NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

FiancB said:

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

I was raised Catholic and tend to be a bit more sympathetic to this issue than many, but I agree this is in the "too bad" category. We were talking about a corporation. Corporations do not sin. Corporations do not have to worry about going to heaven or hell.

I might add that Hobby Lobby is still cool with investing in companies that provide birth control.

Plus, Hobby Lobby advertises itself as being a Christian company, not a Catholic one. Protestant churches are not explicitly against birth control. So this whole thing doesn't even make sense. It is such a blatant thinly veiled excuse to get out of paying $$$. The argument is much more understandable for, say, a Catholic university or hospital than it is for a chain that sells cheap crafting crap.

I know that Hobby Lobby is a Christian store. If it were Catholic, they would have objected to all of the contraceptives and not just 4 of them (which I still think was random, by the way). My understanding is that they chose those 4 contraceptives because of the idea that they cause abortions. (which I still think is random because most forms of oral contraceptives alter the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation).

I also heard about the 401k investments, which I do find to be disturbing. I honestly have only seen that information reported by sites that have an obvious bias, and I'm curious to hear about it from a source that is more middle-of-the-road.

I'm just saying that this decision sets a precedent for other cases for Catholic business owners. There is already good news for EWTN (a Catholic television station).

Link to Hobby Lobby's own dept. of labor filing below:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1099360-savings-incentive-and-profit-sharing-plan-for.html

JCbride2015 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

jdluvr06 said:

I have a quick question because I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look it up. I thought that HL was still providing some types of BC but not others, like Plan B and IUDs?

Yep! Here's a good source I found - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/

As I said earlier in the thread in response to banana:

JCbride2015 said:

banana468 said:

Some companies are small enough that insurance isn't offered at all. That's an exemption WITH the ACA. And Hobby Lobby does offer birth control. It's 2 types emergency contraception, IUDs and abortion coverage that they didn't want to offer.

This is factually true, but it's misleading in regards to the breadth of the ruling. Yes, HL itself only objected to certain methods (and yeah @chibiyui, I think abortions were never required to be covered in the first place).

But the ruling itself sets legal precedent that an employer can entirely refuse contraception at all, and also get an exemption for other medical services on religious grounds: IVs, infusions, maybe vaccinations if based on sincere belief. In fact just today, SCOTUS affirmed lower court rulings which held that Catholic shareholders of corporations could refuse all forms of BC to their employees. So this has already been applied to deny BC entirely.

I am most worried about the troubling precedent for corporate religious exemptions for all types of stuff, not just birth control. The doors have been flung open and this is going to be a really long time before the right case comes up again to fix it.

chibiyui · July 2014

jdluvr06 said:
I have a quick question because I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look it up. I thought that HL was still providing some types of BC but not others, like Plan B and IUDs?

Hobby Lobby has said they plan to continue to cover the other 16 contraceptives.

For now. We'll see if their religious beliefs change.

daria24 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

As soon as the employer signs the paycheck, it is no longer his / her money. The employer purchases the health care coverage, and it is a purchase that he / she doesn't want to make because it violates his / her faith.

And it's not a matter of HOW they use their health care. It's a matter of who pays for it.

--------

But it is the CORPORATION'S money providing the health insurance. A CORPORATION should not (despite SCOTUS) be a person that has religious beliefs.

If a religious person wants to get the tax & legal benefits of incorporating a business, you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too. You shouldn't be able to indemnify yourself against legal proceedings, but then all of a sudden claim your PERSONAL religious beliefs should influence what insurance the corporation pays for.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

daria24 said:

sarahbear31 said:

As soon as the employer signs the paycheck, it is no longer his / her money. The employer purchases the health care coverage, and it is a purchase that he / she doesn't want to make because it violates his / her faith.

And it's not a matter of HOW they use their health care. It's a matter of who pays for it.

--------

But it is the CORPORATION'S money providing the health insurance. A CORPORATION should not (despite SCOTUS) be a person that has religious beliefs.

If a religious person wants to get the tax & legal benefits of incorporating a business, you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too. You shouldn't be able to indemnify yourself against legal proceedings, but then all of a sudden claim your PERSONAL religious beliefs should influence what insurance the corporation pays for.

This x 1 million!

jdluvr06 · July 2014

@chibiyui and @sarahbear31 thank you.

@jcbride2015 oops. I haven't been following this thread closely and missed your post about it.

lyndausvi · July 2014

jdluvr06 said:

I have a quick question because I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look it up. I thought that HL was still providing some types of BC but not others, like Plan B and IUDs?

That is my understanding also.

HL not covering 4 BC is going to little effect on their employees or getting future talent. They at least have the choice of the other options. I've read where they pay well, so that will keep people there.

The problem with the ruling is now Catholic organization,can deny ALL BC. That is a much hardship for women and their families. What is now going to happen when the church of Jenny McCarthy wants to deny vaccines or JW companies blood transfusions?

HL wining a case over THEIR interruption of what 4 drugs do has opened up a huge can of worms.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

JCbride2015, thanks for the hi!

I can't find where you said it, or otherwise I'd quote it. But, you made a comment about people not wanting their bc for free. My understanding was that ACA now requires that bc be covered at no co-pay to the employee. Did I miss something?

JCbride2015 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015, thanks for the hi!

I can't find where you said it, or otherwise I'd quote it. But, you made a comment about people not wanting their bc for free. My understanding was that ACA now requires that bc be covered at no co-pay to the employee. Did I miss something?

Employees don't have a copay for the BC, but they would still pay their insurance premium. So I don't think I'd call that free, right?

I suppose unless you are so low-income you qualify for a no-premium ACA plan. In that case it would be free for good reason.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

lyndausvi said:

jdluvr06 said:

I have a quick question because I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look it up. I thought that HL was still providing some types of BC but not others, like Plan B and IUDs?

That is my understanding also.

HL not covering 4 BC is going to little effect on their employees or getting future talent. They at least have the choice of the other options. I've read where they pay well, so that will keep people there.

The problem with the ruling is now Catholic organization,can deny ALL BC. That is a much hardship for women and their families. What is now going to happen when the church of Jenny McCarthy wants to deny vaccines or JW companies blood transfusions?

HL wining a case over THEIR interruption of what 4 drugs do has opened up a huge can of worms.

SCOTUS has already confirmed cases, today, allowing Catholic-owned companies to deny ALL BC. That is already in effect.

The can of worms thing is scary. RBG's dissent discusses the implications and it's terrifying.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

Signing off for a bit for more bar studying. If I come back without first stating I've finished my Trusts class video, please bitch-slap me.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015, thanks for the hi!

I can't find where you said it, or otherwise I'd quote it. But, you made a comment about people not wanting their bc for free. My understanding was that ACA now requires that bc be covered at no co-pay to the employee. Did I miss something?

Under the ACA, only some BC are co-pay exempt. I still pay $20 a month for mine, and even if I didn't pay a co-pay, I still pay my premium, so it isn't free-free, it is just included in your monthly payment.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Honest question ... a lot of people bring up the hypothetical about JW's and blood transfusions, and I haven't heard anything regarding JW's speaking out regarding this. Has anyone else?

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Liatris2010 said:

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015, thanks for the hi!

I can't find where you said it, or otherwise I'd quote it. But, you made a comment about people not wanting their bc for free. My understanding was that ACA now requires that bc be covered at no co-pay to the employee. Did I miss something?

Under the ACA, only some BC are co-pay exempt. I still pay $20 a month for mine, and even if I didn't pay a co-pay, I still pay my premium, so it isn't free-free, it is just included in your monthly payment.

Gotcha. I had heard people saying it was "free" as a way to referring to no co-pay, hence my question.

lyndausvi · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015, thanks for the hi!

I can't find where you said it, or otherwise I'd quote it. But, you made a comment about people not wanting their bc for free. My understanding was that ACA now requires that bc be covered at no co-pay to the employee. Did I miss something?

Employees don't have a copay for the BC, but they would still pay their insurance premium. So I don't think I'd call that free, right?

I suppose unless you are so low-income you qualify for a no-premium ACA plan. In that case it would be free for good reason.

We do not pay any insurance premiums. Crazy right? But yeah DH's company pays 100% of our insurance.

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:
Honest question ... a lot of people bring up the hypothetical about JW's and blood transfusions, and I haven't heard anything regarding JW's speaking out regarding this. Has anyone else?

As far as I know, nobody is threatening it yet. However, the way the ruling was worded this case could be used as precedence for any number of "sincerely held beliefs" against anything health care related.

So yes, blood transfusions could be taken off insurance at a company, so could vaccines, porcine heart transplants, anti depressants, ANYTHIING could be challenged.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

lyndausvi said:

JCbride2015 said:

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015, thanks for the hi!

I can't find where you said it, or otherwise I'd quote it. But, you made a comment about people not wanting their bc for free. My understanding was that ACA now requires that bc be covered at no co-pay to the employee. Did I miss something?

Employees don't have a copay for the BC, but they would still pay their insurance premium. So I don't think I'd call that free, right?

I suppose unless you are so low-income you qualify for a no-premium ACA plan. In that case it would be free for good reason.

We do not pay any insurance premiums. Crazy right? But yeah DH's company pays 100% of our insurance.

I wanna work there!!

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Honest question ... a lot of people bring up the hypothetical about JW's and blood transfusions, and I haven't heard anything regarding JW's speaking out regarding this. Has anyone else?

I haven't heard of them indicating it is something they would pursue, but now that the door is open they certainly could. There are a lot fewer JWs than other kinds of Christian, so it might not affect many businesses, but it does beg the question. Also, now that this is a thing, how many corporations suddenly find religion? How do we decide what is a sincerely held religious belief compared to an insincere one?

lyndausvi · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Honest question ... a lot of people bring up the hypothetical about JW's and blood transfusions, and I haven't heard anything regarding JW's speaking out regarding this. Has anyone else?

No I haven't. Again, I think free market, getting and keeping good talent and businesses liking the all mighty dollar will keep them from evening trying.

There are other [affordable] BC options, maybe not one we want, but they do indeed exist. I would think that would be suicide for a large company to start denying blood transfusions or vaccines.

But like JCB said Pandora's box has opened and we could see in down the road.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

Also, going back to the Jewish/Muslim ban on pork. Can a Jewish employer deny coverage for a heart-valve transplant? They usually use a pig heart valve. Does using your insurance for such a thing violate the religious freedom of your Jewish employer? Are you causing him to sin because he paid part of your premium? I suppose they can use a heart valve from another animal, but pig has the lowest rejection rate. How would getting slightly less good medical treatment because of your employer's beliefs make you feel?

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Are there faith traditions (and not just whack-jobs) that don't support vaccines? I honestly am curious and have only heard about opposition from people like Jenny McCarthy.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

Christian scientists and some fundamentalist Christians, the kinds who believe in faith-healing.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Liatris2010 said:

Also, going back to the Jewish/Muslim ban on pork. Can a Jewish employer deny coverage for a heart-valve transplant? They usually use a pig heart valve. Does using your insurance for such a thing violate the religious freedom of your Jewish employer? Are you causing him to sin because he paid part of your premium? I suppose they can use a heart valve from another animal, but pig has the lowest rejection rate. How would getting slightly less good medical treatment because of your employer's beliefs make you feel?

I'm honestly not sure how the Jewish faith tradition feels about providing that, and I haven't heard many responses to this ruling from Jewish leaders.

If I were to find out that was the case for me, my husband, or my kids, then I would respect his/her religious tradition as I would expect them to respect mine.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Liatris2010 said:

Also, going back to the Jewish/Muslim ban on pork. Can a Jewish employer deny coverage for a heart-valve transplant? They usually use a pig heart valve. Does using your insurance for such a thing violate the religious freedom of your Jewish employer? Are you causing him to sin because he paid part of your premium? I suppose they can use a heart valve from another animal, but pig has the lowest rejection rate. How would getting slightly less good medical treatment because of your employer's beliefs make you feel?

I'm honestly not sure how the Jewish faith tradition feels about providing that, and I haven't heard many responses to this ruling from Jewish leaders.

If I were to find out that was the case for me, my husband, or my kids, then I would respect his/her religious tradition as I would expect them to respect mine.

Kudos to you, because I would be very resentful that someone else's personal beliefs limited my medical options and caused me to get sub-standard care.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Liatris2010 said:

Also, going back to the Jewish/Muslim ban on pork. Can a Jewish employer deny coverage for a heart-valve transplant? They usually use a pig heart valve. Does using your insurance for such a thing violate the religious freedom of your Jewish employer? Are you causing him to sin because he paid part of your premium? I suppose they can use a heart valve from another animal, but pig has the lowest rejection rate. How would getting slightly less good medical treatment because of your employer's beliefs make you feel?

I'm honestly not sure how the Jewish faith tradition feels about providing that, and I haven't heard many responses to this ruling from Jewish leaders.

If I were to find out that was the case for me, my husband, or my kids, then I would respect his/her religious tradition as I would expect them to respect mine.

Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't come back. Bitch-slaps are allowed.

But how far would you let this go? What if your husband would die without the transplant? Would you really "respect his/her religious tradition" then? Honestly, I find it hard to believe you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, no problem, I respect your religious tradition.

Having autonomy over what I put in my body feels that way to me.

mysticl · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Are there faith traditions (and not just whack-jobs) that don't support vaccines? I honestly am curious and have only heard about opposition from people like Jenny McCarthy.

STB:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-church-epicenter-measles-outbreak/story?id=20071644

Cookie Pusher · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Are there faith traditions (and not just whack-jobs) that don't support vaccines? I honestly am curious and have only heard about opposition from people like Jenny McCarthy.

I've seen on message boards where women say declaring yourself as a Christian would exempt you from having to vaccinate as they claim some vaccines use fetal tissue (I don't know this for a fact, just stating something I read).

So I guess Scientologists don't have to offer psychiatric coverage either since aliens are going to come and save them all.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

sarahbear31 said:

Liatris2010 said:

Also, going back to the Jewish/Muslim ban on pork. Can a Jewish employer deny coverage for a heart-valve transplant? They usually use a pig heart valve. Does using your insurance for such a thing violate the religious freedom of your Jewish employer? Are you causing him to sin because he paid part of your premium? I suppose they can use a heart valve from another animal, but pig has the lowest rejection rate. How would getting slightly less good medical treatment because of your employer's beliefs make you feel?

I'm honestly not sure how the Jewish faith tradition feels about providing that, and I haven't heard many responses to this ruling from Jewish leaders.

If I were to find out that was the case for me, my husband, or my kids, then I would respect his/her religious tradition as I would expect them to respect mine.

Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't come back. Bitch-slaps are allowed.

But how far would you let this go? What if your husband would die without the transplant? Would you really "respect his/her religious tradition" then? Honestly, I find it hard to believe you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, no problem, I respect your religious tradition.

Having autonomy over what I put in my body feels that way to me.

I'll answer you when you finish studying.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

Also, one person's faith tradition is another person's whack job.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015 said:

sarahbear31 said:

Liatris2010 said:

Also, going back to the Jewish/Muslim ban on pork. Can a Jewish employer deny coverage for a heart-valve transplant? They usually use a pig heart valve. Does using your insurance for such a thing violate the religious freedom of your Jewish employer? Are you causing him to sin because he paid part of your premium? I suppose they can use a heart valve from another animal, but pig has the lowest rejection rate. How would getting slightly less good medical treatment because of your employer's beliefs make you feel?

I'm honestly not sure how the Jewish faith tradition feels about providing that, and I haven't heard many responses to this ruling from Jewish leaders.

If I were to find out that was the case for me, my husband, or my kids, then I would respect his/her religious tradition as I would expect them to respect mine.

Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't come back. Bitch-slaps are allowed.

But how far would you let this go? What if your husband would die without the transplant? Would you really "respect his/her religious tradition" then? Honestly, I find it hard to believe you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, no problem, I respect your religious tradition.

Having autonomy over what I put in my body feels that way to me.

I'll answer you when you finish studying.

Political debates aside. I like you.

I'm pressing play on my Trusts video, I swear. See you guys later.

NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Re: NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Choose Another Board

Search Boards