snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 30 June 2014, 04:46 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on Monday that employers with religious objections can opt out of providing contraception coverage under Obamacare.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...te-108429.html

This literally makes me nauseous. I wish I could say I am surprised. But I'm not. Just utterly sickened and disappointed.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 30 June 2014, 04:52 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,056
Default

Yeah, I just saw this too.

The sheer breathtaking inanity of this decision boggles me.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 30 June 2014, 04:54 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

How sickening. So now corporations are not only people, they are people who can force their religious beliefs on their employees. Disgusting.

I hope people can opt out of this sort of sub-par coverage and get subsidized coverage. I don't know the ACA well enough to know if this is the case.

I haven't set foot in a Hobby Lobby since all this started, and never will again.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30 June 2014, 05:14 PM
chillas's Avatar
chillas chillas is offline
 
Join Date: 09 September 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,830
Default

Absolutely sickening.

Can anyone with the will to read the decision right now explain how (if?) they deal with US v. Lee?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30 June 2014, 05:20 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
I hope people can opt out of this sort of sub-par coverage and get subsidized coverage. I don't know the ACA well enough to know if this is the case.
The decision is based on part on the fact that HHS provides birth control service coverage to employees of directly religious entities like churches so hopefully that coverage will be extended to these employees as well.

ETA: The taxation in US v Lee did not have a less restrictive way of obtaining the same result, so the taxation was okay. In this case, there was a less restrictive way to accomplish the ends, so the required coverage was not okay.

Full text here: (article includes embedded pdf)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30 June 2014, 05:45 PM
quink quink is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2005
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 3,193
Default

I literally feel sick to my stomach, and it's not even my country. Some days, the US really does seem like at least a semi-theocracy. The thought of someone denying me medication because their 'god' says my entire purpose as a human being is to breed is sickening enough on its own. The idea that the government endorses that view is horrifying.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30 June 2014, 06:27 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,546
Default

Although I disagree with the decision, quink, that interpretation is a misinterpretation of both what they decided and how Hobby Lobby views the situation. Hobby Lobby is willing to cover other types of birth control, and nobody has outlawed the use of the ones they won't cover. They won't fire employees for using them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:32 PM
Elkhound Elkhound is offline
 
Join Date: 09 October 2002
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Although I disagree with the decision, quink, that interpretation is a misinterpretation of both what they decided and how Hobby Lobby views the situation. Hobby Lobby is willing to cover other types of birth control, and nobody has outlawed the use of the ones they won't cover. They won't fire employees for using them.
Exactly. Nothing is stopping employees from paying for it OOP and deducting it as a medical expense.

For that matter, the employees are not indentured servants or serfs; they are quite free to go work for another company.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:33 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,546
Default Stop Calling Hobby Lobby a Christian Business

I just saw this article. I wish more conservative Christians would think through more of their values like this.

Quote:
"We're Christians," Hobby Lobby's president Steve Green proclaims, "and we run our business on Christian principles."

That is music to the ears of many conservative Christians, who rallied around Hobby Lobby when the retail chain argued at the Supreme Court that ObamaCare's contraception mandate unlawfully burdened their religious beliefs. But a closer look at Hobby Lobby's actual business practices reveals this claim to be as hollow as a flute. Turn over just about any trinket in a Hobby Lobby store and you'll find a gold oval stamped with "Made in China," a country that is one of the worst offenders of human dignity, unborn infant life, and economic justice anywhere in the world.
http://theweek.com/article/index/263...stian-business
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:37 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,567
Default

Every employer I've ever had, in 25+ years, has told me that the cost of employer-paid benefits is part of my compensation package. My current employer and several past ones annualy distribute a statement to employees showing their "total compensation" -- salary plus the costs of employer-paid benefits -- as a dollar figure.

My compensation belongs to me, not to my employer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhound View Post
Nothing is stopping employees from paying for it OOP and deducting it as a medical expense.
They can only deduct expenses if they have enough to make itemizing worthwhile. These medications alone would be unlikely to reach that level.

Also, nothing was stopping Hobby Lobby from simply not providing insurance, except their desire to get a tax break.

ETA: My brother takes a medication that is derived from pigs. Would the people who support this decision support a Muslim employer's right to refuse to cover that? A JW's refusal to cover any treatment using or derived from blood?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:37 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Do you mean deducting it from taxes? It has to reach a certain threshold for that.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:39 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,546
Default

What is truly weird is that Hobby Lobby did cover all those types of birth control prior to the passage of the ACA.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:47 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhound View Post
For that matter, the employees are not indentured servants or serfs; they are quite free to go work for another company.
Free in a literal sense. Free in a practical one? Often not.

Perhaps they can't find employment for the same wage or employment with non-bigoted health coverage.

I'm sure quite a few folks would fall under that.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:48 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
What is truly weird is that Hobby Lobby did cover all those types of birth control prior to the passage of the ACA.
Of course they did. This is more about making the ACA as toothless as possible than it is about "morals" or religious freedom. It's also about strengthening the status of corporations as legal "citizens," entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other citizen.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 30 June 2014, 07:50 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillas View Post
Absolutely sickening.

Can anyone with the will to read the decision right now explain how (if?) they deal with US v. Lee?
United States v Lee is a free exercise clause case. It has little relevance to this case, which was decided on statutory, not Constitutional grounds. The Court decided this case under RFRA.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 30 June 2014, 08:13 PM
quink quink is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2005
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 3,193
Default

Could a company refuse to cover HIV medication because of their 'sincere belief' that AIDS is god's punishment for having unbiblical sex? How far could this actually go?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 30 June 2014, 08:14 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,567
Default

Also: Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

Quote:
Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 30 June 2014, 08:14 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
I hope people can opt out of this sort of sub-par coverage and get subsidized coverage. I don't know the ACA well enough to know if this is the case.
The ACA provides a way for employees of religious institutions to receive contraceptive coverage directly from the insurance company (essentially an individual rider to the group policy). I would imagine the same option will be offered to employees who work for "Christian" companies like Hobby Lobby. It just makes it slightly more inconvenient for the employee and adds another layer of bureaucracy. But at least a corporation's "conscience" is clear, right?

Quote:
I haven't set foot in a Hobby Lobby since all this started, and never will again.
Me, either. Of course, I don't think I was ever in a Hobby Lobby before all this started!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 30 June 2014, 08:16 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
The ACA provides a way for employees of religious institutions to receive contraceptive coverage directly from the insurance company (essentially an individual rider to the group policy).
Some religious organizations have successfully argued that the paperwork they must file in order for their employees to take advantage of this is also a violation of their beliefs:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._reprieve.html
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 30 June 2014, 08:33 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,329
Default

Unfortunately, from what I've heard so far, extending subsidies or providing benefits that are now available to employees of religious nonprofits would require legislative action. Democratic senators are talking about introducing a direct subsidy, but it's likely all that would do is force record votes on the issue ahead of elections. No way it passes the House.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Hobby Lobby supporters talk about "religious liberty" St. Alia Soapbox Derby 45 10 March 2014 11:44 PM
Is Catholic Birth Control Based on Science? A Turtle Named Mack NFBSK Gone Wild! 14 06 July 2013 03:14 PM
Birth Control on the Bottom E. Q. Taft Fun House 1 21 January 2013 09:13 PM
Obama on birth control snopes Questionable Quotes 8 29 June 2012 06:39 AM
Another birth control death snopes Inboxer Rebellion 28 25 April 2007 04:39 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.