Some people believe the use of contraception is a sin according to their versions of the Bible (Orthodox Jews, Catholics, some evangelicals). The family that owns Hobby Lobby sued saying that the ACA mandate forcing their company to provide insurance that covered contraception was a First Amendment violation of their religious rights. Nothing to do with abortion.
I find this unfortunate. Before long the religious right will have forced their beliefs on everyone. Next thing you know, bacon will be outlawed. :cool:
Steven and those on the right had a point, but if they comb their hair right no one will notice, Hobby Lobby is not saying women cannot use contraceptives. Now maybe they will stop selling products from a country that forces their women to use contraceptives and have abortions.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Edit to add: Looks like is restricted to closely held corporations.
Institutions that promote a religious view (e.g. churches) are also exempt. The separation of church and state must work both ways. The State CANNOT force its views on a Church.
The Hobby Lobby decision is important because it is a for profit corporation.
Also instead of the Hobby Lobby and Churches imposing their view on everyone else, the health care law FORCED PAYING for contraception coverage on them.
Note, that the law decision DOES NOT prevent insurance companies from offering contraception to the employees of these closely held corporations and churches, it only prevents the churches and corporations from PAYING for the coverage.
The distinction is that insurance companies can offer contraception without including contraception in the risk assessment calculation for the premium amount of the insurance coverage. Then it could be offered to the employees of the closely held corporations and churches since they would not technically be paying for that coverage.
Or the government could pay for this coverage.
"Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.
He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.
Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.
The accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, but the court said Monday that the profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to emphasize that the administration can solve its problem easily. 'The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it,' Kennedy said. He said that arrangement 'does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs.'
Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the requirement to offer birth control."
I find this unfortunate. Before long the religious right will have forced their beliefs on everyone. Next thing you know, bacon will be outlawed. :cool:
There goes my breakfast run...shot of Jameson, followed by a shot of orange juice, followed by a slice of bacon.
I get the hypocrisy argument, but that doesn't really have to do with the constitutionality of the contraception mandate.
Sorry but I do not take offense to a comment regarding a street joke.
Well someone who doesn't play a lawyer on TV stated, We make conscientious objectors prove they have not done anything that contradicts their religious beliefs before they can opt out of war. Seems that should apply here.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Why are they then required to pay for blood transfusions, organ transplants, vaccines and such?
Hell, if I were Hobby Lobby's owners I'd have family members convert to Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and Orthodox Judiasm and avoid having to offer any insurance whatsoever, based upon firm and sincere religious beliefs.
The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
Apparently the SCOTUS did narrow this decision to only cover contraception.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
The majority didn't see this as much of a problem since: a) vaccinations, blood transfusions and the like weren't generally, if ever, excluded under pre-ACA policies and b) all of the dozens of suits filed claiming an exemption on religious issues were about contraception - there were none about any other coverage.
In theory, I think you're right. But the corporate mandate should be shelved anyway as should the whole employer sponsored insurance system. Maybe this decision will help hasten this.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Are we going to wage a war to create 450,000 new patients?
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
I find the "well, we fought a war" excuse to be a load of B.S.
When did we assume that we'd never fight another war? If that assumption was made or not prepared for, that's an indictment of a government run system.
Er, no. The VA bills a patient's insurance just like any other provider. It picks up the tab only if there is no private insurance and Medicare and Medicaid will not.
The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
The majority didn't see this as much of a problem since: a) vaccinations, blood transfusions and the like weren't generally, if ever, excluded under pre-ACA policies and b) all of the dozens of suits filed claiming an exemption on religious issues were about contraception - there were none about any other coverage.
In theory, I think you're right. But the corporate mandate should be shelved anyway as should the whole employer sponsored insurance system. Maybe this decision will help hasten this.
What do you propose to replace it?
The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
Do you have like a special program that whenever "profit" is typed somewhere on the web, you're notified immediately?
I don't need a special program, everything that happens in this system is for monetary profit, including the web. All the government programs provide a built in profit for the corporations and bureaucracies that administer them.
One other thing. The "war" has been going on for 11 years. A private for-profit system would have long adapted by now.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have Kaiser.
This private for profit system has adapted so well that it now cost one hundred times as much as it did just 20 years ago.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Replies
Contraception is abortion? That's nonsense, why would the SCOTUS even take this up?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-case-2/
This struck me as pretty informative.
Edit to add: Looks like is restricted to closely held corporations.
Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.
Institutions that promote a religious view (e.g. churches) are also exempt. The separation of church and state must work both ways. The State CANNOT force its views on a Church.
The Hobby Lobby decision is important because it is a for profit corporation.
Also instead of the Hobby Lobby and Churches imposing their view on everyone else, the health care law FORCED PAYING for contraception coverage on them.
Note, that the law decision DOES NOT prevent insurance companies from offering contraception to the employees of these closely held corporations and churches, it only prevents the churches and corporations from PAYING for the coverage.
The distinction is that insurance companies can offer contraception without including contraception in the risk assessment calculation for the premium amount of the insurance coverage. Then it could be offered to the employees of the closely held corporations and churches since they would not technically be paying for that coverage.
Or the government could pay for this coverage.
"Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.
He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.
Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.
The accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, but the court said Monday that the profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to emphasize that the administration can solve its problem easily. 'The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it,' Kennedy said. He said that arrangement 'does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs.'
Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the requirement to offer birth control."
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-cant-employers-cover-contraception-141923713--finance.html
Do yourself a favor and stay in school.
I get the hypocrisy argument, but that doesn't really have to do with the constitutionality of the contraception mandate.
There goes my breakfast run...shot of Jameson, followed by a shot of orange juice, followed by a slice of bacon.
Sorry but I do not take offense to a comment regarding a street joke.
Well someone who doesn't play a lawyer on TV stated, We make conscientious objectors prove they have not done anything that contradicts their religious beliefs before they can opt out of war. Seems that should apply here.
As for your talking head, I'd focus on the right to be a CO.
Seems like a big frilly and lacey todo about nothing.
Hell, if I were Hobby Lobby's owners I'd have family members convert to Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and Orthodox Judiasm and avoid having to offer any insurance whatsoever, based upon firm and sincere religious beliefs.
The majority didn't see this as much of a problem since: a) vaccinations, blood transfusions and the like weren't generally, if ever, excluded under pre-ACA policies and b) all of the dozens of suits filed claiming an exemption on religious issues were about contraception - there were none about any other coverage.
In theory, I think you're right. But the corporate mandate should be shelved anyway as should the whole employer sponsored insurance system. Maybe this decision will help hasten this.
When did we assume that we'd never fight another war? If that assumption was made or not prepared for, that's an indictment of a government run system.
Do you have like a special program that whenever "profit" is typed somewhere on the web, you're notified immediately?
Except Hobby Lobby said they have no problem covering vasectomies. So, what's up with that?
I can tell you, they lost a customer in me today!
Er, no. The VA bills a patient's insurance just like any other provider. It picks up the tab only if there is no private insurance and Medicare and Medicaid will not.
What do you propose to replace it?
I don't need a special program, everything that happens in this system is for monetary profit, including the web. All the government programs provide a built in profit for the corporations and bureaucracies that administer them.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have Kaiser.
This private for profit system has adapted so well that it now cost one hundred times as much as it did just 20 years ago.