<p>And Btw this ruling is reason #7453 to de-couple insurance from employment. </p>
<p>“The funny thing is Hobby Lobby’s insurance before ACA covered almost all of the things they are now objecting to. Their conscience is mostly informed by ideology, not religion.”</p>
<p>So…the Supreme Court chose ideology over women’s rights…</p>
<p>This Supreme court has been blatantly ideological for 15 years, dstark.</p>
<p>Watch scotusblog as more details emerge. Dig in, folks. This one is not going to be served well by repeating headlines and spin. Let’s look at the fine print. </p>
<p>We need to wait for the full words, but notice this doesn’t seem to impact the churches (anyone find comment on that?) It seems very narrow. And not all small family businesses have an interest in denying b/c. Not even on economic grounds.</p>
<p>LasMa is right. But that’s not an accident. Recent rulings are about an overreach of govt. They don’t like it and it’s usually 5-4. </p>
<p>If it’s not an “accident,” it points right to the Presidents who nominated them. History 101.</p>
<p>Of course. On both sides. And, the Senate that confirms them and their individual decisions not to retire and so on. The court is reflective of the divisions in the country. Although, I would point out that a Bush appointee saved ACA in the first place by ruling it a tax when the administration specifically argued that it was not a tax. So, sometimes there are still surprises. But at 7:15 this morning when I saw Alito wrote the ruling I knew we were headed for a 5-4 Hobby Lobby win and I am no legal genius so, yeah. </p>
<p>The full words are here: <a href=“http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf”>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf</a></p>
<p>I don’t yet fully understand the ruling, which is long. But I’m applying Fang’s Razor here. However much I might disagree with the five justices in favor, they’re not idiots. They wouldn’t be in favor (at least, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be in favor) of a restaurant deciding not to serve African Americans based on religious beliefs, however sincerely held. They wouldn’t be in favor of a business deciding to offer health insurance to men and not women, based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They wouldn’t buy my contractor getting around my local zoning regulations based on his sincerely held religious beliefs that I should have a two story house.</p>
<p>And therefore, they have to be making a distinction between offering contraception and other possible business actions, a distinction that they think will be controlling and will prevent what they don’t think should happen. I don’t understand the distinction. But I must believe it’s there somewhere.</p>
<p>“They wouldn’t be in favor (at least, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be in favor) of a restaurant deciding not to serve African Americans based on religious beliefs, however sincerely held.”</p>
<p>Because of public accommodation laws. </p>
<p>“They wouldn’t be in favor of a business deciding to offer health insurance to men and not women, based on sincerely held religious beliefs.”</p>
<p>Because of Equal protection and non discriminatory laws. But if there was a form of contraception for men which worked like the the ones Hobby Lobby refuses the Court would rule the same way as today’s case, if a business challenged it. Likely, if there was though, it wouldn’t be an issue because men would want that kind of contraception, too. </p>
<p>“They wouldn’t buy my contractor getting around my local zoning regulations based on his sincerely held religious beliefs that I should have a two story house.”</p>
<p>There is nothing in any law which requires a contractor to work on a project they don’t like. A contractor can simply not bid on the job. They also don’t need to state a reason why they have turned down any job. </p>
<p>Imo, this law definitely opens the door to a business owner dictating, based on their religious beliefs, what an employee can and cannot do. </p>
<p>It’s not like something like this hasn’t happened before. A few states have tried to pass laws allowing vouchers to be used at religious schools. Then, as soon as an Islamic school requests publicly funded vouchers for their students or they realized that it was a possibility the laws are suddenly binned. </p>
<p>Anyone interested in an accurate, legally based, non-histrionic analysis: read the Volokh blog on washington post.com.</p>
<p>Non-Hobby-Lobby related update: I had the first hospitalization of my life after a bike accident Saturday. (I’m fine, they just wanted to make sure I was healing right.) I’m being discharged this afternoon. It’s the first test of my Obamacare BCBS policy. Because I have a high deductible, I assume I’ll be paying for most of the two-day stay out of pocket, but there’s a complex system of copays for emergency care, specialists, etc. Luckily the hospital near the park where I was riding happened to be in network, so its doctors should be too. I’ll let you know whether a meaningful portion ends up covered.</p>
<p>Also, wear your helmets, people! The house staff passed mine around to gawk at the dent. Landed headfirst on big rocks, and had zero injury to head and face.</p>
<p>Come on Hanna… Be careful. :)</p>
<p>I am glad you are fine.</p>
<p>“Anyone interested in an accurate, legally based, non-histrionic analysis: read the Volokh blog on washington post.com.”</p>
<p>I saw no reason in his analysis which will prevent a company whose owners are Jehova’s Witnesses, for example, from having to cover blood transfusions. Just because Alito said, “it seems unlikely” that publicly held “corporate giants” would make religious liberty claims," does not mean they won’t. Nor does it mean a privately held company won’t make other claims based on their religious beliefs. </p>
<p>I am a Jehovah’s Witness. I own an arts and craft store chain. I employ 23,000 people. The taking of blood is a sin, therefore any insurance coverage I offer my employees will not cover blood transfusions of any kind or for any reason. If an employee needs a blood transfusion they can pay for that themselves. </p>
<p>Now that SCOTUS has ruled a privately held company can not be compelled to offer contraception under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, what is there to prevent me, as a Jehova’s Witness, business owner, from not covering blood transfusions? </p>
<p>Hanna, I’m so glad to hear you are OK. Hope your med bills aren’t to bad. </p>
<p>As we learned with Fisher, it’s not only the summary, but the filings and testimony that need reading. Sometimes, to see just what the Court is responding to. Earlier, some source said this applies to “those with at least 50% of stock held by five or fewer people, such as family-owned businesses – in which the owners have clear religious beliefs.” At first look, I don’t see the Court defining “closely held” that way. </p>
<p>“The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.” So far, that’s all I see we get from the words in today’s ruling- “single family.” [Know someone will point it out if I missed it.]</p>
<p>Then in the dissent, the concern is raised that "Closely held” is not synonymous with “small.” Fascinating, really.</p>
<p>Hello.:-)</p>
<p>Unlike some of the posters who are hyper-partisan or ideologues, I don’t have the predictable liberal/conservative response to this supreme court decision. I don’t think contraceptives should be a mandated benefit, but I also don’t think many of the other benefits should be mandated either. People should have the freedom to choose (for some reason this is an anathema to the ideologues) and, therefore, what they are willing to pay based on what benefits are important to them. </p>
<p>Consequently, the decision raises the important issue of how employees don’t get to choose their benefits in many cases, which is why I don’t really like employer-based insurance. In the ideal system, people would have their own custom-designed portable insurance, and if they wanted or did not want contraceptive coverage, they would have the choice either way. </p>
<p>The freedom to choose is a fundamental tenet of our constitutional republic and shouldn’t easily be sacrificed to further some progressive utopia. Throughout the history of mankind, individual liberty and freedom have all too often been discarded when they interfere with the quixotic plans of despots who attempt to impose their version of the collective will on the people.</p>
<p>See how this would have come across entirely different if you could have resisted the judgmental words and phrases, left it free of the putdowns:</p>
<p>"I don’t have the predictable liberal/conservative response to this supreme court decision. I don’t think contraceptives should be a mandated benefit, but I also [question whether] many of the other benefits should be mandated either. People should have the freedom to choose and, therefore, what they are willing to pay based on what benefits are important to them.</p>
<p>Consequently, the decision raises the important issue of how employees don’t get to choose their benefits in many cases, which is why I don’t really like employer-based insurance. In [my] ideal system, people would have their own custom-designed portable insurance, and if they wanted or did not want contraceptive coverage, they would have the choice either way.</p>
<p>The freedom to choose is a fundamental tenet of our constitutional republic and should [be respected.]"</p>
<p>And, that is one idea I was rolling around in my head. I get the oversight challenges, but perhaps at my age I could skip pregnancy for myself and keep it for my girls. And, though portability with some limits is enticing, think of the admin costs- perhaps the next, more perfect step would then be you-know-what that we’re not supposed to name.</p>
<p>There are a number of stumbling points in there that I’ll skip for now. </p>
<p>No, overall, I don’t agree with GP.<br>
And yes, we’ve been told not to discuss our ideals except as they relate to current options and cost considerations.</p>
<p>One problem with this decision is that contraceptives have uses besides that of providing contraception. </p>
<p>Case 1 - one of my best friends in high school had such painful cramps during her period that she had to take codeine. She was falling asleep in school, and nearly fell down a staircase. Plus, it made her nauseous. Her doctor switched her to a low dose of birth control pills to regulate things and after a month or two of tinkering, she was fine. No pain, no more codeine but sorry, no coverage for that since you’re female so your healthcare coverage is not equal.</p>
<p>Case 2 - another friend became anemic due to perimenopausal blood loss. Her H already had a vasectomy (covered! because he’s male!) but her doctor told her her best course would be to try an IUD that has a side effect of reducing bleeding. She uses this IUD to prevent anemia for 8 years with no problems. Sorry, that’s not covered because she’s female. She could have tried the pill to regulate things but sorry, that’s not covered either. She could have done something more drastic like endometrial ablation but that’s probably not covered either since it makes you sterile. Too bad she’s female or she might be able to have the health care she needs! </p>
<p>Also, when case 2 got her Mirena, it cost more than $500. What would that be today? How many women who work for Hobby Lobby could afford to pay for all of that?</p>
<p>They ruled that the ladies, severely limited in number, are going to have to pay for their own or wait for the administration to rush over to cover the check.</p>
<p>Guess we know where that Georgetown Law chick won’t be applying.</p>