Supreme Court Divided on Hobby Lobby and birth control issue

[Oldgamer]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. It looks like the females on the bench came out swinging with very pointed questions and the males on the bench showed sympathy and leaning toward Hobby Lobby. Looks like again we have a very divided court and Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote.

------------------------

News Link Here

Quote: But the government has two back-up questions they want the court to answer if it does decide in favor of Hobby Lobby. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act's protections could only apply if the mandate is a "substantial religious burden” on the company itself. Both companies are only challenging a subset of contraceptives: IUD's, and emergency contraceptive pills like Ella and Plan B. Their argument? In Hobby Lobby's words, the company wants the court to agree that its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." But the issue of whether any of those contraceptives actually do that or not is disputed by most medical authorities. The government will argue that the mandate doesn't constitute a religious burden for the companies, in part because neither corporation has to actually do anything to directly provide those contraceptives to their employees.

Pew notes that the government has one more argument up its sleeve, even if both of the above do apply, according to the court:

Finally, the government argues, the mandate advances a compelling government interest because it is part of a comprehensive reform of the nation’s health care system, and granting the companies an exemption would deprive some Americans of important benefits provided by that reform. In this case, many women would not receive free contraceptive services, thwarting an important public health goal for the government – that all women have adequate access to effective birth control. As for RFRA’s requirement that the mandate be enforced in the least restrictive way possible, the government argues that any alternative to the insurance mandate would mean upending the ACA’s health care model (which revolves around employment-based health insurance) and replacing it with something different, a highly impractical option, according to the government.

 

[fskimospy]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. It looks like the females on the bench came out swinging with very pointed questions and the males on the bench showed sympathy and leaning toward Hobby Lobby. Looks like again we have a very divided court and Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote.

------------------------

News Link Here

Quote: But the government has two back-up questions they want the court to answer if it does decide in favor of Hobby Lobby. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act's protections could only apply if the mandate is a "substantial religious burden” on the company itself. Both companies are only challenging a subset of contraceptives: IUD's, and emergency contraceptive pills like Ella and Plan B. Their argument? In Hobby Lobby's words, the company wants the court to agree that its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." But the issue of whether any of those contraceptives actually do that or not is disputed by most medical authorities. The government will argue that the mandate doesn't constitute a religious burden for the companies, in part because neither corporation has to actually do anything to directly provide those contraceptives to their employees.

Pew notes that the government has one more argument up its sleeve, even if both of the above do apply, according to the court:

Finally, the government argues, the mandate advances a compelling government interest because it is part of a comprehensive reform of the nation’s health care system, and granting the companies an exemption would deprive some Americans of important benefits provided by that reform. In this case, many women would not receive free contraceptive services, thwarting an important public health goal for the government – that all women have adequate access to effective birth control. As for RFRA’s requirement that the mandate be enforced in the least restrictive way possible, the government argues that any alternative to the insurance mandate would mean upending the ACA’s health care model (which revolves around employment-based health insurance) and replacing it with something different, a highly impractical option, according to the government.

This makes the most sense for me. If we have decided that corporations have first amendment rights in other ways (which is still BS to me but whatever) then it stands to reason they would have religious rights.

None of that changes the fact here that Hobby Lobby's complaint that they are being subject to an undue burden here is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Newell Steamer]

This is great - I can now back out of any contract I hold with another party, simply by stating; "it's my religious right to not honor this legally binding agreement".

I mean, if one side can claim that same sex will lead to toaster and human marriages, another side can claim that in favor of religious right can (and will) overide any rules, laws and order.

Murder? Well, that infidel did not honor my religious rights, and it's not murder, since I killed someone in the name of upholding my religious rights!! Thusly, I can not be held accountable for murder, since my religious rights do not uphold/acknowledge the charges of murder.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Given the ruling in Citizens United, I don't know how this can be ruled in anything other than Hobby Lobby's favor. If an association of citizens is legally guaranteed the same rights as an individual citizen, HL should be allowed to refuse to subsidize procedures and medications they find morally objectionable due to their religion.

 

[fskimospy]

Given the ruling in Citizens United, I don't know how this can be ruled in anything other than Hobby Lobby's favor. If an association of citizens is legally guaranteed the same rights as an individual citizen, HL should be allowed to refuse to subsidize procedures and medications they find morally objectionable due to their religion.

What substantial burden is being put upon them?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Given the ruling in Citizens United, I don't know how this can be ruled in anything other than Hobby Lobby's favor. If an association of citizens is legally guaranteed the same rights as an individual citizen, HL should be allowed to refuse to subsidize procedures and medications they find morally objectionable due to their religion.

I bet viagra isn't on the list of meds morally objectionable to their religion.

 

[alzan]

I was watching All In with Chris Hayes last night as a reporter (didn't get her name) did a broad overview of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and how it pertains to the Hobby Lobby case: her point was that the Act was meant as a "shield" and not a "sword".

Not that this would stop them but were the USSC to decide in HL's favor then what Newell Steamer posted could very well come to pass; an absolute shitstorm of all kinds of "religious belief" exceptions.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's another interesting look at the case:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html

 

[Atreus21]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. It looks like the females on the bench came out swinging with very pointed questions and the males on the bench showed sympathy and leaning toward Hobby Lobby. Looks like again we have a very divided court and Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote.

------------------------

News Link Here

Quote: But the government has two back-up questions they want the court to answer if it does decide in favor of Hobby Lobby. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act's protections could only apply if the mandate is a "substantial religious burden” on the company itself. Both companies are only challenging a subset of contraceptives: IUD's, and emergency contraceptive pills like Ella and Plan B. Their argument? In Hobby Lobby's words, the company wants the court to agree that its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." But the issue of whether any of those contraceptives actually do that or not is disputed by most medical authorities. The government will argue that the mandate doesn't constitute a religious burden for the companies, in part because neither corporation has to actually do anything to directly provide those contraceptives to their employees.

Pew notes that the government has one more argument up its sleeve, even if both of the above do apply, according to the court:

Finally, the government argues, the mandate advances a compelling government interest because it is part of a comprehensive reform of the nation’s health care system, and granting the companies an exemption would deprive some Americans of important benefits provided by that reform. In this case, many women would not receive free contraceptive services, thwarting an important public health goal for the government – that all women have adequate access to effective birth control. As for RFRA’s requirement that the mandate be enforced in the least restrictive way possible, the government argues that any alternative to the insurance mandate would mean upending the ACA’s health care model (which revolves around employment-based health insurance) and replacing it with something different, a highly impractical option, according to the government.

I think it's going to be hilarious if the Supreme Court changes from the conservatives against the liberals to the men against the women, as it almost is now.

 

[Gunslinger08]

What substantial burden is being put upon them?

I'd say HL is acting on their beliefs that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred. It is probably their belief that providing these services at a subsidized rate equates to supporting/enabling/approving of them, which goes against their morals based on religious belief. These beliefs are some of the most deeply held beliefs by a lot of Christians.

 

[Vic]

I was watching All In with Chris Hayes last night as a reporter (didn't get her name) did a broad overview of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and how it pertains to the Hobby Lobby case: her point was that the Act was meant as a "shield" and not a "sword".

Not that this would stop them but were the USSC to decide in HL's favor then what Newell Steamer posted could very well come to pass; an absolute shitstorm of all kinds of "religious belief" exceptions.

The fear-driven mind always attacks in self-defense.

 

[Atreus21]

This is great - I can now back out of any contract I hold with another party, simply by stating; "it's my religious right to not honor this legally binding agreement".

No you can't. From what I understand a claim to religious freedom doesn't legally trump anything according to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It is intended to reinstate the “Sherbert test,” which holds that in a case in which the involved parties hold a sincere religious belief and the federal government places a substantial burden on the exercise of that belief, then the federal government must both prove a “compelling state interest” in burdening religious exercise and — perhaps most important in this case — demonstrate that it has sought to secure that compelling interest in the least restrictive fashion.

 

[kia75]

I'd say HL is acting on their beliefs that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred. It is probably their belief that providing these services at a subsidized rate equates to supporting/enabling/approving of them, which goes against their morals based on religious belief. These beliefs are some of the most deeply held beliefs by a lot of Christians.

I wasn't aware that Jesus died on the cross so that Hobby Lobby and other corporations would go to heaven when they die.

I do find it funny that lots of Christians claim the bible is against birth-control because they see it as the end of a child's life when a reading of the old testament shows the bible is perfectly fine with parents killing their children. If we go back to the bible for our thoughts on birth control then killing your children when they're old enough to carry wood or go camping is perfectly fine.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd say HL is acting on their beliefs that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred. It is probably their belief that providing these services at a subsidized rate equates to supporting/enabling/approving of them, which goes against their morals based on religious belief. These beliefs are some of the most deeply held beliefs by a lot of Christians.

They aren't actually required to provide them, however. They are subject to a tax (just like the individual mandate) that they can choose to discharge in one of several ways: they can either pay the tax or they can purchase health care for their employees. None of that forces anyone to purchase contraception as they have two separate ways to stay within the law.

This is really the identical reasoning to the majority ruling in NFIB v. Sebilius. (individual mandate case)

 

[dphantom]

This is great - I can now back out of any contract I hold with another party, simply by stating; "it's my religious right to not honor this legally binding agreement".

I mean, if one side can claim that same sex will lead to toaster and human marriages, another side can claim that in favor of religious right can (and will) overide any rules, laws and order.

Murder? Well, that infidel did not honor my religious rights, and it's not murder, since I killed someone in the name of upholding my religious rights!! Thusly, I can not be held accountable for murder, since my religious rights do not uphold/acknowledge the charges of murder.

your illogic is breathless. See eskimopy comments above for a rational discussion of the argument. In this case Hobby Lobby is privately owned which may give it stronger standing than a company like GM say that is publicly held. Regardless, a precedent has been set so may be extended to this as well.

 

[Newell Steamer]

No you can't. From what I understand a claim to religious freedom doesn't legally trump anything according to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Of course not.

The same way a man marrying a man won't lead to holy matrimony between myself and my vacuum cleaner is the same way this won't allow me to shoot who doesn't believe in Jesus, or back out of contract, claiming "my" God said I don't have to deliver 10,000 Palm Sunday crosses.

It's the same alarmist bullshit tone we've been getting, just applied to this event.

 

[Newell Steamer]

your illogic is breathless. See eskimopy comments above for a rational discussion of the argument. In this case Hobby Lobby is privately owned which may give it stronger standing than a company like GM say that is publicly held. Regardless, a precedent has been set so may be extended to this as well.

Yeah, sounds pretty sensationalistic, unrealistic, unfounded, made up and down right incorrect, doesn't it?

 

[Atreus21]

They aren't actually required to provide them, however. They are subject to a tax (just like the individual mandate) that they can choose to discharge in one of several ways: they can either pay the tax or they can purchase health care for their employees. None of that forces anyone to purchase contraception as they have two separate ways to stay within the law.

Health insurance that necessarily covers contraception?

 

[fskimospy]

Health insurance that necessarily covers contraception?

Yes. Again though, they have an option to simply pay the tax they are already assessed. They get to choose how to pay a tax is all.

Incidentally, paying the tax will basically certainly be cheaper than providing health insurance for their employees, so they would save money that way too.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes. Again though, they have an option to simply pay the tax they are already assessed. They get to choose how to pay a tax is all.

Incidentally, paying the tax will basically certainly be cheaper than providing health insurance for their employees, so they would save money that way too.

So pay for the contraception coverage we mandate irrespective of your conscience, or pay a penalty.

I can understand an argument that this is an undue burden. I don't see the harm in letting them provide the coverage they want to provide, especially considering how inexpensive contraception is.

Incidentally, it sucks you're not coming to NOLA. Nice this time of year. And only this time of year.

 

[WHAMPOM]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. It looks like the females on the bench came out swinging with very pointed questions and the males on the bench showed sympathy and leaning toward Hobby Lobby. Looks like again we have a very divided court and Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote.

------------------------

News Link Here

Quote: But the government has two back-up questions they want the court to answer if it does decide in favor of Hobby Lobby. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act's protections could only apply if the mandate is a "substantial religious burden” on the company itself. Both companies are only challenging a subset of contraceptives: IUD's, and emergency contraceptive pills like Ella and Plan B. Their argument? In Hobby Lobby's words, the company wants the court to agree that its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." But the issue of whether any of those contraceptives actually do that or not is disputed by most medical authorities. The government will argue that the mandate doesn't constitute a religious burden for the companies, in part because neither corporation has to actually do anything to directly provide those contraceptives to their employees.

Pew notes that the government has one more argument up its sleeve, even if both of the above do apply, according to the court:

Finally, the government argues, the mandate advances a compelling government interest because it is part of a comprehensive reform of the nation’s health care system, and granting the companies an exemption would deprive some Americans of important benefits provided by that reform. In this case, many women would not receive free contraceptive services, thwarting an important public health goal for the government – that all women have adequate access to effective birth control. As for RFRA’s requirement that the mandate be enforced in the least restrictive way possible, the government argues that any alternative to the insurance mandate would mean upending the ACA’s health care model (which revolves around employment-based health insurance) and replacing it with something different, a highly impractical option, according to the government.

Our Government gets out of the "No support for Religion" (separation of Church & State) by giving parents a check the parents then hand over to their chosen religious Charter school.

PRECIDENT RIGHT THERE. Hobby boys "religious" feelings have no standing.

 

[sandorski]

Do any Religions believe that Corporations have a Soul? aka, will Hobby Lobby go to Heaven?

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Will be a moot point in a few years once no company will offer health insurance...

 

[fskimospy]

So pay for the contraception coverage we mandate irrespective of your conscience, or pay a penalty.

I can understand an argument that this is an undue burden. I don't see the harm in letting them provide the coverage they want to provide, especially considering how inexpensive contraception is.

Incidentally, it sucks you're not coming to NOLA. Nice this time of year. And only this time of year.

The way of looking at it in light of the individual mandate ruling would be that we assess everyone a tax, no matter what. You then have two choices on how to pay it: you either pay a set dollar amount or you take action of providing health insurance.

Incidentally, I agree. Ah well, such is life.

 

[Jaskalas]

I bet viagra isn't on the list of meds morally objectionable to their religion.

Dictating the line itemization of drugs or birth control is ridiculously stupid. Might as well dictate that you feed your employees. Heaven forbid someone PAYS them a WAGE with which to BUY IT THEMSELVES!