SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision

wendyld

Anyone following? I'm rather disappointed.

wendyld

Closely held companies cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.

It seems to be a half-assed attempt to make it narrowly applied. The opinion says it does "not necessarily" apply to other procedures like blood transfusions that other religious groups might object to.

It basically says the government did not choose the cheapest/easiest/only reasonable means to ensure people get contraceptive care, thus companies with an objection can't reasonably be expected to be required to do so.

jjgrl55

wendyld said:

The opinion says it does "not necessarily" apply to other procedures like blood transfusions that other religious groups might object to. 

Yeah, I read this and all I heard was that all of us sluts who dare to have non-procreative sex are SOL.

I mean, really, if the "religious objection" thing is the important part, and not the sex part, then Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn't have to pay for blood transfusions. But it's the "I shouldn't have to pay for someone to have sex" part that led this decision more than anything else.

ETA: I wanted to clarify that I'm not arguing with @wendyld and her excellent legal analysis, just that this whole thing makes me really cranky.

wendyld

Vaccines also fall into the "not necessarily" included area, for what it's worth. Not addressed, but I'd say at risk is any fertility treatments which someone could argue was not pro life enough (failure to transfer all viable embryos is denying life to those embryos, who gives a shit if you want to save some for a future transfer, or maybe complete your family without using all of them).

wendyld

It still kills me that nobody was ever asking them to pay for birth control. They were only ever required to provide health insurance without forcing the insurance company to exclude it. I hope the insurance companies hike up their rates accordingly, because paying for potentially several extra dependents is much more costly/risky than paying for birth control.

And the idea that the government would be capable of getting it together enough to provide contraceptive care directly is laughable.

wendyld

katydid2014 said:

I've heard the argument also that this was the companies' attempt to cut financial losses should they have had to cover that stuff.  They just used the religious beliefs as an excuse basically.

I really can't see how this costs more, logically speaking, but I'm not surprised they would exploit views that are so sacred to their hearts for financial gain.

CoozieInMyPurse

chrain said:

I kinda feel like the free market will handle this... if you want BC coverage... don't look for a job at Hobby Lobby. Or at least that is how I would deal with it if I was on the job market.

Wouldn't it be nice if most job seekers, especially those looking for minimum or near-minimum wage jobs felt like they had this option? And I say this not to call you out; It really makes me sad.

wendyld

Chunkymonkeylvr said:

It's not a jobs responsibility to provide health care in my opinion.

It should be a free market just like auto insurance

This only works if they raise salaries accordingly because employers today consider that part of a total compensation package.

I don't think a profit seeking entity like a corporation gets to hold religious beliefs. People do.

Irishcurls

Chunkymonkeylvr said:

It's not a jobs responsibility to provide health care in my opinion. It should be a free market just like auto insurance

This only works if they raise salaries accordingly because employers today consider that part of a total compensation package. I don't think a profit seeking entity like a corporation gets to hold religious beliefs. People do.

They already pay double min wage. I don't think it should be apart of the package and yes I agree with you that all companies should compensate with pay and let me choose what works with me. Why can't corporations have religious beliefs, as long as they don't discriminate?

So where does that end for you, personally? This is a slippery slope problem IMO. 

wendyld

I find refusing someone who doesn't share your religious beliefs access to full medical care to be discrimination.

More importantly, corporations are not people. They don't have feelings, consciences, fears, etc. They are ruled by shareholders who typically represent a spectrum of beliefs on any given topic.

jap618

Chunkymonkeylvr said:

It's not a jobs responsibility to provide health care in my opinion. It should be a free market just like auto insurance

This only works if they raise salaries accordingly because employers today consider that part of a total compensation package. I don't think a profit seeking entity like a corporation gets to hold religious beliefs. People do.

They already pay double min wage. I don't think it should be apart of the package and yes I agree with you that all companies should compensate with pay and let me choose what works with me. Why can't corporations have religious beliefs, as long as they don't discriminate?

The people that own businesses and work at businesses can have all the religious beliefs that they want but they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against the others at work that don't believe the same thing they do.  

CoozieInMyPurse

Agree with PPs... If a corporation has to follow EEOC guidelines for hiring, why not also be equal opportunity on terms of benefits?

The real fear is that now that there is an out, people will use it. Regulations cost money; why not claim a corporation has a religious belief to get out of having to spend that money?