SCOTUS ruled in Burrell v. Hobby Lobby

VarunaTT · June 2014

in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Between this and the buffer zone ruling, I just can't even understand this Court.

Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Decent enough overview: http://time.com/2940511/justices-cant-make-employers-cover-contraception/

GBCK · June 2014

fuck.

I really REALLY want to see a logical following when they apply this shit to other stuff...like a JW employer refusing to cover blood transfusion.

Heffalump · June 2014

WTF? SMH

dharmabunny · June 2014

Hobby Lobby only covered birth control. Mod Podge

VarunaTT · June 2014

I think they're setting a dangerous precedent for privileging a very specific religious viewpoint overriding an individual's rights.

Then they supported the warrant for cell phone search. And the buffer zone decision was unanimous. What?!

I know vote trading has to go on, but seriously this is the most insane term.

VarunaTT · June 2014

@GBCK, Ginsberg agrees with you, btw: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

GBCK · June 2014

I feel vindicated that she does (I have like 7 articles on this open on my computer right now. I don't have time to read them all today but I'm rage reading the internet--because that's healthy for me :P) I'm also feeling like telling people that they're causing abortions. I'm sure that would go over well.

VarunaTT · June 2014

This term has set Ginsberg on fire. She's mad enough to stay alive for forever now.

dharmabunny · June 2014

VarunaTT said:
This term has set Ginsberg on fire. She's mad enough to stay alive for forever now.

thejucheidea · July 2014

mellyD2014 · July 2014

I was having a serious rage issue yesterday when I heard that this ruling came down the way it did. There's no way this ruling won't be used for precedent, no matter how Alito & crew try to parse their words.

Does anyone know a Jewish or Muslim owner of a company who would like to deny their employees health insurance that covers any pig-related medical care (i.e. replacing heart valves, etc)? Because you know the very second that winds its way through the court this ish will get reversed.

ARGH! I even hashed this out with my attorney FI (who is also on my side) and it's not making me feel any better. Grrrarr!

db1984 · July 2014

Hobby Lobby has consistently covered at least 16 different birth control meds. This was only about abortifacients. Three or four specific drugs and IUDs. That's it, people.

VarunaTT · July 2014

Except that they aren't' "abortifacients" according to actual science.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

VarunaTT said:

This term has set Ginsberg on fire. She's mad enough to stay alive for forever now.

I know I'm not a reg on this board (hi everybody) but just have to say to this-- I goddamn hope so!

JCbride2015 · July 2014

db1984 said:

Hobby Lobby has consistently covered at least 16 different birth control meds. This was only about abortifacients. Three or four specific drugs and IUDs. That's it, people.

No. Not at all. They are not abortifacients.

pegasuskat · July 2014

I know I am much more consersative than most on this board, but I usually leave these kind of topics alone. I do not believe in abortion, but I also do not picket it, or push that on people. I know people that have had them and I don't judge them or shun them. BUT I think its overboard to compare it to Jewish employers refusing blood transfusions. Except in VERY few medical necessary cases abortions are elective, there is lots of elective things insurance does not pay for. I think BC pills and related things should be covered, but I don't think any one should be forced to pay for actual abortions. If somebody wants one, then they can pay for it. Like any elective thing that you do thats not medically needed.

6fsn · July 2014

I skew to the conservative side. Do I wish there was never another abortion? yes. I pray about it constantly.

I realize that's not the world we live in. I would hate for a woman to have to carry to term a child that was conceived under terrible circumstances. If allowing that one woman to abort her child in a safe environment means that someone uses it as an "oops" form of bc so be it. While it is not part of my personal belief system I don't believe it's safe or prudent to take it out of our society.

The ramifications to the child and mother and society are much bigger than just "it's an elective so pay for it." More likely the person couldn't afford or access bc prior to pregnancy. How are they going to raise a child?

I had insurance that did not cover bc so I paid for it out of pocket. I had a good job though. I could afford it and could access it.

GBCK · July 2014

Well 'necessary' is pretty debatable.

Up until damn recently, mental health care (esp. 'preventative') was considered unnecessary/elective.

I'm not sure why 'not having a baby' = not necessary for health and "not being suicidal' = kinda necessary and 'not wanting to wait out kidney stones (that wouldn't kill me'= necesary.

pegasuskat · July 2014

I have also had to pay for BC at times myself because it was not covered. But from what I have read they are providing for I think was 16 kinds. So their employees will have access, I think everybody should have access to BC. If they chose not to get that BC then an abortion would be elective. I wish people would be more responsible and then the number of abortions would be so small. Its just the casual way I have heard (or saw on FB) people say they have had multiple abortions, they are using that as their form of BC. That is so sad, it is by that point a living baby, I know that is a hot point but its my opionion. Its just that the % of abortions that are due to medical complications, or rape and abuse cases is actually so small, its mostly elective.

VarunaTT · July 2014

Pegasuskat, you're completely entitled to your opinion. Your opinion and heartfelt feelings though? They don't give you or any one else any right to control another person's autonomous body choices.

Also, again, the specific sticking points were the morning after pill and IUDs, which are NOT, they simply are NOT, abortion drugs of any kind. There was a point in history where IUDs could cause a fertilized egg to be aborted. Guess what, WOMEN BODIES DO THAT ALL THE DAMN TIME. Sometimes very sadly so.

This should never have been a thing. Corporations enter into a contract, work for these benefits. Once the benefits are given, they don't get to tell you how to use them. I've said it before, but if HL was trying to control where people went on their paid vacations (only go to holy cities to christians, not Mexico b/c it's full of godless heathens engaging in non-christlike behavior), people would be rioting. But with a super person decision like what medicine I put into my body, we give them that right? No, it's wrong.

And Ginsberg is totally right, this will be a slippery slope used to abuse power. Walmart can be considered a "closely held corporation". Giving a corporation personhood was scary enough...given them rights? Is breaking democracy.

GBCK · July 2014

Actually, that's one of the reasons I'm infuriated that this judgement came down this way.

Study after study after study after study shows that there are 2 legitimate factors that affect rates of abortion. They are 1-access to affordable birth control and 2-good sex education.

#2 basically doesn't exist in the US. So they're messing w/ #1--and claiming it's pro-life to deny birth control...which just leads to more abortions.

I have had to deal with a lot in the last few years wherem y insurance decided what I should/shouldn't be on for treatments instead of my doctors. And I easily spent $2k out of pocket for things not-covered for migraines before we found a mix that worked for me--and that's with still not doing some proposed treatments because of costs. That's it's own special hell and I don't need someone telling me that there are 16 other options, but the 4 that work for me aren't going to be available to me.

Heffalump · July 2014

pegasuskat said:

I know I am much more consersative than most on this board, but I usually leave these kind of topics alone. I do not believe in abortion, but I also do not picket it, or push that on people. I know people that have had them and I don't judge them or shun them. BUT I think its overboard to compare it to Jewish employers refusing blood transfusions. Except in VERY few medical necessary cases abortions are elective, there is lots of elective things insurance does not pay for. I think BC pills and related things should be covered, but I don't think any one should be forced to pay for actual abortions. If somebody wants one, then they can pay for it. Like any elective thing that you do thats not medically needed.

Who's talking about abortions @pegasuskat? Burrell v. Hobby Lobby is about contraception, not abortion. So they provide access to 16 kinds of contraception, sofuckingwhat? It's not their job to police who has access to which kinds. As V pointed out, these are not the same thing as abortion, regardless of whether HL or anyone else wants to say that they are. The science doesn't back them up. They can claim whatever they want to under the broad umbrella of "religion" but objective fact is very clear that the two =/= abortion.

Look, I am 1. about the most boringly responsible person I know (my dad got me a gift card to the Container Store for my birthday, for chrissakes), 2. pro-choice, and 3. unlikely to get an abortion myself--DH and I have talked about it, and while the baby factory is shuttered and we have no plans to reopen it, if we had an "oops!" baby, we'd deal. Unless there were something seriously, chromosomally wrong with it, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, given that DH just turned 44 and I'm about to turn 39.

I don't want to be faced with having a third kid at our ages, let alone aborting a child with serious problems (we're not talking Down syndrome, I'm talking those babies who are missing most of their brain and/or have other unfixable problems that leave them unlikely to survive until childbirth, and if they do, unlikely to survive more than a few hours). So you know what? I have an IUD. After DD, I found that with caring for her, working full time, and having a kid who didn't STTN (which left me exhausted and not as mentally sharp as I had been before), I was forgetting to take my BCPs. And because we didn't want an "oops" baby then, either, I switched to an IUD and never looked back. It has been far, far kinder to my body than hormonal birth control ever was, and is also one of the most effective methods, short of sterilization.

And way, way before DH, I had a condom break and took the MAP. And Hobby Lobby thinks it's their right to deny coverage for both of these. Like 6, I can pay out of pocket for either or both of these, but there was a time in my life where I definitely couldn't, and a lot of people are still at that point.

Look, I hate that health insurance is still primarily through employers--personally, I think work should be work, healthcare should be healthcare, and never the twain shall meet. But since people go hysterical over godless, red communist, single payer healthcare, we appear to be stuck in this system for now. So don't force me to get healthcare through my employer and then let them make important, fundamentally personal and private healthcare decisions for my family and me. If the owners of Hobby Lobby or anywhere don't want to get an IUD or take the MAP, fine, by all means don't. But they don't get to make those decisions for their employees, period.

Heffalump · July 2014

pegasuskat said:

BUT I think its overboard to compare it to Jewish employers refusing blood transfusions.

Also, JW = Jehovah's Witness, not Jewish

6fsn · July 2014

access is a hot button for me. At one point late in my first pregnancy there were zero ob's in the county. They few family docs that used to deliver babies no longer would because of insurance. I had the means and the ability to drive 45 minutes to the next hospital, but a lot of people didn't have that option.

The birthing center in that hospital just closed. There will no longer be hospital births in that county. How long do you think the 2 obs will stay? Who will care for these women and families? This is an extremely depressed area. There is no public transportation. There is little money.

I also hate that they keep making this a women's issue and women's health. It's an issue for everyone.

While I still wish nobody ever needed an abortion I live in reality.

pegasuskat · July 2014

I knew it meant Jehovah's Witness, not sure how/why I typed Jewish.

6, I also wish nobody ever needed an abortion, and wish it was only used for medical emergency/extreme cases when it is used.

I also believe everybody should have access to healthcare/BC.

VarunaTT · July 2014

Ooo, this is a good article: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hobby-lobby-case-myths-debunked

mellyD2014 · July 2014

While you may not feel that abortions and blood transfusions relate on a morality scale, they are held exactly the same in the eyes of the law based on the way the SCOTUS ruled here. They ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby based on the RFRA, essentially saying that they can't be forced to adhere to the amendment in the ACA because it would violate their religious freedom has a closely held company. That is the ruling here. That means any other employer who feels any particular law "violates their religious freedom" will be able to point to this ruling as precedent for why they shouldn't have to do a number of things - pay for blood transfusions, psychiatric medication, or even follow LGBT anti-discrimination laws (in fact yesterday 16 closely held companies already filed suit against the government protesting a newly instated law that prohibits anti-LGBT discrimination and are pointing to this SCOTUS ruling as their legal precedent).

TL;DR - regardless of how you feel morally about contraception, this ruling is going to make an absolute mess of things. It's one of the most ridiculous rulings since Citizens United, an essentially puts the "rights" of a company over the rights of actual humans, both men and women.

(edited for spelling)

carrielovesroxy · July 2014

The kicker is they did cover the BC that they're now denying women until 2012, when the ACA mandated it. Not to mention they have over $73 million of employee retirement funds invested in the pharmaceutical company that manufactures those particular forms of BC. And 90% of what they sell comes from China, which is a very abortion friendly country; in fact, abortion is encouraged in China to help with population control.

I only really believe in abortion for certain circumstances, but I also believe that it's not my business to tell other people what do with their bodies. I also have a major issue with the fact that erectile dysfunction meds are still covered, which, I think we can all agree, are not medically necessary.

thejucheidea · July 2014

pegasuskat said:

I wish people would be more responsible and then the number of abortions would be so small. Its just the casual way I have heard (or saw on FB) people say they have had multiple abortions, they are using that as their form of BC. That is so sad, it is by that point a living baby, I know that is a hot point but its my opionion. Its just that the % of abortions that are due to medical complications, or rape and abuse cases is actually so small, its mostly elective.

Fuck you, I'm a responsible adult who responsibly has sex with my husband, and last year, I got pregnant and had an abortion at five weeks. We weren't ready for a kid, and we made the adult decision to abort. I do not even vaguely consider what was in my uterus at five weeks to be 'a living baby'. It was $625 and pretty painful because of the contractions caused by the Cytovan, so I highly, HIGHLY doubt that ANYONE would actually use it as a legitimate form of birth control due to both cost and pain. That is a constant claim that I hear from conservatives: 'people are using abortion as a regular form of birth control because they're baby-hating beasts!' Whatever.

Is this too casual for you? I'm interested to see how reticent one has to be before you feel they've accepted their transgression and allowed it to weigh heavily on their soul.

And Plan B and IUDs don't cause abortions, numbnuts. This is science.

SCOTUS ruled in Burrell v. Hobby Lobby

Re: SCOTUS ruled in Burrell v. Hobby Lobby

Choose Another Board

Search Boards