[Scotus] Hobby Lobby wins case

I think it will help win national elections but it will come with a price. I'm pro abortion and I think there might be some battles on the marginal legalities like the 24 hour waiting period nonsense. If I'm alive in 20 years I guess I will find out.

 

I didn't know the murders of six year olds by a nut with a rifle was a laughing matter. I just urge you gun nuts to persist in nuttiness. Nothing more embarrassingly pathetic than people clinging to their guns like Teddy bears in front of the steamroller of history. Carry on tough guy!

 

Yes, trying to predict the next two elections based on the last two is stupid, and there are more variables at play than oversimplified assumptions about Hispanic voters.

 

Why were you laughing then? I will carry on supporting the lobby that continuously owns you, thanks.

 

Ah yes, the left's favorite argument: discrediting a person's intelligence. Yes, I am serious. Simply including primary source does not mean the source is neutral. And that source happens to post the comments of a singular justice who happens to be the most liberal on the Court. The article is not neutral; it does not fairly and proportionately give all of the views of the court. The article is a narrowly-focused blog post with no intent of neutrality. Its intent is the targeting of quotes specific to a justice on the left to promote a certain ideology. If you disagree with that argument, an argument can also be made for the article's inequal validity, a promotion of one person's opinion over the accepted decision. I will respond directly to the comments she has made. They are an extreme overreaction to a ruling that directly results from the RFRA (1993). Many of the loudest shouters get the issue exactly backwards. Today's decision in no way "bans" or restricts women's access to contraception. The ruling simply states that proprietors of a certain type of business, who are also women and men of faith, cannot be compelled by the federal government to pay for (and directly facilitate the use of) contraceptive products that run counter to their religious beliefs. Under the partially-invalidated mandate, failure of compliance is punished by hefty fines. The administration's heavy-handed regulation -- remember, the HHS mandate was not in the text of Obamacare, as passed by Congress -- was deemed to be an undue burden on those specific employers' free exercise rights, as detailed in RFRA. That law, incidentally, was enacted by Congress with three total dissenting votes and signed by President Clinton. Two of its primary sponsors in the Senate were Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer.I have made my response, and I would like to see yours if you are as smart as you think you are.

 

Well at least you've finally narrowed your random "fastest growing group in the country." Now can you point to any evidence that that group is opposed to birth control and tend to remain that after singificant time in the US?

 

Most recent poll data from Mexico (from Consulta Mitofsky, not familiar with that org) I could find was from '07, when Mexico first legalized some abortions. Poll question was "Currently, there are many methods meant to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. In general, do you agree with the following methods?"

first number is from the '07 survey, the second from '05

Condom
93.7%
89.1%

Birth control pills
87.3%
78.7%

Morning-after pill
60.7%
61.6%

 

I don't have a problem with the majority of the post, just want to point out that there is no way Hobby Lobby is currently a religious entity, unless it changes its name to Crafts for Christ and donates its surplus to missionaries in Africa.

 

My answers:

I don't believe requiring HL, a $4B for profit business, to provide their employees insured-access to IUDs infringed on the people that own the company their personal right of religious expression. I believe that a for-profit business entity is different from an individual person.

I also question whether this really was a first amendment case. I believe Ginsberg was correct in pointing to the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith case that ruled that the First Amendment provided no special protection for religious liberty claims brought against "generally applicable laws."

And I am not still clear how an employee of HL wanting an IUD will get coverage... even in your answer, you say "probably will still be a co-pay". If I was a employee effected by this ruling, the "probably" part would be a big reason for concern.

 

It was obvious to everyone.

 

So in other words, you actually can't cite any data whatsoever to back up your claim.

 

Filing this post away for future reference.

Regardless of what the decision says, there is no question that the SC will eventually have to decide where the line is for religious objections to other medications and medical procedures and where the line is for public interest which apparently includes vaccines, but we don't know what else.

There will also be clever lawyers that will try to expand on this ruling. Simply saying they won't get there because of language in this decision is, at best, optimistic.

Oh, and by the way, the SC took further actions on the case today:

 

It's really not stupid at all. The electorate in 2016 will be more similar to those in recent elections than to non-recent elections. It's pretty delusional to believe otherwise.

There are many other variables though, and the party that understood them is the one that won the last two elections because of their understanding of such (and also swept the minority vote).

Meanwhile the other party that rejects science and data points is chasing invisible voter fraud boogeyman because it can't believe there aren't enough old white people to control presidential elections.

 

im not here to argue for or against obamacare...the issue is corporations using their religion as an excuse to not cover aspects of their employees insurance.

my family owns a small business that employs about 10 people so we are not involved in this, but if we were i would not want to know about my employees private lives...its just weird and childish that they are doing this.

and its really stupid for business - this can only hurt sales. michaels is probably loving all this right now.


Rocket Rver

 

Another good point:

 

Actually, I was applying your question to the discussion of this topic... does this case infringe upon expression religion. And answered as such.

Thank you. Since the four conservatives on the SC ruled the same as your position, I can't describe your position as ridiculous either, though I disagree with their ruling, and your position. It does continue an activist trend of this court. Hopefully Hillary will be able to nominate a new justice to bring balance back to the court.

If employees of HL will coninue to be able to get access to affordable birth control INCLUDING IUDs (a form a small number need access to) then I would be less critical of this decision. My worry is that some will not continue to get access and the total cost of IUD will be beyond the abilities of some. I reckon we will see if this access will be continued (which according to the position of the court will be continued) or whether the religious beliefs of the corporation will end up deciding the birth control approach a women needs to take.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-obama-can-fix-birth-control-gap-created-by-scotus


This creates a hole in Obamacare's preventative care coverage, but the White House has options. One action the President could take is to simply extend to these women an accommodation his administration offered to employees of religious nonprofits like universities and hospitals: employers can opt out of it but insurance companies are required to pay the full cost of the contraception for female employees who want it.

"I think that's exactly what the court contemplates," said Tim Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. "Female employes can be covered by an extension of the accommodation that now applies to the religious [nonprofit] organizations."

In his 5-4 majority opinion in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell on Monday, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that as one way to provide birth control coverage without running afoul of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which imposes strict scrutiny standards for laws that burden religious practices.

"The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate," Alito wrote for the Court. "That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests."

The key issue here was that there was a simple alternative already available to the admin - that's why the mandate failed the RFRA test. The court opinion basically tells the admin that the workaround would be legal - and it's a fairly easy fix since it's already in place for religious non-profits. Interestingly, if there wasn't a work-around in place for other organizations, this particular line of reasoning wouldn't have held and Hobby Lobby might have failed in their case.