SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-contraception-mandate-108429.html#ixzz368m2scja

QuoteThe decision marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief — a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues. It could the door to other closely held corporations — like family-owned businesses — seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs.

[. . . ]

In the short term, the ruling appears to allow the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties to opt out of the health care law's requirement that they provide all FDA-approved forms of birth control in their health plans.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that the ruling that would have wide repercussions and "untoward effects."

"Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private," she wrote.

I am NOT surprised at this decision, but it seems like it could have really bad consequences for trans* people. If companies can refuse to supply health insurance that covers contraceptives, then they certainly can claim that providing insurance that covers trans* related needs goes against their beliefs as well and shouldn't be covered.

I don't think corporations are "people" (unlike Citizens United claims), so how can it have a religious belief?

I don't for one minute believe that any form of contraceptive is murder, but I can see the arguments in some cases. Fighting contraception on the basis of murder under your religion is completely different than fighting HRT. Ending a life is a bigger deal than permitting someone to what they would see as a legal sin.

Quote from: LearnedHand on June 30, 2014, 11:32:28 AM
I don't think corporations are "people" (unlike Citizens United claims), so how can it have a religious belief?

It's made up of people. A church isn't "people" but it's made up of people. People own a corporation and they form its policies based on how they think it should be run. This feels like a silly argument. I don't think our rights go away when we work together with other people toward common goals.

While i think Hobby Lobby should be able to provide whatever it wants because this is America, I think that this is a horribly bad decision.  It started with the bad decision regarding the ACA, but two bad decisions do not make a good one. Making employers/businesses the vehicle of the mandate is what opened up this can of worms and many more to come.  This was a political challenge to the ACA and nothing more.  Hobby Lobby invests in the company that makes plan B, I believe they provided plan B before the mandate if i am not mistaken, and they do billions of dollars of business with a communist country that provides and encourages abortions.  The only reason i bring up communism is to point out that the majority of those billions of dollars went to a government that supports/pays for abortion, and whose policies lead to regular infanticide. I don't see how you can be so disturbed by providing plan B, but reconcile those other things with your faith if it were truly about your conscience. Just like a conscientious objector trying to get out of service, the standards for being granted "religious immunity" should require consistency and not a pick and choose use of their "conscience."  This decision opens up another horrible can of worms.  What happens when a Jehovah's Witness lead business refuses to pay for blood transfusions?  They don't believe in them.  Christian Scientists don't believe in using medicine at all, so I guess they just don't have to cover anyone if they have a company.  It was a terrible decision.

With regard to corporations as people.  When they can be drafted or sent to prison, then they should be granted the same rights.  Bernie Madoff commits fraud, he goes to jail.  Citigroup, B of A, Goldman's, etc. commited fraud on a scale that destroyed the nations economy and they get bailed out.  They are just now getting settlements for fraud from these companies.  Anyone who knew about the switches from GM should be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter.  Where is the criminal prosecution?  You can't have it both ways.  I guess you can though if you have enough money to lobby the government and by proxy, the Supreme Court.

Companies to big to fail or jail should be nationalized.

OMG how on earth does religion think that contraceptives = murder, I mean they at least have a point when their against abortion, but contraceptives how does it fall into murder? When there is no child, like I'm not totally against abortion nether but I do except the point that people who are against it make, so really I'm neutral on that but, I don't get it who n how are people anti, anti contraceptives? Like in Australia I think we have a law against religion being active in political matters, but a law that allows freedom of believe and lawful practice of their religion for individuals in a recognized religion, so thankfully I don't think one religious nut job can impose his beliefs on people if its a mandatory health care law in place by our FDA equivalent (TGA) and by the government. like I'm seriously surprised America doesn't have such laws to prevent this kind of religious idiocy. 

I don't agree with this one bit, but some people believe in the following:
Sperm and egg meet and cause fertilization. This is the beginning of life (IE unique DNA = life) and therefore preventing it from developing into a baby and being born is murder. There are certain contraceptives that permit this to happen, but prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterus.

I have a problem with this because of twins. Twins have the same DNA. So by this logic one could kill one of the twins at any point in their life and it wouldn't be murder because that DNA is still alive. I believe if you kill someone twin, clone, or not its murder so DNA is not a viable means of determining life.

Quote from: Clhoe G on December 22, 2014, 05:49:46 AM
OMG how on earth does religion think that contraceptives = murder, I mean they at least have a point when their against abortion, but contraceptives how does it fall into murder?

Hobby Lobby was about 6 specific drugs that act after the egg is fertilized and prevented its implantation. Birth control that prevents release of the egg in the first place or inhibits sperm was not at issue. The belief is that life begins at fertilization. The medical community's consensus is that it begins after implantation.

Quote from: ImagineKate on December 22, 2014, 12:16:52 PM

Hobby Lobby was about 6 specific drugs that act after the egg is fertilized and prevented its implantation. Birth control that prevents release of the egg in the first place or inhibits sperm was not at issue. The belief is that life begins at fertilization. The medical community's consensus is that it begins after implantation.

Soooo? Their for at least some method of anti contraceptives? Ok I can agree with that, no harm no foul, type of thing, as long as some anti contraceptives are still available.

But on another point of the topic, I doubt HRT n that will be axed... I hope :-/

Quote from: Clhoe G on December 22, 2014, 06:22:21 PM

Soooo? Their for at least some method of anti contraceptives? Ok I can agree with that, no harm no foul, type of thing, as long as some anti contraceptives are still available.

But on another point of the topic, I doubt HRT n that will be axed... I hope :-/

It's an important distinction I think. They aren't against all of them, just those that act on fertilized embryos. IUDs and condoms as well as hormonal birth control should be fine.

HRT I'm not sure would be affected by this. The decision was pretty limited in scope.

Quote from: ImagineKate on December 22, 2014, 06:26:33 PM
It's an important distinction I think. They aren't against all of them, just those that act on fertilized embryos. IUDs and condoms as well as hormonal birth control should be fine.

HRT I'm not sure would be affected by this. The decision was pretty limited in scope.

It seems to be a moral agreement on what method is best n I don't know but if I needed to use something (if I could get pregnant that is) I'd feel much better if I was using something that prevents fertilization, rather then any other method.

I personally don't think that life begins until your heart is beating and your brain is active. However I thought about it the other day. If you are a christian, then you believe in a period of innocence. If you die during this period, then you go to heaven automatically. If your mom is considering aborting you, then her situation is probably not great.

If your was not prepared (for example, a 16 year old girl still in highschool who may have been kicked out of the house) she could give birth to you and you would live in a world that gave up on you the second you were born. Your mom can barely afford to take care of you. She might even be a single parent. While its possible to get out of that and make something of yourself, its also very difficult. And the fact that your mom can barely take care of you makes it harder for her to make things better for either of you.

If your mother was prepared on the other hand, your life is probably going to be much better than the unplanned child of the other mother. I'm not saying it will be an easy life, but hopefully it means she (and probably her husband) has the resources to take care of you and even help you make a better life for yourself.

The alternative is that she aborts you. You go straight to heaven and never know the pain and suffering of this world.

Just a thought. I know this is a controversial topic, but it seems like in some cases abortion might be more humane than birth. With that said I would hope no one ever gets into a situation where they even have to ask what the best option is. I have though. I got my ex-fiance pregnant and while I thought it was wrong, I told her that whatever she decided I would give her my full support. Ultimately she miscarried, but if she had been able to have the baby, it would have been a difficult life for all 3 of us.

Quote from: Clhoe G on December 22, 2014, 06:22:21 PM

Soooo? Their for at least some method of anti contraceptives? Ok I can agree with that, no harm no foul, type of thing, as long as some anti contraceptives are still available.

But on another point of the topic, I doubt HRT n that will be axed... I hope :-/

Unfortunately, Alito was not clear in his holding and it will cause either a circuit split (where circuit courts that interpret law for about 30 million people a piece disagree) or it will go before the Supreme Court again. There have been religious corporations and colleges challenging non-discrimination laws protecting LGBT people based on this holding already, but I haven't heard anything court wise. Nonetheless, I think the worst challenges under this law will be states that require insurance plans to cover HRT and SRS (like Vermont and Washington, IIRC). Unfortunately, with law being an "old boys club," I don't think we'll fair too well.

But, nothing can be said from this decision one way or another. Alito constantly tries to say that the case is about birth control and religious freedom and that it does not apply to things like Jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusions. But, he also says that corporations should not have to cover procedures contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs, and he provides no test to balance the two. Speaking as a law student, this is a very badly written decision (not speaking to its overall holding).

Quote from: Kayla on December 25, 2014, 02:55:50 AM
Unfortunately, Alito was not clear in his holding and it will cause either a circuit split (where circuit courts that interpret law for about 30 million people a piece disagree) or it will go before the Supreme Court again. There have been religious corporations and colleges challenging non-discrimination laws protecting LGBT people based on this holding already, but I haven't heard anything court wise. Nonetheless, I think the worst challenges under this law will be states that require insurance plans to cover HRT and SRS (like Vermont and Washington, IIRC). Unfortunately, with law being an "old boys club," I don't think we'll fair too well.

But, nothing can be said from this decision one way or another. Alito constantly tries to say that the case is about birth control and religious freedom and that it does not apply to things like Jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusions. But, he also says that corporations should not have to cover procedures contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs, and he provides no test to balance the two. Speaking as a law student, this is a very badly written decision (not speaking to its overall holding).

See, this is where I think Congress should be making a law. Legislating from the bench leads to ambiguities and loopholes that the circuit courts can exploit and leave people hanging in the balance for years.

Unfortunately the dems had Congress for 2 years in 2007-2009 and blew it passing this albatross of a healthcare bill. That's not to say they shouldn't have enacted reform, but they tried to put it all in one piece in a bill that nobody had time to read and it didn't really address the problems with our healthcare system. They should have done it piecemeal, attach bits and pieces of refort to various spending bills and the like. That is how things get done in Washington these days. This would have also slowed down legal challenges.

I also think the mandate is a big mistake. If you're going that way, why not just do single payer? I am opposed to single payer in certain ways by the way, just look at all the gatekeeping our UK sisters and brothers have to endure!

If corporations were natural persons, we would have to categorize many of them as sociopaths and then institutionalize the most dangerous of them (throw AIG, investment banks, firms engaged in high frequency algorithmic trading, the weapons makers, big agriculture, the fossil fuel companies, and the private prison companies in the rubber room for good measure).