Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[theprestige]

But what we're discussing is whether or not the majority decision was correct.

To be fair, if your claim that the decision was incorrect is based on analogies that are refuted in the decision itself, then there's probably not much left to discuss. Addressing those refutations would be pretty much mandatory, if you wanted to advance the discussion and press your claim.

 

[Neally]

Seems to me, you are agreeing that my analogy has merit, then.

You claimed how the insurance money gets spent is none of HL business. They and the SCOTUS say it is.

That doesn't actually refute or argue against anything. It's merely repeating a claim without support.

I've already refuted it. Here it is again: Premiums paid by HL can and would get paid out for services they find religiously objectionable. The government can't compel them to do that. Your argument that HL is not paying for it directly is a distinction without a difference.

I never said the employee's religious rights have been trumped. I said Hobby Lobby was using it's religious rights to trample employees' rights. Namely their right to privacy concerning medical issues and potentially their ability to make medical decisions with their doctor.

The decision does NOTHING to their privacy rights. It does NOTHING to their ability to make decisions with their Dr. It affects WHO pays for certain drugs. The court said that the religious freedom of HL demands that they have the right to opt out of the law forcing them to pay for something that they find religiously objectionable.

But what we're discussing is whether or not the majority decision was correct.

And you keep arguing against the decision with attempts at analogies that have no place and are addressed in the decision.

So, this decision means that now I have to pay for emergency contraceptives after a woman is raped, rather than her medical insurance.

Um, no.
1. Emergency medical procedures aren't free.
2. Emergency medical procedures are only provided to save lives or otherwise stabilize someone with an acute injury. An elective abortion does not qualify for that.
3. Someone that is working such that they have medical insurance can pay for elective medical services out of pocket.

And the reason is still "recognizing an establishment of religion". This requires impeaching the justices who deliberately chose to ignore the law they are supposed to uphold.

Furthermore, it provides Hobby Lobby an advantage over all of its competitors, and the taxpayer pays for the government respecting their establishment of religion.

LOL. You're quite the hyperbole machine.

Government preference of one religion over another is at the very heart of the First. This decision, by preferring one religion over another, is what violates the First. In fact, I think it's the worst aspect of it.

The government has always recognized that there are limits to carving out exceptions for religious beliefs. The church of "We Pay No Taxes" doesn't get to opt out of paying taxes. Imagine that, the government picks and chooses what religious beliefs can override law and what can't! This decision recognizes the very legitimate religious beliefs that would be violated. Just because you happen to disagree with those religious beliefs doesn't make then any less legitimate in terms of the constitutional protections.

 

[gregthehammer]

The government has always recognized that there are limits to carving out exceptions for religious beliefs. The church of "We Pay No Taxes" doesn't get to opt out of paying taxes. Imagine that, the government picks and chooses what religious beliefs can override law and what can't! This decision recognizes the very legitimate religious beliefs that would be violated. Just because you happen to disagree with those religious beliefs doesn't make then any less legitimate in terms of the constitutional protections.

Just for the sake of argument, suppose the vote went 5-4 the other way. Would those disagreed with religious beliefs become illegitimate by virtue of this ruling?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to give its employees birth control but they are fine with investing in birth control manufacturers because..... values and morals and something...

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

Came here to post this same story and see you beat me to it.

That the company executives behave in a hypocritical way dosn't mean they can be burdened with what has been found unconstitutional.

But wait, it was they who brought the suit. Why do hypocrites have standing?

(Please excuse me if this is a silly question as I am not a lawyer.)

If hypocrites didn't have standing, then we wouldn't need a judicial system at all. In any case, it's not clear that HL is being hypocritical. It could be that they're careless or financially unsophisticated. Or they could reasonably feel that the connection to religiously proscribed birth control is too tenuous to worry about. It is virtually impossible to disentangle yourself completely from practices that you find immoral.

For example, HL appears to be willing to employ people who use birth control. Is that hypocritical? That's probably a stronger connection to supporting proscribed practices than allowing its pension fund to invest in mutual funds which invest a small percentage of funds in companies which get a small percentage of their revenues from selling proscribed drugs.

I'm glad to see somebody has a sense of humor around here.

My question was a somewhat serious one though. It was my impression that an actual controversy had to be present for a plaintiff to sue in federal court.

Hobby Loobby execs claimed their religious freedoms were burdened by having to provide health insurance coverage which might help provided certain contraceptives to some Hobby Lobby employees.

Yet they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture same contraceptives.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT +0.43%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE +1.35%, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN +0.66%, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET +1.21% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Where is the controversy in their having to provide health insurance covering products that their company has investments in?

 

[theprestige]

You know, I don't think Hobby Lobby is very religious at all, I have yet to see them at Sunday Mass! (and don't tell anyone, because you didn't here it from me, but Gertrude told me H.L. isn't even baptized!!)

Good thing the Court adjudicated the case based on actual human beings with actual human rights, then isn't it? I mean, they even explicitly addressed the legal fiction of corporate personhood in the decision itself.

It's like you have no idea what legal arguments the Court even considered. It never even crossed your mind that the Justices would anticipate and refute your point in their ruling, did it?

"Boxed in" indeed!

 

[Neally]

Just for the sake of argument, suppose the vote went 5-4 the other way. Would those disagreed with religious beliefs become illegitimate by virtue of this ruling?

Sure, since the SCOTUS has the final say on where the line gets drawn in balancing and interpreting law vs the constitution.

 

[Buckaroo]

Perhaps you could be the first to give us a proper analysis of the legal justification--the ruling is only about 27,000 words, including the dissent--and point out where exactly it fails.

I mean, you could probably start by citing the key arguments of the dissent, and explaining why you find them to be a compelling refutation of the majority position.

It would be nice if someone who thinks the ruling is wrong were able to actually explain what law(s) the Court actually considered, and what the Court actually said about the applicability of the law(s) in this case. Are you that someone. Or are you just another someone who asserts the ruling is wrong but refuses to discuss the details of the ruling itself?

My passage was short. Could you really not be bothered to read all of it? I'm not saying it wasn't legally correct -- all it takes for legal correctness is for a sufficient number of justices to rationalize that one argument is more persuasive to than another, and this is clearly what happened. I'm saying that it is appalling because justice has not been served. There's a difference.

 

[gregthehammer]

Good thing the Court adjudicated the case based on actual human beings with actual human rights, then isn't it? I mean, they even explicitly addressed the legal fiction of corporate personhood in the decision itself.

It's like you have no idea what legal arguments the Court even considered. It never even crossed your mind that the Justices would anticipate and refute your point in their ruling, did it?

"Boxed in" indeed!

<-----jeez, i'm just a guy with bad teeth who tried to inject some light humor to the situation. But now that you raise the point, No. I admit, I did not read the actual legal filings. And frankly, I have no desire to delve that far into it. Consider me the average American guy who gets easily confused by legalese. My specializations lie elsewhere so I am not ashamed to admit that, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on this ruling. And considering this ruling was a 5-4 split instead of a unanimous slam dunk, I feel I am in good company in being a bit leery of this ruling. (Yes, appeal to authority and all that).

 

[Cain]

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. It's wrong to kill microscopic people because the invisible god says so.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The stupid reason was the employer based health insurance coverage was the only viable option given the opposition to changing the system over to single payer or national health care.

We liberals would love to take them out of the system. But the conservatives blocked all efforts to change the system.

Okay but you have to live in the world with compromise that actually happened, not the compromise that you wish had happened.

Like it or not, stupid or not, your employer is now involved in your health care. Therefore they get a say.

Whether or not your employer being involved in your health care is stupid or not is another question, and frankly one that should have been asked before the fact, not after.

At it's most basic level the whole point of this whole thing was that there is a percentage of the population that can't pay for their own health care. That needed to be addressed. But when others step in to help, they get in say. That's just how it works. If you don't like other people having a say in your life your only option to be 100% self sufficient. I'm sorry. I don't like it either.

Am I stupid? No. Do I think for a minute that Hobby Lobby's moral principles are really a fart in the winds factor in all this? Of course not I'm not naive. But I'm sorry you can't just undue the situation we've found ourselves in.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You don't get to tell them that they shouldn't care where their money goes. And fungibility doesn't remove the problem. They know for certain that payments for a policy which covers something they don't like will be used to pay for what they don't like, and it will do so precisely because of the inclusion of that coverage. There is no uncertainty there.

As for your comparison to your tax dollars going to pay for the Iraq war, you are free to feel as outraged as you want to. You are indeed being forced to pay for what you object to, and I will never argue that how indirect those payments are should serve as any consolation to you. But unlike Hobby Lobby, you have no statutory protection against making such payments, on any grounds.

So why don't you hate how this decision is ok with forcing things religions take issue with like blood transfusions and vaccines?

Clearly some religions are more equal in their eyes than others.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just for the sake of argument, suppose the vote went 5-4 the other way. Would those disagreed with religious beliefs become illegitimate by virtue of this ruling?

The ruling was clear that some medical beliefs are legitimate and some are not.

Why else call out limitations so explicitly?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sure, since the SCOTUS has the final say on where the line gets drawn in balancing and interpreting law vs the constitution.

I didn't think this was based on constitutional law but a different federal law protecting religions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Forgot that you said this?:



What part of "I object to my money paying for something that is against my religious beliefs," do you not understand?

The part where this principle is set aside for anything other than birth control?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The part where this principle is set aside for anything other than birth control?

I don't think that it's set aside just for birth control. That was the first case of it without a doubt, but there's no indication that that's where it will stop. It just hasn't been argued yet. Big difference. The judgement didn't limit it to just birth control.

And if you really want to argue it, Hobby Lobby had already agreed to pay for 16 methods of birth control, they objected to four methods that would lead to the abortion of an already viable sperm/egg merge. If you think that an abortion is birth control then that says more about you than anything else. They were and are willing to prevent that from happening in the first place, that's birth control and they have never tried to stop or not pay for that. Their line was killing a zygote or beyond. That's it.

 

[Francesca R]

Having one's health insurance tied to their employer is a bad idea for anyone

Certainly it is a bad idea if it inserts a corporation's decision layer into the extent of the insurance cover.

However, to get away from that system would require one of two things conservatives tend to balk at. It would either require raising wages (including, perhaps, minimum wage) to compensate for the loss of benefits OR it would require finally starting a UHC system.

IMO the latter is far better even though it restricts freedom by compelling the funding of the same threshold provision for everyone whether individuals want/require it or not. Self-selection of health insurance is free-er, but falls victim to market failure.

Hobby Lobby may write the check, but the insurance belongs to the employees, and is part of their total compensation package.

Again, allowing a corporation to have any say over the threshold level of insurance provision is highly adverse. But it is an artefact of the botched US system of health insurance provision.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that it's set aside just for birth control. That was the first case of it without a doubt, but there's no indication that that's where it will stop. It just hasn't been argued yet. Big difference. The judgement didn't limit it to just birth control.

And if you really want to argue it, Hobby Lobby had already agreed to pay for 16 methods of birth control, they objected to four methods that would lead to the abortion of an already viable sperm/egg merge. If you think that an abortion is birth control then that says more about you than anything else. They were and are willing to prevent that from happening in the first place, that's birth control and they have never tried to stop or not pay for that. Their line was killing a zygote or beyond. That's it.

It seems pretty clear that it will not fit into many other forms of medical care, why else specifically mention it not applying to two of the more common other things complained about, vaccines and blood transfusions?

It seems the most important issue determining if the belief is worthy of legal protections is does the Catholic church hold it.

 

[Francesca R]

You claimed how the insurance money gets spent is none of HL business. They and the SCOTUS say it is.

Oh well I also claim it should be none of their business. But that would require the premiums not to be routed through them or any employer. Something which every other OECD nation seems to have managed to achieve.

 

[Francesca R]

Like it or not, stupid or not, your employer is now involved in your health care. Therefore they get a say.

I don't doubt that this is very hard to change, but it is correct to identify this as a fundamental flaw in the system.

In many countries with universal health insurance, private, for-profit insurers directly underwrite individuals' health spending. Some of those insurers could even have religious or ethical beliefs. But they get no say in respect of their requirement to cover a statutory threshold of spending types, most (probably all) of which include many types of contraception.

 

[tsig]

So you can't even read the first two sentences of the opinion link ?

You are distorting the issue - it's not a "special privilege" to practice your religious views in the US. Instead the state needs a compelling reason and no less restrictive alternative to interfere.

What church does the corporation belong to and how often does it attend?