Monday, 30 June 2014

Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling: Corporations can impose religious beliefs on employees

quote [ In the main dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsberg called it "a decision of startling breadth," saying that the court's ruling means "commercial enterprises ... can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." ]

No surprise really, given the SCOTUS majority's inclination towards 'corporate personhood'.
[SFW] [politics] [+9 WTF]
[by sanepride@2:48pmGMT]

Comments

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:14pm GMT on 30th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
This is why it matters who is president.
Dumbledorito said @ 4:25pm GMT on 30th Jun [Score:1 Sad]
B-b-b-but both parties are the SAAAAAAME!
foobar said @ 6:10pm GMT on 30th Jun
If it matters who is president, then your constitution is insufficiently strong.
sanepride said @ 6:19pm GMT on 30th Jun
It has nothing to do with the 'strength' of the Constitution, but with its delegation of powers and assumptions of their use. I'd argue that the unfettered lifetime terms of Supreme Court justices is a big issue, as well as the current politicization of their appointments. Considering how difficult it is to amend the Constitution, it's possible it's too strong.
lilmookieesquire said @ 7:28pm GMT on 30th Jun
There's push and pull between all branches if government- but long time goo strategy has been to keep the SCOTUS on their side.

Traditionally conservative appointees have mellowed out overtime. (Conner is a nice example) but Scalia and Thomas especially are politicized and allied with the GOP to the point of going to their meet and greets etc. Also, SCOTUS judges are getting younger and younger.

The problem isn't with the potus, it's with SCOTUS, but the whole point of SCOTUS is that they should be immune from public pressure and party ideology so they can do their job.

But lifetime appointments were when a life expectancy was like 50 tops. They was suppose to be slightly more turnaround.
HoZay said @ 8:42pm GMT on 30th Jun [Score:1 Interesting]
A hack POTUS will appoint hacks to SCOTUS.
arrowhen said @ 8:48pm GMT on 30th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
Banana-fanna fo FOTUS.
damnit said @ 1:58am GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
I think it was a bad ruling. I don't think the government should recognize a corporation as an entity that has a religion. BUT. I also think the hype is ridiculous.

Hobby lobby is already offering birth control. They just don't think they should be mandated to pay for the morning after pill, since they believe it is an 'abortion pill'. Fair enough. Silly, I think, but "I don't want to have to pay for your chemical abortion. If you want one, you can pay for it yourself." Seems like a reasonable enough request.

People are all up in arms about how this is Armageddon and the SCOTUS has declared war on women, but really, it's making a mountain out of a mole hill. Women still have access to everything they had access to before. Nobody has shut anything off. Hobby Lobby was never paying the morning after pill any way. The only change is, now, they aren't being forced to START paying for it.

The left's screaming bloody murder about this is as if they all got jobs at Christian companies (who currently don't pay for the shit now anyway) and now are going to be bankrupt because they have to pay for their own pills... well, it's only cementing the reputation of progressives as a bunch of self-entitled whiners.

Pick your spots.
Dumbledorito said @ 5:02am GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Since I help support every church that registers with the government, I'd say any church that a CEO who doesn't pay for any medical treatment on religious grounds attends or tithes/donates to should lose their tax-free status.

Fair's fair.
Bob Denver said @ 6:32am GMT on 1st Jul
I would also add that any company that doesn't want to support birth-control (plans A, B, C....Z) should be required to provide parents proper maternity and paternity leave, daycare at their expense and also provide parents with fully-paid emergency time-off for child sickness etc.
Bob Denver said @ 6:36am GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
It's an especially bad ruling because it opens up discrimination to LGBT, alcohol-consuming, pork-consuming, dog-owning and other activities forbidden by all recognised religions ad absurdum
King Of The Hill said @ 5:06pm GMT on 1st Jul
Except that in their ruling the justices made clear that the ruling should not be interpreted as such. THat the ruling was specific to contraception in this case.
HoZay said @ 5:40pm GMT on 1st Jul
They said it was specific to contraception, but didn't say why. That looks like a loophole for other fake religious nuts.
Bob Denver said @ 6:29pm GMT on 1st Jul
True, but look how the interpretation of your 2nd Amendment has evolved. This ruling creates a slick surface and opens challenges to other behaviours in the future.
damnit said @ 6:32pm GMT on 1st Jul
And there's already a large lobby for it just like the NRA. The only question now is if SCOTUS will keep their word and not be done in with a stranglehold.
sanepride said @ 11:39pm GMT on 1st Jul
Except that what the justices "made clear" is still subject to legal extrapolation. The way it actually works is that the decision itself supersedes the commentary accompanying it. The ultimate interpretation of the decision is still decided on a case-by-case basis, hence Justice Ginsburg's ominous warning in her dissent.
sanepride said @ 4:19am GMT on 1st Jul
I think the alarm is warranted, and goes way beyond Hobby Lobby and their specific issues. The ruling basically allows 'closely held' companies to impose restriction on employee health care and possibly other behaviors based on their own religious doctrine. Some 52% of the US workforce is employed by companies that fit the definition of 'closely held'. Justice Ginsburg's dissent states the potential dangers of the ruling quite clearly.
bobolink said @ 11:04am GMT on 1st Jul
I disagree. I think Congress tied SCOTUS hands with RFRA. Further, the alarm is unwarranted by the specific language of the opinion, which limits it to only these types of contraception where alternatives to the governments interest, which the court recognizes as valid, are available.

Given that, what are we to make of the liberal members of the court, the female members of the court, and particularly Ginsberg, raising an alarm that is just not there?

Naruki said @ 11:45am GMT on 1st Jul
Nothing to be "made of" them because your assertions are wrong. Completely.
bobolink said @ 1:48pm GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Assertion Number One: That this opinion is about RFRA. It is all over the opinion. If you cannot find it you are helpless.

Assertion Number Two: That this opinion is limited: 3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which up-held the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate.Pp. 45–49

Perhaps I am wrong. Completely, I don't think so.
sanepride said @ 11:48pm GMT on 1st Jul
I'll give you credit for your analysis but I'm sorry to say you are wrong, mostly if not completely. See my response to KOTH above. The 'limitation' stated by Justice Alito is not binding, it's still subject to interpretation. As for Justice Ginsburg, it's easy to dismiss her ominous dissent as ideology, but she is also a highly accomplished legal scholar.
As for RFRA, it's already being used to justify wider forms of discrimination. I wouldn't bet on it being narrowly applied to only certain forms of contraception in this case.
bobolink said @ 4:21am GMT on 2nd Jul
Thank you for the credit. But I still disagree. Your argument is based on a sort of reductio ad absurdum, i.e., the opinion is open to interpretation therefore everything is on the table. With the fluid nature of the way courts make law in the US, I would be hard pressed to object to that; however, it would be difficult to have a reasoned discussion were we to include the ways the opinion might be interpreted in the future. The opinion does say what it says and should someone attempt to interpret it differently, the obvious response is to quote the opinion. Commentary may not be binding but it is highly persuasive. Judge Bohunk may choose to rule outside of the courts full opinion but the practical application of that would be nil.

In a different form of flawed argument, you pick your reference to authority in Justice Ginsberg. She certainly is an accomplished legal scholar and I do not dismiss her. Let's not forget that all of the Justice's are highly accomplished legal scholars regardless of their ideological bend.

As for RFRA, my personal opinion is that it is an abomination. My only point with regard to it is that it is the law that forced the opinion.

Finally, this is not science or math, it's law. The law is a contrivance. No one is wrong where the law is concerned. It is win or lose. You lose, you find another plaintiff and you try another judge. So can we refrain from the 'You're wrong' thing?
sanepride said @ 7:59pm GMT on 2nd Jul
Just to clarify- my argument is based on legal analysis. The legal fact is that Alito's guidelines are just that. They are not binding on actual interpretation of the decision.
HoZay said @ 1:56am GMT on 3rd Jul
Naruki said @ 11:50am GMT on 1st Jul
Viagra paid for, birth control is not.

Calling birth control "abortion pill" is NOT "fair enough". Neither is calling Creationism a "theory".

The pill has more usage than preventing birth. The pill is excessively expensive to the point most women who really need it cannot afford it. The effects on society of not allowing easy access to the pill are far more costly.


Seriously, there is just so much in your comment that shows your head so far up your ass you could French kiss Alito.
damnit said @ 3:48pm GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Hobby Lobby already offers contraception. They always have. They don’t currently offer the morning after pill. They never have. So what’s changed? Nothing. Only a few are FDA-approved and some are used to induce abortion. For the most part, they either delay ovulation, interfere with fertilization or prevent the implantation of fertilized egg in the uterus. They don’t want to be forced to start paying for the morning after pill – because they think it’s a chemical abortion, and they don’t feel right supporting abortion. Okay, fair enough. No point in dragging a 30 year “what is abortion and is it ethical” debate into this – the courts will end up splitting hairs and nobody’s going to agree any way. If you want to work there… either take advantage of the god damn birth control (WHICH THEY OFFER) or buy your own “oops I got drunk and fucked a loser and don’t want to get pregnant” pill as the need arises – especially if you’re making $15 an hour. Clearly, this doesn't apply to rape and assault. There shouldn't even be a reason to bring this into the topic since the pill (Plan B) is over the counter without prescription, but I have to because people.

Hobby lobby is not the enemy here. Their requests, though silly to those of us who don’t subscribe to the whole Jesus thing, sound pretty fucking reasonable when you read them with your own eyes, and not off a whiney “OMG IT'S ARMAGEDDON” liberal news site.

When I attend dinner and people want me to wait a few minutes so they can say grace – I don’t pitch a fucking fit. I lower my head in respect and let them finish their superstitious banter, or I go outside – or I decide I don’t really want to hang out with these people, and instead of going over to their house for dinner every Friday, I eat somewhere else. It’s not like 99% of companies in the United States are denying you access to cheap birth control. Many colleges and public clinics give blister packs out for free. If you don’t like Hobby Lobby’s employment policies – go work somewhere else. When I’m looking for a job, not all employers offer to match my 401K contributions. If that’s a deal breaker, then I go find a job with a better benefits package.

You should really be pissed off at SCOTUS for allowing a corporation to have a religion. Not at Hobby Lobby. You should be pissed off that a corporation can claim that, just because some of its members are affiliated with a religion, that their own religious freedom extends to the company they chair. You should be pissed off with your own government, for giving a corporation more rights than the women who work for it. You should be pissed off that this victory sets a dangerous precedent that will allow other companies who are less ethical, to abuse the ruling and the law to do things which are evil. That's who you should be pissed off at.

If you are upset about this, you should work a little harder than making the same retort of "your head is so far up your ass that *insert obviously relevant on-topic phrase*" or posting a brief "fuck you" or whatever your worthless opinion on the subject is.

I'm as anti-conservative as most liberals are, but seriously, choose your battles wisely, and not throw a temper tantrum and whine like a little bitch every time the opposition has a very small victory like this. Because if the liberal majority begins to look like a bunch of crybabies, pitching a fit every time they don’t get their way… then people who are less informed and less passionate about the subject will just begin to tune out the whining. And you will lose the war.
damnit said @ 4:10pm GMT on 1st Jul
Viagra isn't contraception.

The store has no moral objection with 16 of the 20 mandated contraceptions.
Dumbledorito said @ 7:53pm GMT on 1st Jul
Except this ruling can be applied broadly to all contraceptive coverage:

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.

Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.


So congratulations on that "narrow" ruling, there.
damnit said @ 8:43pm GMT on 1st Jul
Which is what I've been saying all along. It's a fucked up ruling.
bobolink said @ 9:31pm GMT on 1st Jul
Oh yeah, well you're a dork.
damnit said @ 12:44am GMT on 2nd Jul [Score:1 Funny]
I'm gonna tell A friend

*oh gosh not really.
bobolink said @ 9:30pm GMT on 1st Jul
Obfuscatory and disingenuous article. Imagine the Supreme Court commenting on every previous case impacted by a new decision. It doesn't work that way. Current cases will be reviewed in light of the new decision. That is unsurprising.

So, thanks, I guess.
snowfox said @ 1:53am GMT on 4th Jul
Ok, so if I am a Jehovah's witness, you work for me, and you need a blood transfusion to live, I can refuse to cover it because I find your blood transfusion immoral.

Unable to conceive? Too bad. God's will. All your afflictions and ailments? All God's will! I can't be forced to violate my beliefs so I don't have to cover any medical treatments at all.
damnit said @ 5:57am GMT on 4th Jul
The SCOTUS ruling made this possible. Whether they will honor such requests by Jehovah's witnesses and others, I can't say.

However, RFRA doesn't prohibit denial of emergency medical procedures.

Please explain to me so I can understand, and I mean this sincerely, how does one's objection to paying for another's birth control equate to one's denying or preventing the other's access to birth control?
damnit said @ 6:06am GMT on 4th Jul
I hate to keep going in circles.

RFRA bad.
SCOTUS ruling bad.
snowfox said @ 4:05am GMT on 6th Jul
1) Birth control is too expensive for most women (especially the young women who most need it) to afford on their own
2) Viagra is covered but birth control is not, so this becomes a clear inequity. Only women's health coverage is to be denied.
3) They provided birth control until the administration said they had to. The clear and obvious goal is to push back against government mandate and limit the freedoms of women.
4) Access to birth control is essential for women to control pregnancy. Without this ability (or with additional barriers in place), women lose autonomy and thus their humanity. Depriving women of options when it comes to giving birth (including whether to give birth), demotes women to less-than-human status because any man can control them via forced pregnancy (it's a common problem all over the world, even here in the US).

Birth control is the right to choose not to have babies. Companies want to say they can deny coverage to subsidize this right, when they are the only real source to subsidize it. If your medical coverage is the only way you get medical treatment and your employer provides it, your employer controls your ability to get treatment. Since treatment is a fundamental human right, it's wrong for a company to decide whether you can have it or not.
Abdul Alhazred said @ 2:22am GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Funny]
I wonder if it could be claimed that abstinence was also birth control, so the entire company should be fired for using birth control in their early teens?...
Bob Denver said @ 9:40pm GMT on 2nd Jul
Or fired for not putting out...that's abstaining, right?
arrowhen said @ 1:26am GMT on 2nd Jul [Score:1 Funsightful]
dolemite said @ 3:22pm GMT on 30th Jun
Definitely no surprise from the current SCOTUS (whose entire business model now seems to be partisan rulings at Walmart prices) but also not really a surprise for the USA in general. It's thematically consistent with the at-will employment principle still tolerated in many states.

Rich shiny people should be legally guaranteed the power to enjoy their employees as chattels shouldn't they? It's their reward for being such good and exceptional people. Jesus said so when he freed the slaves.
Dumbledorito said @ 3:48pm GMT on 30th Jun
Funny how HobLob will complain about having to "pay for abortions/sex," yet they have no problem with ordering all of their junk from China, a country that has no problem whatsoever about mandating population growth by whatever means available.

This isn't about religious conviction. This is a handy excuse to cut benefits and save a few pennies so the executives can afford another yacht with a crucifix hanging in the bathroom.
Tusk said @ 12:33am GMT on 2nd Jul
Yes.

They probably put out rat poison and swat flies that get in the door.

Complete and utter hypocrites.
mechanical contrivance said @ 3:04am GMT on 2nd Jul
Huh?
ENZ said @ 3:53pm GMT on 30th Jun
So I guess private businesses can now legally discriminate gays, right?
sanepride said @ 4:11pm GMT on 30th Jun
Actually they can, and always could- except where state or local laws specifically prohibit it.
Also, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), used by SCOTUS to justify this decision, has also been used as the basis for bills assuring business the right to discriminate/refuse service to LGBT folks that have been introduced in Kansas, Arizona, and elsewhere.
ENZ said @ 4:23pm GMT on 30th Jun
I meant in their employment practices. Businesses can now refuse benefits or fire their gay employees outright. Pretty sure a Mormon can now do the same to their black employees, if they don't give a fuck about the massive PR blowback.
sanepride said @ 4:31pm GMT on 30th Jun
Yes, my comment does also refer to employment practices. Except where specifically prohibited, businesses could already fire or otherwise discriminate against LGBT employees without legal repercussions. The only federal protections now on the books only applies to businesses with federal contracts- and this is just due to a recent executive order from the president.
mechavolt said @ 4:32pm GMT on 30th Jun
Have you ever used birth control? You have? Sorry, we're not hiring.
damnit said @ 7:09pm GMT on 30th Jun
Didn't you read the memo? In 1978, God changed his views about black people.
TheThirstyMonk said @ 7:54pm GMT on 30th Jun
Doesn't that make God a flip-flopper then?
damnit said @ 9:36pm GMT on 30th Jun
From what I remember, it was a revelation passed down directly from God to the President of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Whether it came from untranslated text they just deciphered or a new message, they won't say.
Dumbledorito said @ 3:55pm GMT on 30th Jun
Even better, Hobby Lobby's 401K invests in companies that make contraceptives.

If religious discrimination is now the rule of law, shouldn't religious inconsistency within their own belief system be grounds for invalidating it?
damnit said @ 8:53pm GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Please tell me how Hobby Lobby is profiting from these companies providing IUDs and morning after pill. I'm very interested, unless you're referring to this:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/02/hobby-lobbys-critics-have-no-idea-how-investments-work/

Reveal


Hobby Lobby’s Critics Have No Idea How Investments Work



APRIL 2, 2014 By Ben Domenech
Hobby Lobby offers its employees the ability to invest their money in mutual funds … some of which include makers of contraception! Fox News’ Rick Ungar describes this as “the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime.” Over at Commonweal, where ignorance about capitalism is a mandatory condition of employment, Grant Gallicho writes:




Hobby Lobby makes significant matching contributions to the 401(k)–nearly $4 million in 2012, according to the company’s 2013 disclosure to the Department of Labor. In other words, Hobby Lobby invests millions in companies that manufacture the very products they want to be exempt from covering in their employee health plans–products they believe cause abortions. As Redden notes, other holdings in Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds include companies that make drugs used to induce abortion, drugs administered during abortion procedures, and insurers that cover surgical abortions.



This raises an obvious question: If the Greens are so committed to the belief that they cannot in good conscience pay health-insurance premiums that might result in employees using products that could prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs, then why are they OK with spending millions annually on companies that manufacture drugs that will certainly cause abortions?



I realize that those on the left are always on the lookout for hypocrisy at all levels, but do Ungar, Redden, and Gallicho realize that they have just indicted any Christian with an index fund, or offering its employees the chance to invest their own dollars in one, as being necessarily a hypocrite if even one company within the fund does anything immoral? Or are Ungar, Redden, and Gallicho all just that incompetent about how 401(k) plans work – namely, that the investments and decisions within them are made by employees, not employers. The menu of choices is provided not by the employer but by the administrator of the plan, offering a wide range of mutual funds – which are most commonly indexes invested in the breadth of the market.



As Ryan Ellis notes:



Plan administrators contract with select mutual fund companies to provide basic investment products diversified by sector, asset class, duration, risk, etc. This is the primary goal of diversification of fund choices, not socially-conscious investing. Besides, it’s the employees who call the shots. They may not share the same values as the Hobby Lobby owners, and might have a very different idea of what a “socially responsible” fund would invest in…



What does Mother Jones’ or Mercury Public Affairs’ 401(k) plan look like? Those are the employers of Redden and Ungar, respectively. Surely those 401(k) plans invest in stocks of oil and gas companies, defense contractors, private equity firms, and other evil conservative power bastions. Have Redden and/or Ungar done a forensic investigation of the mutual funds they are invested in? Should I call them hypocrites for daring to invest in a 401(k) which invests in a mutual fund which invests in a multinational company which happens to own an oil company? If not, consider that the Hobby Lobby employers have one more degree of separation even from Redden and Ungar. Our two intrepid reporters affirmatively chose to invest in merchants of death when they picked out their 401(k) choices. All Hobby Lobby is doing is providing the platform for employees to make those same choices themselves in partnership with plan administrators.



Hobby Lobby isn’t looking to restrict employee activity – any more than it’s trying to restrict the legal availability of contraception! This is as ludicrous as claiming that Hobby Lobby is hypocritical if a single Hobby Lobby employee uses his paycheck to go to a strip club or buy cocaine. How dare they pay him with money which can be exchanged for immoral goods and services! Would Ungar, Redden, and Gallicho be in favor of Hobby Lobby restricting employee retirement choices? Are they saying that merely by offering a 401(k) benefit at all, Hobby Lobby has compromised itself in accordance with where its employees send their dollars, and surrendered its right to have moral objections to any legal requirement placed upon them?



The secular left needs to think bigger than just driving Christians out of the ability to practice their faith as business owners or allow their employees to invest in the stock market. They should start by noting it’s impossible for those who claim to be “pro-life” to live and work in certain states without being a hypocrite. Since the Hyde Amendment applies only to federal funds, states like New York, New Jersey, and California use state taxpayer dollars – a not insignificant amount of them – to pay directly for abortions. What this effectively means is that any of Ungar’s colleagues at Fox News who live in New York are thorough hypocrites if they pay their taxes. And yet they continue to do so! It is almost as if they are willing to render unto Caesar, even as they fight in courts and in the public square to change Caesar’s policies. Heck, Hobby Lobby itself even pays taxes in these states, where it does business! How stunning that these people are even allowed to be Americans, a country which was built by slaveowners and racists.


arrowhen said @ 5:39pm GMT on 30th Jun
It only LOOKS like inconsistency to filthy heathens like you. True believers understand that the Lord works in mysterious ways.
mechavolt said @ 4:03pm GMT on 30th Jun
I AM FURIOUS
mechavolt said @ 4:11pm GMT on 30th Jun
Corporations: all the rights and benefits of an individual, with none of those pesky legal obligations.
sanepride said @ 4:14pm GMT on 30th Jun
The pesky part is that corporations have the means and resources to easily trump the rights and benefits of the individuals who work for them.
Tusk said @ 12:42am GMT on 2nd Jul
Nigga, please.

A corporation is nothing more than a group of people forming an association to do something.

The people who make up a corporation do not surrender their rights, simply because they're working as a group, rather than individuals.

To wit: oohing is preventing Hobby Lobby or any other employees from finding another job.

And finally, birth control (or in this case, morning after pills) are cheap and plentiful. As insurance companies found in the early days of HMOs, it's foolish and uneconomical to provide maintenance items (band aids, aspirin, tampons, cold meds, tampons) which can be had cheaply and over the counter. The 'book' cost of tracking those items eventually make the plans self destructive, purely from a dollars and cents standpoint.

If you believe in the ACA, you ought to also believe in cost-structures and sustainability, rather than this political gamesmanship nonsense. You're going to kill the very thing you think you're trying to save.
mechavolt said @ 11:20am GMT on 2nd Jul
You're objectively wrong on both counts.

1) Corporations, while benefiting from individual rights, ARE NOT people. Nor are they "a group of people forming an association." They are distinct, legal entities, with distinct rights and responsibilities from those people who formed it.

2) Birth control is NOT cheap. First, birth control pills can cost up to $50 a month. As a one time cost, or if it were for an acute treatment, this is not expensive. But women will be buying this every month over the course of a lifetime -- making it prohibitively expensive. Second, pills aren't even the best form of birth control. The IUD, which can last up to 12 years, STILL comes with an upfront cost of up to $1,000.

Birth control isn't some fringe health benefit. The existence of family planning is one of the major influences on financial stability for a family, if not #1. You're also dealing with a health issue that directly affects 50% of the population EVERY MONTH. To ignore that would be socially insane, but coming from someone who feels the phrase "Nigga, please" is appropriate, I imagine that's par for the course.
GordonGuano said @ 5:29pm GMT on 30th Jun
I imagine this will do wonders for Christian Scientist membership rolls when "closely held" corporations realize it will let them cut out health care altogether.
Dumbledorito said @ 5:32pm GMT on 30th Jun
I'm just wondering what'll happen the second a Scientology-run company refuses to pay for mental health coverage or another company tries to impose Sharia principles on its workers.
foobar said @ 5:41pm GMT on 30th Jun
So marijuana sales are now legal for anyone who judges prohibition to be incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs?
Dumbledorito said @ 6:19pm GMT on 30th Jun
Only if a 'closely held' corporation thinks so... maybe.

Then again, you'd have to find a Rastafarian corporation, and the only one I can think of is maybe whoever owns the rights to Bob Marley's catalog.
sanepride said @ 6:28pm GMT on 30th Jun
A nice thought, but it probably only works toward restricting benefits based on belief, not expanding them.
Naruki said @ 9:01pm GMT on 30th Jun
I don't think it was worded that way.

But doesn't this also mean that anti-vaxxers can now refuse to pay for vaccinations on their health plans?
sanepride said @ 10:17pm GMT on 30th Jun
The thing is, the way Obamacare works they're still dealing with what insurance companies will provide- as a practical matter it's hard to envision them willing to expand coverage because of religious conviction.
As for vaccines, if it's a matter of 'sincerely held religious conviction' then I guess they can refuse, but I doubt the insurance companies would be happy about that either.
Bob Denver said @ 9:42am GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Okay, I've had a few and I'm not in the US but...I have to say that i hate the term: "Obamacare". I mean really...it's mandated health insurance. Who gives a rat's arse who the president was in whose term it came to be. The term just continues to anchor the politicisation. Why not "Democraticare"? At least it would be about the people.
Naruki said @ 11:43am GMT on 1st Jul [Score:1 Informative]
A) Obama was and is the driving force behind it
B) Even he has embraced the term and turned it into a positive (thus, very high spite factor)
C) Significantly more people know what it is by that name than by the name ACA.
HoZay said @ 2:23pm GMT on 1st Jul
Also, as soon as they get the bugs fixed and Obamacare works great for everybody, they'll quit calling it Obamacare.
arrowhen said @ 6:37pm GMT on 1st Jul
D) Republicans originally wanted to call it "Socialist Nigger Care", but found that some of their constituents had a hard time pronouncing that through a mouth full of chewing tobacco.
bobolink said @ 4:41am GMT on 2nd Jul
Not all who chew are lost. Have a chaw?
Dumbledorito said @ 11:00pm GMT on 30th Jun
Isn't having kids a huge expense for insurance companies? I'd figure they'd try to persuade clients to cover birth control rather than have to shell out for every unplanned kid.
XregnaR said @ 6:39pm GMT on 2nd Jul
http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court-upholds-little-caesars-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/
arrowhen said @ 11:25pm GMT on 2nd Jul
HoZay said @ 3:28am GMT on 3rd Jul
Justice Ginsberg's dissent, set to music:


Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur