Today's SCOTUS Decision

welly01

Are we gonna talk about this?

https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it.  I am happy they won because I believe in religious freedom.  But this article also says they don't want to pay for IUD's.  I didn't know that, I thought it was just the morning after pill and abortion-related things that they were fighting against.  I get the anti-abortion thing, but not wanting to provide contraceptive's in general?  I don't know.  I guess I'd be pretty pissed if my employer all of a sudden didn't want to offer birth control anymore.

[Deleted User]

Oh.  

welly01

MarlaSinger& said:

Oh.  

That's not much of an opinion. 

[Deleted User]

Oh, I have an opinion.  I am trying to not explode on yours.  

Religious freedom is for people.  Corporations are not people.  

You don't even understand the case yet are happy with the win?  I am not sure how to even have a discussion then.

 

jellybean529

I have five thoughts on this...

1) Corporations are not people.

2) One person's religious freedom stops at the ability to use it to oppress another. Denying women reproductive freedom is oppression.

3) I'm seeing arguments that "if women don't like it they can go work somewhere else." Because jobs are plentiful right now, right?

4) This is a slippery slope that will allow small companies to commit other acts of discrimination and use their religious freedom as a defense.

5) Birth control is not abortive.

welly01

PrivacyWanted said:

The decision is actually really quite appalling, not only because of how it basically condones discriminating against women, and creates this whole area of debate/contention for various business owners to say "I don't want to have to buy insurance that covers _____ for my employees because it violates my religion"; but more so because it is yet another step in the direction of recognizing entities as people

I was very surprised by the decision.

mae0111

I will throw my opinion out there.  I haven't studied this, so this is based on my understanding.

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

However, if you go to work for an organization that is historically Catholic - for example, Georgetown University or a Caritas Christie hospital - the same rules should not apply.

Allowing private corporations "religious freedom" to cherry pick their benefits is frightening.  And I tend to be more on the conservative end of the spectrum (fiscally, not socially, and both drive my voting). So, as I understand the decision, I'm afraid.

It's broad, but it's my opinion.  Flame away...

[Deleted User]

HL covered birth control under their pre-ACA health plan.  So they were okay with it until the ACA. 

They also have pharmaceutical companies that make said drugs in their investment portfolio.  So they are okay with making money from it.  

Basic science.  Preventing implantation is not "killing babies".  

steponalego11

I believe in an individuals choice for religious beliefs all the way. You don't want to use Birth Control, you don't want to/need to have an abortion (because who wants that) then by all means, excuse yourself from all those choices. BUT NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR ANYONE ELSE!!! And the fact that only women have been singled out for this should make all women, regardless of religious beliefs, worry about the precedent that can be set in future decisions. I also don't understand, in a country that was founded on a seperation of church and state and freedom of religious choices, how imposing those beliefs on the masses can in anyway be considered constitutional. The week of July 4th no less. 

jennyelf

I'm disappointed that the decision was so narrow. I mean if you're going to give corporations (even narrowly held ones as this decision does) the right to cherry pick insurance services based on religious belief, why not actually do so? This decision only applies to specific birth control options and not vaccinations, blood transfusions, etc which are things that other religions do object to.
This decision makes extremely clear that it is okay to discriminate against women (and particularly women who have sex and want to have control over their reproductive system) if someone can make up a religious objection to doing so.

Also disappointed because the argument against covering IUDs isn't even based in science! Just some belief that it might cause abortions. Same with the morning after pill which is also not an abortificant. Seriously, if you are going to say you don't want to cover abortions and then include things that are not proven to cause abortions, I'm not inclined to trust that is your actual goal

welly01

mae0111 said:

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

This is basically my opinion.  Employees know how religious Hobby Lobby is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

I think one distinction that the Court made was that Hobby Lobby is a closely-held organization, not a publicly traded one.  I think they would have made a different decision if it was a public company.

[Deleted User]

Because the cashier at Hobby Lobby took that minimum wage job because there were so many others to choose from.  If only she would have accepted the job at the investment firm, she's have an iud now.  

mae0111

welly336 said:

mae0111 said:

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

This is basically my opinion.  Employees know how religious Hobby Lobby is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

I think one distinction that the Court made was that Hobby Lobby is a closely-held organization, not a publicly traded one.  I think they would have made a different decision if it was a public company.

Hobby Lobby is not a non-profit religious organization.  The Archdiocese of Boston is.  Hobby Lobby is a private company.  In my opinion, they should not be allowed to cherry pick their insurance offerings.

welly01

@mae0111, sorry, I misread your comment.

jellybean529

welly336 said:

mae0111 said:

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

This is basically my opinion.  Employees know how religious Hobby Lobby is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

I think one distinction that the Court made was that Hobby Lobby is a closely-held organization, not a publicly traded one.  I think they would have made a different decision if it was a public company.

But Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, NOT a non-profit. That's the distinction that @mae0111 is making.

steponalego11

ETA - my rage over rode my ability to use proper grammer and punctuation because I am typing while avoiding my boss seeing this. Apologies in advance.

welly336 said:

mae0111 said:

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

This is basically my opinion.  Employees know how religious Hobby Lobby is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

I think one distinction that the Court made was that Hobby Lobby is a closely-held organization, not a publicly traded one.  I think they would have made a different decision if it was a public company.

Hobby Lobby is a mass retailer of craft supplies. It is not even remotely the same as working for the Archdiocese of the Catholic Church. This retailer might be the only retailer in town that a minumum wage worker can get a a job, so I find this view pretty ignorant. While it may be a closely held organization THIS time the precedent it sets is pretty staggering. As a woman, regardless of your religious beliefs, that should scare you. Things like FMLA, sick days for people who are employed by people who don't believe in the treatment or sickness diagnosed, vaccincations for our children, among others can all come to play in the future and the door was left wide open for them. This isn't about religion this is about woman's and human rights being masked as a religious issue.

[Deleted User]

Amen, @stewgirl. 

mae0111

WhoCanItBeNow said:

mae0111 said:

I will throw my opinion out there.  I haven't studied this, so this is based on my understanding.

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

However, if you go to work for an organization that is historically Catholic - for example, Georgetown University or a Caritas Christie hospital - the same rules should not apply.

Allowing private corporations "religious freedom" to cherry pick their benefits is frightening.  And I tend to be more on the conservative end of the spectrum (fiscally, not socially, and both drive my voting). So, as I understand the decision, I'm afraid.

It's broad, but it's my opinion.  Flame away...

When those religious organizations stop lobbying to get laws passed to push their religion on others, I will agree. That is actually a part of their tax exempt status that is not at all enforced.

If they want to play in the political arena with their religious beliefs, then they pay taxes.

I agree that they shouldn't be lobbying to pass broad-based laws, but they should be able to protect their own freedom.  Lobbying for an exemption to a law based on very specific criteria is one thing.  Pushing for no reproductive rights for any women anywhere is different.

welly01

WhoCanItBeNow said:

welly336 said:

mae0111 said:

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

This is basically my opinion.  Employees know how religious Hobby Lobby is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

I think one distinction that the Court made was that Hobby Lobby is a closely-held organization, not a publicly traded one.  I think they would have made a different decision if it was a public company.

You really need to just stop talking because you have no clue what you are babbling about.

I already told Mae that I misread her comment.

You're free to have your opinion and I will continue to have mine.  I understand that religion, reproductive choices, etc are hot-button issues.  I was hoping to discuss this in a non-dramatic way, but I guess I was wrong. (Duh, should have known that).

jellybean529

If this is the religious freedom we're discussing...

If you're a small, closely held company run by Jehovah's Witnesses, should you be allowed to refuse to cover life saving blood transfusions?

If you're a small, closely held company run by Scientologists, should you be allowed to refuse to provide coverage for mental health care?

This is a slippery slope we're on...

(Borrowing from Justice Ginsburg here but it's a fair point...change the religion and the treatment being excluded and the discussion changes.)

mae0111

WhoCanItBeNow said:

mae0111 said:

WhoCanItBeNow said:

mae0111 said:

I will throw my opinion out there.  I haven't studied this, so this is based on my understanding.

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

However, if you go to work for an organization that is historically Catholic - for example, Georgetown University or a Caritas Christie hospital - the same rules should not apply.

Allowing private corporations "religious freedom" to cherry pick their benefits is frightening.  And I tend to be more on the conservative end of the spectrum (fiscally, not socially, and both drive my voting). So, as I understand the decision, I'm afraid.

It's broad, but it's my opinion.  Flame away...

When those religious organizations stop lobbying to get laws passed to push their religion on others, I will agree. That is actually a part of their tax exempt status that is not at all enforced.

If they want to play in the political arena with their religious beliefs, then they pay taxes.

I agree that they shouldn't be lobbying to pass broad-based laws, but they should be able to protect their own freedom.  Lobbying for an exemption to a law based on very specific criteria is one thing.  Pushing for no reproductive rights for any women anywhere is different.

They can be allowed to pass things within the confines of their own organization. The moment they branch out and attempt to push their religious beliefs on another they are violating the terms of the exemption they were granted. They are breaking those terms constantly and yet nothing is done about it. Think how much we would gain in tax revenue if even the Catholic Church alone had to pay taxes. Mind bottling.

And you want to keep looking the other way while they strip away your rights to medical care and personal decision making. It's time to wake up, because shit is going down.

I was agreeing with you.  I'm not looking the other way.  Lobbying for broad-based restrictions outside their own organization is wrong.  Pushing for broad-based, restrictive laws is scary.  I know it happens.  It's terrifying to me.

[Deleted User]

I am still LOLing at the cashier at Hobby Lobby with all those job offers who can be picky.  

[Deleted User]

I love Scout with all my heart.  

[Deleted User]

CourtandNate said:

MarlaSinger& said:

But more importantly- why does TB keep changing my fonts to weird things mid post?  

I noticied this....  I have to say it provides for reading excitement!

Gah.  I didn't even post this.  This was in my drafts and posted for itself. 

TB is owned by Pat Robertson and is seeking revenge!

welly01

PrivacyWanted said:

I really wish I didn't have to actually work today.

But this, like all, Supreme Court Opinion isn't just about the question presented in this particular case. The points made in the decision will be applied to a variety of cases, and situations, and examples. And not just Christian beliefs,  as discussed in this article , (which is really good, please read it).  The refusal to inquire into whether the belief argued was valid, and/or even part of the religion has a slippery slope. 

This was a very good article.  Definitely a point of view I didn't realize.

MommyAtty

We just got one huge step closer to the Christian version of Sharia Law. I'm frightened. Oh, and I bought $40 worth of stuff to mark dresses for my daughter this week. Avoided Hobby Lobby on purpose. I may not get to vote for the Supreme Court, but I do get to choose where my money is spent.

Mustardseed2007

mae0111 said:

welly336 said:

mae0111 said:

I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception.  If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.

This is basically my opinion.  Employees know how religious Hobby Lobby is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

I think one distinction that the Court made was that Hobby Lobby is a closely-held organization, not a publicly traded one.  I think they would have made a different decision if it was a public company.

Hobby Lobby is not a non-profit religious organization.  The Archdiocese of Boston is.  Hobby Lobby is a private company.  In my opinion, they should not be allowed to cherry pick their insurance offerings.

And if you have a lawsuit against HL you can't sue the owners (shareholders) directly b/c it's a corporation. A corporation!

The fact that it's closely held means nothing for liability, why does it mean anything for religious beliefs.

I'm kind of not surprised by the ruling b/c this is the same court that decided corporations should have political freedom of speech. However, I am disappointed.

shakinros

This makes me want to go out and stockpile contraceptives and the Plan B pill. Lord knows how long it will be before no one can get them.

rockychryslerb2010

I'm late to this, and most people have covered my feelings on this.   I found the same research, that HL has their 401ks invested in multiple pharmaceutical companies that product Plan B, IUDs, cytotex and other drugs used in abortion.  Interesting that they pick and chose where they want to apply their religious beliefs - ok to make money on these things, but not OK to spend money to protect your employees.

I have no problems with religious freedoms for PEOPLE, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on someone else.

Also, HL covered Plan B and IUDs before ACA. 

Also agree it is a slippery slope.  While this decision focused on Plan B, IUDs and abortions, it sets the groundwork for it to be applied to any religious belief.  Catholics believe in natural family planning, does that mean a corporation that defines themselves as Catholic doesn't have to provide coverage for birth control pills (which have other uses besides preventing pregnancy)?  What about IVF?  Plus the additional religious beliefs discussed in the dissent.  Once again, a women's health issue is decided for them, but a bunch of old men.

ETA: I've yet to hear a good argument from someone who says they are happy about this ruling.  I actually can't believe SCOTUS ruled the way they did......

SoMoNY

rockychryslerb2010 said:

I have no problems with religious freedoms for PEOPLE, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on someone else.

But is anyone FORCED to work at HL?  

Yes they pay twice the minimum wage but if you don't want to work there couldn't you chose to instead work at any number of places that employ cashiers, stock people, store managers?  Not like these are specialty employees who can't work anywhere else.

SoMoNY

MarlaSinger& said:

Because the cashier at Hobby Lobby took that minimum wage job because there were so many others to choose from.  If only she would have accepted the job at the investment firm, she's have an iud now.  

Hobby Lobby pays their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage.  The hourly wage for part-time employees is $9.50.  

jellybean529

SoMoNY said:

MarlaSinger& said:

Because the cashier at Hobby Lobby took that minimum wage job because there were so many others to choose from.  If only she would have accepted the job at the investment firm, she's have an iud now.  

Hobby Lobby pays their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage.  The hourly wage for part-time employees is $9.50.  

This is even more of an argument for why this is fucked up. It's like...here's this job that pays more than the average but if you're a women and you want it you have to be okay with some of your personal liberties being infringed upon. Otherwise, go take a lower paying job doing the same thing. 

steponalego11

@somonny

Please understand that this isn't just about Hobby Lobby. This case sets a precedent for all future cases allowing for mass discrimination hiding behind the mask of religious freedom. Read the link posted below for a wider view point on how this descion will affect the work culture of our future.

PrivacyWanted said:

I really wish I didn't have to actually work today.

But this, like all, Supreme Court Opinion isn't just about the question presented in this particular case. The points made in the decision will be applied to a variety of cases, and situations, and examples. And not just Christian beliefs,  as discussed in this article , (which is really good, please read it).  The refusal to inquire into whether the belief argued was valid, and/or even part of the religion has a slippery slope. 

steponalego11

Also @somonny

It really amazes me when woman don't realize when they are being discriminated against. While I respect if your view point is that these birth control options aren't for you, even if that opinion is not based in fact what so ever, I would also hope as a woman you can see that there might be a circumstance in your life where you current view may change and you wouldn't want your employer making those choices for you or a loved one. I know personally many people who have changed their views on these bc options after being assaulted, after being diagnosed with illnesses that these methods also treat or having watched their loved ones go through similar battles. I believe fiercely in people's personal opinions and beliefs systems but know through horrible experiences that life can often make you change those beliefs in an instant and it would be shame to live in a society where that isn't an option.

rockychryslerb2010

SoMoNY said:

rockychryslerb2010 said:

I have no problems with religious freedoms for PEOPLE, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on someone else.

But is anyone FORCED to work at HL?  

Yes they pay twice the minimum wage but if you don't want to work there couldn't you chose to instead work at any number of places that employ cashiers, stock people, store managers?  Not like these are specialty employees who can't work anywhere else.

Aren't we all lucky to be able to get whatever job we want, whenever we want.  Yes, I do believe HL is the only option for some.

SoMoNY

They didn't ban ALL forms of BC nor did they say the woman can never take them, they sued to not be forced to pay for it.

I have no problem with that at all.

The sky isn't falling despite all the faux outrage we see in left leasning press and on FB

steponalego11

@somony again you aren't realizing the far reaching implications of this decision.

In THIS case they aren't saying all forms but other people, from other religions, will say all forms and will be allowed to do so because their religion specifies that. Catholics for instance don't believe in bc or IVF so business owners with those beliefs are able to now exclude those from insurance coverage.

Also it's not just hobby lobby - here are the 100 companies that were involved.

https://now.org/resource/birth-control-mandate-lawsuits/ 

I really don't care where you fall in the political spectrum, left or right, if you are a woman you should be outraged that anyone can tell you what to do with your uterus. And if you have had the good fortune of always being able to pay for something out of pocket, while also paying your health insurance premiums (since most businesses only pay a percentage) than good for you but to not understand that not all people are capable of doing so is a little short sighted.

rockychryslerb2010

SoMoNY said:

They didn't ban ALL forms of BC nor did they say the woman can never take them, they sued to not be forced to pay for it.

I have no problem with that at all.

The sky isn't falling despite all the faux outrage we see in left leasning press and on FB

If you're an executive or work at the corporate office at HL, you can probably afford to purchase without insurance.  This isn't the case for everyone.

SoMoNY

rockychryslerb2010 said:

SoMoNY said:

They didn't ban ALL forms of BC nor did they say the woman can never take them, they sued to not be forced to pay for it.

I have no problem with that at all.

The sky isn't falling despite all the faux outrage we see in left leasning press and on FB

If you're an executive or work at the corporate office at HL, you can probably afford to purchase without insurance.  This isn't the case for everyone.

How many people really need to use one of those 4 options over the other 10+ options that are available?

Again, sky isn't falling

MommyAtty

SoMoNY said:

They didn't ban ALL forms of BC nor did they say the woman can never take them, they sued to not be forced to pay for it.

I have no problem with that at all.

The sky isn't falling despite all the faux outrage we see in left leasning press and on FB

Wow. You're naive. A woman making $14 an hour cannot afford to get a $900 IUD if the insurance THAT SHE PAYS FOR won't cover it. And under this decision, a Christian Scientist closely held corp can ban all health care other than prayer. A Jehovah's Witness one can ban blood transfusions. A company owned by native Jamaican traditionalists can ban having any body part removed. A Catholic company can ban all birth control. This is why we need single payor healthcare.

jellybean529

You're right, they didn't ban all forms. But for women like me, whose only BC option would be the non-hormonal IUD, if I worked for them (thankfully I don't), my options would be limited. I could either fork out the exorbitant cost of the IUD out of pocket...or go without and risk a VERY risky pregnancy. That's discrimination against me as a woman and as a person with a health condition.