accepted the case. But if the SCOTUS is consistent with what it stated in Hobby Lobby, it's difficult to see how the plaintiffs can prevail.

This is a deeply stupid part of the law, and besides why is the Admin sticking to such a narrow interpretation of how to implement it? There is no benefit whatsoever in a religious institution signing a piece of paper it objects to in order for the government to simply step in and pay for it anyway. Just take out the middleman and have the feds pay for contraception for everyone directly without needing a stupid signed document. This is akin to the Republican laws that force doctors asked about abortion to say "it's not a proper method of family planning" when the doctors don't believe it, besides it not stopping an abortion from happening ever.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
It's an intellectually weak argument, but par for the course as far as the current SCOTUS is concerned.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Righties had their hopes all up over the federal exchange suit which was just as weak. It went down in flames.

The SCOTUS had to accept this stinker to reverse it I figure.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
I agree with Glenn, hopefully the SC just rules that the ACA will cover this without companies having to send/sign anything.
 
Dec 10, 2005
26,481
10,157
136
I agree with Glenn, hopefully the SC just rules that the ACA will cover this without companies having to send/sign anything.
Do you mean: the government should be providing this coverage to everyone instead of the current arrangement, where private insurance covers it, unless the employer opts-out, then the government coverage kicks in?

As to this case, it seems intellectually light-weight. The plantiff's are arguing that they cannot provide coverage because that violates their beliefs. But they are also arguing that notifying the government that they will not be providing coverage makes them complicit in providing coverage and violates their faith. I don't see how signing a form or a simple letter saying "We will not cover X" imposes a substantial burden on someone's religious practices.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I agree with Glenn, hopefully the SC just rules that the ACA will cover this without companies having to send/sign anything.

So you're calling for more govt spending?

As it is, the vast, vast majority of employers cover this w/o issue at all. Enlightened employers support it for obvious reasons. As a covered benefit, it helps employees make better life/work choices.

What the suit really demands is that religious employers be granted greater control over the benefits & lives of their employees. It's not "We don't want to pay for that" but rather "We don't want our employees to have that".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
I agree with Glenn, hopefully the SC just rules that the ACA will cover this without companies having to send/sign anything.

This is a really bad idea, not just for this case but due to all the unintended consequences it would bring with it.

Hobby lobby is already a horrible decision in that it allows corporations to declare themselves exempt from generally applicable laws. As time passes I think you will see rampant abuse of this in all sorts of areas. The one saving grace was that Alito pointed to this sort of notification as being a small enough burden to pass their muster. If it turns out that the mere act of filling out a form noting your objection is unconstitutional that basically means that there is literally nothing that wouldn't be. Do you really want corporations to have veto authority over the laws that govern them?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
But if the SCOTUS is consistent with what it stated in Hobby Lobby, it's difficult to see how the plaintiffs can prevail.

I can't see how they could possibly rule in their favor because it opens up a huge can of worms. If they ruled in their favor then just about anyone can sue the .gov saying that they can't pay taxes because they would be party to something that goes against their religion.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Do you mean: the government should be providing this coverage to everyone instead of the current arrangement, where private insurance covers it, unless the employer opts-out, then the government coverage kicks in?

As to this case, it seems intellectually light-weight. The plantiff's are arguing that they cannot provide coverage because that violates their beliefs. But they are also arguing that notifying the government that they will not be providing coverage makes them complicit in providing coverage and violates their faith. I don't see how signing a form or a simple letter saying "We will not cover X" imposes a substantial burden on someone's religious practices.

I think that their argument is more that the insurance they are providing, even though they aren't directly paying for it, is the conduit for people getting something against their belief. Kind of like Church being forced to let a 3rd party put abortion pamphlets in their Church. Not the best example but you should get the gist.

As I said, the same argument can be made for paying taxes so I doubt they will never set a precedent like this.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Do you mean: the government should be providing this coverage to everyone instead of the current arrangement, where private insurance covers it, unless the employer opts-out, then the government coverage kicks in?

As to this case, it seems intellectually light-weight. The plantiff's are arguing that they cannot provide coverage because that violates their beliefs. But they are also arguing that notifying the government that they will not be providing coverage makes them complicit in providing coverage and violates their faith. I don't see how signing a form or a simple letter saying "We will not cover X" imposes a substantial burden on someone's religious practices.

Yes, the government should just cover the cost of contraceptives for everyone, we are already funding Planned Parenthood and most on these forums have no problems with further government expansion and higher taxes so I say why put the burden on employers when all it does is incur more legal fees and challenges to the court...take the companies out of the equation.

So you're calling for more govt spending?

As it is, the vast, vast majority of employers cover this w/o issue at all. Enlightened employers support it for obvious reasons. As a covered benefit, it helps employees make better life/work choices.

What the suit really demands is that religious employers be granted greater control over the benefits & lives of their employees. It's not "We don't want to pay for that" but rather "We don't want our employees to have that".

See above, considering what we are spending now why not...the government either pays for the coverage or they pay to fight it in court.

I am sure if the government covered it then more employees would be able to make "better choices"

I don't see why anyone would be against not just having this handled at the federal level vs trying to push it back on employers.

This is a really bad idea, not just for this case but due to all the unintended consequences it would bring with it.

Hobby lobby is already a horrible decision in that it allows corporations to declare themselves exempt from generally applicable laws. As time passes I think you will see rampant abuse of this in all sorts of areas. The one saving grace was that Alito pointed to this sort of notification as being a small enough burden to pass their muster. If it turns out that the mere act of filling out a form noting your objection is unconstitutional that basically means that there is literally nothing that wouldn't be. Do you really want corporations to have veto authority over the laws that govern them?

404 bad idea not found, I am sure the Supremes can find a way to limit the scope so that this is only applicable to contraceptives.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
How on earth would they apply a constitutional principle that only affected contraceptives?
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
How on earth would they apply a constitutional principle that only affected contraceptives?

You must doubt their abilities, again I can't see why we would continue to push something that is of a national interest onto the responsibility of corporations, just handle it federally through the ACA and be done with it. Again we already fund Planned Parenthood, all companies that do not want to supply contraceptives should just have the option of sending their employees to the nearest PP and get it covered by the Govt.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
You must doubt their abilities, again I can't see why we would continue to push something that is of a national interest onto the responsibility of corporations, just handle it federally through the ACA and be done with it. Again we already fund Planned Parenthood, all companies that do not want to supply contraceptives should just have the option of sending their employees to the nearest PP and get it covered by the Govt.

They already have that option, this is about them saying that filling out a form is an impermissible burden on their religious liberty, which is a load of horse shit.

If you have an idea as to how the Supreme Court is going to apply the RFRA here to contraceptives only I'd love to hear it. Frankly, I can't believe you would even want the Supreme Court to be doing things like that. It's not their job.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
They already have that option, this is about them saying that filling out a form is an impermissible burden on their religious liberty, which is a load of horse shit.

If you have an idea as to how the Supreme Court is going to apply the RFRA here to contraceptives only I'd love to hear it. Frankly, I can't believe you would even want the Supreme Court to be doing things like that. It's not their job.

Whats a load of "horse shit" is that we are going to make these companies bother to fill out a form when we as a nation can just step up and take this on.

The supreme court appears to have no issue as of late doing things outside of the scope of their responsibilities so whats one more thing...lol @ not their job, spoken like a true progressive there buddy boy, not their job when its convenient to something you want it seems.

Regardless we will all find out shortly what the deal is so whats the point in wasting the breath....hopefully they do the right thing and just allow companies to not bother filling out the form but chances are they won't.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
They already have that option, this is about them saying that filling out a form is an impermissible burden on their religious liberty, which is a load of horse shit.

If you have an idea as to how the Supreme Court is going to apply the RFRA here to contraceptives only I'd love to hear it. Frankly, I can't believe you would even want the Supreme Court to be doing things like that. It's not their job.

I'm not arguing whether it creates such a burden or whether it's horse shit. I'm questioning the value of the form itself since presumably the Feds would still provide the benefits regardless. Just do away with the form outright unless you just want to delay people getting the benefit.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Whats a load of "horse shit" is that we are going to make these companies bother to fill out a form when we as a nation can just step up and take this on.

The supreme court appears to have no issue as of late doing things outside of the scope of their responsibilities so whats one more thing...lol @ not their job, spoken like a true progressive there buddy boy, not their job when its convenient to something you want it seems.

Regardless we will all find out shortly what the deal is so whats the point in wasting the breath....hopefully they do the right thing and just allow companies to not bother filling out the form but chances are they won't.


Riiight. I'm trying to figure out how to best describe that kind of trollery. You argue for the impossible (given Congress) as a way for employers to deny their employees the equal benefits they're afforded by law.

Because freedom, right?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'm not arguing whether it creates such a burden or whether it's horse shit. I'm questioning the value of the form itself since presumably the Feds would still provide the benefits regardless. Just do away with the form outright unless you just want to delay people getting the benefit.

Same trollery, different poster.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
Whats a load of "horse shit" is that we are going to make these companies bother to fill out a form when we as a nation can just step up and take this on.

Sounds like an issue for congress then. Enshrining the idea that religious rights go so far as to preclude even filling out a form would be a huge mistake.

The supreme court appears to have no issue as of late doing things outside of the scope of their responsibilities so whats one more thing...lol @ not their job, spoken like a true progressive there buddy boy, not their job when its convenient to something you want it seems.

Haha, nice try. If you think so, provide specific examples.

Regardless we will all find out shortly what the deal is so whats the point in wasting the breath....hopefully they do the right thing and just allow companies to not bother filling out the form but chances are they won't.

I agree that they probably won't, and that's excellent news as it would be extraordinarily foolish to create such a hugely dangerous judicial precedent. They are probably just going to resolve the circuit split and tell these nonprofits to go fuck themselves, but with this court you never know.

You seem to be confusing the policy outcome you prefer with the court ruling you should prefer. A ruling against these forms would have large unintended consequences.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Riiight. I'm trying to figure out how to best describe that kind of trollery. You argue for the impossible (given Congress) as a way for employers to deny their employees the equal benefits they're afforded by law.

Because freedom, right?

How would it be so impossible for the SC to uphold Appellate courts ruling, that the Freedom of Religion act is in fact in play and these companies rights are infringed upon and just made it so they no longer had to fill out the form and by default the ACA picked up coverage for contraception leaving it up to congress to figure out the rest?

Sounds like an issue for congress then. Enshrining the idea that religious rights go so far as to preclude even filling out a form would be a huge mistake.

Haha, nice try. If you think so, provide specific examples.

I agree that they probably won't, and that's excellent news as it would be extraordinarily foolish to create such a hugely dangerous judicial precedent. They are probably just going to resolve the circuit split and tell these nonprofits to go fuck themselves, but with this court you never know.

You seem to be confusing the policy outcome you prefer with the court ruling you should prefer. A ruling against these forms would have large unintended consequences.

As said above chances of Congress taking this up on their own are slim to none.

And typical of you libs telling folks what "we" should prefer...I prefer at this point what I have said three times now, that the ACA just covers contraceptives for all who don't want to provide them as a part of their corporate insurance policies without companies having to fill out a form, let the employees fill something out....and we can deal with the collateral consequences later, consider it a part of passing a half assed tax law such as they did with the ACA
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
So to be clear you don't think congress can pass a fix to stop people from filling out a form, but you're confident we can deal with the collateral effects of a massive expansion in the protections of the RFRA at some point in the future.

Yeah, no thanks. Haha.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
So to be clear you don't think congress can pass a fix to stop people from filling out a form, but you're confident we can deal with the collateral effects of a massive expansion in the protections of the RFRA at some point in the future.

Yeah, no thanks. Haha.

what I think will happen is that the Supremes will vote in line with the other appellate courts and say that the companies will have to continue to fill out the forms which will most likely lead to those companies attempting another legal angle to not provide what they consider consent in this matter.

What I hope is that the Supremes do is uphold the two appellate courts that ruled this is in violation of the 1993 FOR act and either agree the forms are a violation and that companies do not have to fill them out for folks to go and get contraceptives from wherever at a cost covered by the ACA, at which point some other entity will pick up the gauntlet and determine if we as a nation will just supply it no questions/forms/whatever asked or push the form signing onto the employees....the latter is one step closer to single payer so don't see why people on this board would be against that.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
How are the five Catholic Republican old men going to rule on women's contraception? The suspense is killing me.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
How would it be so impossible for the SC to uphold Appellate courts ruling, that the Freedom of Religion act is in fact in play and these companies rights are infringed upon and just made it so they no longer had to fill out the form and by default the ACA picked up coverage for contraception leaving it up to congress to figure out the rest?

So you think the feds should just assume that no religious organization is willing to provide contraception to their employees? I would bet that is a very poor assumption
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
They already have that option, this is about them saying that filling out a form is an impermissible burden on their religious liberty, which is a load of horse shit.

If you have an idea as to how the Supreme Court is going to apply the RFRA here to contraceptives only I'd love to hear it. Frankly, I can't believe you would even want the Supreme Court to be doing things like that. It's not their job.

The government might as well ask them to prove the existence of god in order to accept their religion , since it can decide what belief is valid or not.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

WE went down this path once before with the Bob Jones university decision which directly brought about the creation of the religious right and their entry into politics, then you pretend liberals cried for over thirty years how the religious right wants to use government to force their beliefs on women, gays, nativity displays, etc.