U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception 1330
An anonymous reader writes In a legislative first, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that for-profit companies can, in essence, hold religious views. Given the Supreme Court's earlier decisions granting corporations the right to express political support through monetary donations, this ruling is not all that surprising. Its scope does not extend beyond family-owned companies where "there's no real difference between the business and its owners." It also only applies to the contraception mandate of the health care law. The justices indicated that contraceptive coverage can still be obtained through exceptions to the mandate that have already been introduced to accommodate religious nonprofits. Those exceptions, which authorize insurance companies to provide the coverage instead of the employers, are currently being challenged in lower courts.
The "closely held" test is pretty meaningless, since the majority of U.S. corporations are closely held.
Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:3, Insightful)
So I hope that a business can refuse to pay for it even without having to pretend to believe in an invisible man in the sky..
If not, I hope one of them sues, because the government is then preferring one religion over another.
(I think this, and many other things, should be paid for by the person themselves...)
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:4, Insightful)
you should learn to read
SCOTUS specifically said it has to be a closely knit ownership structure with a history of religious beliefs against abortion
just like aereo, this is a narrow ruling
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, then why can't I be a "closely knit ownership structure" (I did already hear that part today, btw) in the "Church of Money", and my church believes I shouldn't have to pay for things people can pay for themselves?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"3. You are too honest to invent a church just to cheat someone out of health care"
people not wanting to pay for someone else's health care is != to "just to cheat someone out of health care". when did it become acceptable to enslave people to the needs of others? i don't want to be beholden to your needs. i'm a free man and would like to just be left alone to live my life to the best of my ability. if you need help, ask nicely for it. stop using force to extract it from me at gun point. no matter how you
Re: (Score:3)
As for roads, most of them were made by private people and companies, long before government got involved.
Oregon Trail, subdivisions, and country roads are all from people and companies. Government took over roads that others had already put in place.
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:5, Insightful)
. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church
Try telling that to Scientologists. Or Mormons. Or Seventh Day Adventists. Or, for that matter, Catholics. All of them were invented at one point in the recent (or not so recent as the case may be) past.
The only thing that makes a church "legitimate" is that it has enough "followers" to be politically influential. Anything else is just post-facto rationalization.
Worship at the Church of Wal-Mart! (Score:4, Funny)
(This offer does not apply to purchases of contraceptives.)
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:5, Insightful)
you should learn to read
SCOTUS specifically said it has to be a closely knit ownership structure with a history of religious beliefs against abortion
just like aereo, this is a narrow ruling
It seems to me that companies owned by Scientology members can now opt-out of health insurance plans that include psychiatric treatments.
Or companies owned by Jehova's Witnesses can opt-out of health-insurance plans that include blood transfusions.
Or companies owned by Orthodox Jews can opt-out of plans that include medications derived from pork products.
Or companies owned by Hindus can opt-out of plans that include health products derived from cows.
We all want our friends and neighbors to have religious freedom. But when they become our employers, shouldn't there be a limit to their expression of it when it affects our access to health care?
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:4, Interesting)
(I think this, and many other things, should be paid for by the person themselves...)
That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? A month of generic birth control pills costs about $10/mo [reproductiveaccess.org]. Purchased in bulk, condoms are about $0.50/ea [amazon.com]. Both are readily available at no cost from a variety of sources for those who can't afford them. Setting aside the heated political debate, it seems foolish to route these sorts of purchases through your insurance company, with inevitable overhead, rather than simply purchasing them yourself.
Of course, low information voters on both sides eat this shit up. It's red meat for the bases of both political parties.
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:5, Informative)
That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? A month of generic birth control pills costs about $10/mo. Purchased in bulk, condoms are about $0.50/ea. Both are readily available at no cost from a variety of sources for those who can't afford them. Setting aside the heated political debate, it seems foolish to route these sorts of purchases through your insurance company, with inevitable overhead, rather than simply purchasing them yourself.
Great! The people least able to afford a pregnancy can only get the least-effective forms of birth control! Awesome! That's definitely not a bad idea.
Or we can offer them any method they want, including far more effective and foolproof ones (IUD, implant, etc.), all at the same cost, which is what the mandate is about.
Re:Not the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting hormonal birth control from a doctor other than your regular doctor means that those two doctors have to both have access to your medical records or both consult on any issues you might have
Isn't that the whole point of the push for EMRs? And what stops her from seeing the regular doc then getting the script filled at a clinic? Or just paying the $10/mo for it? My insurance company isn't giving me free condoms, and I don't have any get out of jail free cards made available to me if my birth control fails.
Condom breaks and the woman doesn't want a kid with the guy? She can take the morning after pill, get an abortion, or give the child up for adoption. Man doesn't want a child with this woman? Too bad asshole, we're going to confiscate 15% to 25% of your post-FICA earnings for the next 18 years, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, even if she broke the condom in the first place or lied about being on pills.
Re: (Score:3)
Your exception swallows your rule. Insurance companies do not decide what to offer in many cases -- they may only decide what to cover for high-end, elective or other (usually less-used) categories of treatments. If you look at what is required by your state's EHB benchmark [cms.gov], you will probably be surprised how much insurers are required to cover. For example, in Virginia, I cannot opt out of coverage for "Over the counter drugs; drugs used mainly for cosmetic purposes; Drugs for weight loss; Stop smoking
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:4, Insightful)
"should be paid for by the person themselves"
An employee's compensation comes in the form of direct wages and benefits that include medical insurance. One way or another the employer is paying for it.
Does the employer have a say in how the employee spends their direct wages? If not why is come compensation privileged and some not?
Does the employee receive some other compensation to make up for the reduced medical insurance coverage? If not why should some employers be entitled to compensate their employees less on the basis of religious beliefs?
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Medical insurance provided as compensation was essentially a dodge against wage controls - so yeah, ideally, we'd end the practice of employer-based insurance, and let people buy on the open market, or pay fee for service. COBRA portability was an attempt to deal with the problem, but the *real* issue is that employers shouldn't be in the business of providing insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
?
If you claimed to have a religious belief that you shouldn't pay for certain types of healthcare, you would be by definition, not an atheist.
As far as your odd plan to create a religion based on this belief... well go right ahead, but be prepared to act like a religion. Courts aren't stupid, and they aren't going to let you make up your sham religion for the sole purpose of evading the law. It's an old con, and the court system is wise to it.
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Healthcare is earned and part of pay. It is NOT paid for by the company. Another absurdity in this whole mess.
Re: (Score:3)
Distinction without much of a difference.
I disagree.
We could do this all day.
Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score:5, Informative)
Surely an atheist can believe that abortion is a murder and desire to have no part in it.
Atheists aren't psychopaths who wouldn't care either way.
Atheism (Score:5, Insightful)
Completely, 100% wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all it is. Anything else, *anything*, is an add on from some other idea. I'm absolutely, completely, atheist -- I hold no belief in a god or gods whatsoever -- but I am not opposed to religion, in fact, I can cite you chapter and verse as to many of the benefits religion brings, and has brought, to our society. I live in a church. What I am opposed to is any particular religion getting control of law and/or government. Because that has demonstrably caused harm almost without surcease. But again, even this is not a consequence of my position that the idea of god or gods is ridiculous, rather it is a consequence of my observation that every religiously influenced law I know of is extremely bad law, and furthermore, tends to favor group A over group B in such a way that there is no sane basis for it.
Theism: Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism: Without belief in a god or gods.
Re: (Score:3)
Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in a gods, goddess, etc.
Not believing in a deity means accepting on faith that the universe came into existence without the help of a deity.
Gee Catholic judges (Score:4, Insightful)
put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.
Religious fuckers are destroying this country.
Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score:5, Insightful)
put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.
Religious fuckers are destroying this country.
Meh. You are complaining about the symptom rather than the cause.
While I am not religious, I do respect the rights of religious people. It is unconscionable for them to be forced to provide benefits that are in opposition to their morals. However, I am in favor of ubiquitously available contraception (for everyone, not just women, I'm egalitarian that way...).
The real issue stems from the retarded decision back in the high income tax bracket era of the early 20th century that led to the IRS allowing health insurance premiums to be tax-deductible from payroll. That fucking brain damaged decision led to our current clusterfuck of employer-provided health care.
Fix the underlying cause, and this problem becomes a non-issue. I prefer the UK's approach, with public & private healthcare systems. Besides, do you really want to undermine the First Amendment simply to try to hack on yet another kludge for the collapsing employer-provided approach to health care in this country?
You can probably go a long way toward convincing the conservatives by pointing out that a large portion of our population is already on socialized healthcare programs that won't ever go away (Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, the VA, all governmental employees, et al) unless we replace them with universal healthcare, and that countries with socialized health care pay *less* in health care costs/taxes than we do for our "free market" (but not really) solution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I am in favor of ubiquitously available contraception (for everyone, not just women, I'm egalitarian that way...).
We had it before the ACA's mandate. 85% of group health plans provided it. Non-profits in all 50 States and many local governments make it available to those who can't afford it. The cost is not prohibitive even for those without insurance who don't wish to avail themselves of the aforementioned options.
The mandate was a solution looking for a problem, or if I'm more cynical, it was an effort to throw red meat at the base and distract them from the shitty economy. "Sure, we can't get you a job, but don
Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score:5, Informative)
We had it before the ACA's mandate. 85% of group health plans provided it. Non-profits in all 50 States and many local governments make it available to those who can't afford it. The cost is not prohibitive even for those without insurance who don't wish to avail themselves of the aforementioned options.
You're assuming all birth control methods are created equal. They aren't.
The pill is a comparatively poor method in terms of success rate (roughly 9%/year failure rate and needs to be taken religiously every day) compared to more recent methods, such as IUDs (0.2-0.8% failure rate, depending on type. Basically foolproof as they're insert-and-forget for 3+ years) and implants (0.05% (this is actually better than the success rate for tubal ligation), insert-and-forget for 4 years).
The mandate expanded the state of things from "Oh, you're poor, so you get the failure-prone pill because it's cheap" to "Take your pick of any method, they're all covered", which is a good thing. Saddling people who can least afford a child with the most failure-prone method for preventing that is a recipe for disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way you get a 9% per annum failure rate for oral contraceptives is if you don't take them. If taken correctly, they are more than 99% effective over a year. (Don't believe me? Ask these people [plannedparenthood.org].)
But hey, if laws are okay just because they make good policy, let us continue. A well-regulated Militia, being essential to the security of a free State, every adult citizen should be required to buy a pistol, a long gun, and keep in practice with both; if they do not pass an annual marksmanship test, th
Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that this was a side-effect of WW2.
During WW2, Wage and Price controls were put into effect for many industries.
Which left companies unable to attract talent by paying them more. So, some bright boy figured that he could offer free health insurance as a perk of the job (instead of higher pay).
By the time the dust of WW2 had settled, the current system of employer-provided health insurance was firmly established. Leading us inevitably to today....
Re: (Score:3)
While I am not religious, I do respect the rights of religious people. It is unconscionable for them to be forced to provide benefits that are in opposition to their morals. However, I am in favor of ubiquitously available contraception (for everyone, not just women, I'm egalitarian that way...).
I don't know. They are forced to pay for many things through taxes, which includes blood transfusion and the like.
If we define a minimum set of benefits for all citizens, noone should have the right to forbid them. It's not the corporation's right to decide how its employees will behave, it's the employee's right to decide not to use those benefits because it goes against the employee's religion.
Should an atheist be penalized because he works for a religious corporation?
Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you've made the same stupid leap the religious lobbisits want you to make.
Ah.
No doubt you would be fully in favor of laws to force Muslim employers to provide bacon to their employees as long as the majority votes that way. Or maybe a Supreme Court mandate in favor of forcing Jewish businesses to be open on Shabbat, or forcing Jewish restaurants to serve meat with dairy. I don't support any of these either, and those scenarios make just as much (non)sense as forcing employers to pay for employee contraception or abortion in violation of their conscience.
You have failed to establish a compelling rationale for why employers' beliefs need to be suppressed simply in order to provide birth control to people. Unlike many other aspects of politics, this is an artificial point of contention because these two positions are orthogonal in any rational scenario. In order for you to make a compelling argument in support of suppressing religious rights in this regard, you have to establish a rational basis for why these positions (i.e. availability of contraception and employer religious beliefs) are logically in tension.
You have fallen into the trap of believing that there are only two alternatives in this debate (suppressing religious beliefs or suppressing access to contraception). You are too blinded by your political agenda to realize you are defending the party line on a pointless wedge issue rather than advocating for a real solution: ending the employer-provided health insurance paradigm in this country.
Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score:5, Informative)
put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.
At least read a summary of the decision before opening your mouth and letting people know you didn't read.
This was NOT a constitutional decision, it has nothing to do with the constitution on either side. The constitutional issue was already decided in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith, in which is was decided that yes, the government can make laws that contradict religions.
In response to that, congress passed the RFRA [wikipedia.org] (which Clinton endorsed, incidentally). The law says that if there is a reasonable way to avoid impinging on someone else's religion, the government should do so. In this case, the court found that there are reasonable ways to avoid forcing people to do what they don't want (for example, the government could offer free contraception, or they could do with corporations what they've already done with non-profits).
In short, it wasn't a constitutional issue at all. It was a reconciliation between two laws that were passed by congress. If congress wants to change the law, they are free to do so.
Lots of people can't afford a movie a week (Score:3)
Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score:4, Informative)
It covers the four contraceptives to which Hobby Lobby objected. Those four contraceptives may have the ability to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus and, thus, Hobby Lobby's objection. Hobby Lobby had no objection to the other 16 contraceptives in the mandate and, in fact, had a long-standing practice of providing those contraceptives.
Re: (Score:3)
Its almost like less than 10% of the folks commenting here actually even clicked on the ruling.
But in good old internet style, that doesnt preclude them from commenting and making complete arses of themselves.
Re:Gee Catholic judges (Score:5, Informative)
Yes yes, No True Catholic.
If you started expunging all the insufficiently devout Catholics, there probably wouldn't be much left of the church when you were done. [www.cbc.ca]
Though that may not be a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
While I am not debating the point specifically about Sotomayor, but I do believe that "No True Scotsman" is applied too broadly.
If I claim to be a Scotsman, but yet I am not a citizen of Scotland, I am not Scottish, I have no Scottish ancestry, and I have never even visited Scotland, and then someone claims I am not actually a Scotsman at all, inevitably someone would try to counter with a canned "lololol No True Scotsman fallacy!" retort.
There are some basic aspects of definitions that are non-negotiable.
Re: (Score:3)
Religion properly exercised will govern every aspect of ones life since the primary purpose of religion is to teach us how to interact with each other and to exercise self-control. A religion not doing that is not worth the time.
Thou shalt not kill (Score:5, Interesting)
My religion says that killing is wrong. Can I refuse to pay the percentage of taxes which goes to the military?
Re:Thou shalt not kill (Score:4, Funny)
No. That cuts into Dick Cheney's scratch.
Bad media coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
To start with Hobby lobby was NOT against contraceptives, and offered it to their employees. They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".
Avoiding the truth was a plan to harass and go after them using media bias, much like Chick-fil-A was attacked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.
Re:Bad media coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.
Were there any documented cases of Chic-Fil-A refusing to serve someone because they were gay? Refusing to hire someone because they were gay? Attacking someone because they were gay?
LK
Re:Bad media coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.
Were there any documented cases of Chic-Fil-A refusing to serve someone because they were gay? Refusing to hire someone because they were gay? Attacking someone because they were gay?
LK
Since the guy you're actually asking seems to be uninterested in answering, I'll answer for you.
The answers are "no", "no", and "no".
What happened was that the president of Chik-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, expressed an opinion on same-sex marriage that was exactly what Barack Obama had expressed just a couple of years earlier and that HIllary Clinton had also expressed. Oddly, only one of these three people were harassed for their opinion.
Oddly, it happens to be the one of the three with the least power to effect any change in regard to the subject matter at hand. But, he doesn't claim to be a "Democrat", which is an allegiance which absolves one from all responsibility and repercussions from their opinions.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
slippery slope argument (Score:3)
Everyone uses the slippery slope argument in politics and the media... Even on /.
IMO, this whole fuss on Plan B is kind of a crock. It costs about $50 at a drug store (you can get it over the counter and buy it with a downloadable $10-off coupon) with a $35 generic available. Comparatively, a birth control pill runs anywhere from $10-$100 (but mostly commonly hovers around $20 and mail order saves you about $5) and generally requires a prescription to be covered in a health plan (because they will make yo
WTF rich people? (Score:5, Insightful)
You bitch about paying for welfare kids, and you bitch about women not wanting kids to abort them. PICK ONE AND STFU!
Re: (Score:3)
Or, you know, we can have a discussion about rational solutions.
Companies don't pay for healthcare, workers do (Score:5, Insightful)
Healthcare is a form of compensation, just like your wages, your employer can not tell you how to spend your wages, why can they tell me what healthcare services I can utilize? Also, companies don't "pay" for healthcare like its some sort of charity they generously give to there subjects, employees pay for it themselves by providing work for the company!
Re: (Score:3)
And before Obamacare, employers had more discretion over what was offered in the plan they are compensating you with. Even after Obamacare they still have discretion just slightly less. This whole case was about where to draw the line on how much discretion. Do you honestly believe that employers negotiating for a plan on your behalf have absolutely no options other than which company to sign up with?
Let the floodgates open (Score:3)
If people want a government run on religious lines instead of for everyone there's one setting up in the middle of Iraq and Syria about now.
Insurance and Employment (Score:5, Insightful)
Coupling the two has always been a cluster fuck. This is just one more reason to abolish this particular linkage.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
on the one hand it means religions, er, corporations, can discriminate against everything from blood transfusions to births without circumcision,
No it doesn't......the court decision is fairly clear why this reducto ad absurdum would be ruled out under the law.
it also means the opinion shreds whatâ(TM)s known as the corporate veil (the principle that establishes a corporation as a distinct entity from its owners or shareholders).
No it doesn't, as much as you'd like it to. There are plenty of cases where the 'corporate veil' provides no protection.....for example, a corporation can't protect a murderer, and after SOX, it can't protect against many types of financial malfeasance either. If you're a CEO, you still can go to jail.
Praise Thor for this Ruling! (Score:5, Funny)
As a follower of THOR, the God of Thunder, I have been forced to operate my business in a manner which directly contradicts my faith. Government mandated building codes have forced me to maintain so-called safe electrical wiring so that my employees don't get electrocuted. I sincerely believe that this is merely a way for the faithless cowards to avoid Thor's judgment. You see, if you die of electrocution, it means that you have offended the Thunderer and have been righteously smitten by his divine will.
Thor asks little of us, save that we provide an offering of mead to him at each meal. Yet most of my foolish employees would deny him even this small request. That I'm forced to provide buildings which shield these wicked individuals with safe, modern, electrical wiring is a troubling incursion upon my religious freedoms as a business owner. I feared that if I continued to follow the Government's secular laws, that I would be denied access to Valhalla.
Thanks to the Supreme Court's wise decision today, Obama and all of the witless cretins in my employ shall soon feel the wrath of Thor's mighty hammer, Mjolnir!
Praise be to Thor!
Story passes off propaganda as simple reporting (Score:3)
Those exceptions, which authorize insurance companies to provide the coverage instead of the employers
If ever there were a case of smoke-and-mirrors, this is it. Saying that the insurer, not the company paying for the policy, is (wink, wink) paying for a benefit offered to the insured under the policy, a benefit the insurer does not simply give away to all comers, is transparently absurd. Whatever you may think about forcing companies to pay for policies that cover particular things, at least be honest about it.
28th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution - All rights specified in the Constitution of the United States and all Amendments thereto shall apply to Natural Persons only.
We can call it the Commonsense clause.
Re:A win for freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now one philosophy is paramount in the eyes of the law.
The philosophy of liberty has only gotten a small win here. One step forward for every two steps back.
Re:A loss for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be meaningful if any of the following were false:
To my mind, this money belongs to the employees as part of their health benefits package, and the employees should have the ultimate decision on how money is spent on their health.
Distinct DNA (Score:4, Insightful)
the idea of "when life starts" which is a philosophical, not a scientific problem
Pro-life scientists point out that an embryo is a distinct organism because it has distinct DNA. The life associated with that DNA thus begins when sperm meets egg.
Re:Distinct DNA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see these same scientists doing research to prevent the high number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant (so called self-abortions). These are all unique "organisms" according to this philosophy. If birth control causes fertilized eggs to pass through, and they naturally do this quite often, then we should rush to research how to prevent all of these natural abortions, right?
Instead, you see nothing about this. That's because they don't give a ... about the fertilized eggs at all.
Re:Distinct DNA (Score:5, Insightful)
A blade of grass is a distinct organism. Would you then never walk on a lawn?
A single sperm or egg has DNA, regardless of fertilization. Those sperm have relatively equal potential, too, but too bad for them that last little bit of motion by the coupling partners that made sperm number 43,235,22 win the race. Are you a mass murderer for those sperm that don't meet and proceed to spawn a new organism? Of course not. It's not about DNA.
And further, the question isn't, or at least should not be, about "life." That's just too simplistic to be useful unless you're quite insane. Moss is alive. Bacteria are alive. Etc, ad infinitum. What are you going to do, off yourself so you can't interfere with any of them?
The question is, and or at least definitely should be, are you doing harm to something that can suffer? here's the key issue: Does it have a nervous system, and does that nervous system couple to something sophisticated enough to convert those signals into suffering?
Just think about it. The question's really not that difficult, and you don't have to invoke either the hucksterism of philosophy or the juju of religion to resolve it cleanly and ethically.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the idea of "when life starts" which is a philosophical, not a scientific problem
Pro-life scientists point out that an embryo is a distinct organism because it has distinct DNA. The life associated with that DNA thus begins when sperm meets egg.
Then pro-life scientists are abusing scientific terminology to justify their philosophy.
Distinct DNA (Score:3)
The egg comes first, the chicken later. (Score:4, Interesting)
Is a baby chicken a baby chicken when the fertilized egg/sperm combo has divided into 16 cells, none of which have differentiated, none of which are nerves, spine, brain, eye, etc.?
The answer to that -- obviously, unless you're utterly bewildered or completely ignorant of the process itself -- is no. It's not philosophical; it's fact-based science. A potato is more sophisticated. Its cells even have more chromosomes than humans do.
The line is blurry, all right, but it isn't blurry at conception (that's not a person OR a chicken) and it isn't blurry anywhere near term (that IS a person or a chicken.) The blurry part, that's the real problem, because the determination needs to be based on something rational and functionally able to ensure we do not do unintended harm or harm in ignorance. Religious hucksterism aside, there are readily determinable progressions in the process that cross various well defined lines.
Personally, I view it this way: If the organism doesn't have a differentiated nervous system, at best, it is directly comparable in its current state to plant life. As soon as it does, however, you've got animal life, and now we've crossed a line where the well-being of something that can feel is at stake.
The entire argument is muddied by the concept of potential; I agree potential is there, but it was also there for every sperm that missed the mark and every egg that remained unfertilized.
So -- were I able to make it so, which is not only not the case but laughably far from the case -- I'd draw the line for abortion that is not directly amelioration for serious health risk to the mother, or a consequence of known problems with the growing organism (no brain, etc.) right where the nervous system begins to develop such that there are actual nerves present.
Re:A win for freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
earned benefits are the property of the employee. There were already mechanisms in the ACA that would have shielded an employer from "paying" for abortion. But an employer has no more right to say how an employee uses a benefit as they do their earned money. This decision will not stand the test of time. It will fall in a like manner that the Bowers v. Hardwick case was revisited and overturned decades later with the majority opinion admitting the SCOTUS had been "wrong".
Re:A win for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
But an employer has no more right to say how an employee uses a benefit as they do their earned money.
Oh, really? They do it all the time. An employer's very choice to give you a particular defined benefit rather than the money they pay for it is itself saying how you can use it. Just try to get a large employer to give you the money in lieu of the benefit. Or even to buy a different kind of insurance plan than the one they dictate. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why they weren't arguing over how the employee exercised the benefit but whether the employer had to provide the benefit. Not the same argument at all.
Re:A win for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite.
The law requires, as part of that "minimum level of coverage" that preventive healthcare to be covered by all insurance plans at zero out of pocket cost. ie, no copays, no cost sharing, no coinsurance, etc. Instead they are paid out of premiums only. One of those preventitive things is contraception.
So if a company buys a plan for its employees, it much meet those minimums.
Hobby Lobby objected to the requirement for contraception.
The legal way out for HL was just NOT PROVIDE INSURANCE, in which another part of the law would kick in, and the employees, having no employer sponsored plan, would then be eligible for subsidies on the exchange, and the company would pay a pentaly (the stick of the carrot/stick approach in the law to incentivizing companies into sponsoring insurance; the carrot is the massive tax break they get for it).
But HL didnt want to pay a penalty.
And HL also still wanted their tax break.
So, HL still wanted to ffer insurance....just without meeting the minimum requirements.
HL wanted all the benefits of hte law, without the requirements of it.
They wanted their cake, and to eat it too.
And unfortunately for the country, they got it.
Re:A win for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
And one of those types are IUDs. My wife has one of those to regulate endometriosis which can be quite painful to deal with. Her doctors recommended using it instead of the normal birth control pills (which she has tried in the past) and it works. The fact that this works as birth control is a side benefit. (We already have 2 kids and don't want/can't afford any more.) However, this ruling would give an employer the right to say "we object to this because of 'religious reasons' so we're not going to cover it in your employer provided health care." Then, if we wanted this device to manage my wife's medical condition, we'd be forced to pay full cost out of pocket.
However, if I needed "little blue pills" and was employed at Hobby Lobby, they would be more than happy to provide them to me. They also see nothing wrong in investing in the contraception companies in their 401K. Apparently, making money off of "godless abortion pills" is perfectly fine religiously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They can still get the drug. hobby Lobby pays them and they are free to us that money or any other money they have. What they cannot do is ask Hobby Lobby to buy it for them. Ginsburg's theatrics aside, nobody is telling anyone they cannot have access to the drug. My insurance plan has all kinds of drugs listed that they will cover and mentions others that it won't. Why should these particular drugs be anymore special in the eyes of the law?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I's insurances, IT goes into a pool. Telling people they can't use it because of someone else's religion is THE single most unConstitutional thing they could have done.
IT's not freedom, it's religious zealotry. This is the same shit that change the mideast from a open democracy in the 40-5 and 50s into the religious cluster fuck it is now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I misunderstood.
Who said the employee couldn't use contraception? The employee is still free to obtain and use contraception on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair. In addition to the employee purchasing (or using the provisions) for the contraception, then they are also free to work in another with/without religious beliefs who will purchase it.
Re: A win for freedom (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the government denied you the right to seek an abortion or forced you to have an abortion against your religious beliefs, yes, it would likely be be unconstitutional in most cases. That's not the case here.
BTW, I'm an atheist and have no moral problem with abortion. However, as an civil libertarian, I want the government to keep their nose out of religious issues whenever it's feasible. If I want my employer provided insurance to cover abortion, I should ask about that before joining the company and go t
Re: A win for freedom (Score:3)
bad business move, but good principle. We just got the decision that a black baker has to make a cake for the KKK, and that's very wrong. If some Muslims have to be allowed to be stupid to prevent that case, then it's OK for us to be tolerant of their foolishness - nobody says we have to like it.
Re:A win for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately we can extend that to a variety of things. Do your 'sincerely held religious beliefs' outlaw blood transfusions? Looks like your exployees are going to be paying for that themselves. Organ transplants? I'm sure insurance companies would love that. Like many things, the problem isn't the scenario at hand. Its the precedent and how it will be abused.
Bloodless surgery (Score:3)
Do your 'sincerely held religious beliefs' outlaw blood transfusions? Looks like your exployees are going to be paying for that themselves.
A health insurance plan tuned for the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses [jw.org] would still pay for blood substitutes [slashdot.org], iron supplements, and other expenses associated with bloodless surgery [wikipedia.org]. Some insurers might prefer bloodless surgery anyway because it keeps the insurer from having to pay for units of blood and pay to treat blood-borne diseases.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately we can extend that to a variety of things. Do your 'sincerely held religious beliefs' outlaw blood transfusions? Looks like your exployees are going to be paying for that themselves. Organ transplants? I'm sure insurance companies would love that.
No, you are wrong. The court case explains why these things would not be allowed. This is just ignorant fear-mongering.
Re:A win for freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Ignorance of the rankest degree.
1) They aren't free.
The law simply requires that any plan offered by a company must meet some set of minimum coverage. Among that was a requirement that all preventative healthcare must have zero cost sharing or copays. IE, paid for entirely by premiums, no out of pocket cost when you go to get them done. Why? Because preventitive care and tests are a helluva lot cheaper than the alternatives. And that included basic contraception.
2) They never paid for it in the first place.
You, the employee did, via your premiums.
But, you say, "the employer kicks in funds" .... yes, funds that you earned by your work and accepted in lieu of additional wages. It's a basic economic truth that those funds the employer kicks are YOURS not the employer's. The are two reason for the employer to engage in this behaviour: 1) Tax breaks (which the ACA further enhanced) to incentivize it, and 2) the employer, essentially buying insurance in bulk can get a better price as compared to if every employee bought insurance individually.
3) This decision is exceptionally broad. It breaks the corporate viel rendering it meaningless. They say it's limited to JUST contraceptives (and thus, religious ideas agaisnt vaccines and bloodtransfusions are in theory not allowed, and thus THOSE mandatory coverages must still occur)...but that's actually quite doubtful. This is the first step down the road of "Bob, I didn't see you at morning prayers. I really need to be there on time."
This is not a step towards freedom and if you believe that, you're an idiot.
a few hundred years earlier than that (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a few hundred years before that when corporations were created as legal persons who could purchase ships, undertake voyages, be sued, etc.
The whole idea of a corporation is that me, you, and a hundred other people can pool our resources to do something big, such as buying and outfitting a ship (or ISP), and if something went wrong a creditor could take the ship and its cargo, but you wouldn't be risking your house. As a legal person, the corporation could be sued, rather than filing 100 law suits against each of the individual investors, none of which could pay the judgement.
Re:a few hundred years earlier than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. It is a good idea going completely out of control. I am for corporations having legal rights, but it was intended to be limited.
When you say corporations have the same legal rights as people, you're giving them the cake and letting them eat it, too. Saying they ARE people is a power grab, and all of a sudden there is no trade off for the idea of limited liability.
Again... the idea that corporations can have religion is absurd. The limited liability company makes profit their religion. The door is wide open for all types of abuse. The right wing anti-gay zealots are already lining up to use this decision to try to roll back civil rights gains.
Supreme Court did *not* say corps are people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying they ARE people is a power grab ...
The US Supreme Court did **not** say that corporations are people. A spokesperson for the losing side in the court case gratuitously characterized the decision that way, in other words it was just political spin on the decision.
What the Court actually said is that
(1) Groups of people have the same free speech rights are individual persons.
(2) It doesn't matter what the nature of the group of people is; corporation, labor union, public interest group, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Saying they ARE people is a power grab ...
The US Supreme Court did **not** say that corporations are people. A spokesperson for the losing side in the court case gratuitously characterized the decision that way, in other words it was just political spin on the decision.
What the Court actually said is that
(1) Groups of people have the same free speech rights are individual persons.
(2) It doesn't matter what the nature of the group of people is; corporation, labor union, public interest group, etc.
I actually interpreted it a slightly different way, but the difference is important.
They specifically stated that "closely held" corporations could hold this exemption. To point, these are corporations that have a very small number of owners indeed. The way I see it, the intent is this: the people who own the corporation do not wish to have the resources of that corporation...which they themselves own and govern...used for purposes that conflict with their moral views. We're not talking IBM or Google her
Myth: Corp shields you from company failure (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, if your own skin isn't in the game (your personal assets are shielded from your failed company), it isn't "your" business anymore.
Financially shielding yourself from company failure is one thing, and its also a myth to a degree. Losing your constitutionally protected right to speech because you are now part of an organization is something completely different.
Regarding the myth of being shielded from company failure. Go start a corporation. Now try to get a company credit card or other line of credit, the bank will require a personal guarantee on that card or credit line. The closely held corporations (5 or fewer people) that this ruling applies to general have skin in the game.
It takes a long and close working relationship before a bank will offer credit purely secured by company assets.
Re: (Score:3)
The solution to the problem is to not incorporate. Then one can run the business however they want.
Keep in mind that a corporation is a government-created entity in the first place. The charters are granted by state or federal government. Essentially, they can (should) set the rules by which the corporation's extra-legal benefits are given.
Essentially, if your own skin isn't in the game (your personal assets are shielded from your failed company), it isn't "your" business anymore.
When most of these corporations first formed, the form of contraception being discussed in this case didn't exist. So...you're saying that if anyone incorporates, they should be willing to accept the consequences of anything that technology may come up with in the future? Um...no. That's not how rights work, and starting a business does not deprive someone of their rights.
Re:Supreme Court did *not* say corps are people .. (Score:5, Informative)
I take this to mean you would have no problem with this ruling if instead of Hobby Lobby, the plaintiff had been a business that was not incorporated and whose owners, on religious grounds, objected to providing "morning after" contraceptive products to their employees?
This belief is based, it appears, on the notion that corporations, unlike natural persons, don't have "rights". Is that correct?
However, this case was not decided on Constitutional grounds (i.e., the Free Exercise clause had nothing to do with the case) so "Constitutional rights" have nothing to do with it. It was decided based on the terms of Federal statutory law - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) which raised the bar with respect to the level of justification the Federal needs to intrude on a person's religious beliefs coupled with the Dictionary Act's well known definition of how all Federal legislation is to be interpreted.
The RFRA refers to 'persons' without, as far as I can tell, any qualification to exclude corporations so the portion Dictionary Act which specifies
applies and the therefore the protections in the RFRA apply to corporations as well.
This is a simple question of legislative interpretation and there appears to be little room for debate. There is much yammering about the effect of the decision, but the court's should not, in a matter of statutory law, pay much attention to that and clearly should not override the legislators except in response to Constitutional issues or cases where there is ambiguity, conflict, or vagueness in the law which they must resolve because the legislative process did not.
If it is the will of the people to neuter this opinion, it can be done the same way the RFRA and Dictionary Act were instituted and amended over time -- via the legislative process. If that doesn't happen, then in a democratic society we can safely assume that it is not the will of the governed to do so.
Re:Supreme Court did *not* say corps are people .. (Score:4, Informative)
Hobby Lobby's owners find it religiously objectionable to provide health care to its female employees that includes birth control.
Completely untrue. Hobby Lobby provides 16 different types of contraception to its employees.
Here's their statement:
"The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
How outrageous!
Re:Supreme Court did *not* say corps are people .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but a corporation is not "just" a group of people.
If a group of people breach a contract, you can sue them and they will have to pay you back from their own assets. If a corporation breaches a contract, you can only touch corporate assets.
If a group of people dump toxins into the environment, they can be personally fined and put in jail. If a corporation dumps toxins into the environment, the corporation pays a fine and the people who initiated the dumping don't get touched.
If a group of people destroy the economy through fraud, they can be fined and put in jail. If a corporation destroys the economy through fraud, it gets a slap on the wrist from the SEC.
The law treats corporations differently from "groups of people" in many respects. One of those respects should be their rights. The underlying people have the same rights as before, but the corporation -- as its own entity -- need not have all the same rights as those people.
Re: (Score:3)
One question;
How does "free speech" translate into "depriving people of medical benefits"?
The first is conceptual and raising a concern, the second is a fucking benefit, and people having babies and getting abortions is offensive to the Godly, women unwed is offensive to the Godly, and being fucking poor is obviously offensive because God must hate them.
Sorry, I was just showing my free speech. If I had acted like these religious a-holes, I'd be saying that your medical policy will not cover Cancer, because
Law applies to persons and corporations ... (Score:5, Informative)
How does "free speech" translate into "depriving people of medical benefits"?
No one claimed it does. Someone used the false meme from the citizens united decision that corporations are people. I respond to that. Apologies for not being clear.
And NO this is a situation where a Corporation is treated as a person -- or a "group of people".
Not really. This seems to be a situation where a law applies to both corporations and people. As other posters have pointed out the Dictionary Act states that legislation that applies to persons also applies to corporations and other organizations if this legislation does not define its scope, and since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not define any such scope it applies to corporations as well as persons.
So its seems to boil down to whether a corporation can hold a religious belief. The hobby lobby decisions seems to say that closely held corporations (5 or fewer owners) where the owners share a common religious belief would count as a corporation holding such belief.
If you incorporate -- for that benefit, you leave your provincial ideas behind.
Apparently not if there are 5 or fewer owners who share the same belief. In most such cases this would basically be a family owned business.
Re:a few hundred years earlier than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Again... the idea that corporations can have religion is absurd.
Corporations are groups of people getting together under a charter. Many corporations are based in religion and conscience. Many for profit corporations have elements of religion and conscience. Non profits are generally incorporated as well.
It's funny. Progressives complain that corporations only worship profit, and then when they act on other values, they demand they only worship profit.
But now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are people too. [wikipedia.org]
As in the Citizen's United case, this ruling is a complete perversion of constitutional rights on the American Public, and both as abominable as Plessy v. Ferguson. Here's the train of logic that the majority took:
1) Take a piece of legislation [wikipedia.org] originally designed to protect sacred American Indian worship sites, though more broadly individual religious freedoms,
2) And extend those freedoms to corporations with this hocus-pocus incantation: "The purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees." (573 U.S. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Syllabus, pg. 3)
And while I was never a fan of Ginsburg in my younger years, given the recent evolution of the SCotUS, that opinion is rapidly changing, especially when she has this to say on the matter (573 U.S. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg dissent, pg. 14):
Until this (Citizens United) litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law...the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” (Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 [1819]).
Should just rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution now to read, "We the Corporations of the United States..."
Citizens United did **not** say corp are people... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Citizens_United" Corporations are people too.
In the Citizens United case the US Supreme Court did **not** say that corporations are people. A spokesperson for the losing side in the court case gratuitously characterized the decision that way, in other words it was just political spin on the decision.
What the Court actually said is that
(1) Groups of people have the same free speech rights as individual persons.
(2) It doesn't matter what the nature of the group of people is; corporation, labor union, public interest group, etc -- any organization will do.
Re:A win for freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporations have ONE religion, and that is to make as much money as possible.
Except many of them don't, of their own choice. They put their profits into humanitarian endeavors. Especially corporations such as the one that owns Hobby Lobby., where the owners' religious beliefs preclude a lavish lifestyle.
They are under common law obligations to screw over people to do so.
This has been stated on this board repeatedly, and it is completely incorrect. The person who explained the court case to you was either lying to you, functionally illiterate and unable to make sense of a court paper, or simply parroting lies that had been said to them earlier. Please read Dodge v Ford Motor Company, and stop parroting this lie to others.
Tto say they have religious convictions is absurdity at its finest.
You obviously have to clue what is actually the case here, with this corporation. As a non-religious person myself, I find it unfortunate that your own feelings about religion override your sensibilities.
Watch the abuse begin. It's the latest slip down the slippery slope started in 1800s when the absurd idea of "Corporate Personhood" started.
Watch the abuse that tries to begin get slapped down instantly, since this ruling stated it is only covering this one particular aspect of the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandate.
Re: (Score:3)
New here, then? That kind of moderation is not only common, there are times it comes from those in control of the site. Just read the rules: They have infinite mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them. Your post suddenly take a multi-point drop? You know it isn't a normal moderator.
This is why they never fix the mod system. If confers limitless, attribution-free power on site operators. They love it.
The good news? You can read at -1 and ignore moderation completely. :)
Re:I'm ok with this (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll be cool with the ACA mandating equal pricing for the genders when my auto insurance company is held to the same standard [esurance.com].
Shakrai, male, 32, 790 FICO score, zero moving violations, zero accidents, six month premium for 2012 Honda Civic: $450
Shakrai's ex-gf, female, 31, 710 FICO score, three moving violations, two at fault accidents, six month premium for 2011 Honda Civic: $390
Same liability limits, I had higher physical damage deductibles, and a 10% discount for defensive driver training that she lacked, both through Progressive.
I wonder when the big man at 1600 Pennsylvania is going to fix this gender disparity?
Re:Statistics. (Score:4, Informative)
Health insurance companies have actuarial evidence just as strong as auto insurance companies do. The only real difference is that governments haven't (yet) told auto insurance companies that they must provide subsidies from some specific groups to others.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn. I was waiting for this since around noon.
It does make for lively debate, even though half the posts are simply wrong. ;^)
Re: (Score:3)
...and the other half are mistaken.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pregnancy: it takes two to happen, but it's always the woman's fault.
And the resultant expense is always the man's responsibility.
LK