NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

ashley8918 said:

sarahbear31 said:

kat1114 said:

And with regards to the comments about why the ACA doesn't cover dental and vision care, it does for those under 19...

"Under the law, children under age 19 will be able to get their teeth cleaned twice a year, as well as receive X-rays, fillings and medically necessary orthodontia. In addition, children under age 19 will be entitled to an eye exam and one pair of glasses or set of contact lenses a year. Relatively few health plans cover children's dental or vision services today."

oh, cool - I didn't realize that. I guess it sucks when they turn 20 and have to pay more.

I wasn't being specific to dental / optometry ... I was just speaking of medical needs that nobody has a moral objection to.

That isn't actually a thing that exists. Christian Scientists believe in faith healing and have a "moral objection" to all medical intervention. Why is your moral objection more valid than theirs?

Honest questions - Have they filed suit? Does their faith object to providing medical intervention for others?

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/after-hobby-lobby-these-77-corporations-will-drop-birth-control-coverage.html And by that logic, I guess Hobby Lobby's faith compels them to object to medical intervention.

I looked at that list, and it makes me SO happy that the Little Sisters of the Poor are on there. That upset me to no end that people are expecting a non profit group of NUNS to provide contraceptive coverage.

brideofginger · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

But do Christian Scientists oppose medical coverage for other people? I honestly don't know much about their faith.

There have been a lot of cases popping up lately of children dying because the parents believe in faith healing. I realize that's not a definitive answer because it's within a family unit, but I think it helps illustrate the climate of their beliefs.

brideofginger · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

ashley8918 said:

sarahbear31 said:

kat1114 said:

And with regards to the comments about why the ACA doesn't cover dental and vision care, it does for those under 19...

"Under the law, children under age 19 will be able to get their teeth cleaned twice a year, as well as receive X-rays, fillings and medically necessary orthodontia. In addition, children under age 19 will be entitled to an eye exam and one pair of glasses or set of contact lenses a year. Relatively few health plans cover children's dental or vision services today."

oh, cool - I didn't realize that. I guess it sucks when they turn 20 and have to pay more.

I wasn't being specific to dental / optometry ... I was just speaking of medical needs that nobody has a moral objection to.

That isn't actually a thing that exists. Christian Scientists believe in faith healing and have a "moral objection" to all medical intervention. Why is your moral objection more valid than theirs?

Honest questions - Have they filed suit? Does their faith object to providing medical intervention for others?

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/after-hobby-lobby-these-77-corporations-will-drop-birth-control-coverage.html And by that logic, I guess Hobby Lobby's faith compels them to object to medical intervention.

I looked at that list, and it makes me SO happy that the Little Sisters of the Poor are on there. That upset me to no end that people are expecting a non profit group of NUNS to provide contraceptive coverage.

Let's just hope none of those nuns have PCOS or endometriosis or ovarian cysts.

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:
But do Christian Scientists oppose medical coverage for other people? I honestly don't know much about their faith.

Does it matter?

I mean, why does Catholicism disapprove of contraceptives so much to try and pass laws that limit what non catholics can do? Why do evangelical christians care so much about another person's uterus? It's not part of my interpretation of the bible, so why should their interpretation take legal precedence over mine?

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

ashley8918 said:

sarahbear31 said:

kat1114 said:

And with regards to the comments about why the ACA doesn't cover dental and vision care, it does for those under 19...

"Under the law, children under age 19 will be able to get their teeth cleaned twice a year, as well as receive X-rays, fillings and medically necessary orthodontia. In addition, children under age 19 will be entitled to an eye exam and one pair of glasses or set of contact lenses a year. Relatively few health plans cover children's dental or vision services today."

oh, cool - I didn't realize that. I guess it sucks when they turn 20 and have to pay more.

I wasn't being specific to dental / optometry ... I was just speaking of medical needs that nobody has a moral objection to.

That isn't actually a thing that exists. Christian Scientists believe in faith healing and have a "moral objection" to all medical intervention. Why is your moral objection more valid than theirs?

Honest questions - Have they filed suit? Does their faith object to providing medical intervention for others?

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/after-hobby-lobby-these-77-corporations-will-drop-birth-control-coverage.html And by that logic, I guess Hobby Lobby's faith compels them to object to medical intervention.

I looked at that list, and it makes me SO happy that the Little Sisters of the Poor are on there. That upset me to no end that people are expecting a non profit group of NUNS to provide contraceptive coverage.

Let's just hope none of those nuns have PCOS or endometriosis or ovarian cysts.

Most Catholics who do use a NaPro doctor (http://www.naprotechnology.com/) who treat those conditions without using birth control. It's what I do as well (and yes, I have PCOS severe enough that I had surgery).

buttercup1958 · July 2014

I refuse to acknowledge Christian Science. They are a mockery of science and I know that sounds bitchy. SorryNotSorry. Honestly I wish religion would just get out of the government so I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

chibiyui said:

But do Christian Scientists oppose medical coverage for other people? I honestly don't know much about their faith.
Does it matter? I mean, why does Catholicism disapprove of contraceptives so much to try and pass laws that limit what non catholics can do? Why do evangelical christians care so much about another person's uterus? It's not part of my interpretation of the bible, so why should their interpretation take legal precedence over mine?

I'll say it one more time. If you're on the Pill, then that's your choice. That affects me in no way. If you work for me and I, as the owner of a company, purchase insurance that includes coverage for contraception, I am contributing to it. That is a sin for me.

And, for us, using contraception to prevent pregnancy is a mortal sin. It's a pretty big deal.

kat1114 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

ashley8918 said:

sarahbear31 said:

kat1114 said:

And with regards to the comments about why the ACA doesn't cover dental and vision care, it does for those under 19...

"Under the law, children under age 19 will be able to get their teeth cleaned twice a year, as well as receive X-rays, fillings and medically necessary orthodontia. In addition, children under age 19 will be entitled to an eye exam and one pair of glasses or set of contact lenses a year. Relatively few health plans cover children's dental or vision services today."

oh, cool - I didn't realize that. I guess it sucks when they turn 20 and have to pay more.

I wasn't being specific to dental / optometry ... I was just speaking of medical needs that nobody has a moral objection to.

That isn't actually a thing that exists. Christian Scientists believe in faith healing and have a "moral objection" to all medical intervention. Why is your moral objection more valid than theirs?

Honest questions - Have they filed suit? Does their faith object to providing medical intervention for others?

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/after-hobby-lobby-these-77-corporations-will-drop-birth-control-coverage.html And by that logic, I guess Hobby Lobby's faith compels them to object to medical intervention.

I looked at that list, and it makes me SO happy that the Little Sisters of the Poor are on there. That upset me to no end that people are expecting a non profit group of NUNS to provide contraceptive coverage.

Let's just hope none of those nuns have PCOS or endometriosis or ovarian cysts.

Most Catholics who do use a NaPro doctor (http://www.naprotechnology.com/) who treat those conditions without using birth control. It's what I do as well (and yes, I have PCOS severe enough that I had surgery).

I'm assuming you have medical insurance that covers it? Would you be okay with your employer refusing to cover it any longer because it conflicts with their religious beliefs?

brideofginger · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

But do Christian Scientists oppose medical coverage for other people? I honestly don't know much about their faith.
Does it matter? I mean, why does Catholicism disapprove of contraceptives so much to try and pass laws that limit what non catholics can do? Why do evangelical christians care so much about another person's uterus? It's not part of my interpretation of the bible, so why should their interpretation take legal precedence over mine?

I'll say it one more time. If you're on the Pill, then that's your choice. That affects me in no way. If you work for me and I, as the owner of a company, purchase insurance that includes coverage for contraception, I am contributing to it. That is a sin for me.

And, for us, using contraception to prevent pregnancy is a mortal sin. It's a pretty big deal.

By that logic, if a company owner believes in faith healing, they may have precedent to be able to deny medical coverage entirely. So I think you just answered your own question.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

kat1114 said:

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

ashley8918 said:

sarahbear31 said:

kat1114 said:

And with regards to the comments about why the ACA doesn't cover dental and vision care, it does for those under 19...

"Under the law, children under age 19 will be able to get their teeth cleaned twice a year, as well as receive X-rays, fillings and medically necessary orthodontia. In addition, children under age 19 will be entitled to an eye exam and one pair of glasses or set of contact lenses a year. Relatively few health plans cover children's dental or vision services today."

oh, cool - I didn't realize that. I guess it sucks when they turn 20 and have to pay more.

I wasn't being specific to dental / optometry ... I was just speaking of medical needs that nobody has a moral objection to.

That isn't actually a thing that exists. Christian Scientists believe in faith healing and have a "moral objection" to all medical intervention. Why is your moral objection more valid than theirs?

Honest questions - Have they filed suit? Does their faith object to providing medical intervention for others?

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/after-hobby-lobby-these-77-corporations-will-drop-birth-control-coverage.html And by that logic, I guess Hobby Lobby's faith compels them to object to medical intervention.

I looked at that list, and it makes me SO happy that the Little Sisters of the Poor are on there. That upset me to no end that people are expecting a non profit group of NUNS to provide contraceptive coverage.

Let's just hope none of those nuns have PCOS or endometriosis or ovarian cysts.

Most Catholics who do use a NaPro doctor (http://www.naprotechnology.com/) who treat those conditions without using birth control. It's what I do as well (and yes, I have PCOS severe enough that I had surgery).

I'm assuming you have medical insurance that covers it? Would you be okay with your employer refusing to cover it any longer because it conflicts with their religious beliefs?

Cover what? Visiting a doctor who does my well woman exams, prescribes progesterone to help with my PCOS and performed a surgery that removed part of my ovary so I can start having periods again?

Please tell me what religion opposes this.

Updated - yes, my insurance covers it. It's an ob-gyn who treats PCOS and endo differently.

brideofginger · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:
Most Catholics who do use a NaPro doctor (http://www.naprotechnology.com/) who treat those conditions without using birth control. It's what I do as well (and yes, I have PCOS severe enough that I had surgery).

1. Without passing judgement on NaPro itself because I am literally only just hearing about it right now, there is nothing about that website that inspires confidence. 2. It scares me a little that invasive surgery > a pill. Again, I will 100% admit that I just learned a brand new word.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

But do Christian Scientists oppose medical coverage for other people? I honestly don't know much about their faith.
Does it matter? I mean, why does Catholicism disapprove of contraceptives so much to try and pass laws that limit what non catholics can do? Why do evangelical christians care so much about another person's uterus? It's not part of my interpretation of the bible, so why should their interpretation take legal precedence over mine?

I'll say it one more time. If you're on the Pill, then that's your choice. That affects me in no way. If you work for me and I, as the owner of a company, purchase insurance that includes coverage for contraception, I am contributing to it. That is a sin for me.

And, for us, using contraception to prevent pregnancy is a mortal sin. It's a pretty big deal.

By that logic, if a company owner believes in faith healing, they may have precedent to be able to deny medical coverage entirely. So I think you just answered your own question.

The question is, does this owner believe that providing medical coverage for someone else is morally offensive?

brideofginger · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

But do Christian Scientists oppose medical coverage for other people? I honestly don't know much about their faith.
Does it matter? I mean, why does Catholicism disapprove of contraceptives so much to try and pass laws that limit what non catholics can do? Why do evangelical christians care so much about another person's uterus? It's not part of my interpretation of the bible, so why should their interpretation take legal precedence over mine?

I'll say it one more time. If you're on the Pill, then that's your choice. That affects me in no way. If you work for me and I, as the owner of a company, purchase insurance that includes coverage for contraception, I am contributing to it. That is a sin for me.

And, for us, using contraception to prevent pregnancy is a mortal sin. It's a pretty big deal.

By that logic, if a company owner believes in faith healing, they may have precedent to be able to deny medical coverage entirely. So I think you just answered your own question.

The question is, does this owner believe that providing medical coverage for someone else is morally offensive?

You believe that providing contraception for others to use is morally offensive, so I think it would stand to follow that a Christian Scientist would feel the same way, especially since so many of them have let their kids die.

VulgarGirl · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

kat1114 said:

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

Let's just hope none of those nuns have PCOS or endometriosis or ovarian cysts.

Most Catholics who do use a NaPro doctor (http://www.naprotechnology.com/) who treat those conditions without using birth control. It's what I do as well (and yes, I have PCOS severe enough that I had surgery).

I'm assuming you have medical insurance that covers it? Would you be okay with your employer refusing to cover it any longer because it conflicts with their religious beliefs?

Cover what? Visiting a doctor who does my well woman exams, prescribes progesterone to help with my PCOS and performed a surgery that removed part of my ovary so I can start having periods again?

Please tell me what religion opposes this.

Updated - yes, my insurance covers it. It's an ob-gyn who treats PCOS and endo differently.

Christian Scientists.

(clipped quote tree, it was getting cray-cray)

kat1114 · July 2014

From wikipedia: Christian Scientists believe that medicine and Christian Science prayer are incompatible, because they proceed from contradictory assumptions. Medicine asserts that something is physically broken and needs to be fixed, while Christian Science asserts that the spiritual reality is perfect and any belief to the contrary needs to be corrected.

daria24 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

Does it matter? I mean, why does Catholicism disapprove of contraceptives so much to try and pass laws that limit what non catholics can do? Why do evangelical christians care so much about another person's uterus? It's not part of my interpretation of the bible, so why should their interpretation take legal precedence over mine?

I'll say it one more time. If you're on the Pill, then that's your choice. That affects me in no way. If you work for me and I, as the owner of a company, purchase insurance that includes coverage for contraception, I am contributing to it. That is a sin for me.

And, for us, using contraception to prevent pregnancy is a mortal sin. It's a pretty big deal.

And once again I am that you have incorporated your company-you have made it it's own separate entity in order to get tax benefits and to indemnify you, as a person, from legal action.

That corporation is paying for the insurance. Not YOU, as a person. (I am taking out of the equation companies that are not incorporated). THAT CORPORATION should not have religious beliefs. You SHOULD NOT be able to create a separate "being" as it were (the corporation) and have it be completely separate from YOU as a PERSON, for legal/tax reasons, but then all of sudden you get to use your beliefs to get a legal exemption from what that corporation does or does not do.

ashley8918 · July 2014

MagicInk said:

sarahbear31 said:

kat1114 said:

sarahbear31 said:

brideofginger said:

Let's just hope none of those nuns have PCOS or endometriosis or ovarian cysts.

Most Catholics who do use a NaPro doctor (http://www.naprotechnology.com/) who treat those conditions without using birth control. It's what I do as well (and yes, I have PCOS severe enough that I had surgery).

I'm assuming you have medical insurance that covers it? Would you be okay with your employer refusing to cover it any longer because it conflicts with their religious beliefs?

Cover what? Visiting a doctor who does my well woman exams, prescribes progesterone to help with my PCOS and performed a surgery that removed part of my ovary so I can start having periods again?

Please tell me what religion opposes this.

Updated - yes, my insurance covers it. It's an ob-gyn who treats PCOS and endo differently.

Christian Scientists.

(clipped quote tree, it was getting cray-cray)

Uh, yeah... haven't we already been over this @sarahbear31?

lyndausvi · July 2014

Debates like this makes me want employers out of the healthcare business.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Regarding Christian Scientists, here's what I found. (http://christianscience.com/member-resources/for-churches/committee-on-publication/us-federal-office/health-care-reform). It's not clear of whether they object to providing medical coverage entirely or not.

If it comes down to the fact that Christian Scientists will not cover any medical insurance, then I would find out if that impacts me and my family. I already said this regarding Jews and porcine valves. As a Catholic, I see the frustrations we've gone through regarding this. It has been frustrating to say the least. If another person of faith goes through the same fight and the court sides with them, then I'd honestly be happy for them. I would keep a close eye on communications from my company's HR to find out if our insurance is affected. If it is for both my employer and my husband's employer, then I would either look at finding a new employer or we would find a way to purchase health care coverage via another avenue.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

lyndausvi said:

Debates like this makes me want employers out of the healthcare business.

I agree with that 100%.

chibiyui · July 2014

lyndausvi said:
Debates like this makes me want employers out of the healthcare business.

I do too, but am certain someone would still make it a pain in the ass to get birth control.

lyndausvi · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Regarding Christian Scientists, here's what I found. (http://christianscience.com/member-resources/for-churches/committee-on-publication/us-federal-office/health-care-reform). It's not clear of whether they object to providing medical coverage entirely or not.

If it comes down to the fact that Christian Scientists will not cover any medical insurance, then I would find out if that impacts me and my family. I already said this regarding Jews and porcine valves. As a Catholic, I see the frustrations we've gone through regarding this. It has been frustrating to say the least. If another person of faith goes through the same fight and the court sides with them, then I'd honestly be happy for them. I would keep a close eye on communications from my company's HR to find out if our insurance is affected. If it is for both my employer and my husband's employer, then I would either look at finding a new employer or we would find a way to purchase health care coverage via another avenue.

***SITB **

How far are you willing to go? Sure someone not getting BC or getting a pig value might not directly effect you, so I can see your point.

But what about the church of Jenny MaCarthy who doesn't want to cover basic vaccines. That could be 10's of thousands of un-vaccinated kids running around because the costs of paying out of pocket or getting insurance from another avenue is not affordable.

That can be a real public health issue.

It's like you can't see the forest because of the trees.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

daria24 said:
And once again I am that you have incorporated your company-you have made it it's own separate entity in order to get tax benefits and to indemnify you, as a person, from legal action.
That corporation is paying for the insurance. Not YOU, as a person. (I am taking out of the equation companies that are not incorporated). THAT CORPORATION should not have religious beliefs. You SHOULD NOT be able to create a separate "being" as it were (the corporation) and have it be completely separate from YOU as a PERSON, for legal/tax reasons, but then all of sudden you get to use your beliefs to get a legal exemption from what that corporation does or does not do.

Let's get back to what the case was actually about.

This has nothing to do with non-profit religious groups or individuals having to pay for something they object to. This has everything to do with corporations being declared people with religious beliefs.

By incorporating their business, the shareholders of HL have voluntarily opted in to a certain legal scheme. That scheme comes with plenty of benefits (primarily liability protection for them as individuals) and some obligations (financial reporting, complying with laws regarding employment, etc.). The purpose of incorporation is to separate the individual from the business, for the protection of the individual. So the shareholders want the corporate veil protection when it benefits them, but they want to break down the corporate veil and impose their own religion on their 23,000 employees.

Nope, sorry. You shouldn't have it both ways. This ruling makes zero sense in the scheme of corporate law.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

lyndausvi said:

sarahbear31 said:

Regarding Christian Scientists, here's what I found. (http://christianscience.com/member-resources/for-churches/committee-on-publication/us-federal-office/health-care-reform). It's not clear of whether they object to providing medical coverage entirely or not.

If it comes down to the fact that Christian Scientists will not cover any medical insurance, then I would find out if that impacts me and my family. I already said this regarding Jews and porcine valves. As a Catholic, I see the frustrations we've gone through regarding this. It has been frustrating to say the least. If another person of faith goes through the same fight and the court sides with them, then I'd honestly be happy for them. I would keep a close eye on communications from my company's HR to find out if our insurance is affected. If it is for both my employer and my husband's employer, then I would either look at finding a new employer or we would find a way to purchase health care coverage via another avenue.

***SITB **

How far are you willing to go? Sure someone not getting BC or getting a pig value might not directly effect you, so I can see your point.

But what about the church of Jenny MaCarthy who doesn't want to cover basic vaccines. That could be 10's of thousands of un-vaccinated kids running around because the costs of paying out of pocket or getting insurance from another avenue is not affordable.

That can be a real public health issue.

It's like you can't see the forest because of the trees.

I read that the Hobby Lobby ruling cannot be used in future cases regarding vaccines. (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/supreme-court-birth-control-what-hobby-lobby-ruling-means-n144526)

JCbride2015, can you clarify?

VulgarGirl · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

daria24 said:
And once again I am that you have incorporated your company-you have made it it's own separate entity in order to get tax benefits and to indemnify you, as a person, from legal action.
That corporation is paying for the insurance. Not YOU, as a person. (I am taking out of the equation companies that are not incorporated). THAT CORPORATION should not have religious beliefs. You SHOULD NOT be able to create a separate "being" as it were (the corporation) and have it be completely separate from YOU as a PERSON, for legal/tax reasons, but then all of sudden you get to use your beliefs to get a legal exemption from what that corporation does or does not do.

Let's get back to what the case was actually about.

This has nothing to do with non-profit religious groups or individuals having to pay for something they object to. This has everything to do with corporations being declared people with religious beliefs.

By incorporating their business, the shareholders of HL have voluntarily opted in to a certain legal scheme. That scheme comes with plenty of benefits (primarily liability protection for them as individuals) and some obligations (financial reporting, complying with laws regarding employment, etc.). The purpose of incorporation is to separate the individual from the business, for the protection of the individual. So the shareholders want the corporate veil protection when it benefits them, but they want to break down the corporate veil and impose their own religion on their 23,000 employees.

Nope, sorry. You shouldn't have it both ways. This ruling makes zero sense in the scheme of corporate law.

This!! So much of this!!!

As someone who owns a business that is incorporated (our other owner handles our business side, we do day to day), it covers our asses. And we take on responsibility. And we don't give a shit what our employees do in their private lives so long as they are able to function at work. There are now three of us lady folk that work here. Me and two other girls. If they want to take BC pills, or if they EC, I want them to have easy access to it. Because it's not my job to make their morality decisions. Fuck I have a hard enough time making my own. And if any of the guys here want to cover their girlfriends/wives (we offer domestic partnership for gay and straight couples) and they want BC or EC, not my damn business.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

daria24 said:
And once again I am that you have incorporated your company-you have made it it's own separate entity in order to get tax benefits and to indemnify you, as a person, from legal action.
That corporation is paying for the insurance. Not YOU, as a person. (I am taking out of the equation companies that are not incorporated). THAT CORPORATION should not have religious beliefs. You SHOULD NOT be able to create a separate "being" as it were (the corporation) and have it be completely separate from YOU as a PERSON, for legal/tax reasons, but then all of sudden you get to use your beliefs to get a legal exemption from what that corporation does or does not do.

Let's get back to what the case was actually about.

This has nothing to do with non-profit religious groups or individuals having to pay for something they object to. This has everything to do with corporations being declared people with religious beliefs.

By incorporating their business, the shareholders of HL have voluntarily opted in to a certain legal scheme. That scheme comes with plenty of benefits (primarily liability protection for them as individuals) and some obligations (financial reporting, complying with laws regarding employment, etc.). The purpose of incorporation is to separate the individual from the business, for the protection of the individual. So the shareholders want the corporate veil protection when it benefits them, but they want to break down the corporate veil and impose their own religion on their 23,000 employees.

Nope, sorry. You shouldn't have it both ways. This ruling makes zero sense in the scheme of corporate law.

Let me ask another question ... apparently this ruling opens the doors for a LOT of non profits who don't want to include coverage of contraceptives. What's your take on that in light of corporate law?

lyndausvi · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

lyndausvi said:

sarahbear31 said:

Regarding Christian Scientists, here's what I found. (http://christianscience.com/member-resources/for-churches/committee-on-publication/us-federal-office/health-care-reform). It's not clear of whether they object to providing medical coverage entirely or not.

If it comes down to the fact that Christian Scientists will not cover any medical insurance, then I would find out if that impacts me and my family. I already said this regarding Jews and porcine valves. As a Catholic, I see the frustrations we've gone through regarding this. It has been frustrating to say the least. If another person of faith goes through the same fight and the court sides with them, then I'd honestly be happy for them. I would keep a close eye on communications from my company's HR to find out if our insurance is affected. If it is for both my employer and my husband's employer, then I would either look at finding a new employer or we would find a way to purchase health care coverage via another avenue.

***SITB **

How far are you willing to go? Sure someone not getting BC or getting a pig value might not directly effect you, so I can see your point.

But what about the church of Jenny MaCarthy who doesn't want to cover basic vaccines. That could be 10's of thousands of un-vaccinated kids running around because the costs of paying out of pocket or getting insurance from another avenue is not affordable.

That can be a real public health issue.

It's like you can't see the forest because of the trees.

I read that the Hobby Lobby ruling cannot be used in future cases regarding vaccines. (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/supreme-court-birth-control-what-hobby-lobby-ruling-means-n144526)

JCbride2015, can you clarify?

companies are already trying to use the ruling to not hire gays and lesbians, so I think it's only matter of time it will be asked to rule on vaccines.

"But in a dissenting opinion signed by the two other female justices and justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she didn’t buy that and says the majority ruling amounts to the court deciding which religious beliefs are worthy: “…how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not?” she asked.

“And where is the stopping point to the ‘let the government pay’ alternative? Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage,” she asks.

These are very valid concerns.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

lyndausvi said:

sarahbear31 said:

Regarding Christian Scientists, here's what I found. (http://christianscience.com/member-resources/for-churches/committee-on-publication/us-federal-office/health-care-reform). It's not clear of whether they object to providing medical coverage entirely or not.

If it comes down to the fact that Christian Scientists will not cover any medical insurance, then I would find out if that impacts me and my family. I already said this regarding Jews and porcine valves. As a Catholic, I see the frustrations we've gone through regarding this. It has been frustrating to say the least. If another person of faith goes through the same fight and the court sides with them, then I'd honestly be happy for them. I would keep a close eye on communications from my company's HR to find out if our insurance is affected. If it is for both my employer and my husband's employer, then I would either look at finding a new employer or we would find a way to purchase health care coverage via another avenue.

***SITB **

How far are you willing to go? Sure someone not getting BC or getting a pig value might not directly effect you, so I can see your point.

But what about the church of Jenny MaCarthy who doesn't want to cover basic vaccines. That could be 10's of thousands of un-vaccinated kids running around because the costs of paying out of pocket or getting insurance from another avenue is not affordable.

That can be a real public health issue.

It's like you can't see the forest because of the trees.

I read that the Hobby Lobby ruling cannot be used in future cases regarding vaccines. (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/supreme-court-birth-control-what-hobby-lobby-ruling-means-n144526)

JCbride2015, can you clarify?

Sure @sarahbear31. Regs here know but you may not-- I'm a recent law school grad studying for the bar. So I am not a licensed attorney, but I've taken many classes on corporate law and will be joining a corporate law firm after the bar. I can't give legal advice, but I like to think I know enough to give background on corporate law.

A corporation is a very specific business form. The owners are called shareholders (as you know), and they each own a share of the company. This could be only one shareholder, or thousands or theoretically millions of shareholders.

People choose to incorporate because it offers the benefits of what we call the corporate veil. It legally separates the shareholders from the business entity. The corporation becomes a "legal person," which can be bound by contract, sue other people, get sued, and do most legally binding actions a person can do. The advantage of this for the shareholders is that if the corporation is bound by a contract, or incurs some liability, the shareholders are not personally bound. Therefore if the corporation is negligent and loses a lawsuit, the plaintiff can only come after the corporate accounts for damages-- not the shareholders' personal money. Same thing if the corporation goes bankrupt-- creditors can come after the corporation, but not the shareholders personally. The only exceptions for this are when the shareholders have personally mismanaged corporate funds, which is a very high bar to meet.

So, all the benefits of incorporation revolve around separating the human shareholders from the corporate entity. We call the corporation a "legal person," which exists in contract theory but of course not in reality.

This is why I have a big problem with HL from a pure legal standpoint, even if it had been some issue other than contraceptives (I do have strong feelings about contraceptives and women's health of course, but I'll erase that for the purpose of this argument).

The shareholders/owners of HL have opted into this corporate law scheme, which sort of makes them "the man behind the curtain" and protects them from liability. The whole point of the corporation, the whole reason corporate law exists at all, is to separate the people from the business. So it shouldn't work both ways: if you want the benefits of being separated, you can't break down that separation only when it is convenient for you.

This ruling also, in a broader and more theoretical way, expands the concept of "corporate personhood" which was originated in Citizens United. This worries me that the law is giving corporations more and more rights, in some cases actually more rights than humans have.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015 said:

daria24 said:
And once again I am that you have incorporated your company-you have made it it's own separate entity in order to get tax benefits and to indemnify you, as a person, from legal action.
That corporation is paying for the insurance. Not YOU, as a person. (I am taking out of the equation companies that are not incorporated). THAT CORPORATION should not have religious beliefs. You SHOULD NOT be able to create a separate "being" as it were (the corporation) and have it be completely separate from YOU as a PERSON, for legal/tax reasons, but then all of sudden you get to use your beliefs to get a legal exemption from what that corporation does or does not do.

Let's get back to what the case was actually about.

This has nothing to do with non-profit religious groups or individuals having to pay for something they object to. This has everything to do with corporations being declared people with religious beliefs.

By incorporating their business, the shareholders of HL have voluntarily opted in to a certain legal scheme. That scheme comes with plenty of benefits (primarily liability protection for them as individuals) and some obligations (financial reporting, complying with laws regarding employment, etc.). The purpose of incorporation is to separate the individual from the business, for the protection of the individual. So the shareholders want the corporate veil protection when it benefits them, but they want to break down the corporate veil and impose their own religion on their 23,000 employees.

Nope, sorry. You shouldn't have it both ways. This ruling makes zero sense in the scheme of corporate law.

Let me ask another question ... apparently this ruling opens the doors for a LOT of non profits who don't want to include coverage of contraceptives. What's your take on that in light of corporate law?

@sarahbear31 I don't know nearly as much as about non-profit corporations. I know in general, they are governed by the same corporate law principles I explained above, although they get certain tax breaks and benefits I know less about.

I actually thought that religious organizations (such as Catholic schools and hospitals) were already specifically exempted from contraceptive coverage under the ACA.

But it makes sense that maybe organizations that didn't qualify for the original, express, exemption written into the ACA, would definitely use this precedent to seek the exemption now.

kat1114 · July 2014

Justice Ginsburg put it perfectly: "In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same. By incorporating a business ,however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations. One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation."

NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Re: NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Choose Another Board

Search Boards