Supreme Court Rules Corporations Have Religous Rights!

[BlkHawk]

Per the court a corporation can decline to provide health insurance coverage for birth control if the owners object for religous beliefs. Justice Ginsberg called the ruling one of "startling breadth". Justice Alito clarified this ruling concerns only birth control.

Alito is very short sighted on this, I don't think it will be long before a Christian Scientist files a discrimination suit because they have to provide insurance for any medical treatment. Expect a Jehovah's Witness to do the same for blood transfusions, and I'm sure someone else will do the same for vaccinations.

It won't stop there some racist who belongs to one of the Aryan Nation religions will object to hiring non-whites. Hell a Muslim can object to hiring Jewish workers and vice versa. Maybe a Jewish company can fire you for bringing a ham sandwich for lunch.

This may even open the door for companies to ask about an applicants religious beliefs. Now when looking for work you will have to look at the owners religious beliefs on top of all the other considerations. Apparently Justice Alito didn't think finding a job was difficult enough.

 

[Will E Worm]

Taxpayers shoudn't have to pay for this.

 

[Rey C.]

From what I've read of it so far, I'm in agreement with this decision. I think the initial mistake was made by Obama when he mandated that birth control be included in all insurance policies when the Affordable Care Act was originally put together. Sure, he made the radical feminists and others on the far left happy by doing that. But those of us in the political center, who don't feel that we should be forced to subsidize the increased costs, driven by lifestyle choices of every dog, cat and chicken, have fallen out of favor with ObamaCare. IMO, what he should have done is simply allow companies to do what they were already doing: choose the types of policies that best suit their workforce. I guess if you have a company that's 70% under 30 and female, well they might want policies that include birth control coverage. But if a company is 70% over 40 and male, why should that company be forced to buy a policy that provides birth control coverage? That might benefit the daughters of those male employees, who are still allowed to be on their dads' policies. But the way I see it, I shouldn't have to subsidize their daughters' desire to get discounted birth control pills.

I now believe that the Affordable Care Act needs to be reformed - it can and should be fixed. The only problem is, I don't trust the wingnut Republicans to fix it.

 

[knowone]

Why? Because even though it is called "birth control" pills they are really "menstrual cycle control" pills which have health benefits (including reduced risk of some cancers) independent of stopping pregnancy. These benefits are significant enough that a year ago the Vatican announced they were looking into providing the pill to Nuns!

 

[BlkHawk]

I agree with most of what Rey posted AHCA never should have mandated this in the first place, and the act as a whole has several flaws that need to be addressed. My fear is how this ruling will apply to future cases, Alito can say this ruling only applies to religous belief, and birth control, but that is not going to fly.

As I read the ruling it is applying discrimination to other religous beliefs. Allowing one religions belief to be applied to how employees are treated while denying the same right to others. This ruling could be used in the future to allow employers to use their religion to circumvent any employment laws, such as civil rights. I see this as opening a Pandora's box, hell it could even be used to argue exemptions to fair housing. The owner of an apartment complex doesn't want to rent an apartment to a same sex couple, or even an unmarried man, and woman, due to religious beliefs.

Maybe I'm over reacting, but I think we will see a lot of these cases brought before the courts in the future. That is not a good thing.

 

[BlkHawk]

Why? Because even though it is called "birth control" pills they are really "menstrual cycle control" pills which have health benefits (including reduced risk of some cancers) independent of stopping pregnancy. These benefits are significant enough that a year ago the Vatican announced they were looking into providing the pill to Nuns!

Good point, there are also women who are already going through menopause being prescribed these medications for treatment of symptoms. Does your doctor now have to receive approval from your employer before prescribing these medications for none birth control purposes? Do you just have to pay out of pocket with no insurance coverage if you are being prescribed these medications for other reasons?

http://womenshealth.gov/menopause/symptom-relief-treatment/

A person's medical treatment should really be between the doctor, and the patient, not the doctor, the patient, and the patient's boss.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Wow, the Supremes have actually looked at the Constitution for the first time in six years.

 

[wdoall]

my issue is with the unbelievable hypocrisy with the whole religious rulings as far as Hobby Lobby goes since they actually invest their money in the pharmaceutical companies that make these pills as well as do most of there purchasing from China where the government push and in some cases mandates abortions. So profit supersedes God in their eyes

 

[knowone]

my issue is with the unbelievable hypocrisy with the whole religious rulings as far as Hobby Lobby goes since they actually invest their money in the pharmaceutical companies that make these pills as well as do most of there purchasing from China where the government push and in some cases mandates abortions. So profit supersedes God in their eyes

Not only that but they used to provide insurance to employees with birth control coverage.

 

[Rey C.]

Again, I haven't read the opinion. And even if I had, I'm sure that there would be enough legalese in it that I'd still need a translation. But anyway, as I understand it, this opinion was quite narrow and very specific. The case was not about all forms of birth control or even all forms of birth control pills. The private corporations in this case (publicly traded corporations would not be covered by this decision) objected to "morning after" type birth control. And though I don't pretend to know a lot about medicine (more like, hardly anything at all), I'm pretty sure that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd's Plan B morning-after pill, and Ella, made by the Watson Pharma, are not used by women for control of the menstrual cycle, nor am I aware that either drug has been found to have any sort of health benefit (other than helping a woman not to be pregnant anymore if she chooses not to be pregnant anymore).

The decision was specific, in that it called out these types of birth control pills only, and it was narrow, in that it (unless I misunderstood) only covered private, closely-held corporations and businesses. If either Hobby Lobby or Conestoga listed their shares on a stock exchange, as I understand it, this decision would no longer apply to them.

While I'm on it, let me mention why I'm particularly ticked off by the left-wing media forming this decision as "another attack on women... in the long running the war on women." facepalm My mother is on Social Security. But she didn't take on the prescription drug benefit when she was first eligible. And when I tried to get her an all inclusive Humana plan last year, I learned that Social Security imposes a sliding scale penalty for each year that the Part D drug benefit was not taken, beginning the year after the SS recipient was first eligible. So now, the penalty for my mother is so high that there would be no benefit to taking on Part D - so I just pay for all of her medication. And that's fine. I'm her son and I've been blessed with more than my share of good fortune, so that's what I should be doing. I truly don't mind. But here's the rub: while I'm standing in line at CVS tomorrow, paying $460 for a 3-4 week supply of Butran pain patches for my mom and $200+/- for the other meds I get for her every month, if I see some frizzy haired, twenty-something air-head, whining because her boss's insurance will no longer pay for her morning after pills... at that precise moment in time, I just might declare a "war on women". Well, not all women. Just that one particular oxygen thief. If you can't pay the $50/month for your birth control pills (or whatever these morning after pills cost - hopefully you wouldn't need those every week or even every month), then you need to keep your knees together. I'm pretty much a social libertarian. But I'm not at all keen on being forced to subsidize the lifestyle choices of those who think they are victims unless someone else foots the bill for them.

It's wonderful to want to help people. It's wonderful that Obama's heart may have been in the right place. But in the way that he and his team formed and implemented this health care law, their hearts aside, they had their heads up their asses. I, along with millions of other Americans, am now faced with high deductible policies (mine is $2500/yr before they pay the first dime). And that's partly because the Affordable Care Act caused so much confusion and fear that companies (insurance and employers) rushed to protect themselves from the unknown and the misunderstood. I blame Obama for that. And I blame all the other Democrats and the Republicans, who either voted for something they didn't understand... or voted against something they didn't understand.

 

[BlkHawk]

The problem with limited rulings is they don't work. Two recent ruling were limited in scope Bush v Gore, and the Defense of Marriage Act. Mother Jone has an article on these: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-bush-v-gore

Bush v. Gore isn't the only example. Last summer, when Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with Supreme Court liberals to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the majority ruled that it was discriminatory for the federal government not to recognize same-sex unions, but said the opinion shouldn't be read as forcing states to legalize marriage equality. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia called the liberals' argument a sham. Scalia noted that the majority decision offered logical justification for legalizing marriage nationally and, in his dissent, predicted that lower courts would expand upon the Supreme Court's ruling.

Those two rulings were specifically limited in scope, yet both rulings have continued to be cited in additional cases. We have seen this with all the Southern courts rulings on gay marriage. I'm afraid this ruling is going to reach far beyond birth control, and be used to challenge many laws regarding civil rights.

Obamacare is broken, but this was not the way to fix it.

 

[Rey C.]

When dealing with activist lower courts, it might be necessary to take those cases that don't fall within the scope of the original ruling back to the Supreme Court. Any lower court's decision can be appealed to a higher court. And if necessary, the Supreme Court may have to issue another decision.

Anything is possible, but I can't say that I hold the same concerns about this particular decision being used to erode civil rights. To be honest, I think the concern that I now have is that people are beginning to assume that they have a "right" to all manner of things. My belief is that our society is turning into one where people expect entitlements from cradle to grave. And I believe that will eventually create a very weak and unstable society. It saddens me that a Supreme Court decision on what a few private companies do, with regard to morning after pills, draws crowds ready to go to war with each other. But each year, a new report comes out showing clear evidence that American children are falling further and further behind the children in the rest of the world in math and science... and it doesn't even get a mention on the evening news. IMO, that's sad. And that's (truly) important.

 

[xfire]

As long as Hobby Lobby gets 93% of their merchandise from China they really shouldn't pretend to be morally opposed to anything.

 

[Anonyne#017]

I don't know what exactly is going on there, but I'd go similar direction with Rey C's views with a lot of these. Health care insurance is not about funding a whore life-styles. That is a same thing than me burning down my house by my own and demanding insurance afterwards. Perhaps people should learn the difference between having a "right" and having "responsibilites" that comes withn.

 

[BlkHawk]

The Supreme Court expanded on the ruling today clarifying that the ruling was not limited to just the four contraceptives Hobby Lobby objected to, but all contraceptives. Referencing a Catholic option to refuse insurance for all birth control. I guess this means if a doctor prescribes it for one of the other medical uses your insurance still won't cover it if you work for a Catholic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/high-court-affirms-religious-rights-apply-to-all-contraception-coverage/

This expansion should make it easier for other courts to expand the ruling to cover other religious objections.

 

[bobjustbob]

My objection is that any company should be compelled to offer any kind of health care benefits. This debate wouldn't go on if the cost of health care was lower. Once upon a time we had health benefits from our employers to entice us to work for them. Stay loyal and the company would take care of us. If the company didn't offer this to us we could pay our Dr. cash and afford it. A local family Dr. One we could call up and take care of us. They used to come to the house for a few more bucks. What the fuck happened since then?

Today we have to pick our a primary that can't do shit unless her is a specialist for what you need. Oh, did I forget? There is no such thing as a general practitioner. Call your primary and he'll send you to the hospital emergency room for a simple fall, stiches, or belly ache. He can't see you since he's not any of those specialized in any of those things. So now were are in a hospital emergency room with people that have been shot and fire victims flying in. This isn't where I should be. Just let me see someone with some gauze and ointment to send me back home for a day or 2. 40 people have to do paperwork and let it run through their systems. Why is this? Everyone in the health care business has to worry about lawyers crawling up their asses with claims.

This is our managed heath care.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

We a certainly lost.

- - - Updated - - -

We a certainly lost.

 

[mongo18]

I think the initial mistake was made by Obama when he mandated that birth control be included in all insurance policies when the Affordable Care Act was originally put together.

Why? Because you'll never need birth control, so who gives a shit? Do you understand how insurance works? We all chip in. Those who need it get to take some back out. Those who don't chip in anyway. That's how it fucking works. Birth control is a very common and reasonable health expense for women and it was perfectly reasonable for it to be included in the mandate along with maternity and newborn care.

I don't know what exactly is going on there, but I'd go similar direction with Rey C's views with a lot of these. Health care insurance is not about funding a whore life-styles. That is a same thing than me burning down my house by my own and demanding insurance afterwards. Perhaps people should learn the difference between having a "right" and having "responsibilites" that comes withn.

No, it's not the same, not even close. And being on birth control doesn't make a woman a whore, you shit stain on humanity, it makes her "responsible," like you claim to want in the very next sentence.

This country would be a lot better off if you low lifes were prepared to help other people out a little bit instead of just looking out for yourselves all the time.

 

[Rey C.]

Why? Because you'll never need birth control, so who gives a shit? Do you understand how insurance works? We all chip in. Those who need it get to take some back out. Those who don't chip in anyway. That's how it fucking works. Birth control is a very common and reasonable health expense for women and it was perfectly reasonable for it to be included in the mandate along with maternity and newborn care.

Do I understand how insurance works? Well, I damn well know how mine works... NOW! With everyone running scared because of this massive federal fuckup (that could have been so good), many companies are opting to ONLY offer high deductible plans. That's what we got stuck with this year. The only options we have are high deductible and higher deductible. Try this on for size, slugger. My coverage kicks in once I hit my $2500 annual deductible. That means that not one fucking drug gets paid for, not one fucking procedure gets paid for, not one fucking lab test gets paid for, not one fucking ER visit gets paid for and not one fucking doctor visit gets paid for until I hit that deductible. Oh well, I do get one "preventative office visit" a year. Ain't that nice? My plan picks out a small handful of tests that my doctor can run on me, and as long as he doesn't include one single prohibited code, they'll pay for that ONE visit. But now, if he or the lab includes a code for something (anything!) that isn't on my list of "approved tests", I PAY FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING THING! Do I fuckin' understand how insurance works? Do you?! Well, do you???!!!

Boo-fuckin' hoo. You mean, greedy man... you need to pay for little Misty's birth control pills. Boo-fuckin' hoo. Is every cancer drug mandated for inclusion and payment under Obamacare? Is every pain medication mandated for inclusion and payment under Obamacare? How about every medical procedure? I'll save you from having to call 1-800-Fuck-The-Middle-Class to get the answer. The correct answer is NO! But whether they cover all cancer drugs or not, what winds you up tight as a drum is that some girl may have to pay $50/month for her birth control pills?! I repeat: Boo-fuckin' hoo! Fuck, I pay more than that out-of-pocket with insurance!

I appreciate that some people may WANT birth control mandated by the government into every standard insurance policy. Hell, I think a pony ride and some cotton candy should be included too. But no, it most certainly is not reasonable or necessarily needed in across the board terms. If there are specific medical reasons for prescribing certain drugs, then they're no different from the drugs that I and others have to take to keep living. But I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to any bullshit about how if I don't want to chip in and help pay for some girl's birth control pills (or even more so, her morning after pills after she's gotten herself accidentally or irresponsibly knocked-up) I'm a hard hearted lowlife. And even if I thought it was necessary, you must be working part-time at the Laugh Factory if you expect me to believe that morning after birth control pills should be mandated drugs under ANY insurance plan! I pay for my medications, on or off plan. I pay for ALL of my mother's drugs and some of her other medical expenses - especially since Medicare is being cut so that Medicaid can be expanded under Obamacare. Little Misty can pay for her shit just like I and others are having to. One of the issues that is most certainly going to affect this nation going forward is continued expansion of entitlement programs. And I'm not talking about people who truly need help, care or a boost up. I'm talking about the ease with which every slack-assed goober can roll into some ambulance chaser's office and find a crooked doctor and get him/herself on SSI, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc. You may think you're helping them. But you're not. What they need are jobs and better educations and training, so that they can get those better jobs. I have five opening right now. Minimum $40 grand and touching $55K after one year. Slow going so far. Can't find enough people who have basic computer skills, some lower programming knowledge and can do mid level math... and uh, pass a background check. Is that my fault too?

What people like you don't seem to get is that once people loose their sense of self-reliance and personal responsibility, there is probably little hope left for them. At that point, they become a slave who learns to depend on whatever their master hands them. My so called hard-hearted ass has established a scholarship fund (two actually) that begins this fall. And my hope is that the money goes to some young person who, no matter what their background or circumstance, still has a desire and drive to move themselves forward. And the money I put in place will simply help them get to where they want to go - they'll be doing the heavy lifting. You can buy "your kids" birth control pills, condoms or free needles. I'll buy mine books and computers or room & board. We'll see which of our proteges has done the best once the checkered flag falls.

 

[mikexmoran]

From what I've read of it so far, I'm in agreement with this decision. I think the initial mistake was made by Obama when he mandated that birth control be included in all insurance policies when the Affordable Care Act was originally put together. Sure, he made the radical feminists and others on the far left happy by doing that. But those of us in the political center, who don't feel that we should be forced to subsidize the increased costs, driven by lifestyle choices of every dog, cat and chicken, have fallen out of favor with ObamaCare. IMO, what he should have done is simply allow companies to do what they were already doing: choose the types of policies that best suit their workforce. I guess if you have a company that's 70% under 30 and female, well they might want policies that include birth control coverage. But if a company is 70% over 40 and male, why should that company be forced to buy a policy that provides birth control coverage? That might benefit the daughters of those male employees, who are still allowed to be on their dads' policies. But the way I see it, I shouldn't have to subsidize their daughters' desire to get discounted birth control pills.

I now believe that the Affordable Care Act needs to be reformed - it can and should be fixed. The only problem is, I don't trust the wingnut Republicans to fix it.

Well put.

It is really a case of "A Bridge To Far". The law just went a bit too far and that is what caused the ruling.

SCOTUS needs to be careful with these Corporation rulings. Corporations should not be confused with people and we're dong this. IMO, once a corporation is formed, it is formed for legal reason Therefore, it must be treated as a legal entity and not given any personification. To do so would think that stock holders would be altruistic and they never will be. If a company does not incorporate for legal protection, then I would agree with the way these ruling are being passed.

I think there should be three levels. First, a company that is own by a person or group of people that is not fully incorporated and those people are liable for the company. Those companies, since the people who own them are liable, should have a direct legal human ownership categorization. Secondly, once a company incorporates and protection for the owners is put into place the owners really should give up their personal rights in legal issues. Meaning, in my opinion, Constitutional rights can not be given to the company where the owners are employees are protected because of the incorporated status. Thirdly, a publicly traded company should have the most strict guidelines and IMO, should be barred from making any political contributions or from claiming any rights like are being posted in this thread.

People can be greedy and altruistic. By their nature, especially when there can be stokholders with only the focus of making money, publicly traded corporations can not have any altruism beyond public relations and are by their definition greedy. (I'll leave it for someone else to quote Gordon Gekko)

- - - Updated - - -

From what I've read of it so far, I'm in agreement with this decision. I think the initial mistake was made by Obama when he mandated that birth control be included in all insurance policies when the Affordable Care Act was originally put together. Sure, he made the radical feminists and others on the far left happy by doing that. But those of us in the political center, who don't feel that we should be forced to subsidize the increased costs, driven by lifestyle choices of every dog, cat and chicken, have fallen out of favor with ObamaCare. IMO, what he should have done is simply allow companies to do what they were already doing: choose the types of policies that best suit their workforce. I guess if you have a company that's 70% under 30 and female, well they might want policies that include birth control coverage. But if a company is 70% over 40 and male, why should that company be forced to buy a policy that provides birth control coverage? That might benefit the daughters of those male employees, who are still allowed to be on their dads' policies. But the way I see it, I shouldn't have to subsidize their daughters' desire to get discounted birth control pills.

I now believe that the Affordable Care Act needs to be reformed - it can and should be fixed. The only problem is, I don't trust the wingnut Republicans to fix it.

Well put.

It is really a case of "A Bridge To Far". The law just went a bit too far and that is what caused the ruling.

SCOTUS needs to be careful with these Corporation rulings. Corporations should not be confused with people and we're dong this. IMO, once a corporation is formed, it is formed for legal reason Therefore, it must be treated as a legal entity and not given any personification. To do so would think that stock holders would be altruistic and they never will be. If a company does not incorporate for legal protection, then I would agree with the way these ruling are being passed.

I think there should be three levels. First, a company that is own by a person or group of people that is not fully incorporated and those people are liable for the company. Those companies, since the people who own them are liable, should have a direct legal human ownership categorization. Secondly, once a company incorporates and protection for the owners is put into place the owners really should give up their personal rights in legal issues. Meaning, in my opinion, Constitutional rights can not be given to the company where the owners are employees are protected because of the incorporated status. Thirdly, a publicly traded company should have the most strict guidelines and IMO, should be barred from making any political contributions or from claiming any rights like are being posted in this thread.

People can be greedy and altruistic. By their nature, especially when there can be stokholders with only the focus of making money, publicly traded corporations can not have any altruism beyond public relations and are by their definition greedy. (I'll leave it for someone else to quote Gordon Gekko)