Word has quickly spread that SCOTUS ruled for Hobby Lobby and also against certain unions collecting representation fees from non-members who nevertheless benefit from union negotiations. Both rulings from what I understand are “narrowly tailored” in their way, but still have broad implications, none of them good it seems. So for now I basically have two questions:
Can we PLEASE move to a single-payer health system and render the employer involvement in health entirely moot now?
Can we PLEASE make SCOTUS the defining issue in Senate and Presidential campaigns? As a side note, though I understand the President has struck deals to nominate a couple of right-wingers that no Democrat with any pride has any business nominating to the federal bench, once again making me wonder why he doesn’t throw down the gauntlet more often.
That’s all I have to say for now. Feel free to use this as an open thread on any SCOTUS decision handed down this month.
I mean, I read a case where nuns who were members of The Little Sisters of the Poor had to buy contraception coverage. People are not forced to work for these small privately owned businesses. If one doesn’t like the h/c coverage b/c it lacks contraception benefits, then find another job.
Regarding the unions taxing members who don’t want to pay the union dues, I agree with the majority opinion. I like free will, so should the unions.
It’s not that I don’t believe you; I don’t believe that story. “Had to buy coverage that included contraception coverage,” OK. But it likely included knee pads as well (for excessive prayer).
“The Obama administration cannot enforce the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage requirements against a Catholic nuns’ order for the time being, if the nuns tell the government they object to providing that coverage, the Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon.”
Putting the Sisters though all at, really unbelievable.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/contraceptive-mandate-obamacare-little-sisters-for-the-poor-supreme-court-102587.html#ixzz369EBeBZn
But they wanted to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Employment law doesn’t work that way. Which they should know, because Catholicism doesn’t work that way either.
Since when does any insurance company itemize its health care coverage? Since when do you *ever* have to pay separately for coverage for individual procedures?
So it is not like they are really having to pay for anything. They just believe that no one should get it.
It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that this has anything to do with having to pay for something you don’t use.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
It does *not* mean you can do absolutely anything you want as long as you invent a religious excuse for it. It is entirely bogus to say that having to offer insurance coverage under a blanket policy for one particular procedure that goes against your religious beliefs actually prevents your “free exercise” of religion. Note that you cannot otherwise use religion as an excuse to discriminate against someone or ignore safety standards and the like.
The fact is you know this perfectly well but would rather play the obnoxious troll than engage in an honest debate. This is just one more sign that you are indeed not at all interested in actually having people her respect your opinion or take you at all seriously.
…that to them “free exercise” meant specifically the ability to worship or otherwise celebrate the traditions of their faith without being harassed by authorities. A mandate such as the one Hobby Lobby is objecting to in no way impinges on the right of the CEO or any other employee, shareholder, etc to worship as they choose.
There is no ban on the pill. All this ruling does is protect privately held companies who are uncomfortable paying/offering coverage to employees that can be seen as an abortion, due to their religious beliefs. Their employees can easily pay for whatever contraception they so desire. Or that said employee can look for another job.
Did not Citizens United determine corporations are people when it comes to free speech? Why would it be reasonable to deny them their religious beliefs?
The Supreme Court can rule that down is up, that the speed of light in a vacuum is ten mph, or that the Earth is precisely six thousand years old — each is no more preposterous than ruling that corporations are people. If anything, this ruling further demonstrates the absurdity of the premise upon which Citizens United was decided.
Corporations do not HAVE religious beliefs. Corporations do not fall in love, they do not have children, they do not watch parents die.
What this ruling does is enshrine extremist religious belief in both the law and the Supreme Court.
The income and earnings generated by a corporation ultimately goes to people.
First of all, that income may in fact have to go through several layers of corporations, holding companies, foundations before it reaches “people”. And some of those corporate entities will never pass the money on to people but will instead pour it back into buying more assets or paying lobbyists to further its interests etc.
Even when the earnings do go back to “people”, many of those people aren’t even American citizens. So in supporting corporations, you are really advocating for letting outsiders impose their religious beliefs on us through ownership of private corporations.
You asked about the “religious beliefs” of corporations.
That is an absurd question and I attempted to say so.
It means that the Supreme Court has no business imposing religious mandates on the rest of us. It means that when congress passes a law mandating standards of coverage for health insurance, the Court should stay out of it.
It means that religious belief is not a justification for misogyny — if a right-wing congress is going to be hell-bent on waging war on women, it means that those right-wing legislators should have the courage to stand up and own their contempt for women rather than hiding behind the robes of equally misogynistic priests, pastors, and churches.
It means that when my 90 year old mother specifies in her formal health care directive and proxy that she does not want to be resuscitated and does not want extraordinary measures taken to prolong her life, the government should stay out of it — whether or not those directives violate the religious beliefs of protesters or the Justices themselves.
It means that decisions like this — and the right-wing Christian extremists who put the five majority Justices on the court — send us hurtling down the same path that we see ripping apart Iraq, Nigeria, Libya, Syria, and even Israel.
It means that a very high firewall should exist between government and religion — precisely the opposite of what we see in this terrible decision.
It means that today was another black day for America.
this case is not about the Constitution’s free exercise clause. And there is little doubt that, under that clause, Hobby Lobby’s claim would have failed.
That case is about the form that employers are supposed to fill out if they want to opt out of coverage. Religious groups have always been exempt from the ACA’s contraception mandate.
I’m not a lawyer like David, but this guy gives a nice summation why Obama are attacks these poor nuns who just go about doing the Lord’s work, which everyone, including atheists, should applaud.
“The administration has created a narrow exemption for churches, but not for religious non-profit organizations like the Sisters’ nursing homes. The best the administration offers is an “accommodation”. But to qualify, the Sisters have to file a “permission slip” directing their insurance company to provide the offensive coverage.”
“Would anyone think it is acceptable for the government to force the Sisters to sign a form that gives explicit permission for someone to come into their nursing homes to euthanize their patients? Of course not – it would be an unthinkable violation of their religious freedom. And remember, the Sisters are not imposing their beliefs on anyone. Their employees, who freely chose to work for them, will still be free to obtain those services elsewhere. Only the Sisters are being forced to violate their beliefs.”
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/do-the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-have-a-case-against-obamacare/obamacare-forces-sisters-into-a-terrible-choice
As soon as the government starts mandating euthanasia, get back to me. Until then, let’s try to maintain at least a small connection to reality.
*
Who chose to avail themselves if the corporate form can nonetheless force employees to live under their personal religious beliefs. But unions cannot force people to whom they provide services to pay for them, nor can they refuse to provide the services. Just another day at the First Street Bullshit Factory.
I have not read the ruling, but would this allow companies who don’t want to pay for healthcare at all to simply say they only believe in faith healing? Could a company owned by a Scientologist refuse to pay for mental health care? Could someone simply make up a religion that reflects whatever their arbitrary crazy biases are? Are the courts supposed to decide what a legitimate religious belief is?
Hobby Lobby objects on grounds theological
Though the real intent was purely economical.
For women a tough shake,
Better hope things don’t break,
For this decision was quite diabolical
That’s a big, big question that remains unanswered. Alito tried to limit his opinion, but his basis for doing so was not convincing. This very issue seems likely to arise quickly in other cases.
Apparently the court did exempt blood transfusions and life saving medicine from such treatment, but couldn’t find emergency or preventative contraception to be in the same category. Contraception that has saved lives or protected women from carrying their rapists child-that isn’t life saving. And apparently the sincerely held religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists aren’t sufficient enough to give them extra rights to force their beliefs on their employees. At least be consistent. If we are going to live in that world, and we really shouldn’t, than its just favoritism to say some things are religiously exempted but others are not.