[url]http://consumerist.com/2014/06/30/supreme-court-rules-for-hobby-lobby-in-contraception-case/[/url]
[quote]
In perhaps the most closely watched case of this year, a very divided (5-4) Supreme Court ruled [[URL="https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/13-354_olp1.pdf"]PDF[/URL] in favor of Hobby Lobby and a Pennsylvania cabinet company, and held that closely held corporations can not be required to provide health insurance coverage that includes contraception.
The Affordable Care Act mandates that that employers provide health insurance that includes coverage for contraception. There are exemptions to the law for certain businesses owned by religious groups, but not for businesses that just happened to be owned by people with personal religious beliefs that don't support contraception.
At the heart of the debate is the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except… if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, attempts to quell some of these concerns, limiting the ruling to [I]only[/I] the contraceptive mandate, and specifically stating that it should not be understood to apply to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations.
"It is [the Dept. of Health and Human Service's] apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA — no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers — that would lead to intolerable consequences,” reads the majority opinion. “Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question — for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome.”
Writing for the dissenting members of the court, Justice Ginsburg says the ruling has flung open the door to business owners claiming religious exemptions to get whatever they want.
“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” writes Ginsburg. In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith — in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ.”
[/quote]
[IMG]https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/fb10ac2675f573d85fa9073ce1bd52cf/tumblr_mqf7ihtBsl1sbi2afo1_400.gif[/IMG]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("image macro" - Orkel))[/highlight]
We have literally arrived at the point where we let party supply stores tell women what to do with their bodies.
Shit like this reminds me of how ideologically divorced I am from my government.
I don't (personally) know anyone that thinks this is a good thing. To be fair though, I don't get out much.
So, they don't have to supply the pill if the woman needs it?
Contraceptives aren't the company's responsibility in the first place. I don't really have an issue with this ruling other than the fact that the case was brought up due to religion.
Not to mention, it was basically an anti-precedent ruling so that companies wouldn't be forced to cover literally everything possible under health care.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;45254322][B]So, they don't have to supply the pill if the woman needs it?[/B]
Contraceptives aren't the company's responsibility in the first place. I don't really have an issue with this ruling other than the fact that the case was brought up due to religion.
Not to mention, it was basically an anti-precedent ruling so that companies wouldn't be forced to cover literally everything possible under health care.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. The issue is that with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the company must provide for its full-time employees (30+ hrs/week) health insurance options (or at least offer an insurance option). The issue at hand is that most insurances would cover contraception in part or full and that's pretty normal. Hobby Lobby refused to provide a health insurance option that would do this on the basis of the founder and company's religious convictions. They wouldn't be paying for anything, the insurance they chose would. While they would take up some of the cost of the insurance by virtue of them offering it as a company, they would not themselves be paying for or providing the contraception.
Sorry liberals, this isn't socialism. It is not a corporation's job to insure that a woman can hop from penis to penis.
I'm in favor of this. To start of with, I can see where Justice Ginsburg is coming from, and how companies could go "lol, muh religion says no taxes!", and that is something to have concerns about. However, Hobby Lobby not providing birth control pills for contraceptive purposes is not "telling women what they can or cannot do". If Hobby Lobby fired a female worker for having birth control pills or for having an abortion, then that would be crossing the line, but refusing to condone it isn't the same thing as punitive action. While some pregnancies are unplanned, it requires an action to happen, sexual intercourse. Sex without consequences is not a right at the moment and really should not be. Who knows? Maybe Hobby Lobby can offer cheaper healthcare plans that do not include contraceptives, thereby allowing the employee to have some extra money to spend on condoms or pills or whatever, and as long as Hobby Lobby doesn't intervene or condemn it, both parties are happy. I know it's an old school, Puritanical thought process, but devil's avocado is fun to play.
This isn't really about the contraceptive for me. It's about selectively applying law to some groups but not others.
So this is a bad thing in my eyes. Inconsistent rules that benefit some but not all.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;45254322]So, they don't have to supply the pill if the woman needs it?
Contraceptives aren't the company's responsibility in the first place. I don't really have an issue with this ruling other than the fact that the case was brought up due to religion.
Not to mention, it was basically an anti-precedent ruling so that companies wouldn't be forced to cover literally everything possible under health care.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;45254397]I'm in favor of this. To start of with, I can see where Justice Ginsburg is coming from, and how companies could go "lol, muh religion says no taxes!", and that is something to have concerns about. However, Hobby Lobby not providing birth control pills for contraceptive purposes is not "telling women what they can or cannot do". If Hobby Lobby fired a female worker for having birth control pills or for having an abortion, then that would be crossing the line, but refusing to condone it isn't the same thing as punitive action. While some pregnancies are unplanned, it requires an action to happen, sexual intercourse. Sex without consequences is not a right at the moment and really should not be. Who knows? Maybe Hobby Lobby can offer cheaper healthcare plans that do not include contraceptives, thereby allowing the employee to have some extra money to spend on condoms or pills or whatever, and as long as Hobby Lobby doesn't intervene or condemn it, both parties are happy. I know it's an old school, Puritanical thought process, but devil's avocado is fun to play.[/QUOTE]
Contraceptives aren't just used for birth control. The pill is also used for: irregular periods, painful periods which can be debilitating enough to require sick days, periods that last longer than the usual 5-7 days, ovarian cysts, and a number of other health issues.
What next, corporate marriage rights, then gay corporate marriage rights then next thing you know corporations are sucking donkey schlong and want to marry it.
The slippery slope is real!
This overturns 150 years of corporate law, way to go idiots
[QUOTE=Sableye;45254473]What next, corporate marriage rights, then gay corporate marriage rights then next thing you know corporations are sucking donkey schlong and want to marry it.
The slippery slope is real!
This overturns 150 years of corporate law, way to go idiots[/QUOTE]
What are you even saying?
Corporations as people has gone too far when you can claim they have both political ideologies and religious beliefs. The owners of said entity have those beliefs but Its such a stupid stretch, one that until 2004 had been completely denied, to say the corporate entity has access to the first amendment.
[QUOTE=Sableye;45254511]Corporations as people has gone too far when you can claim they have both political ideologies and religious beliefs. The owners of said entity have those beliefs but Its such a stupid stretch, one that until 2004 had been completely denied, to say the corporate entity has access to the first amendment.[/QUOTE]
That isn't even what this is about. Are you done spewing liberal bullshit you heard on MSNBC or should I just ignore the next couple of replies?
Could somebody enlighten me on why contraception is so necessary that it needs to be provided by insurance? Condoms at least are pretty damn cheap, and otherwise, there exists a thing called "self control".
[QUOTE=Sableye;45254511]Corporations as people has gone too far when you can claim they have both political ideologies and religious beliefs. The owners of said entity have those beliefs but Its such a stupid stretch, one that until 2004 had been completely denied, to say the corporate entity has access to the first amendment.[/QUOTE]
they don't, the first amendment says literally nothing about corporations.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45254524]Could somebody enlighten me on why contraception is so necessary that it needs to be provided by insurance? Condoms at least are pretty damn cheap, and otherwise, there exists a thing called "self control".
they don't, read the first amendment.[/QUOTE]
It was stipulated in the Affordable Care Act.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45254524]Could somebody enlighten me on why contraception is so necessary that it needs to be provided by insurance? Condoms at least are pretty damn cheap, and otherwise, there exists a thing called "self control".
they don't, the first amendment says literally nothing about corporations.[/QUOTE]
Corporations....are...treated as if they were a person...by law, that's why banks go bankrupt but not the CEO...
This case establishes with an earlier one that they also have religious belief,
The aca is just a side effect
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45254524]Could somebody enlighten me on why contraception is so necessary that it needs to be provided by insurance? Condoms at least are pretty damn cheap, and otherwise, there exists a thing called "self control".
they don't, the first amendment says literally nothing about corporations.[/QUOTE]
A lot of women experience severe discomfort to the point that they need to take sick days due to menstruation, and beside that easy access to contraception is a very important thing to keep your people healthy. Unwanted children and STD's are not good for a nation and you want to keep those contained as much as possible.
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;45254446]Contraceptives aren't just used for birth control. The pill is also used for: irregular periods, painful periods which can be debilitating enough to require sick days, periods that last longer than the usual 5-7 days, ovarian cysts, and a number of other health issues.[/QUOTE]
True, true. Many women in my family have had endometriosis, and pills helped a lot. I should have added that, sorry. Hopefully, Hobby Lobby will choose a plan that covers pills for those issues.
[QUOTE=Sableye;45254556]Corporations....are...treated as if they were a person...by law, that's why banks go bankrupt but not the CEO...
This case establishes with an earlier one that they also have religious belief,
The aca is just a side effect[/QUOTE]
Wrong! The ownership of Hobby Lobby could not chose a plan for their employees that did not include a contraceptive which they thought could cause an abortion. They did not like this because it went against their religion. This literally has nothing to do with all of the bullshit you said about corporations being people.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45254524]Could somebody enlighten me on why contraception is so necessary that it needs to be provided by insurance? Condoms at least are pretty damn cheap, and otherwise, there exists a thing called "self control".
they don't, the first amendment says literally nothing about corporations.[/QUOTE]
See my above post. Women will use them for health reasons other than preventing pregnancy.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45254524]Could somebody enlighten me on why contraception is so necessary that it needs to be provided by insurance? Condoms at least are pretty damn cheap, and otherwise, there exists a thing called "self control".
they don't, the first amendment says literally nothing about corporations.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;45254446]Contraceptives aren't just used for birth control. The pill is also used for: irregular periods, painful periods which can be debilitating enough to require sick days, periods that last longer than the usual 5-7 days, ovarian cysts, and a number of other health issues.[/QUOTE]
Also note how this only applies to contraceptive methods that could cause (in the opinion of the leadership of Hobby Lobby) an abortion. Those options were only 4 types of types of contraceptives that would have to be supplied, the other 16 were not objected to.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45254596]Also note how this only applies to contraceptive methods that could cause (in the opinion of the leadership of Hobby Lobby) an abortion. Those options were only 4 types of types of contraceptives that would have to be supplied, the other 16 were not objected to.[/QUOTE]
the leadership of hobby lobby doesn't get to decide what constitutes an abortion, you don't make a baby out of fucking popsicle sticks and pipe cleaners
i knew the company was garbage ever since the first time i went in one. it's literally full to the brim of christian iconography, it's super weird for a craft store
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;45254612]the leadership of hobby lobby doesn't get to decide what constitutes an abortion, you don't make a baby out of fucking popsicle sticks and pipe cleaners[/QUOTE]
No actually they should and that was what the Supreme Court just ruled.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45254620]No actually they should and that was what the Supreme Court just ruled.[/QUOTE]
They're not doctors. They don't get to decide what's good for the health of their employees, no matter what their religion says. The Supreme Court may have said that it's fine but that doesn't make it morally right. Remember the Supreme Court also originally upheld segregation and the ownership of black people as property
Doctors will always find loops around rulings like this. Women with legitimate health issues that require certain contraceptives will not be affected. The only ones who lost this battle were left wing authoritarians and loose Lucy sluts.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;45254646]They're not doctors. They don't get to decide what's good for the health of their employees, no matter what their religion says. The Supreme Court may have said that it's fine but that doesn't make it morally right. Remember the Supreme Court also originally upheld segregation and the ownership of black people as property[/QUOTE]
But the women who don't agree with this ruling can leave the company. Unlike blacks in the 1900s who could not escape segregation.
EDIT:
I don't see anyone rating me dumb making any arguments, care to explain?
[QUOTE=toaster468;45254651]But the women who don't agree with this ruling can leave the company. Unlike blacks in the 1900s who could not escape segregation.
EDIT:
I don't see anyone rating me dumb making any arguments, care to explain?[/QUOTE]
Your defending the rights of a corporation over that of its workers.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;45254646]They're not doctors. They don't get to decide what's good for the health of their employees, no matter what their religion says. The Supreme Court may have said that it's fine but that doesn't make it morally right. Remember the Supreme Court also originally upheld segregation and the ownership of black people as property[/QUOTE] They are a business, run by people who have the same rights as you and I. What you are promoting is corporations taking it up the ass by the government. I disagree with this with Hobby Lobby's decision because I believe we need more abortions, but they are within their right to deny contraceptive coverage for those who do not require it. Should I be granted protein shake coverage after a day at the gym?
[QUOTE=blacksam;45254286]We have literally arrived at the point where we let party supply stores tell women what to do with their bodies.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no? Pretty sure Hobby Lobby didn't tell the women who work there to go fuck without condoms.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.