BREAKING: Supreme Court: Can't Make Employers Cover Contraception (Hobby Lobby Case 5-4)
Source: Associated Press
@SCOTUSblog: Breaking: SCOTUS holds govt can't require closely held corps w/ religious owners to provide contraception coverage
@AP: BREAKING: Supreme Court says employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for contraception.
@BloombergNews: BREAKING: Supreme Court overturns contraceptive mandate in Affordable Care Act
JUSTICES: CAN'T MAKE EMPLOYERS COVER CONTRACEPTION
By MARK SHERMAN
Jun. 30, 2014 10:23 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.
Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.
Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/justices-cant-make-employers-cover-contraception
@SCOTUSblog: Under the Hobby Lobby decision, the government can pay for the coverage itself so that women receive it.
m.twitter.com/SCOTUSblog
randys1
(16,286 posts)Vogon_Glory
(9,122 posts)maddogesq
(1,245 posts)Although this looks like a really narrow decision, the way to counter this is to be activist consumers..
I have not set foot in a Wally World in over 10 years.
I will now not go with s/o to buy her craft supplies at Hobby Lobby.
Make companies think twice about identifying themselves as religious.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)quit going there. Others have done the same. And most of the stuff in HL is cheap junk.
Wally World - I don't even like driving through their parking lot on the way to other stores here.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)where to go to get scrapbooking materials made in America, and I'm there.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Paladin
(28,266 posts)That place has seen the last of me, for sure.
Hekate
(90,719 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Citizen's United - Corporations are NOT PEOPLE!!!
Everyone should write their State Representatives pushing the Constitutional Amendment that:
Corporations are not people;
Money is not speech;
Mandate Publicly Funded national, state, and local elections!
If successful this decision is MOOT!!!
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)... a deeply held religious objection to shopping there.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Hobby Lobby has been on my "don't deal with" list for years.
Long ago I was into model airplanes but life just got too busy.
There is another good hobby shop in the area that has more than Chinese Christmas Trees............
Screw it, I'll make time. 1/48 scale B-24 Liberator. Need to start gathering up LEDs, 555 timers a cheep 5V power supply and such.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Can't say I'm surprised at either decision.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Ari Berman ?@AriBerman
Alito: corporations are people, but unions are not
https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/483614606469103616
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)BlueEye
(449 posts)Anybody who thinks this makes (religious based) discrimination (against LGBT individuals for example) legal is dead wrong.
Also, the Kennedy concurring opinion would appear to make it constitutionally acceptable for taxpayer-funded reproductive/contraceptive services. I'm not sure if conservatives have attempted to challenge that, but Kennedy expressly said that would be allowable in his opinion.
(Edited to clarify my statement, that this decision, while permitting a specific discrimination against women, does not give fundamentalist whackos carte blanche to discriminate against anyone they want.)
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)They will slowly chip away at it until it will be.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Who thinks that Boner and the Taliborn agains will ever allow a dime to be spent as below ?
"Also, the Kennedy concurring opinion would appear to make it constitutionally acceptable for taxpayer-funded reproductive/contraceptive services."
valerief
(53,235 posts)ebbie15644
(1,215 posts)blood transfusions or for anything else. Why the carveout for contraception? Tells what the justices think about women's health, hum.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)At least, that's my take.
kickitup
(355 posts)and it pisses me off.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Then get mad, get pissed, get angry, and GET OUT THE VOTE.....
ebbie15644
(1,215 posts)congress to fix this!
valerief
(53,235 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)for us wimmen.
I really hope a Jehovah's Witness owned company brings suit to challenge the blood transfusion "mandate." We'd see how the right and SCOTUS handle the narrow ruling.
7962
(11,841 posts)Burf-_-
(205 posts)I wonder if they even truly realize the precedent they have set by making this miserable decision. Talk about Thomas Jefferson rolling over in his grave!!!
I've followed this case from the onset and to me, i don't think the conservtard majority on the bench even realized exactlty what a can of worms they have opened up here. Now ANY religious business can make claims about a "deeply held religious belief". That's right.. Right-wing Christians... SCOTUS just allowed MUSLIMS, JEHAOVAHS WITNESSES, SCIENTOLOGISTS and maybe even RAYLIENS to throw in their two cents of jibber jabber about their "deeply held beliefs". Trust me the cases will be coming in droves now.
This is to me a conflict of interest of church and state and i find it highly suspect with regards to it's actual constitutionality.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)women just use contraceptives because we're a bunch of trollops, who jump from bed to bed... just ask Rush...
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)in this country, it was illegal to target a group of persons for separate treatment.
RobinA
(9,894 posts)the very definition of disparate impact. Don't we have that standard anymore?
Purrfessor
(1,188 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)Purrfessor
(1,188 posts)Create a two-class society. Eliminate access to contraception. Outlaw abortion. Mandate heterosexual behavior (forced pregnancy). All in the name of populating the slave-wage labor force to serve the corporate masters.
Sounds crazy, I know. But with the way things would unfold under a Republican led government and this Supreme Court anything is possible.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)I think the plan to have a permanent low wage working class has been in the pipeline for years.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Bernie, if you're going to run, run as a Democrat, not an independent.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)has absolutely zero basis in the constitution. Because that's obviously true.
eventually, Hobby lobby will either get expanded to the point of creating anarchy, or it will be tossed in the trashbin of history alongside Dred Scott and Lochner.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)is a lifestyle choice. Germany doesn't cover contraception or Viagra.
maryellen99
(3,789 posts)My periods were very irregular and my lining didn't shed so I was at risk for uterine cancer. The mirena keeps the lining thin.
snot
(10,530 posts)underpants
(182,839 posts)JHB
(37,161 posts)And if you believe that, I have some riverfront properties I need to sell quickly and you look like a fella what knows an opportunity when he sees it. Historic properties, nearby some of the trendiest neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Manhattan, with a scenic span between them. Waddaya say, pal?
There will very quickly be a lot of companies and lobbyists pushing to stretch those "qualifications" to the point of meaninglessness.
valerief
(53,235 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."
If they think that corporations will not abuse this, they are at the very least lying to themselves. Legal departments all around the nation are looking at this to see how they can use this to screw unions! I guess it will also be wrong when a Jewish or Muslim buisness starts annoying a suburban employee (sarcasm).
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)... which is different than a typical public corporation, but I wonder if it says anything about other business entities, such as Partnerships & LLCs. I can see it applying to Partnerships, maybe close corp status is the determining factor?
I think LLCs can be either close or "open" corporations ... it's been a while since I worked with corporate filings.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)There were a few excellent lawyers on DU many years ago, who took time to explain legal facts and realities, only to be met with really insulting denials from people who felt they had watched enough Law & Order episodes to have definitive opinions. I think of it as the "I am not a lawyer, but I watched one on TV" syndrome. Full disclosure: I am a lawyer and former law school professor.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)got it
suffragette
(12,232 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)Because freedom of religion does not mean being able to impose your religion on others. There seems to a lot of confusion there.
get the red out
(13,467 posts)They are making corporations human more and more yet giving them the right to screw over people more than real Humans can get by with. I don't intent to patronize any business with religion. Church is rapidly becoming corporately enforced with our actual constitution becoming toilet paper.
Archae
(46,337 posts)Now if a company owner wants to, they can do just about anything, even discriminate based on race or religion.
"You're a Jew? You're fired."
"No niggers allowed in my store"
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The decision explicitly says you can't use this decision to excuse racism or religious discrimination. You can only use it to deny contraception to women.
And the reason for that difference is.....shut up and stop asking questions.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If they came up with a method for men that required a prescription.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)really doesn't matter. There is no prescription-based contraception for men that works without very bad side effects.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)I suppose protestors will be able to approach Hobby Lobby customers, not be kept 35 feet away, right?
homegirl
(1,429 posts)Time to picket Hobby Lobby on a continuous basis until the November election.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)TNNurse
(6,927 posts)The Supreme Court just proved that.
We might as well call it the United Corporations of America, the people do not have much say.
Can anyone provide a list of all these companies in this suit? I will do my best to avoid them. I quit Hobby Lobby from the beginning.
Purrfessor
(1,188 posts)Supreme Court says employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for anything that clashes with their religious beliefs.
They may have qualified it otherwise now, but just give them time and they will extend it to include anything and everything.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master that's all."
Bluzmann57
(12,336 posts)And I'm going to require my employees to smoke pot. Religious beliefs and all that.
packman
(16,296 posts)I can e-mail my resume
stage left
(2,962 posts)But it does dismay me. I used to shop at Hobby Lobby now and then, before I knew what they were all about.
Arkansas Granny
(31,519 posts)much difference in their bottom line, but if enough women stopped shopping there, they would feel a pinch.
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)This is just another effort for the Roberts Court to mess with the ACA. The ACA is wildly popular and working for most people(except those that live in states that refused Medicaid expansion thanks to the Roberts Court).
Thank you to the Roberts Court for continuing the war and women and helping progressive win elections across the country. We will now need to push for universal health care harder than ever.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Fucking fan-damn-tastic.
progree
(10,909 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Initech
(100,082 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Same goes for any other company that does this. They will have a hard time staying in business once only the fundies shop there.
Kelselsius
(50 posts)This is also a win for our corporate masters. Their beliefs now totally matter and their employees beliefs do not matter at all.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)kanrok
(4,460 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)I've been boycotting them since they filed their lawsuit so it will be easy to continue not going there.
Since I spend hundreds, if not a couple of thousand dollars a year on needlework supplies, fabric for sewing, framing, and other crafts items, that is a loss to their corporation. Apparently they don't care if they lose business from me and friends of mine with the same philosophy!
rdking647
(5,113 posts)in the past i bought them at hell lobby. no more
michaels gets my business
csziggy
(34,136 posts)I was getting needlework framed there. Since it is a specialty job, each one cost $150-250 to frame even with the Hobby Lobby discount.
Sorry, no more - I'll pay two or three times as much but get the work done at a business that does not impose religious views on their employees.
In fact, I am approaching the point where I hesitate to do business with companies or individuals who bring any religious views into public view. If they have a cross, fish, or wish me "God bless" I don't spend my money with them. It's my right as an atheist to not do so, but I feel as though I am being pushed to discriminate against Christians simply because THEY are making it a political issue and intruding religion on my secular life.
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)It's amazing how many people don't understand that freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.
I'm not against religion, it provides meaning & comfort to many people's lives & I'm sincerely happy for them ... "lord" knows we all need some of that. What I'm against is people trying to impose their beliefs on me.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Needlework supplies, etc from HL. They will not see another dime from me. I'll drive further to another store, or order off the internet.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)There is a "local" needlework shop. The owner is not knowledgeable about needlework and buys what catches her eye, so the standard supplies aren't there and some exotic stuff is. She doesn't keep regular hours, so you have to call ahead to see if the store is open. And the shop is a 40+ miles one way trip for me. I've tried doing special orders - nothing fancy, just blank 18 count white canvas - and after over three years have heard nothing.
The next "closest" shop is over two hours drive and they mostly are selling the leftovers from a very well stocked store that closed ten years ago. So they pretty much are left with the dregs - ugly colors of threads, odd bits of fabric, and tools no one wants.
So unless JoAnn's Fabrics carries it (DMC floss and pearl, Aida and some "linen" I order online. Or I wait until I am going to a seminar - at the last two Embroiderer's Guild of America national seminars I spent a bunch of money, but I have what I need for a lot of projects and odd bits and pieces for impulse projects. Good thing I have a stash accumulated over 40 years of stitching!
supercats
(429 posts)Let the revolution begin....Let's take down the "supreme court" and everybody who believes in these draconian decisions of theirs.
Deuce
(959 posts)Generally, a closely held corporation is a corporation that:
- Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
- Is not a personal service corporation.
http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources/Tools-&-FAQs/FAQs-for-Individuals/Frequently-Asked-Tax-Questions-&-Answers/Small-Business,-Self-Employed,-Other-Business/Entities/Entities-5
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)On their employees?
Botany
(70,522 posts).... now impose their religious views on all of us.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)is your employer's religion is more important than your rights
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy were approved by a Democratic Senate.
And the minority Dems had the ability to block Alito and Roberts, but chose not to.
liberal N proud
(60,338 posts)What they are saying is that they would rather spend much more to care for a child than for a pill that would prevent it.
The religious fundamentalist have fucking won!
n2doc
(47,953 posts)It's the Irish Catholic solution- so long as they are born and baptized, they can die afterwards and 'go to heaven'. In the meantime their suffering is justified because they are sinners. Sick fucks.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Are dancing in the Streets
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)which means Hobby Lobby comes out ahead, even though there will be some unwanted births their insurance company will have to cover. And the employee may well leave at some stage (after all, Hobby Lobby is a shit employer, as their attitude about this shows), so health coverage for the child may get covered by someone else.
For an unscrupulous employer like Hobby Lobby, this puts the responsibility for health care costs on to other people.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)And hope we have a D as president, and that we have a senate not run by t-baggers.
BumRushDaShow
(129,142 posts)From the feed -
Again with the "corporations are people" idea and the 1st amendment.
Need that damn amendment to say once and for all that "corporations" are NOT "people" -or- if a corporation kills (murders) based on their practices, then they should be "executed" and removed off the face of the earth.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Sure hope all the Nader supporters are proud of their handiwork.
BumRushDaShow
(129,142 posts)that corporations continue to be considered "people" whereas gays are non-existent as "people".
Hell, blacks were only 3/5th of a "person" (per the Constitution) at one time.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)You can't put a corporation in jail. If a "person" cannot be held responsible for their actions, it's no "person" at all.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)IronLionZion
(45,463 posts)There's too many of these divided rulings decided by only 1 vote. If even 1 justice retires or dies, their replacement could change the balance on many important cases.
We need enough dems in congress to support Obama's judicial nominees. GOTV!!!
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)but when those confirmations came up, Roberts, Alito, our "democratic" senators didn't do anything...
Yeah, the president gets to pick the people on his team.
What about OUR team?
IronLionZion
(45,463 posts)but how about channel your anger towards get out the vote efforts?
Kagan and Sotomayor didn't get there without Dem votes.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Democrats voted for them, too.
I choose which democrats I will vote for. And it won't be a fake democrat.
JenniferJuniper
(4,512 posts)Employers should not be meddling in their employee's health matters in the first place.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Corporations are people who have the right to free speech and to buy politicians, the have the right to religious beliefs so they don't have to pay for those pesky woman's birth control. What I want to know is, when are their birth certificates being issued?
That's it, there is NO FUCKING BIRTH CERTIFICATE! They can't be an American company.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)I really think we will live to regret this decision. But the lawyers are gonna make bank on subsequent litigation.
-- Mal
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Who can't see the difference between her and the GOP. THIS CASE SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE.
Paladin
(28,266 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Anyone who sits home or skips the race in 2016 over a hissy fit isn't someone who deserves respect and are easily compared to the mcdainel voters who wont vote for cochran.
maxrandb
(15,335 posts)anyone who sits home, or skips THE 2014 elections deserves no respect.
Want to send a message that you're pissed at the Conservative Supremes...then get out and vote the fundamentalist asshat Congressmen and Senators out in 2014!
If folks would get out and vote this November, we could send a very poignat message to the wingnuts...heck, if we pick up some seats in the Senate, this President may be able to replace a wingnut Supreme...should some unfortunate accident happen to cause them to stepdown.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)make me wrong? If you've got a pub in the white house, it doesn't matter what's going on in the senate.
maxrandb
(15,335 posts)place as much emphasis on the Mid-term elections that we should.
If only the same folks who turned out in 2008, had turned out in 2010, we wouldn't have John Boehner as Speaker of the House, and we surely wouldn't have emboldened the "Tea-baggers" to treat this President like a bastard stepchild.
Didn't mean to suggest you were wrong personally...just that the premise of concentrating on 2016 may make us ignore the opportunity that is right in front of us...2014!
Another way to put this would be...what would it matter to have a Democrat in the White House in 2016, if the Repukes control the Senate? Do you really think any Dem, at this point...given the absolute intransigence of the wingnuts...could get any SC Justice through?
We've seen how much obstruction these a$$hats throw down when they just control 1 part of Congress (control, BTW, that we ceded to them by not coming out in-force in 2010). Imagine if they had the Senate too.
No, it's too early to start talking about 2016...the message needs to be sent this year
I vote every single year - even if it's just for local stuff. Since my 18th birthday. Anyone who sits home is part of the problem and not someone I take seriously on any issue.
I am not a Hillary fan, but if she wins the nomination, I will be voting for her, just like I will vote for whoever wins the nomination come November. The idea that the two parties are the same is BS, and those who can't vote for the democrat running because they aren't "liberal" enough, is just plain crazy. If we don't replace the idiot republicans in congress we will end up with every worse laws from them and the republican dominated Supreme court.
The time to make changes in the party is during the primaries, after that the way to change is getting rid of the tea party and republicans who want to make this country into their own insane hell on earth, at least for anyone who doesn't agree with them. The choice is yours, but think of the consequences, then get out and vote.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)given the ages of the justices, the 5-4 division is going to break solidly one or the other. As far as the courts go, this is the most important election in decades.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Credit: Bill Maher
Long ago I visited a HL. Nothing but non-American trinkets. No quality, least acceptable product that provided a profit margin.
I never went back for that reason.
Now what?
Unfortunate that some poor worker will bear the brunt of all this.
I think the answer to the whole thing is single payer. Bump the medicare cost and do everyone. Has a nice side effect of getting rid of a bunch of medical insurance "peoporations", reduces drug costs, etc.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)If they are blatant about their religious beliefs, I will not spend money with that business. I'd already trended that way, this just seals it.
Living in the Deep South, many companies do plaster crosses, those stupid fish, or "God Bless America" all over their company ads, vehicles, and locations. If I see any of that, I will turn away and look for another place to spend my money.
I am an atheist - used to be an apathetic agnostic but I am being driven more and more away from not caring about religion to caring very much how it is being FORCED on every aspect of my life. These so-called Christians are pissing me off big time!
24601
(3,962 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)At least not that I've heard of. I don't think I've ever been to a true Kosher establishment, not from trying to avoid any but because I haven't had the opportunity.
Then of course, there is not so much the proselytizing in Judaism that there is in so many Christian and especially Protestant sects.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)That Jehovah's witness owned buisness can refuse to pay for blood transfusions?
That Chrisitan science owned buyisness can refuse all medical care?
The Scientology owned buisnessness can refuse to cover mental care?
We know this will not only be used, but ab used to the point where an envelope breaks. Now all a company has to do is declare itself religious, and then they can cut medical care.
This ranks second only to Citizens united as the worst decision by the worst court. It allows religion and oligarchy to say "You are less of a human being, and we will manipulate you to whatever ends we see fit!"
And sadly, as with AIDS, as with Drugs, the only time this will seriously get questioned is when someone from the suburbs gets hurt. and in this case, since the court has made women second class citizens, it will probably need to be some male to get attention.
Anthony Scalia should be in JAIL for the way he has abused his authority for the past 14 years. He has done more damage to the nation I knew than Osama Ben Ladin did. Yes, I do mean that, as Osmama never had the power to make my Constituion a weapon to be used against my felow citizens and myself!
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Matter of time.
The intent is that any overhead of corporations be shifted to employees...one step closer to slavery.
2 class society.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.
Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.vXje5Qmc.dpuf
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)ONE: it enshrines in law that women are to be discriminated against more than men, because while men may need the other services, women do not, so screw them.
TWO: If you think legal departments are not working right now to stretch this to what they want, you are naive at best. Look up the term "stare decisis", it is the basis of law in this country.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You asked about blood transfusions, and I gave you exact language from the opinion:
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."
Secondly, you wrote: Now all a company has to do is declare itself religious, and then they can cut medical care.
In reply to this, I provided a second caveat/qualification from the opinion: "It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."
I was responding to your comments re blood transfusions and employers' religious beliefs. You did not raise the issue of contraceptive mandate in the post to which I responded, did you!
Now that brings us to stare decisis. As a lawyer and former law professor, I do know
exactly what it means, but you do not.
A Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided". Stare decisis is a legal principle which dictates that courts cannot disregard the standard. The court must uphold prior decisions. In essence, this legal principle dictates that once a law has been determined by the appellate court (which hears and determines appeals from the decisions of the trial courts) to be relevant to the facts of the case, future cases will follow the same principle of law if they involve considerably identical facts.
By including the two above quoted qualifications, SCOTUS specifically excluded the possibility of subsequent parties claiming stare decisis for those two issues.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)""This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and SHOULD NOT be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, NECESSARILY fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."
The reason I put this is caps...Should not and necessarily are weasel words. For ever should not, there is a lawyer that says should, and five people in the supreme court who will say should. It does not help that the Kocjes will throw dollar after dollar after case after case. Necesaasrily is a weak word, because it has all the certainty of "maybe."
as far as your lecture on stare decisis, let's break that down.
"By including the two above quoted qualifications, SCOTUS specifically excluded the possibility of subsequent parties claiming stare decisis for those two issues. "
and those qualifications were weak, and used lanmgiuage that was weak enough for any lawyer to twist. Do you really think words like "should not be understood to mean" that something will "necessarily fail" dopes not provide an opening?
As a paralegal, I can tell you, most lawyers would see your reasning and eat it for lunch.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)it's stinks to high heaven. Sandra Day O'Connor should be in prison.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Booz
(3 posts)What about muslims being able to completely opt out of obamacare? Haven't seen too many corporations declaring themselves muslim. You do understand this ruling applies to birth control that prevents implantation? Companies or business owners will still offer insurances that allow contraceptives (prohibits fertilization of an ovum by a sperm).
I think you should be in jail for minimizing Osama's atrocities he had committed against our citizens, our country and our freedoms our constitution allows us.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Can you ASK the religion of your boss? Are you supposed to now get blindsighted by their religion? If they now have control of your body, don't you have the right to say I quit, or will not work for you?
avebury
(10,952 posts)that has no moral problems with buying its junk from China, a country that has forced its one child law on its people for decades. Just how des Hobby Lobby think that China has been accomplishing that?
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)I cannot support religious oppression.
A store recently opened in my area & I was going to go check it out. I still may go, but if I do I will politely tell the store manager that I'll never buy anything there because HL refuses to provide full medical coverage for their employees.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)How are employees supposed to get contraception from the govt? What is this "path" they keep speaking of?
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)a Supreme Court Justice - he would have saved countless lives and women would be on the fast track to the Talibanistic views of the world, oh and no unions whatsoever.
Of course, the Taliban do aid the poor - so maybe they are not extreme enough for the SCOTUS and their masters.
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)I would think many of them would be pissed, their employer has chosen not to give them a benefit that nearly all other corporate employers provide.
sakabatou
(42,159 posts)Congress is fucked up so I doubt any legislation will accept that.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Terrible decision. No question. But it may serve to accelerate what we really want- single payer.
The current rule basically says you have to get coverage through your employer if the employer offers a conforming plan. This screws alot of people out of being able to buy on the exchange.
It doesn't look like the Supreme Court did away with the mandate that the conforming plans cover contraception. Would that not make Hobby Lobby's plan non-conforming? Couldn't the rules be tweaked to allow those employees to shop the exchange and receive subsidies?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Since there's a tax imposed for not offering a qualifying plan, declaring Hobby Lobby's plan "not qualifying" probably violates this ruling.
However, the "Cadillac plan tax" is poorly indexed. It's likely Hobby Lobby and similar fucking assholes will hit that in around a decade. At which point they will probably choose to pay the lower "no qualifying plan tax" and send their employees to the exchanges.
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)The fact that HL's plan won't cover.contraceptives would certainly seem to make it non-conforming. If an employer fails to offer a conforming plan it would seem like the employees should have the option of getting coverage through an exchange, with the employer paying the same amount (to the employee, tax-free) they would have paid for the non-conforming coverage.
valerief
(53,235 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)Yet another demonstration of corporations being given more rights than people. Just fucking dandy.
sinkingfeeling
(51,461 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)when Republicans were afraid that Kennedy would defer to the Pope.
progressoid
(49,992 posts)Vinca
(50,279 posts)And, fools that you are, you don't understand that insurance companies pool all monies and Hobby Lobby dollars will be funding contraception for employees of other companies.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)from my fibroids--I went on them in my late thirties (long after my husband had had a vasectomy, I didn't need them to prevent pregnancy) until I finally had my hysterectomy. They were a true medical necessity for me--I took my BCP and my iron pill every day for almost a year to combat severe anemia. I feel bad for women who won't have medically necessary items covered because of this. Contraception IS medically necessary for many women, for a variety of reasons. Thank God for Tricare military coverage.
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)If they want to run their business according to their religious beliefs, fine, they become a non-profit religious organization, like a church.
The owners can forgo all future profit & refund any profits earned during the time that they refused to comply with the law.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)or minimum wages? A corporation is not a person and doesn't have religion.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)The key word below is "necessarily":
"Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Let this be a warning to those here who have declared that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 if it's not the candidate of their choice.
The current SCOTUS has left me shaking my head more than once. Citizen's United and the gutting of the Voting Rights law are just two examples of why it's vital that the Republicans do not take over the WH in 2016.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nations progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
Our country has changed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nations first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was deeply disappointed by the ruling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
As for Hobby Lobby, I never knew of its existence until this lawsuit.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)you meant to put the sarcasm flag on.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The system is not working well as of this moment. Many people insured under Obamacare are not finding doctors who would treat them plus all these stupid "carve outs" done by rightwingers and SCOTUS.
Going back is not possible and as tea party keeps losing power, by 2017, there will be a public push for single payer which Hillary has always advocated.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"Speaking to a closed-to-the-press meeting of the "HIMSS14" (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Conference 2014) in Orlando Florida on February 26th, she condemned the Canadian and other nations' single-payer healthcare systems by saying, "We don't have one size fits all; our country is quite diverse. What works in New York City won't work in Albuquerque." The presumption is that what works in Canada cannot work here, that local control must trump everything in order to fix what's wrong with American health care."
I am sorry, but whatever makes people think Hi8llary is this closet liberal that would not show herself is folloishness oif the highest order!
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Just as Obama disappiojted many a lot of people will be disappointed when Hillary goes to war and does little for the middle class, even though it miught stop the bleeding from the GOP a bit.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)and are very pleased with what he has accomplished. The vast majority of liberals also support Hillary Clinton. Both have much higher support among liberals than they do among moderates or conservatives.
Those facts contradict the notion that either one is not a liberal and that Obama has disappointed a lot of people.
RatRacer
(178 posts)Hobby Lobby covers most forms of contraception. According to them at least, they cover 16 of the 20 commercially available methods that 93% of women use. They forms they objected to covering were four that some say have the potential to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg which to them is tantamount to abortion.
Like it or not, the 1st Amendment means we have to balance competing views in this country. The upside with this decision is, no contraceptive methods were outlawed or taken off the market, no companies or insurance companies were compelled to drop coverage of any contraceptive methods, women are free to purchase any of these methods themselves or add a rider to insurance to cover them and this exception does not apply to publicly held companies. In addition, the government is free to purchase these contraceptives for affected employees.
To me, the right balance was struck. I know that won't be a popular opinion here, but when I dug into this issue and Hobby Lobby in particular, there is much good to be said for them. I wish more companies would follow their example in most ways. For example:
-- HL starts full-time hourly employees at about 80-90% above federal minimum wage. That's roughly $13-14/per hour.
-- HL operates a free medical clinic at its HQ with no copays for employees
-- HL pays part-time employees well above the average for retail workers as well...minimum wage for part-timers is $9.50/hr.
-- They've increased their minimum wage for full-time hourly employees by $1 an hour five years in a row.
-- Their healthcare plan is one of the most generous in retail with medical, dental, Rx coverage, short-term/long-term disability
We can be upset but let's not lose perspective. If more companies operated like Hobby Lobby, the fight for a living wage and decent health care coverage wouldn't be so needed.
h2ebits
(644 posts)Get involved in the movement to institute a single payer system in your state. This would eliminate corporations from "providing" health insurance to us. Eventually, Medicare for ALL OF US.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)Thanks Supreme Court for pushing the Women vote more and more Liberal and Democrat
tclambert
(11,087 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)with this SCOTUS decision and their activism and any company that wants to discriminate against women I say - stop shopping...just necessities -
There was a time women didn't have a vote - Women will fight back..this is just the set up we have been waiting for - another great day for campaign contributions to the DNC..
BTW = This decision doesn't just affect women, guys!
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)country on a course for disaster and it's going to take decades to undo the damage he has done. Al Gore or John Kerry nominated justices would never have ruled this way. God do I hate that guy and what he has done to this country.
Solly Mack
(90,775 posts)dmosh42
(2,217 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)And yet, Hobby Lobby is filthy rich because of their relationship with China, who has absolutely zero accountability on women's health care and family planning. They also outlaw all but a handful of official govt christianity.
Corporations can decide they are Christians??? Who? The owners?? The fucking board of directors??? This is so ludicrous.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)nothing more
Hekate
(90,719 posts)It's not always possible -- but ...
RatRacer
(178 posts)... Hobby Lobby full timers start at $14/hr and part timers at $9.50/hr, I doubt many of them want to.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)If enough people boycott HL.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Corporations are now going to start weaseling their way out of other laws due to "religious" reasons.
Chemical companies are going to start claiming that dumping toxic waste into drinking water is a "sacrament"
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)I find myself ashamed of my country...
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Or replicas of naughty body parts.
http://shop.hobbylobby.com/products/latex-rubber-121004/
They don't sell wire coat hangers, either, but they do sell 1/8" aluminum wire from which you could make your own wire coat hangers.
http://shop.hobbylobby.com/products/1/8-aluminum-wire-rod-armature-198754/
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)There are many reasons to take Plan B, use an IUD, or use other contraceptive measures that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Those are the facts we need to keep straight. The SCOTUS made a terrible decision.
The struggle continues, with or without you.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)contraceptives are NOT abortifacients!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)begins at fertilization. The legal definition of pregnancy includes viable implantation.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)A couple of Comments:
1. The Dissent divided on Corporations. Ginsburg and Somtomayor were willing to rule Corporations can NOT be a person for this litigation, while Breyer and Kagan were more then willing to say Corporations had such a right.
2. This action revolved around the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488,
42 U. S. C. §2000bb" NOT the First Amendment.
Now, the RFRA was passed right after the Court Ruled the First Amendment did NOT protect a Native American from a Criminal Conviction for smoking Peyote during a Native American Religious ceremony. The RFRA made it the rule that any Federal Law MUST be the least restrictive means of serving a compelling state interest. This is where the dissent and the Majority divided. The Majority said that it was a violation of the RFRA when the Federal Government told a corporation it must provided Birth Control medical care AND it was NOT a Compelling state reason given that the same Federal Agency had a procedures in place for non-profits that did provide an exception to the Birth Control Mandate.
The Scary part is, reading the opinion, and its refusal to address ANY First Amendment arguments implies to me that if any of the five did NOT think the RFRA did not apply to this case, they would have ruled that Under the First Amendment the Government could mandate that an employer provided medical coverage Hobby Lobby would have lost.
The RFRA was passed to reverse the decision of Justice Scalia in 1991 called "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith" In that case Scalia ruled that under the First Amendment the previous practice since the 1960s to balance between Religious Freedom and Compelling state interest was NO longer going to be the rule, instead the rule was going to be the law was constitutional if it was neutral on its face, even if it affects someone's strongly held religious beliefs.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872
Thus the First Amendment was avoided to keep Scalia AND Kennedy on the side of the Majority. Both had been on the Court in 1992 when Smith was decided and both agreed with that decision reversing what had been the rule in the US Supreme Court since the 1960s.
Now, Congress was upset about that ruling, for it had far reaching affects, thus Congress in 1994 passed the RFRA to restore what had been the US Supreme Court rule since the 1960s. Thus this decision is based on the RFRA not the First Amendment, and it appears the reason it does NOT mention the First Amendment is Scalia and/or Kennedy would have wrote an concurring opinion OR join the dissent. A concurring opinion would have made this case restricted to the parties named in the case, with limited affect outside this case.
Just a comment on this case.