Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Ziggurat]

1) If I organize the exact business as Hobby Lobby, and hold the exact belief for the exact same reasons, but do not belong to a recognized sect, I cannot receive the same exemption;

I think you are wrong. I see nothing about the decision which limits its protections to only those of a recognized sect. I don't think there even is a legal definition of a "recognized sect", but more importantly, nothing about the decision depends upon that. The religious beliefs being protected by the RFRA must be "sincere", and if that belief is part of the long-standing expressed beliefs of an established religion to which a plaintiff belongs then demonstrating the sincerity of belief may be easier as a practical matter. But so what? It's also easier to prove an alibi that you didn't commit a crime if you live-stream video of yourself 24 hours a day, but you aren't being discriminated against if you don't do that. Likewise, nothing about the RFRA requires that you belong to a "recognized sect" to receive its protections.

In fact, the sincerity of the Greens (the owners of Hobby Lobby) beliefs was never questioned by the government in this suit. Furthermore, the ruling doesn't even mention what "sect" the Green's belong to. They are described as merely being "Christian". The same ruling did refer to the Hahns (the owners of "Conestoga Wood Specialties") as Mennonites, however, which suggests to me that the Greens never mentioned their affiliation with any particular "sect". That would be a strange thing to do, and to get away with, if the law depended upon belonging to a "recognized sect".

 

[Neally]

:sigh: Each of your examples are lacking, and not to point, being examples of equal treatment for unequal situations.
Give an example where two people believe the same thing, but because of different sources, one is exceptional, one not.

All are examples of outrageous inconsistent policies of the government that blow your equal protection argument away.

So a person in a recognized sect is more believable than an individual with the same beliefs? Do tell.

As Zig said, nothing about the RFRA requires that you belong to a "recognized sect" to receive its protections. Again common, sense which you appearantly find outrageous.

1) If I organize the exact business as Hobby Lobby, and hold the exact belief for the exact same reasons, but do not belong to a recognized sect, I cannot receive the same exemption;

The government uses common sense to parse the legitimate claims from the made up on the fly ones. Sometimes even common sense can be found in government policy.

2) Moving the goal posts to 'employees rights'. My arguments have not be an Employer vs Employee, they have been Employer vs Employer, and Individual vs Individual. Equal protection. Stick to the point.

Yep every employer within a closely held company with a deeply held religious conviction against those drugs gets to opt out. No violation of anyone's rights.

 

[The Greater Fool]

All are examples of outrageous inconsistent policies of the government that blow your equal protection argument away.

Nonsense assertion.

As Zig said, nothing about the RFRA requires that you belong to a "recognized sect" to receive its protections. Again common, sense which you appearantly find outrageous.

I never mentioned RFRA. But, not to disregard your derail, the RFRA is a framework, there is no detail enforcement rules. See my final paragraph for correction of my position.

The government uses common sense to parse the legitimate claims from the made up on the fly ones. Sometimes even common sense can be found in government policy.

common sense is a poor standard, extraordinarily fickle, and no way to run a government.

Yep every employer within a closely held company with a deeply held religious conviction against those drugs gets to opt out. No violation of anyone's rights.

See reply below...

I think you are wrong. I see nothing about the decision which limits its protections to only those of a recognized sect. I don't think there even is a legal definition of a "recognized sect", but more importantly, nothing about the decision depends upon that. The religious beliefs being protected by the RFRA must be "sincere", and if that belief is part of the long-standing expressed beliefs of an established religion to which a plaintiff belongs then demonstrating the sincerity of belief may be easier as a practical matter. But so what? It's also easier to prove an alibi that you didn't commit a crime if you live-stream video of yourself 24 hours a day, but you aren't being discriminated against if you don't do that. Likewise, nothing about the RFRA requires that you belong to a "recognized sect" to receive its protections.

1) See the RFRA note above.
2) I understand your analogy with alibi, and its fine as far as it goes. It fails that the 'alibi' in this situation is not the thought, but how long and why you think it. A history does help, but in this case if you examine HL history, you find that it is, at best, inconsistent on this issue.

In fact, the sincerity of the Greens (the owners of Hobby Lobby) beliefs was never questioned by the government in this suit. Furthermore, the ruling doesn't even mention what "sect" the Green's belong to. They are described as merely being "Christian". The same ruling did refer to the Hahns (the owners of "Conestoga Wood Specialties") as Mennonites, however, which suggests to me that the Greens never mentioned their affiliation with any particular "sect". That would be a strange thing to do, and to get away with, if the law depended upon belonging to a "recognized sect".

The complaint mentions they are 'Evangelical Christians' and one of the Greenes' is on the BoD of Oral Roberts University. Jesus and christian are used in nearly every article. I don't know if that is narrow enough. However...

In rereading the complaint and the judgment, you are right the court only considered religious belief, so my claim that only organized religious belief is being protected is wrong, or at best premature. HHS will rewrite the rules to account for the decision, then we'll see for sure how they differentiate between real and fake belief. Until said rules are published, I'll be over here quietly eating a bit of crow.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I'll fix this for you then.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of what are are essentially opinions when you boil it down to the basics., or prohibiting the idle talk thereof.

That's really what the 1st amendment says, phrased differently of course.

It means don't restrict speech and, especially in the case of religion, stay out of it whenever possible. As long as they aren't breaking laws then the policy is to stand back and let them talk and work within the legal framework set down as being as neutral as possible.

That's not a bad policy. Opinions are formed when people of like minds gather and talk to each other. That includes changing opinions when a convincing argument is made to change them.

What ever happened to the old saying "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Is that sentiment dead? It's not for me but maybe I'm old fashioned.

 

[Kestrel]

Yet again no substance since the right of an employee to buy whatever drug they want is unaffected by the ruling.

The logic of this ruling could be applied to any drug or medical proceedure. Perhaps the Catholic majority on the Court will only rule in favor of restrictions that conform to their own personal faith. But it is reasonable to consider what kind of future rulings may sprout from this one

It is not hard to find religions that object to just about any medical care. So instead of relatively inexpensive contraceptives, we will be leaving the employee free to purchase her own chemotherapy or heart surgery without any help from her insurance.

ETA: The net cost to the insurance company for contraceptives is probably negative. The cost of maternity care for the increased number of unwanted pregnancies swamps the cost of proving contraceptives.

 

[theprestige]

What ever happened to the old saying "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Is that sentiment dead? It's not for me but maybe I'm old fashioned.

I think the new saying is, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death the government's authority to impose Correct Thought on us all."

 

[Sam.I.Am]

ETA: The net cost to the insurance company for contraceptives is probably negative. The cost of maternity care for the increased number of unwanted pregnancies swamps the cost of proving contraceptives.

Claim without evidence noted. Birth control, defined as preventing a pregnancy from ever happening, was not the issue and they still cover it. The issue was what happened after the sperm met the egg. To Hobby Lobby once that happened it became an abortion if you intentionally removed it and they wanted no part in that. They didn't say that once pregnant you must carry it to full term, they said that they won't help you end it. What you do about it on your end, on your dime, is up to you.

The four items that they didn't want to pay for are all post sperm meets egg types of contraceptives. Now you or I may disagree with when life actually starts but that's not the point of the decision. Arguably one could say that once the sperm meets the egg and letting natural events take their course a baby will result. That's not illogical to say because it's basic biology. Hobby Lobby said that they don't endorse abortion by any means no matter how soon after the sperm met the egg.

Artificial miscarriage is an abortion by definition. It may not involve a DNC but the intent is the same. That's the point of the Hobby Lobby decision.

ETA: I'm not anti-abortion. But I can see how other people might be justified in being so.

 

[MontagK505]

So you can opt out. Further you can opt out with no fine: https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/ which includes, a religious exemption. GASP!

The owners of Hobby Lobby say they have a religious objection to 4 out of 20 drugs provided. Isn't it just horrible that some people have religious beliefs and the constitution respects that!
Imagine that, the law accommodates a persons religious beliefs. How terrible!

Yes! It is horrible when people who don't share those specific "religious beliefs" are treated differently under the law.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What would be considered a false religion? Where would you draw the line for that?

Talk to the supreme court. It is their job after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Can you clarify this question? Why does your employers religious beliefs matter? When you go to apply for a job the employer tells you what you compensation should be. If they want, they should be allowed to offer no benefits--if you don't like this don't accept the job. I would rather have most of my pay to be in cash, so I could do what I want with it rather then in benefits the government thinks I should have.

This was being framed as a cost issue about religious freedom being acceptable for employers to force on
Their employees because of the low cost of birth control.

As this was a case on religious freedom clearly in the mind of the poster there was a dollar amount of treatment that trumps the religious rights of the corporation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This was being framed as a cost issue about religious freedom being acceptable for employers to force on
Their employees because of the low cost of birth control.

Okay but that's only an issue because of the expectation that birth control be specifically part of the compensation package.

Look at it this way.

Employee: Boss I want some shoes.
Employer: Okay... errr go buy some shoes with your paycheck.
Employee: Nope, nope that's not good enough. I demand that you buy me shoes.
Employer: You want me to buy your shoes?
Employee: Well buy them for me. Or get some sort of shoe buying club for the office. Or I'll give you the money and you go buy them. The important thing is that you are involved in my shoe buying process somehow in some way.
Employer: Errr... okay I guess. What kind of shoes are you thinking of buying?
Employee: I don't know. Maybe some nice tasteful black pumps.
Employer: I don't know if I like black pumps.
Employee: Oh my god! How dare you encroach on my shoe buying rights! It's my fashion choices and my right! I guess you'd just rather I go shoeless you monster!
Employer: Errr okay. Shoes aren't that expensive. If you don't like the shoes I'd pick for you you can go buy your own.
Employee: No it's not the same! It's vitally important that I make you get involved in this process some how but not have a say in it!

 

[Kestrel]

Claim without evidence noted. Birth control, defined as preventing a pregnancy from ever happening, was not the issue and they still cover it. The issue was what happened after the sperm met the egg. To Hobby Lobby once that happened it became an abortion if you intentionally removed it and they wanted no part in that. They didn't say that once pregnant you must carry it to full term, they said that they won't help you end it. What you do about it on your end, on your dime, is up to you.

Hobby Lobby was the face of this lawsuit, but not the only company involved. The actual ruling went far beyond the HL request to not cover 4 methods, it discarded the entire contraception mandate.

Also, the methods Hobby Lobby objects to actually work by preventing ovulation.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay but that's only an issue because of the expectation that birth control be specifically part of the compensation package.

Look at it this way.

Employee: Boss I want some shoes.
Employer: Okay... errr go buy some shoes with your paycheck.
Employee: Nope, nope that's not good enough. I demand that you buy me shoes.
Employer: You want me to buy your shoes?
Employee: Well buy them for me. Or get some sort of shoe buying club for the office. Or I'll give you the money and you go buy them. The important thing is that you are involved in my shoe buying process somehow in some way.
Employer: Errr... okay I guess. What kind of shoes are you thinking of buying?
Employee: I don't know. Maybe some nice tasteful black pumps.
Employer: I don't know if I like black pumps.
Employee: Oh my god! How dare you encroach on my shoe buying rights! It's my fashion choices and my right! I guess you'd just rather I go shoeless you monster!
Employer: Errr okay. Shoes aren't that expensive. If you don't like the shoes I'd pick for you you can go buy your own.
Employee: No it's not the same! It's vitally important that I make you get involved in this process some how but not have a say in it!

Except for your analogy to be fair, shoes have to be extremely expensive, and those who sell them generally only deal with customers who have accounts with other companies who pay them, and if a customer tries to purchase them directly they get marked up, and some shoes can only be purchased via prescription from a doctor who also requires an account with another company to see, and also marks up the price of a consultation if you don't....

Healthcare isn't like any other business, that's the problem. You don't just go to the doctor or hospital, consume a service, then pay. Instead you either have your employer do business with an insurance company and you pay some and the employer pays some for that relationship, and then you go to the doctor selected by that insurer and maybe they cover all, some, or none of that cost, and they negotiate it with the provider; or, instead of a private company doing that, you go through the government in the form of Medicare or Medicaid. Unless you are very rich or very poor or very prone to gambling, you have at least one middleman between you and the healthcare, and that middleman takes a chunk of money from you, your employer and/or the government, and then pays some of the provider's cost.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Hobby Lobby was the face of this lawsuit, but not the only company involved. The actual ruling went far beyond the HL request to not cover 4 methods, it discarded the entire contraception mandate.

Also, the methods Hobby Lobby objects to actually work by preventing ovulation.

1) I'm aware of that but Hobby Lobby is what people are talking about

2) LOL wut? Plan B prevents ovulation? It's a drug that causes a miscarriage while it's still a small clump of cells. The whole point of it is to get rid of an egg that may have been fertilized. IUD's are there to prevent a fertilized egg from going to the uterus by poisoning it with a copper overdose. Learn what ovulation is. The pill is an ovulation prevention measure and Hobby Lobby was willing to pay for it. What they objected to paying for was contraception measures that worked after sperm met egg. Many people consider a baby to be a baby when that happens. I may not agree with them on that but I can still see how that point of view is valid. If left alone it will become a tiny human.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Except for your analogy to be fair, shoes have to be extremely expensive, and those who sell them generally only deal with customers who have accounts with other companies who pay them, and if a customer tries to purchase them directly they get marked up, and some shoes can only be purchased via prescription from a doctor who also requires an account with another company to see, and also marks up the price of a consultation if you don't....

And I agree 100%. But that's the problem that needs to be fixed and not by spreading the cost around and forcing people who (wrong and stupid as they may be) don't want to pay for it. The idea that instead of just monetary compensation people are entitled to specific compensation just doesn't sit well with me and sets a bad precedent.

Again I'm not on Hobby Lobby's side in the abstract here and the last thing I want is for birth control to be less accessible. I'm just not liking the overtones of "We want them to pay for it specifically because they don't want to and we get off of making them do something they don't like" I'm picking up in some of these arguments.

 

[Kestrel]

What would be considered a false religion? Where would you draw the line for that?

Atheists claim that all religions are false.
Believers claim that all religions are false with one exception.

The government doesn't care if your religion is true or false. If your religion is organized, it is a valid religion.

 

[Kaepora Gaebora]

Talk to the supreme court. It is their job after all.

I was asking you, not the Supreme Court.

What would be considered a false religion?

 

[Kestrel]

1) I'm aware of that but Hobby Lobby is what people are talking about

2) LOL wut? Plan B prevents ovulation? It's a drug that causes a miscarriage while it's still a small clump of cells. The whole point of it is to get rid of an egg that may have been fertilized. IUD's are there to prevent a fertilized egg from going to the uterus by poisoning it with a copper overdose. Learn what ovulation is. The pill is an ovulation prevention measure and Hobby Lobby was willing to pay for it. What they objected to paying for was contraception measures that worked after sperm met egg. Many people consider a baby to be a baby when that happens. I may not agree with them on that but I can still see how that point of view is valid. If left alone it will become a tiny human.

Plan B, aka Levonorgestrel^WP is not an abortificant.

LNG ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo.15 The evidence available to date shows that LNG ECP use does not prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining. The primary mechanism of action is to stop or disrupt ovulation; LNG ECP use may also prevent the sperm and egg from meeting.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_RHR_HRP_10.06_eng.pdf

 

[Sabrina]

1) I'm aware of that but Hobby Lobby is what people are talking about

2) LOL wut? Plan B prevents ovulation? It's a drug that causes a miscarriage while it's still a small clump of cells. The whole point of it is to get rid of an egg that may have been fertilized. IUD's are there to prevent a fertilized egg from going to the uterus by poisoning it with a copper overdose. Learn what ovulation is. The pill is an ovulation prevention measure and Hobby Lobby was willing to pay for it. What they objected to paying for was contraception measures that worked after sperm met egg. Many people consider a baby to be a baby when that happens. I may not agree with them on that but I can still see how that point of view is valid. If left alone it will become a tiny human.

I think your facts are a bit off there, Sam, at least as regards copper IUDs. From Wikipedia:

Copper IUDs primarily work by disrupting sperm mobility and damaging sperm so that they are prevented from joining with an egg. Copper acts as a spermicide within the uterus, increasing levels of copper ions, prostaglandins, and white blood cells within the uterine and tubal fluids.[10][16] The increased copper ions in the cervical mucus inhibit the sperm's motility and viability, preventing sperm from traveling through the cervical mucus or destroying it as it passes through.[17] Copper IUDs have a first year failure rate ranging from 0.1 to 2.2%.[18]

To be fair, there is a section regarding the copper IUD's use in emergency contraception (i.e. that it can be used for that purpose), but given that as far as I know most women would get an IUD in order to prevent pregnancy from being an issue at all, I don't see how this should even be an issue. Even the other more prevalent type of IUD (referred to as hormonal) is used to prevent sperm from ever meeting and fertilizing the egg, not primarily to inhibit the implantation of an embryo (although it can have such an effect if the sperm actually manages to meet and fertilize the egg, but it's more of a side effect rather than the primary purpose of the device). There are inert IUDs that have a higher rate of doing such than either copper or hormonal IUDs, I will grant you, but as far as I know the ones that Hobby Lobby were ostensibly objecting to are the copper and hormonal IUDs, which are NOT devices used to prevent implantation except in certain rare cases (most women, again as far as I know, get IUDs for the long term purpose of preventing pregnancy rather than the short term purpose of inhibiting implantation of an existing fertilized zygote/embryo). Also, the US primarily uses only the copper or hormonal IUDs; the inert ones are not considered as effective at preventing fertilization and are not approved for use in the US at all. Quite frankly I don't see how Hobby Lobby has a leg to stand on in their objection to the IUDs in question, given that their primary use is to prevent fertilization rather than inhibit implantation, but then no one ever said fundies were logical.

 

[sunmaster14]

I think your facts are a bit off there, Sam, at least as regards copper IUDs. From Wikipedia:



To be fair, there is a section regarding the copper IUD's use in emergency contraception (i.e. that it can be used for that purpose), but given that as far as I know most women would get an IUD in order to prevent pregnancy from being an issue at all, I don't see how this should even be an issue. Even the other more prevalent type of IUD (referred to as hormonal) is used to prevent sperm from ever meeting and fertilizing the egg, not primarily to inhibit the implantation of an embryo (although it can have such an effect if the sperm actually manages to meet and fertilize the egg, but it's more of a side effect rather than the primary purpose of the device). There are inert IUDs that have a higher rate of doing such than either copper or hormonal IUDs, I will grant you, but as far as I know the ones that Hobby Lobby were ostensibly objecting to are the copper and hormonal IUDs, which are NOT devices used to prevent implantation except in certain rare cases (most women, again as far as I know, get IUDs for the long term purpose of preventing pregnancy rather than the short term purpose of inhibiting implantation of an existing fertilized zygote/embryo). Also, the US primarily uses only the copper or hormonal IUDs; the inert ones are not considered as effective at preventing fertilization and are not approved for use in the US at all. Quite frankly I don't see how Hobby Lobby has a leg to stand on in their objection to the IUDs in question, given that their primary use is to prevent fertilization rather than inhibit implantation, but then no one ever said fundies were logical.

Good summary, but this is the key point. In their view, those forms of contraception are immoral, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. The Catholic Church teaches that all medical contraception is immoral (even condoms IIUC). Perhaps a garrulous gaggle of gynecologists could convince HL to drop their objection to IUDs and Plan B, but no amount of science is ever going to convince observant Catholics that they should only object to the destruction of an implanted embryo, let alone a fertilized egg, and let alone sperm.

It's important to remember who is trying to disrupt the status quo here. The RFRA was passed to protect religious belief from future encroachments of the regulatory state. The beliefs were in place already, as well as the statute. And the administration wants to trump all that with a regulation promulgated by HHS. It probably could have done so, if contraception was something that only HL could have provided its employees. But the urgency was simply not sufficient in the Supreme Court's opinion to trump HL's religious beliefs. Seems like an eminently fair decision, especially in light of the fact that HHS has already decided to exempt the Catholic Church from its contraception mandate (and therefore the urgency of the mandate was hardly so great).