US Supreme Court: Hobby Lobby wins we lose

by designs 89 Replies latest social current

• 

  Band on the Run

  I accept that Hobby Lobby and all the plaintiffs raise const'l issues. The problem is that precedent is muddled. There is no right side in this case. Women are denied basic bodily rights. I am very pro-choice. For instance, I am willing to get arrested and go to jail for the right. In another thread, I placed blame on Kathleen Sibelius. The New York Times reported the internal dissension within the White House. Incremental steps might have survived. On the other hand, these religious employers are not being forced to do something immoral.

  There had to be another way to implement the ACA.
• 

  JeffT

  Now here's a sensible solution.
  
  http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/01/otc-birth-control-your-body-your-choice-your-responsibility/
  
  OTC Birth Control: Your Body, Your Choice, Your Responsibility
  JULY 1, 2014 By Ben Domenech
  Yesterday’s narrow Hobby Lobby decision shows why the culture war isn’t over – it’s just getting started. The reality is that in the absence of the ability to compel employers to pay for things over their religious objections, and at a time when covering 16 forms of birth control out of 20 is culturally insufficient, the Obama administration will be more than happy to turn to the traditional method of the left: skipping the middle man of the employer and just handing people other people’s money.
  
  So because some people cannot be compelled to pay for their employee’s IUDs, Plan B, and Ella, everyone will be compelled to pay for it. It renders the whole argument over deeply held religious beliefs a cute sideshow: if employers can’t be forced to pay for it, all taxpayers will. Congratulations on retaining your personal image of faithfulness while sticking the rest of us with the bill.
  
  That’s one of the reasons why support for making birth control available over the counter is rising on the right and the left. There are a number of objections to this, but I find them to largely amount to unconvincing paternalism. The chief argument advanced is that standard oral contraceptives mess with hormones and have all sorts of side effects. This is, of course, true! But: dangerous side effects are rampant within all sorts of other over the counter drugs. Women can think for themselves and make decisions with their doctor and pharmacist about what drugs they want to take – and the evidence shows they are good at self-screening. In fact, it would actually increase the ability to mitigate and respond to unanticipated side effects, since changing tracks will no longer require a doctor’s visit and getting a new prescription. Assuming that women won’t or can’t take responsibility for themselves to consult with a doctor unless required to by arbitrary government policy is absurd.
  
  It’s obvious why libertarians like the idea of OTC birth control. Conservatives should like it because it removes the responsibility for redistributive payment from themselves while demonstrating that yes, they really aren’t about banning things or preventing access to birth control. And liberals should like it because it will lower the drop-out rate, which is currently largely driven by the requirement to re-up the prescription as much as every few months. The American College of OB-GYNs supports it, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner support it, most of the world already has it, and making it official policy would lower prices, lower health care costs, and make consumers more cost conscious. All of these are good things.
  
  Now, some liberals won’t be satisfied by this OTC solution in the absence of the overall contraception mandate, because it would only address the challenge with oral contraceptives, not IUDs. In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg pointed out the high cost of IUDs as reason why employers need to cover the cost. But I suspect that making a policy change which addresses concerns about contraception’s availability for the vast majority of people will really take the energy out of that push, just as an honest case against Hobby Lobby (that they just didn’t want to pay for things that can prevent the implantation of a living embryo – two morning after pills and two implants – versus preventing the creation of that embryo in the first place) would’ve aroused a far less aggressive opposition to their stance. I think those on the left who prioritize this issue know this, too.
  
  Social conservatives who can see the writing on the wall with the over the counter availability of Plan B – a supercharged version of the low-dose contraceptive hormone, now available via vending machines on college campuses, and which sexually active teenagers (which is to say: teenagers) are already using as an abortifacient substitute for the daily pill – should know that they’re not going to get this horse back in the barn. The question becomes whether you will have to pay for other people’s choices in violation of your religious beliefs. Here, I think the OTC solution is not just viable, but leads people to the logical conclusion they ought to have about birth control policy: your body, your choice, your responsibility. People don’t naturally assume that over the counter drugs should be available for free: they think they should be able to buy them.
  
  I’d encourage social conservatives who oppose this idea to rethink their opposition. Otherwise, birth control and abortifacients are simply going to become the name we give to the things we choose to buy together.
• 

  Shanagirl

  Imagine that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 1. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:

  1. Male condoms
  2. Female condoms
  3. Diaphragms with spermicide
  4. Sponges with spermicide
  5. Cervical caps with spermicide
  6. Spermicide alone
  7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
  8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
  9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
  10. Contraceptive patches
  11. Contraceptive rings
  12. Progestin injections
  13. Implantable rods
  14. Vasectomies
  15. Female sterilization surgeries
  16. Female sterilization implants

  (This new woman at Hobby Lobby cannot use male condoms or a vasectomy, at least not directly. However, if she chose either contraceptive method, in conjunction with her husband, she would have access to it.)

  Further, not only would she have access to these medicines and devices, but Hobby Lobby would fund them. That’s right: while White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that it “jeopardizes the health of women,” Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives for its female employees!

  In the Left’s fantasy world, the militant Christians at Hobby Lobby police single female employees to assure that they have not engaged in sinful, pre-marital sex. As for married women, Hobby Lobby deprives them of birth control so that each can deliver a new baby every nine months, for God’s glory, just like in the Old Testament.

  Liberals are living in a cartoon of their own making.

  Again, Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for birth-control pills, vaginal rings, contraceptive patches, and other items to help female employees plan their pregnancies. The Left’s arguments to the contrary are — surprise, surprise — lies.

  What Hobby Lobby will not cover are four contraceptive methods that its owners fear are abortifacients:

  1. Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
  2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
  3. Copper Intra-Uterine Device
  4. IUD with progestin

  Rather than simply prevent sperm and ova from uniting, Hobby Lobby’s owners believe that these medications either kill human beings when they are fertilized eggs or prevent them from implanting themselves in utero, whereupon they die.

  Hobby Lobby does not prevent its female employees from using any of these four types of contraceptives. However, since they believe these innovations kill babies, they simply require that any employees who want to use them buy them with their own money.

  The Left behaves as if Hobby Lobby were forcing their female employees to wear burqas. But Hobby Lobby’s policy is no different than, say, walking into the cafeteria at Yeshiva University and demanding a bacon cheeseburger.

  “I am sorry,” the cafeteria manager replies. “We keep kosher. If you want a chicken sandwich or some brisket, we can help. Indeed, our prices are subsidized. So, we will help you buy those items. But if you want to mix milk and meat and bite into a pork product, please purchase a bacon cheeseburger at the restaurant across the street. When you are done, please come back to work.”

  Likewise, if one were on staff at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and tried to order veal scaloppini at its internal lunch counter, the chef likely would say, “We consider it unethical to kill calves, cook them, and eat them. If you disagree, please enjoy your veal off site and then come back here to help us defend other animals.”

  Those who are screaming themselves hoarse after the Hobby Lobby decision would agree that Yeshiva need not serve unkosher food, and PETA need not include calf meat on its menu. Yes, somehow, Hobby Lobby is evil because it pays for 16 kinds of contraceptives, and expects its employees themselves to purchase four others that might kill human babies.

  At its core, the Left’s moaning over Hobby Lobby is less about access to medicine and more about access to free stuff.

  The left needs to take a breath and relax. Plenty of options are available to Hobby Lobby employees and PAID FOR by Hobby Lobby. And, that is not the issue. Having the government tell a private employer what it can and can't do is ridiculous.

  Shana
• 

  Viviane

  Imagine that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 1. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:

  In fact, there are at least 50 companies that want to opt of out providing any form of family planning AND the Supreme Court has said their ruling applies broadly to all forms covered under the ACA.

  Further, not only would she have access to these medicines and devices, but Hobby Lobby would fund them. That’s right: while White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that it “jeopardizes the health of women,” Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives for its female employees!

  And he is 100% correct.

  In the Left’s fantasy world, the militant Christians at Hobby Lobby police single female employees to assure that they have not engaged in sinful, pre-marital sex. As for married women, Hobby Lobby deprives them of birth control so that each can deliver a new baby every nine months, for God’s glory, just like in the Old Testament.

  Liberals are living in a cartoon of their own making.

  Again, Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for birth-control pills, vaginal rings, contraceptive patches, and other items to help female employees plan their pregnancies. The Left’s arguments to the contrary are — surprise, surprise — lies.

  Except you just said the issue is women's health. Obviously your made up scenario is the cartoon fantasy world.

  Rather than simply prevent sperm and ova from uniting, Hobby Lobby’s owners believe that these medications either kill human beings when they are fertilized eggs or prevent them from implanting themselves in utero, whereupon they die.

  Except they don't cause abortions. Again, a perfect example of living in a fantasy world.

  The Left behaves as if Hobby Lobby were forcing their female employees to wear burqas. But Hobby Lobby’s policy is no different than, say, walking into the cafeteria at Yeshiva University and demanding a bacon cheeseburger.

  Except that it's not at all the same or similiar in any way. One is a private company trying to, for religious reasons, control access to employees healthcare. The other is a school saying "we don't serve that food".

  At its core, the Left’s moaning over Hobby Lobby is less about access to medicine and more about access to free stuff.

  Except that the employees are already paying for their health insurance.
• 

  Viviane

  And, one final point:

  Having the government tell a private employer what it can and can't do is ridiculous.

  Do you think these are OK? If not, why not?

  

  

  
• 

  DJS

  Shana,

  You lost all of your credibility with your closing 'argument.' We live in a constitutional democracy - a public/private partnership if you will. Governments can and should provide the appropriate amount of regulation. I'm not Solomon and won't play like I always know what that perfect amount is. Viviane has provided two salient examples; there are many. You may want to retract/restate. You are entitled to your opinon, just as you are entitled to be wrong.
• 

  Pacopoolio

  The large issue is that Hobby Lobby's reasoning is wrong. Plan B is not an abortive - it's a contraceptive. They are arbitrarily deciding that their religion says something is not what it actually is, and the Supreme Court is backing up their ignorance in allowing them to make policy based on that. That's the big issue here.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Can you cause an abortion when you are not even pregnant??

  You are not pregnant until the zygote attaches to the uterine wall. Therefore, preventing implantation is not an abortion!

  This is a scientific fact. Neither Hobby Lobby nor anyone else has the right to their own facts.

  Therefore their argument that these birth control methods are abortifacients is simply, factually wrong.

  So, their worry that someone is getting an abortion even though they are not pregnant, through their health insurance plan is ridiculous and impossible.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Why the sharp battles concerning contraception for women? Men seem challenged by the power and miracle of female reproduction. No one is making the Board of Hobby Lobby to have abortions or contraceptions. Freedom of religion is not at issue. The choice should be the female employee's decision. What right does any employer have to make intimate bodily autonomy decisions for other people? Hobby Lobby can be narrowly interpreted. Confine the holding to the specific facts of Holly Lobby. I have practice reading trial court decisions regarding religion. In no other area of law does the ruling depend so much on which party nominated the particular judge. This is almost lawlessness. Legal rights should depend on party politics.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  I'll admit that I'm not that "in the know" about all of the female contraception options. But I know what my sisters have said about some of the things, particularly Plan B. And they say, "what about..."

  Rape.

  This may be rather rare, but I have a female relative, single, hormone issues. Not needing daily birth control, also not a great option with the hormone problems to have the pill daily affecting her hormones. Becoming pregnant would be very dangerous for her because of the hormones and other reasons. She doesn't work at HL, but assume she did. May it never, ever happen, but what if she got raped. Despite the denial by some, a woman can get pregnant from being raped just once.

  Now what? For the sake of her own survival, she will likely go for Plan B, ASAP. Since HL has rigged it to be certain that insurance pays nothing, she will pay out-of-pocket. So far, it doesn't seem like a big deal, except she's waiting for her prescription and a single coworker of hers at HL, Johnny Player comes in and gets his $80 worth of Viagra for $20. On the one hand, this HL insurance deal endorses Johnny's playing. On the other hand, it punishes a rape victim. And it's not just the cost of the coverage, it's the moral judgment. HL refuses coverage for moral reasons and consequently, anyone that uses Plan B is "immoral". As if surviving rape isn't challenging enough, these victims get victimized again.

  So in the black/white view of HL corporation, the 'moral' thing is for the victim to reject Plan B and if pregnancy occurs, then carry the child. Switching to the case of a healthy woman that's pregnant because of rape, she would now be noticably pregnant at work. Although it's really nobody else's business in a workplace, everybody knows everyone else's marriage or dating status, from what I've experienced. If this corporation is as fundy as it appears, pregnant single women are whores. So, does this woman need to explain to everyone at work that she was raped, maybe include in on her HL name tag? And if this corporation is as fundy as it appears, they would expect her to put the baby up for adoption (to a proper fundy family) because a single mom can't make a proper home for a child. That's a tough and terrible decision for a woman if she gets to this point. Even though conceived from rape, the baby is hers and has been with her for months. Indeed, a tough situation. And to this point, HL morally said that she should have the baby if she was raped... they'll take responsibility for that decision. But will they put their HL money where their corporate mouth is? Are they going to help pay for raising the child? Of course not, that was the "mother's personal decision to have a child"... that's the fundy way... A fetus is sacred and they'll do everything they can to make sure it's born. But once it's born, they lose interest in it's well-being. They'll fight against gvt funding for children's healthcare, public education, etc.

  Returning to the example of my relative. The doctors had explained that she would likely have terrible health problems before eventually losing the fetus. Would HL be understanding through this entire ordeal, giving the time off needed and covering all the medical expenses? Will she have to explain all the painful details of her private life in order to try to save her job?

  Am I using a too specific example? Am I projecting too much of my JW history on HL corporation? From what little I've paid attention to this case, it seems the majority of the judges took a very broad swipe that favored a narrow religious view held by the boss, but ignored the painful realities and hard choices of real life for the employee.