NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

mysticl

MagicInk said:

My Facebook page has been incredibly quiet on this front. Mostly just cat videos and some "like if you love Jesus, scroll past if you heart the devil" crap (I heart the devil obviously because I just kept scrolling, sorry Jesus, you're cool too). Which is kind of nice because well...there are some really stupid people I'm friends with just to keep the peace who should be posting a lot of things like what @JCBride2015 posted up. 

I just can't understand why a business wants to give a shit. I don't give a shit what medications my employees do or do not take. Just don't show up to work stoned and we're all good.

Can I just say how much I love this statement.  

mysticl

Liatris2010 said:

Closely-held religious beliefs my foot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

It's okay to invest in "abortifactants" (let's ignore the science on that one, since SCOTUS says beliefs contrary to fact are protected), but not to pay for them. If they are religious as they claim, surely profiting from abortions is anathema?

I was reading about this too. It's the height of hypocrisy.  

Here's the thing some of those drugs have more than one use.  In one of the articles I read they listed Cytotec because it can be used to cause an abortion.  It's actually approved to treat stomach ulcers, and is used off label for abortions, to complete partial miscarriages, and to induce labor.  So are they going to just deny coverage of these drugs across the board because it "can" be used to cause an abortion or are they going to make it a case by case basis.  I was induced with Cytotec (I don't recommend it, but that's another story) because my hospital only offered it and Pitocin for induction.  It would have seriously sucked if I had later been billed for the induction because my insurance wouldn't cover it because it could be used for abortion in someone else.  

SBmini

My super religious cousin posted a "I stand with Hobby Lobby" or something. I asked her what about the freedom of the people who work there.

She replied: They have the freedom to work somewhere else.

What sort of awful mindset is that? Yes, let's all just go out in this wonderful employment climate and get new jobs.

But I do hope people leave Hobby Lobby as a result. Just out of principle. I don't think birth control is a right. I simply don't understand the premise of the lawsuit at all. Contraception has been a part of health care plans for decades. And they had no problem with it then, so why do they have a problem with it now?

mrsmagicgeek

This decision is so messed up. I'm seriously at a loss for words.

MamaAlly89

Pretty soon the corporations will be claiming their Christian Science beliefs won't allow them to cover any medical treatment for their employees...

 

chibiyui

SBmini said:

My super religious cousin posted a "I stand with Hobby Lobby" or something. I asked her what about the freedom of the people who work there.

She replied: They have the freedom to work somewhere else.

What sort of awful mindset is that? Yes, let's all just go out in this wonderful employment climate and get new jobs.

But I do hope people leave Hobby Lobby as a result. Just out of principle. I don't think birth control is a right. I simply don't understand the premise of the lawsuit at all. Contraception has been a part of health care plans for decades. And they had no problem with it then, so why do they have a problem with it now?

I love it when people use that excuse. Over half of all US workers are employed by "closely held businesses" Half the fucking country is supposed to just go out and find a new job. Cause thats so fucking easy in the current economy.

KatieinBkln

Ugh, I hate everyone and everything. This is awful news. 

mysticl

SBmini said:

My super religious cousin posted a "I stand with Hobby Lobby" or something. I asked her what about the freedom of the people who work there.

She replied: They have the freedom to work somewhere else.

What sort of awful mindset is that? Yes, let's all just go out in this wonderful employment climate and get new jobs.

But I do hope people leave Hobby Lobby as a result. Just out of principle. I don't think birth control is a right. I simply don't understand the premise of the lawsuit at all. Contraception has been a part of health care plans for decades. And they had no problem with it then, so why do they have a problem with it now?

Not all health care plans offered it.  A previous employer of mine offered 3 different health plans (different price points and coverage).  One of them (the most expensive one to the employee) did not cover any form of birth control. So it could be possible that they provided their employees with a plan like that.  

lyndausvi

mysticl said:

SBmini said:

My super religious cousin posted a "I stand with Hobby Lobby" or something. I asked her what about the freedom of the people who work there.

She replied: They have the freedom to work somewhere else.

What sort of awful mindset is that? Yes, let's all just go out in this wonderful employment climate and get new jobs.

But I do hope people leave Hobby Lobby as a result. Just out of principle. I don't think birth control is a right. I simply don't understand the premise of the lawsuit at all. Contraception has been a part of health care plans for decades. And they had no problem with it then, so why do they have a problem with it now?

Not all health care plans offered it.  A previous employer of mine offered 3 different health plans (different price points and coverage).  One of them (the most expensive one to the employee) did not cover any form of birth control. So it could be possible that they provided their employees with a plan like that.  

I worked for a place that didn't provide BC.    They were not a religious company at all.  I think they were just cheap.

JCbride2015

Back on a study break just to affirm that I am still pissed.  

southernbelle0915 said:

This is pretty freaky in terms of setting precedent. 

Could they object to paying for prenatal care and delivery for a woman having a child out of wedlock, too? 

On the flip side, if I'm Michael's, JoAnn's or any other craft store, I'm hardcore recruiting Hobby Lobby's female execs and other workers right now saying "we cover it, come on over..."

I have skimmed the opinion (because I'm supposed to be doing other stuff but just couldn't stop myself) and it appears from the language that yes, according to this precedent they could.

But that would be a really extreme result and I'd like to think SCOTUS would come up with a way to limit this precedent so that won't happen.  But yes, analytically, that is the exact corollary to what this opinion has held.

It underscores, though, that this is a completely results-oriented decision and just doesn't have any internal legal consistency.  This decision is going to need to be revisited over and over again because SCOTUS hasn't articulated any clear standard.

KatieinBkln

There are SO MANY conditions and diseases that are caused by vices, or, if religious extremists prefer, "sins." Can employers decline to cover liver transplants or dialysis caused by a lifetime of alcoholism and drug use? Or to keep it more analogous to a human woman having occasional sex, would they be allowed to deny care to someone who drank too much ONE time, and crashed a car or fell off a balcony and now needs care for a traumatic brain injury? My god, we could exert judgment for people's choices in ALL KINDS of ways with this precedent!

I doubt that will happen though. While the old white dudes who run our country have been known to get the occasional DUI, do the occasional drug, or even commit the occasional violent crime, they have NEVER been caught in possession of a uterus or a vagina, so they feel pretty safe that regulating women's bodies will never come back to bite them. But we don't have a misogyny problem in this country, oh no. 

JCbride2015

KatieinBkln said:

There are SO MANY conditions and diseases that are caused by vices, or, if religious extremists prefer, "sins." Can employers decline to cover liver transplants or dialysis caused by a lifetime of alcoholism and drug use? Or to keep it more analogous to a human woman having occasional sex, would they be allowed to deny care to someone who drank too much ONE time, and crashed a car or fell off a balcony and now needs care for a traumatic brain injury? My god, we could exert judgment for people's choices in ALL KINDS of ways with this precedent!

I doubt that will happen though. While the old white dudes who run our country have been known to get the occasional DUI, do the occasional drug, or even commit the occasional violent crime, they have NEVER been caught in possession of a uterus or a vagina, so they feel pretty safe that regulating women's bodies will never come back to bite them. But we don't have a misogyny problem in this country, oh no. 

Yeah really... it's painfully obvious that men are making these decisions.  Not only in how the SCOTUS votes shook out, but that HL as a corporation would even try to push this policy in the first place.

I am ashamed for our country that Justice Ginsburg saw Roe v. Wade as a litigator, made it to SCOTUS, and then had to see this travesty of a decision.  I want to print out her dissent and hang it on my wall.  She is the best and I hope she lives forever and never retires.

JasperandOpal

I believe they touched on it in the opinion (haven't had a chance to read it yet) but what about religions that don't believe in blood transfusions and other medical treatments? Or a religion that doesn't believe in any medical treatment? I know they say that there is a tipping point at which it becomes a "public health concern" so that it would weigh in favor of the corporation having to provide that coverage but where is that tipping point? And why isn't the potential for thousands and thousands of unwanted children a "public health concern"? Why aren't the ailments that many women take birth control for "public health concerns"?

JCbride2015

JasperandOpal said:

I believe they touched on it in the opinion (haven't had a chance to read it yet) but what about religions that don't believe in blood transfusions and other medical treatments? Or a religion that doesn't believe in any medical treatment? I know they say that there is a tipping point at which it becomes a "public health concern" so that it would weigh in favor of the corporation having to provide that coverage but where is that tipping point? And why isn't the potential for thousands and thousands of unwanted children a "public health concern"? Why aren't the ailments that many women take birth control for "public health concerns"?

@JasperandOpal Don't you know by now?  Women live in the private sphere.  The public sphere is for men.  So of course health issues that affect men are public health concerns.  But those lady problems need to stay in private.

mysticl

JasperandOpal said:

I believe they touched on it in the opinion (haven't had a chance to read it yet) but what about religions that don't believe in blood transfusions and other medical treatments? Or a religion that doesn't believe in any medical treatment? I know they say that there is a tipping point at which it becomes a "public health concern" so that it would weigh in favor of the corporation having to provide that coverage but where is that tipping point? And why isn't the potential for thousands and thousands of unwanted children a "public health concern"? Why aren't the ailments that many women take birth control for "public health concerns"?

Right now it's written that it only applies to contraception and not to things like transfusions and vaccines. However, it sets a precedent. And the lawyers for the next company that doesn't want to provided something will pull it out and use it to make their argument. They will claim if the government can't force a company to provide birth control they can't force them to provide something else.  

@JCbride2015 aren't you supposed to be studying right now?  

On a side note anyone else watch Continuum?  Life imitates art?

JCbride2015

Thanks for the internet slap @mysticl.  I finished reviewing my federal procedure stuff, taking a break before Wills and Trusts.

Just had to come back briefly because this is how I feel right now.

ETA: signing off again now.  I'll probably be back around dinnertime when my next lecture is done.

sarahufl

JCbride2015 said:

KatieinBkln said:

There are SO MANY conditions and diseases that are caused by vices, or, if religious extremists prefer, "sins." Can employers decline to cover liver transplants or dialysis caused by a lifetime of alcoholism and drug use? Or to keep it more analogous to a human woman having occasional sex, would they be allowed to deny care to someone who drank too much ONE time, and crashed a car or fell off a balcony and now needs care for a traumatic brain injury? My god, we could exert judgment for people's choices in ALL KINDS of ways with this precedent!

I doubt that will happen though. While the old white dudes who run our country have been known to get the occasional DUI, do the occasional drug, or even commit the occasional violent crime, they have NEVER been caught in possession of a uterus or a vagina, so they feel pretty safe that regulating women's bodies will never come back to bite them. But we don't have a misogyny problem in this country, oh no. 

Yeah really... it's painfully obvious that men are making these decisions.  Not only in how the SCOTUS votes shook out, but that HL as a corporation would even try to push this policy in the first place.

I am ashamed for our country that Justice Ginsburg saw Roe v. Wade as a litigator, made it to SCOTUS, and then had to see this travesty of a decision.  I want to print out her dissent and hang it on my wall.  She is the best and I hope she lives forever and never retires.

Her dissent was awesome.

alpacalunch

SBmini

Thanks for letting me know about the health plans. It's frustrating that when people point out how this can be bad for people with other medical issues- people in support of the decision retort that this is a 'narrow ruling'. No, it's not. People are too short sighted to realize that this will open up the opportunity for employers to decide they don't want to support other medical needs on religious grounds. Can you just smell the opportunity for abuse here?

"Oh, well I would never work for a company that would do that."

Yeah, good luck looking for a new job/insurance while you die of liver failure because your employer is anti-alcohol! 

melbenso

JCbride2015 said:

If I sit here stewing about Con Law, I'll never learn NY Wills and Trusts today.

@JCbride2015

But Con Law is so much better than Wills and Trusts. 

That being said, I got my worst law school grade (C+) in Wills and Trusts, and I definitely write more wills than Constitutional Law arguments.  I also did great on the Wills section of the bar and tanked the Con Law part (bar examiners apparently don't like it when you can quote and cite cases from memory - don't do it).

In the end, neither law school nor the bar teaches you all that much about practicing law.  And FYI, I've been told that (at least in my state, which is not NY) the Wills and Trusts essay is almost always on the rules of succession and who inherits when no one has a will and multiple family members die in some horrible accident, so being deemed predeceased is an issue.

Good luck on the bar!  It likely will be some of the most miserable hours you spend in your life.  But more because it is exhausting than hard, if you study. I suggest you make your own flash cards (writing it out helps) using triaged information based on what topics examiners test on most - you can't learn everything, so focus on learning the most likely questions.  It was really effective for me.

And when I was studying for the bar, the fifth Harry Potter book came out a week before the test.  I hadn't preordered it because I wanted to focus on studying.  But the night it came out, I was so sick of studying, I spent hours in line at a book store, got home at 3 a.m., and read the whole thing cover to cover.  I still passed the bar.  It's ok to take a break some times.

ETA tag

buttercup1958

I know I may sound harsh against the human race but I don't think we are as logical as we think we are. In legal theory this does set the precedence of more rulings like this to come.  But I don't think it will happen. For "small' stuff like contraceptives its very easy for people to be blinded by their own biases or religions and not think clearly.  However, I think with extreme cases like the wedlock situation that would be so extreme that I think will stop most people in their tracks. Even though the same argument could be made for both cases. I really doubt any sane judge will rule that blood fusions or wedlock mothers shouldn't be covered. That would be stepping over a huge line. But I may be naive. I really think this ruling is stupid and religion shouldn't be involved with our government at all.

JasperandOpal

I wish that I had your faith in judges.  Maybe if all judges were "sane" I wouldn't be so worried but we have judges that give people who drug and repeatedly rape their wives house arrest while telling the wife to just "forgive him" and judges who firmly believe that bodies shut down during rape such that you can't get pregnant so I am not sure if I can put my faith in them to know when to put on the brakes. 

chibiyui

JasperandOpal said:

I wish that I had your faith in judges.  Maybe if all judges were "sane" I wouldn't be so worried but we have judges that give people who drug and repeatedly rape their wives house arrest while telling the wife to just "forgive him" and judges who firmly believe that bodies shut down during rape such that you can't get pregnant so I am not sure if I can put my faith in them to know when to put on the brakes. 

Yeah, I see this being applied to situations outside of healthcare as well. There is nothing narrow about this ruling.

themuffinman16

The owner of Hobby Lobby said he would shut his doors if he had lost this trial. He would rather close his business than provide adequate insurance for his employees. Once I heard that, I was happy to spend more at Joann and Michael's.  You know which country has a large percentage of abortions... China.  Guess who produces all of the crap you can buy at Hobby Lobby.... oh. Lmao.

JCbride2015

themuffinman16 said:

The owner of Hobby Lobby said he would shut his doors if he had lost this trial. He would rather close his business than provide adequate insurance for his employees. Once I heard that, I was happy to spend more at Joann and Michael's.  You know which country has a large percentage of abortions... China.  Guess who produces all of the crap you can buy at Hobby Lobby.... oh. Lmao.

PPs already posted this, but they also invest in the pharma companies who make BC.

Such hypocrites.

lyndausvi

JCbride2015 said:

themuffinman16 said:

The owner of Hobby Lobby said he would shut his doors if he had lost this trial. He would rather close his business than provide adequate insurance for his employees. Once I heard that, I was happy to spend more at Joann and Michael's.  You know which country has a large percentage of abortions... China.  Guess who produces all of the crap you can buy at Hobby Lobby.... oh. Lmao.

PPs already posted this, but they also invest in the pharma companies who make BC.

Such hypocrites.

They are all hypocrites.   The Marriott's are big time Mormons.  When they came to visit we had to remove sodas and alcohol from their rooms.  However that didnt' stop JW's dad from getting a loan from Pepsi (after Coke refused) to open up his marquis hotel or the fact the corporation has one of the largest wine collections (combined) in the world.   We all know they do not shut down business on Sundays.

The good news is Marriott had domestic partnership (even same-sex) benefits for a while now.  Our insurance also paid for BC. Actually our insurance was way better than another hotel company who is not religious.   

 I guess in their case keeping talented people to make money was more important than their individual beliefs.

kla728

daria24 said:

JCbride2015 said:

Shit.  The opinion finally came out and I'm reading it now.  I honestly didn't expect this-- I think they are reading RFRA wayyyyy too broadly.  Given their previous interpretations of RFRA I did not think it would come out this way.

ETA: this is more about interpreting RFRA than the ACA.  I'm very scared of a slippery slope in which closely held corporations can declare religious views about any fucking thing they want because it's convenient.

Extremely pissed about why the contraceptives issue, hell yes.  More worried about what this means for corporate "religious freedom" bullshit?  Hell fucking yes.

I thought the decision was written narrowly to only involve contraceptives? IE, a corporation (currently) cannot refuse to cover blood transfusions due to religious beliefs? Not that this case won't be precedence for such an argument, but I thought this decision is only in regards to contraception?

That is true... but as a woman, even more insulting.  They essentially said "Oh, medical procedures that impact the entire population are safe.  It is just the medical issues that happen to only impact women that we are going to interfere in."

buttercup1958 said:

I know I may sound harsh against the human race but I don't think we are as logical as we think we are. In legal theory this does set the precedence of more rulings like this to come.  But I don't think it will happen. For "small' stuff like contraceptives its very easy for people to be blinded by their own biases or religions and not think clearly.  However, I think with extreme cases like the wedlock situation that would be so extreme that I think will stop most people in their tracks. Even though the same argument could be made for both cases. I really doubt any sane judge will rule that blood fusions or wedlock mothers shouldn't be covered. That would be stepping over a huge line. But I may be naive. I really think this ruling is stupid and religion shouldn't be involved with our government at all.

My understanding is that it isn't the birth control piece that potentially sets precedent, it is the "closely held businesses" piece.  Our resident legal experts can advise I am sure.  

--

I have been holding in all of my rage on this all day, because I don't need to spark a social media fight between my conservative family members and liberal friends.  So glad to see the ladies of TK discussing this and largely feeling the same way that I do.

pinkshorts27

kla728 said:

daria24 said:

JCbride2015 said:

Shit.  The opinion finally came out and I'm reading it now.  I honestly didn't expect this-- I think they are reading RFRA wayyyyy too broadly.  Given their previous interpretations of RFRA I did not think it would come out this way.

ETA: this is more about interpreting RFRA than the ACA.  I'm very scared of a slippery slope in which closely held corporations can declare religious views about any fucking thing they want because it's convenient.

Extremely pissed about why the contraceptives issue, hell yes.  More worried about what this means for corporate "religious freedom" bullshit?  Hell fucking yes.

I thought the decision was written narrowly to only involve contraceptives? IE, a corporation (currently) cannot refuse to cover blood transfusions due to religious beliefs? Not that this case won't be precedence for such an argument, but I thought this decision is only in regards to contraception?

That is true... but as a woman, even more insulting.  They essentially said "Oh, medical procedures that impact the entire population are safe.  It is just the medical issues that happen to only impact women that we are going to interfere in."

buttercup1958 said:

I know I may sound harsh against the human race but I don't think we are as logical as we think we are. In legal theory this does set the precedence of more rulings like this to come.  But I don't think it will happen. For "small' stuff like contraceptives its very easy for people to be blinded by their own biases or religions and not think clearly.  However, I think with extreme cases like the wedlock situation that would be so extreme that I think will stop most people in their tracks. Even though the same argument could be made for both cases. I really doubt any sane judge will rule that blood fusions or wedlock mothers shouldn't be covered. That would be stepping over a huge line. But I may be naive. I really think this ruling is stupid and religion shouldn't be involved with our government at all.

My understanding is that it isn't the birth control piece that potentially sets precedent, it is the "closely held businesses" piece.  Our resident legal experts can advise I am sure.  

--

I have been holding in all of my rage on this all day, because I don't need to spark a social media fight between my conservative family members and liberal friends.  So glad to see the ladies of TK discussing this and largely feeling the same way that I do.

And just FYI, most conservatives I know (ie my parents and neighbors) were trashing the decision. So not all conservatives agree.

JCbride2015

pinkshorts27 said:

kla728 said:

daria24 said:

JCbride2015 said:

Shit.  The opinion finally came out and I'm reading it now.  I honestly didn't expect this-- I think they are reading RFRA wayyyyy too broadly.  Given their previous interpretations of RFRA I did not think it would come out this way.

ETA: this is more about interpreting RFRA than the ACA.  I'm very scared of a slippery slope in which closely held corporations can declare religious views about any fucking thing they want because it's convenient.

Extremely pissed about why the contraceptives issue, hell yes.  More worried about what this means for corporate "religious freedom" bullshit?  Hell fucking yes.

I thought the decision was written narrowly to only involve contraceptives? IE, a corporation (currently) cannot refuse to cover blood transfusions due to religious beliefs? Not that this case won't be precedence for such an argument, but I thought this decision is only in regards to contraception?

That is true... but as a woman, even more insulting.  They essentially said "Oh, medical procedures that impact the entire population are safe.  It is just the medical issues that happen to only impact women that we are going to interfere in."

buttercup1958 said:

I know I may sound harsh against the human race but I don't think we are as logical as we think we are. In legal theory this does set the precedence of more rulings like this to come.  But I don't think it will happen. For "small' stuff like contraceptives its very easy for people to be blinded by their own biases or religions and not think clearly.  However, I think with extreme cases like the wedlock situation that would be so extreme that I think will stop most people in their tracks. Even though the same argument could be made for both cases. I really doubt any sane judge will rule that blood fusions or wedlock mothers shouldn't be covered. That would be stepping over a huge line. But I may be naive. I really think this ruling is stupid and religion shouldn't be involved with our government at all.

My understanding is that it isn't the birth control piece that potentially sets precedent, it is the "closely held businesses" piece.  Our resident legal experts can advise I am sure.  

--

I have been holding in all of my rage on this all day, because I don't need to spark a social media fight between my conservative family members and liberal friends.  So glad to see the ladies of TK discussing this and largely feeling the same way that I do.

And just FYI, most conservatives I know (ie my parents and neighbors) were trashing the decision. So not all conservatives agree.

I am by no means a legal expert (let me pass the bar first and have 1/4 the career of RBG), but yes, I am most troubled by the general holding that closely held corporations can seek exemption under RFRA for certain laws that conflict with their owners' religious beliefs.  The language of the majority opinion is pretty broad and could be used to support any manner of "religious" exemptions for a broad swath of corporations.

mrsmagicgeek

I'm going to drop coverage for Viagra from my corporation's coverage because it's against my religion. If the flying spaghetti monster wanted men to have woodies, by gosh he'd give them to them.