General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAction Alert: Remedy is to repeal RFRA
The ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., absurdly holds that the contraceptive coverage granted by the Affordable Care Act creates a "significant burden" on a corporation's free exercise of religion.
The main justification for this decision is the Supreme Court's holding that RFRA protects Hobby Lobby from the generally applicable rules of the Affordable Care Act.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation's amicus brief by noted state-church attorney Marci A. Hamilton (joined by groups advocating for the rights of victims of religious abuse), was the only brief before the Supreme Court that argued that RFRA is unconstitutional. Our important brief points out that RFRA "accords religious believers extreme religious liberty rights that yield a political and fiscal windfall in violation of the clearest commands of the Establishment Clause."
A public outcry is in order. FFRF needs your help to tell Congress that RFRA is a bad law that must be repealed.
This damaging decision opens the floodgates for corporations, interested only in increasing their bottom line, to claim religious objections to a variety of generally applicable laws. The Court arbitrarily claims its decision would not necessarily allow a corporation to claim a similar religious objection to blood transfusions, vaccines, or mental health services, or create a religious right to discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or race. But very obviously, the ruling creates mischievous precedent that will haunt the next generation of litigation.
CONTACT
Please immediately call, email and write:
Your U.S. Senators
Your district Representative
Demand that your representatives in Congress uphold women's rights over religious wrongs, and restore some semblance of fairness to our corporate system, by repealing RFRA now.
TALKING POINTS
Use your own words if possible, or cut and paste any of the wording below. Always identify yourself as a constituent. (Also see FFRF's statement on the Hobby Lobby ruling for more arguments.)
I am writing as your constituent to urge you to take action in the wake of the Supreme Court's unprecedented decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Please take action to repeal the misguided Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been used to decide that a corporation trumps the civil and reproductive rights of women workers to choose their own form of contraception.
I'm dismayed and frightened by the implications of this decision, which puts the personal religious views of corporate executives above the rights of tens of thousands of employees. Corporations are not people and a corporation cannot practice religion. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that the access to contraceptive coverage granted by the Affordable Care Act creates a significant burden on a corporation's free exercise of religion. The decision is completely divorced from reality!
The main justification for this outlandish decision is the Supreme Court's holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects Hobby Lobby from the generally applicable rules of the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of Congress's original intent, RFRA has become an untenable law. It carves out vast exceptions to neutral laws that only certain religious sects can claim. In the corporate context, this provides an unfair competitive advantage to any corporation willing to claim that it has a religious objection to a regulation.
Employers should not have a right to deny fundamental rights to employees in the name of "religious liberty." Please introduce or sign onto a bill to repeal RFRA immediately.
- See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/action/item/20865-ask-congress-to-counter-supreme-court-s-hobby-lobby-ruling#sthash.yfz519Ak.dpuf
pansgold
(5 posts)Why not just repeal the 1st Amendment and strike the free exercise thereof part?
Oh yea, it's untouchable and can't be repealed because it's part of the 1st. 10 called the Bill of Rights.
pans
arcane1
(38,613 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Trekologer
(997 posts)A corporation should not have any religious beliefs. If the owners of one want the benefits of incorporation (tax benefits, liability, etc) they should not be able to "pierce the veil" in reverse.
pansgold
(5 posts)If 16 of the 20 contraceptives were on and never left the table for Hobby Lobby, how has that changed anything?
They were there before Obamacare was ever thought of and they are still there today.
The argument was over the remaining 4 drugs also known as the Morning After pill that will induce a miscarriage or abortion by eliminating growth of an embryo and or preventing it from attaching to the uterine wall.
The president has said many times, I have a pen and a phone
and he can make change number 37 or
(XX) to Obamacare and order insurance companies to pay 100% of the cost of those 4 drugs. That will mean Hobby Lobby and all other corporations MUST provide all 20 contraceptives to all women because their argument of not wanting to pay for them is gone.
Ideas? Its a simple solution at a small cost and everyone wins. Women would get all 20 drugs and companies wishing to opt out can do so. The president gets all 20 contraceptives in Obamacare.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Unless I'm missing your point. If, under that idea, "companies wishing to opt out can do so" then what has changed?
pansgold
(5 posts)The president has made more that 3 dozen changes to the original Affordable Care Act with the stroke of his pen.
One more won't hurt.
As long as Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for any portion of the cost of the 4 drugs the USSC is happy, Hobby Lobby is happy... right?
The president can include any accounting trick he wants to repay insurance companies for the cost of them paying 100% of the cost for the 4 drugs.
If no portion of an opted out companies premium is used by the insurance company, then the opted out company can't say they are being forced to pay for drugs that kill babies (Their argument) and therefore the court's order is obeyed.
I don't believe Hobby Lobby' argued they objected to having the drugs provided rather they objected to paying for them and being forced into it by Obamacare.
Women would then get all 20 drugs as intended by Obamacare and Hobby Lobby is opted out of having to pay for them.
If I misunderstood the ruling and Hobby Lobby objected to providing these drugs for any reason, then I stand corrected. I don't believe the latter was the case.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)A major flaw in your thinking is that, in light of the fact that Hobby Lobby self-insures their medical plan, they don't pay premiums, they pay the claims. So they actually would be in the position of having to pay for those methods along with anything else that's payable under the plan.
Additionally, ACA already mandates that all forms of BC must be covered. The Supreme Court decision said that no, they don't have to pay for those forms that are prohibited by their religious beliefs.
It's a tangled web indeed.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)They will (properly, I must add) point out that because they are buying insurance, they're paying for everything it covers.
pansgold
(5 posts)I do think you are correct about that. They probably would object and that would take years to meander through the courts for a final rulling.
Sort of like saying they don't want any insurance from anyone though... don't you think. I don't believe that arguement would work since all insurance companies already pay for abortions for specific health reasons so buying any insurance from any company is paying for an abortion in some form or another.
It's not the contraception Hobby Lobby objected to though since they still provide 16 methods of contraception for employees. I think their arguement was about 4 drugs alone.
Remember, not all companies would or will use the "Opt Out" clause. Insurance companies will take in some revenue to pay for these 4 drugs. The remaining cost will probably me must less than the cost of litigation.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)extending the contraception ruling to all birth control products.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)You can not abort a pregnancy before it occurs. Pregnancy is defined by science, and he law, as an implanted, fertilized egg. Since these 4 homonal control medicines prevent implantation, there is no pregnancy.
These medicines "prevent" something from occuring. They do not "abort" something that has already occured.
Them's the facts, Jack. Now, please proceed arguing your case while using legal definitions of words.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Because research involving millions of patients has already clearly shown that when an insurer offers full contraception coverage, its costs per patient go down.
Response to pansgold (Reply #1)
MFrohike This message was self-deleted by its author.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Shared on FB.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)bl968
(360 posts)We don't have to do any of this. We simply pass a 28th amendment to the constitution...
All rights specified in the Constitution of the United States and all Amendments thereto shall apply to Natural Persons only.
Problem solved, Corporations will no longer have free speech, freedom of religion or the score of other rights. This would allow full regulation of corporations including prohibiting them from making any campaign contributions. No free speech no right to participate in the political process. We could even ban them from lobbying at that point.
thank you.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)Good luck with that. . .
TantaLois
(21 posts)As I see it the RFRA really should only apply to individual religious freedom. A push to repeal this would set off legitimate fear in the base, where as this corporate religion is resonating less with the rabid base. I do have a fear of Religious Freedom being a get out the vote issue and although Politico is usually to rightish this warning was dead on today and we should not give this any base credibility that the attack is on Religious Freedom for Persons - it turns them all into want to be martyrs.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hobby-lobby-film-rick-santorum-one-generation-away-108484.html
Dale Neiburg
(698 posts)It was intended to protect individual religious belief and expression, such as use of peyote in centuries-old Native American practice. The problem arises when RFRA is extrapolated to a corporation. The peyote user isn't harming anyone else; the corporation is.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)It's got to go.