NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

huskypuppy14 · July 2014

So can Jenny McCarthy's company (hypothetically) refuse to cover vaccines? I'm not sure if that's her religious belief or not, but there are people that don't believe in vaccines. Could they legally refuse to cover vaccines? I hate the slippery slope this may cause.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

huskypuppy14 said:

So can Jenny McCarthy's company (hypothetically) refuse to cover vaccines? I'm not sure if that's her religious belief or not, but there are people that don't believe in vaccines. Could they legally refuse to cover vaccines? I hate the slippery slope this may cause.

RBG specifically argued that the case would support this in her dissent. It might not go that far in application, but the way it's drafted now... yes, as long as the belief is sincerely held. There's no real legal standard, so it will be a total mess in the lower courts.

lyndausvi · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So can Jenny McCarthy's company (hypothetically) refuse to cover vaccines? I'm not sure if that's her religious belief or not, but there are people that don't believe in vaccines. Could they legally refuse to cover vaccines? I hate the slippery slope this may cause.

RBG specifically argued that the case would support this in her dissent. It might not go that far in application, but the way it's drafted now... yes, as long as the belief is sincerely held. There's no real legal standard, so it will be a total mess in the lower courts.

Add in Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kelly Preston and Kirsty Alley not providing anti-depressants to their employees.

ETA

mysticl · July 2014

huskypuppy14 said:

So can Jenny McCarthy's company (hypothetically) refuse to cover vaccines? I'm not sure if that's her religious belief or not, but there are people that don't believe in vaccines. Could they legally refuse to cover vaccines? I hate the slippery slope this may cause.

It's not a religious belief. She believes that vaccines are directly responsible for her son's Autism. But there are plenty of others who claim it's against their religion.

chibiyui · July 2014

mysticl said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So can Jenny McCarthy's company (hypothetically) refuse to cover vaccines? I'm not sure if that's her religious belief or not, but there are people that don't believe in vaccines. Could they legally refuse to cover vaccines? I hate the slippery slope this may cause.

It's not a religious belief. She believes that vaccines are directly responsible for her son's Autism. But there are plenty of others who claim it's against their religion.

The wording is "sincerely held belief" someone with enough money could argue that sincere non religious belief is the same legal weight as sincere religious belief.

mysticl · July 2014

chibiyui said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So can Jenny McCarthy's company (hypothetically) refuse to cover vaccines? I'm not sure if that's her religious belief or not, but there are people that don't believe in vaccines. Could they legally refuse to cover vaccines? I hate the slippery slope this may cause.

It's not a religious belief. She believes that vaccines are directly responsible for her son's Autism. But there are plenty of others who claim it's against their religion.
The wording is "sincerely held belief" someone with enough money could argue that sincere non religious belief is the same legal weight as sincere religious belief.

Oh absolutely. I once stumbled upon a forum for antivaxers and they were telling people just to claim religious belief to the schools to get out of vaccine requirements because apparently it can't be questioned. They were saying the school cannot ask what religion you belong to or for proof that the religion does not support vaccines.

hellosweetie1015 · July 2014

I have absolutely nothing to add to the legal discussion of this. It disturbs me, but I don't have any grasp of the legal ramifications other than what people are stating here. I'm a psychologist. The little bit I *do* understand terrifies me, but I don't feel comfortable discussing its hypothetical ramifications when I know I don't understand them as well as some of y'all.

What I did want to say is that I had already canceled my "planned" trip to HL to get something for my hands to do. I didn't expect FI to feel particularly strongly about this - his boycotted places are generally food places with shitty service, food, or both - but if I said I didn't want our (mine, his, or Our) money going to a place, he would most likely agree.

He texted me when he found out how the ruling went last night and said that he wanted to remove Hobby Lobby from the list of places we shop.

Wedding DIY projects just got that much harder, but if that's the price to be paid, then that's the price to be paid. Michael's an hour away, here I come!

Sugargirl1019 · July 2014

mysticl said:

chibiyui said:

mysticl said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So can Jenny McCarthy's company (hypothetically) refuse to cover vaccines? I'm not sure if that's her religious belief or not, but there are people that don't believe in vaccines. Could they legally refuse to cover vaccines? I hate the slippery slope this may cause.

It's not a religious belief. She believes that vaccines are directly responsible for her son's Autism. But there are plenty of others who claim it's against their religion.
The wording is "sincerely held belief" someone with enough money could argue that sincere non religious belief is the same legal weight as sincere religious belief.

Oh absolutely. I once stumbled upon a forum for antivaxers and they were telling people just to claim religious belief to the schools to get out of vaccine requirements because apparently it can't be questioned. They were saying the school cannot ask what religion you belong to or for proof that the religion does not support vaccines.

I just have to step in and say, that is awful. I dislike the anti-vax movement. Bad things will happen.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

CaitTDid23 said:

I have absolutely nothing to add to the legal discussion of this. It disturbs me, but I don't have any grasp of the legal ramifications other than what people are stating here. I'm a psychologist. The little bit I *do* understand terrifies me, but I don't feel comfortable discussing its hypothetical ramifications when I know I don't understand them as well as some of y'all.

What I did want to say is that I had already canceled my "planned" trip to HL to get something for my hands to do. I didn't expect FI to feel particularly strongly about this - his boycotted places are generally food places with shitty service, food, or both - but if I said I didn't want our (mine, his, or Our) money going to a place, he would most likely agree.

He texted me when he found out how the ruling went last night and said that he wanted to remove Hobby Lobby from the list of places we shop.

Wedding DIY projects just got that much harder, but if that's the price to be paid, then that's the price to be paid. Michael's an hour away, here I come!

I always appreciate when men get riled up about this, too. Any man who cares about the women in his life, and cares about economic advancement in general, should be just as pissed as your (and my) Fi was.

One of my male Facebook friends, not a law school friend who has any legal reason to care about this-- just a normal dude, saw my status and asked me what happened. I said SCOTUS just ruled that corporations can have religious rights, and one of those is to opt out of contraceptive coverage for their employees. His response cracked me up but also reminded me why we are friends:

"pft what??? that hurts my brain to think about how stupid that is"

"that's an argument that [Fi] would make as to how cheese constitutes a why the Stargate opens"

So maybe the next time somebody says their religious freedom means then can force their religion on me, I'll say, "And cheese makes the Stargate open." Because it makes about as much sense.

thisismynickname2 · July 2014

I recognize that there is hypocrisy with HL's practices. I recognize that there is an issue with corporations using this precedent to get out of more and more government-mandated things that are meant to be in the public's best interest. I get it.

However.

This is why I'm Libertarian. Employer-sponsored health plans were born out of a) convenience- creating a ready-made risk pool and b) competition for talent. If company A offers you x and company B offers you y, which is better, you are more inclined to choose and stay at company B.

The fact that this country even got to a point where government can force private companies to offer certain product packages and other private companies to buy certain product packages just makes me ill. I believe in some forms of government regulation; for example, it makes total sense to have full disclosure laws in financial industries so investors and consumers better understand what they're getting into. But forcing the offering and purchasing of products? That's over the line. Let the individuals choose what they want to purchase for their own lives.

The laws are what they are now, and there's no going back, but I'm heartened that SCOTUS had the guts to uphold what this country is *supposed* to have and *doesn't*, which is separation of church and state.

I see gay marriage in a similar way. Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue, at all. The government should allow people to legally form family units of their choosing and file taxes accordingly. Let the religious organizations do what they want to recognize the legal family units. I'm Catholic, but I use birth control, I've used the morning after pill (incidentally was not covered by AETNA, hmmm), and I think gay couples should be allowed to have all the same legal benefits as straight couples, no question.

So many problems today are caused by, not solved by, government "intervention".

JCbride2015 · July 2014

@thisismynickname I'm sorry, but I don't see this as protecting separation of church and state-- I see this as hopelessly entangling church and state. I use those words with care, because it is a legal doctrine. The government cannot become "entangled" with choosing matters of religion. This SCOTUS precedent will force the lower courts to decide an endless parade of questions about what is a sincerely held belief, where the line is to be drawn, which religious beliefs can be exempted and those that aren't. We are inserting government into delicate religious questions.

Furthermore, the government has just decided to enforce the religious beliefs of a small group of powerful company owners over the religious beliefs of thousands of employees. The government has basically chosen which religion to support.

I don't love the ACA as it exists right now either, though for opposite reasons. I think a single-payer system is the way to go and it would have gotten employers totally out of the insurance game. But what's done is done, and now that we have the mandate and employers are regulated under it, the application should be even-handed. Once people choose the corporate form, they accept both the benefits and obligations that go with it.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

Also I'm going to the pool now with my bar prep stuff, so if I don't respond for a while, it's not cuz I'm trying to ignore you in particular. I'm trying to ignore all of the outside world and learn some law!

VulgarGirl · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

Also I'm going to the pool now with my bar prep stuff, so if I don't respond for a while, it's not cuz I'm trying to ignore you in particular. I'm trying to ignore all of the outside world and learn some law!

I fully expect you to be singing the song in your gif. You aren't, you're studying wrong.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

@MagicInk‌ what song? And damn, now I'm mobile knotting at the pool.

Oh duh, my siggy. Can't see it on mobile so my brain didn't connect. Man, bar prep is making me DUMB.

ashley8918 · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

@thisismynickname I'm sorry, but I don't see this as protecting separation of church and state-- I see this as hopelessly entangling church and state. I use those words with care, because it is a legal doctrine. The government cannot become "entangled" with choosing matters of religion. This SCOTUS precedent will force the lower courts to decide an endless parade of questions about what is a sincerely held belief, where the line is to be drawn, which religious beliefs can be exempted and those that aren't. We are inserting government into delicate religious questions.

Furthermore, the government has just decided to enforce the religious beliefs of a small group of powerful company owners over the religious beliefs of thousands of employees. The government has basically chosen which religion to support.

I don't love the ACA as it exists right now either, though for opposite reasons. I think a single-payer system is the way to go and it would have gotten employers totally out of the insurance game. But what's done is done, and now that we have the mandate and employers are regulated under it, the application should be even-handed. Once people choose the corporate form, they accept both the benefits and obligations that go with it.

THIS.

VulgarGirl · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

@MagicInk‌ what song? And damn, now I'm mobile knotting at the pool.
Oh duh, my siggy. Can't see it on mobile so my brain didn't connect. Man, bar prep is making me DUMB.

Lol, just as long as you are bar smart. I'm bar smart. But a totally different kind of bar. I've got skills at finding a good one.

beethery · July 2014

FiancB · July 2014

And here I thought Christianity was about making the world a better place, not being an asshole to people and protecting your bottom line. My bad!

If anybody believes that PlanB is a form of abortion, they need to be whacked in the head with a physiology textbook.

I refused to shop at Hobby Lobby when this all started but I am very surprised that this shit actually went through.

beethery · July 2014

I don't know who runs A.C. Moore but if they start playing this shit I'm going to be broke as hell from buying all my shit at Dick Blick or Michaels.

thisismynickname2 · July 2014

@JCbride "entangling" is a great word to use, and further illustrates my view that the government is better served to leave well enough alone. They are causing more problems.

I'll never say I have the answers, but I have ideas. My mom, for example, works for a tiny company. When they offered her the job, they gave her an express "salary" with a separate "stipend" to be used on healthcare. She didn't use it for healthcare since it's better for her to be on my dad's (individual market, very expensive) plan.

Why can't any company do that, for example? "Oh what a tangled web we weave" though, because clearly there are tax benefits to healthcare funds. That's another compounding problem, but in my perfect world, people would have the ability to pay for care on their own. The companies shouldn't care what procedures and drugs people are choosing to buy, provided the company pays them enough to make a decent choice.

I have one person on my Facebook commenting that we're moving more towards national healthcare, and I don't necessarily think we are. I wouldn't want it, if the VA is any indication of how that would work. I hope the economics of the ACA work out as intended (again, I have my doubts). More people in risk pools, more competition, lower prices? Let's hope. At the end of the day, government has screwed up.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

thisismynickname said:

@JCbride "entangling" is a great word to use, and further illustrates my view that the government is better served to leave well enough alone. They are causing more problems.

I'll never say I have the answers, but I have ideas. My mom, for example, works for a tiny company. When they offered her the job, they gave her an express "salary" with a separate "stipend" to be used on healthcare. She didn't use it for healthcare since it's better for her to be on my dad's (individual market, very expensive) plan.

Why can't any company do that, for example? "Oh what a tangled web we weave" though, because clearly there are tax benefits to healthcare funds. That's another compounding problem, but in my perfect world, people would have the ability to pay for care on their own. The companies shouldn't care what procedures and drugs people are choosing to buy, provided the company pays them enough to make a decent choice.

I have one person on my Facebook commenting that we're moving more towards national healthcare, and I don't necessarily think we are. I wouldn't want it, if the VA is any indication of how that would work. I hope the economics of the ACA work out as intended (again, I have my doubts). More people in risk pools, more competition, lower prices? Let's hope. At the end of the day, government has screwed up.

I think the issue is the difference between a perfect world and the world we live in, though. Would it be ideal if the insurance marketplace was fair, transparent, and competitive? And all employers could pay their employees a living wage so employees could purchase their own insurance at a cheap rate? Of course. But that's just not the reality.

My dad is a hardcore Libertarian and I've had this argument with him numerous times. He firmly believes all government support such as Welfare, SNAP, Social Security should be abolished and private charity will step in and take care of it. Well no, Dad, that's not reality. We have people on these programs because private charity hasn't taken care of it already.

Gerbertmcway · July 2014

I probably just don't understand the whole health insurance system well enough to really understand have an opinion on this, but why can @mysticl‌ and @lyndausvi‌ work for companies that don't offer plans with birth control on the account of being cheap but hobby lobby can not choose to not cover certain types of birth control for any other reason?

JCbride2015 · July 2014

Gerbertmcway said:

I probably just don't understand the whole health insurance system well enough to really understand have an opinion on this, but why can @mysticl‌ and @lyndausvi‌ work for companies that don't offer plans with birth control on the account of being cheap but hobby lobby can not choose to not cover certain types of birth control for any other reason?

I think they must have been talking about pre-ACA plans.

lyndausvi · July 2014

Gerbertmcway said:

I probably just don't understand the whole health insurance system well enough to really understand have an opinion on this, but why can @mysticl‌ and @lyndausvi‌ work for companies that don't offer plans with birth control on the account of being cheap but hobby lobby can not choose to not cover certain types of birth control for any other reason?

The company I worked for was years ago. They choose not to cover BC. It was just the way it was. Companies could also not insure you because of a pre-exsiting condition back then. When ObamaCare came about they mandated all companies had to cover (among other things) all FDA approved BC.

Holly Lobby covered some BC options (and still does), but didn't want to cover 4 of them that they deemed "abortion pills". That is why they went to court, to fight the gov't from mandating them paying for something that went against their religion. It was not all BC, just those they claim are "abortion pills".

ETA - clarification. ALL companies is really companies with more than 50 employees (which the company I worked for was). Non-profits were mostly exempt from the mandate also.

banana468 · July 2014

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.

mysticl · July 2014

Gerbertmcway said:

I probably just don't understand the whole health insurance system well enough to really understand have an opinion on this, but why can @mysticl‌ and @lyndausvi‌ work for companies that don't offer plans with birth control on the account of being cheap but hobby lobby can not choose to not cover certain types of birth control for any other reason?

In my case I was talking about a former employer. I left the company in 2009, prior to the Affordable Care Act being signed. So at the time there was no requirement for employers to provide any type of health care.

chibiyui · July 2014

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.

I don't believe actual abortions are required to be covered by ACA.

It would have never passed if they were.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

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.

mysticl · July 2014

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.

Very good point. What happens when an employer decides it's against their religion to employ women, or divorced people, or people who are "living in sin", or people of a different religion? Will they be able to claim an exception to the anti-discrimination laws based on religious belief?

JCbride2015 · July 2014

mysticl said:

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.

Very good point. What happens when an employer decides it's against their religion to employ women, or divorced people, or people who are "living in sin", or people of a different religion? Will they be able to claim an exception to the anti-discrimination laws based on religious belief?

Analytically this would work, but of course there are anti discrimination laws in place that RFRA cannot allow the opt out of. Such as refusal to employ women or certain religions.

NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Re: NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Choose Another Board

Search Boards