|
Captain Mog posted:However, I recognize it is their right to not pay for such a contraceptive if they don't wish. It's clear you're a sheltered white male if you think that "just find another job" is an actual solution to this problem.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
They can just go down to the job store and buy a new full time job, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why should the business owners have any say whatsoever in the private medical decisions between a woman and her doctor? Why are libertarian retards so keen on giving CEOs ultimate authority over their employees? Hobby lobby isn't allowed to say "you may not buy contraceptives." They are allowed to say "we will not pay, as part of the compensation plan we give our employees, for a health plan that covers contraceptives." Of all the things to criticize in this case, that distinction isn't even close to one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think I mis-spoke, but the point is that Hobby Lobby wants to get a de facto government subsidy for not complying with the law, and the reason they want this is because they do not get to control how their employees use part of their compensation package. And they claim that is justified because the Health Insurance they provide is not "compensation" but a free benefit that Hobby Lobby owns. This is the characterization that has been invented for the purposes of this case to make basic concepts of health insurance appear like they are some sort of injustice. Covering one thing and not covering another as part of an insurance plan is a universal thing that literally all insurance plans do, and is not unique to Hobby Lobby at all. Using phrasing like "control how their employees use part of their compensation package", and misquoting Hobby Lobby's position in an attempt to equivocate insurance with some sort of scrip program is borderline disingenuous. Crows Turn Off posted:Why should the business owners have any say whatsoever in the private medical decisions between a woman and her doctor? Why are libertarian retards so keen on giving CEOs ultimate authority over their employees? They can go to their doctor if they want, and get whatever pills they want. Hobby Lobby has only extracted themselves from the piece that they were previously responsible for - payment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Of all the things to criticize in this case, that distinction isn't even close to one of them. When you're talking about buying a thousand dollar IUD at minimum wage, it's pretty loving relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why should the business owners have any say whatsoever in the private medical decisions between a woman and her doctor? Why are libertarian retards so keen on giving CEOs ultimate authority over their employees? How the hell do they have a say in such a decision? Can the CEO of Hobby Lobby legally prevent a woman from buying contraceptives? If so, that's news to me. As for your assertion that I'm a "libertarian retard", I've already said I don't identify as one. I didn't realize that one sentence- "find another job"- is enough for internet strangers to discern my personal beliefs. Believe it or not, political ideologies aren't so black-and-white. It is possible to find jobs that aren't at Hobby Lobby, yes? So then why can't someone who is THAT bothered by this decision find a job at a place that isn't Hobby Lobby? "Find another job" is a solution to this problem. I realize it's easier said than done in some cases, but it is possible. I've done it before and so have millions of other people. Stop trying to blow it up into something much bigger than it really is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
moths posted:When you're talking about buying a thousand dollar IUD at minimum wage, it's pretty loving relevant. No, it isn't, because there is a category difference between the two things. In neither case is that employee getting an IUD, but in one case it's because her employer can control what she does and in the other case it's because her employer isn't paying her enough to do so. Hobby Lobby is irritating enough without making up non-existent aspects of the holding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is a garbage interpretation. Hobby Lobby thinks the law is invalid, and doesn't want to follow an invalid law. It turns out the Supreme Court agreed with them about that, and so now they don't have to follow the invalid law. They don't want to control how their employees use part of their compensation package, they want to control what their compensation package is (and they want that package to exclude certain contraceptives). Also their health insurance is plainly compensation, where did you even get that from? It's perfectly valid for the federal government to determine what health insurance qualifies as legal compensation and what doesn't. Hobby Lobby can't offer an insurance package called "walk it off" and get tax breaks or avoid the ACA penalty, because that doesn't meet the standards HHS defined. Hobby Lobby claims that a good bought with the compensation paid to an employee in exchange for work is the same as Hobby Lobby buying it themselves, but that's bullshit. The government is not forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for insurance: Hobby Lobby is free to drop insurance coverage and pay their employees in equivalent money instead, but they don't want to do that because they get favorable tax treatment for paying with insurance. They want the tax benefits, but they don't want to follow the law because they want to treat compensation paid to someone else in exchange for work as some benevolent gift that Hobby Lobby has a right to dispose of. We don't let companies control their employees by paying in scrip instead of money. Why should we let them control their employees by paying in substandard insurance instead of money?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's perfectly valid for the federal government to determine what health insurance qualifies as legal compensation and what doesn't. quote:Hobby Lobby can't offer an insurance package called "walk it off" and get tax breaks or avoid the ACA penalty, because that doesn't meet the standards HHS defined. quote:We don't let companies control their employees by paying in scrip instead of money. Why should we let them control their employees by paying in substandard insurance instead of money? twodot fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Can't say I am all that surprised. The thing that perhaps bothers me the most is that feelings and 'belief' trump scientific fact. In a perfect world, the court would tell Hobby Lobby to gently caress right off because their 'beliefs' are empirically wrong. Sorry, just because you believe that these contraceptive methods cause abortions, which they don't, does not mean you cannot cover them. And they are covering normal birth control pills, which if you took enough of, would have a similar effect as the morning after pill. But hey, I guess the rich people's ignorance trumps the poors healthcare needs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:These are completely different things! Why would you even bother to bring up scrip? Yes, we can absolutely control what sorts of health insurance policies are allowable as employee compensation, and simultaneously, a company deciding to include X and not Y in their health insurance is in no way "control[ing] how their employees use part of their compensation package" (the post I was replying to). Regardless of what side you are on, there exist bad arguments and the post I replied to is one of them. Because the choice whether to get an IUD or not isn't Hobby Lobby's. That choice is made by a woman and her doctor, and Hobby Lobby wants to claim that because the money for it was in their accounts payable once that it's the same as forcing them to buy it, but it's not. What is the difference between Hobby Lobby paying money to a woman who spends it on an IUD, and giving a woman a certificate that she redeems for an IUD charged from a pool of funds Hobby Lobby set aside to pay claims? The money comes from the same place either way and the decision is made by the same person. You don't have to take my word for it: Ruth Bader Ginsdog posted:Undertaking the inquiry that the Court forgoes, I would conclude that the connection between the families' religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial. The requirement carries no command that Hobby Lobby or Conestoga purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable. Instead, it calls on the companies covered by the requirement to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans. Those plans, in order to comply with the ACA, see supra, at 3-6, must offer contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, just as they must cover an array of other preventive services. Hobby Lobby is, of course, free to pay their employees in money instead of insurance and absolve themselves of the taint of birth control. But they want the tax breaks for paying with insurance while retaining the power to boss their workers' ovaries, so why should the government subsidize this conceit of theirs? Let them forgo the benefits, pay the ACA tax, and if they want to offer free coupons to Medieval Times Virtuous Nunnery and Vaginatorium Hospital for their employees they can do that without subsidies. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because the choice whether to get an IUD or not isn't Hobby Lobby's. That choice is made by a woman and her doctor, and Hobby Lobby wants to claim that because the money for it was in their accounts payable once that it's the same as forcing them to buy it, but it's not. What is the difference between Hobby Lobby paying money to a woman who spends it on an IUD, and giving a woman a certificate that she redeems for an IUD charged from a pool of funds Hobby Lobby set aside to pay claims? The money comes from the same place either way and the decision is made by the same person. You don't have to take my word for it: In one scenario the payment is contingent on the action, in the other scenario the payment is NOT contingent on the action. This is a meaningful difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Sorry, just because you believe that these contraceptive methods cause abortions, which they don't, does not mean you cannot cover them. And they are covering normal birth control pills, which if you took enough of, would have a similar effect as the morning after pill. But hey, I guess the rich people's ignorance trumps the poors healthcare needs. I don't think that was the case. The issue you describe was stipulated as true by both parties for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
esquilax posted:In one scenario the payment is contingent on the action, in the other scenario the payment is NOT contingent on the action. This is a meaningful difference. Why is that meaningful? And even if it is, why isn't the remedy "don't pay people in health insurance if you don't want to pay for health insurance" good enough here? They have the choice to pay women in money...oh right, but that doesn't let the Greens play King of the Ovaries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why is that meaningful? Because many people consider offering payment contingent on someone performing an act to be complicity in that act. This isn't exactly a unique concept, it's the rule more often than the exception. Because the government imposes stiff penalties if they choose to not provide health insurance or provide non-compliant insurance, so they had the choice of exercising their religious rights or paying a lot of money in fines. Hence the court case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
But anyone can opt out, not just for religious reasons. edit: you pay a tax that's less than what health insurance would cost in order to offset the costs that you're putting on the government. HL would have been buying health insurance if the contraception requirement wasn't in there. It's false to say they're being forced to be immoral or be punished for going with what their beliefs tell them. Doctor Butts fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:The thing that perhaps bothers me the most is that feelings and 'belief' trump scientific fact. In a perfect world, the court would tell Hobby Lobby to gently caress right off because their 'beliefs' are empirically wrong. Thankfully the legal test is not whether a belief is "true" but whether it is seriously held. Native Americans worshiping on federal land don't have to argue their beliefs are correct in any metaphysical sense to claim protection, if they did the government could just ignore any groups claim to having sacred areas and that would be pretty horrific. We don't require conscientious objectors in war to prove their is a God or that war is somehow objectively bad, we just require that they prove they believe that war is wrong according to the dictates of conscience. Testing religious beliefs against "scientific fact" seems like it gets perilously close to establishing religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Thankfully the legal test is not whether a belief is "true" but whether it is seriously held. Native Americans worshiping on federal land don't have to argue their beliefs are correct in any metaphysical sense to claim protection, if they did the government could just ignore any groups claim to having sacred areas and that would be pretty horrific. We don't require conscientious objectors in war to prove their is a God or that war is somehow objectively bad, we just require that they prove they believe that war is wrong according to the dictates of conscience. The claim that "contraceptives cause abortions" isn't a religious claim, though, it's a medical claim, a factual claim. "Abortions are bad" is the religious/moral claim in that argument. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Thankfully the legal test is not whether a belief is "true" but whether it is seriously held. Native Americans worshiping on federal land don't have to argue their beliefs are correct in any metaphysical sense to claim protection, if they did the government could just ignore any groups claim to having sacred areas and that would be pretty horrific. We don't require conscientious objectors in war to prove their is a God or that war is somehow objectively bad, we just require that they prove they believe that war is wrong according to the dictates of conscience. And yet, if the medication is not an "abortant" (or whatever the word is) then it cannot be included in religious arguments against abortions. Know what I mean? I can claim a religious belief that I MUST smoke weed to save my soul, but that doesn't mean I get to classify crack as "marijuana".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Thankfully the legal test is not whether a belief is "true" but whether it is seriously held. Native Americans worshiping on federal land don't have to argue their beliefs are correct in any metaphysical sense to claim protection, if they did the government could just ignore any groups claim to having sacred areas and that would be pretty horrific. We don't require conscientious objectors in war to prove their is a God or that war is somehow objectively bad, we just require that they prove they believe that war is wrong according to the dictates of conscience. Oh okay, well if facts about what the causes of abortion are are irrelevant as long as I have a seriously held belief that abortion is a sin, then the minimum wage, unions, and the Civil Rights Act all cause abortions. Doctor Butts posted:HL would have been buying health insurance if the contraception requirement wasn't in there. It's false to say they're being forced to be immoral or be punished for going with what their beliefs tell them. It's better than that, HL was covering these methods of contraception until the black man said they had to, now all of a sudden it's a sin. Because their sincere beliefs weren't enough to read to the end of all that boring insurance paperwork  , they're real sincere though (because the real belief is no uppity black man is going to tell them what to do!)GaussianCopula posted:HL did only refuse to pay for the morning-after pill not the regular birth control pill that a woman takes reguarly (source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/). Those pills are only used to make sure that you are not pregnant after you had unprotected sex. If a woman is taking the regular pill this decision will have zero impact on her because would never need the no longer covered items anyway. I'm just gonna crosspost this from the US-Pol thread SCOTUS: Ruling Applies Broadly To Contraception Coverage quote:The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling. VVVVVVVV I don't know, part of why I posted it here is to see if any lawyer-goons know any more about it VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm just gonna crosspost this from the US-Pol thread Does TPM actually say how the Supreme Court made this addition? I can't find it anywhere in the article. Scotusblog has nothing, and I'm not finding any other sources agreeing with this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
What about the numinous anti inflammatory pills that might effect implantation? Can their workers not take any of these pills either? This is totally hosed and a slap in the face to innocent worker who already put up with enough poo poo from the "job creators".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Does TPM actually say how the Supreme Court made this addition? I can't find it anywhere in the article. Scotusblog has nothing, and I'm not finding any other sources agreeing with this. They chose not to gvr or otherwise affect lower court rulings that upheld challenges to the broader class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Does TPM actually say how the Supreme Court made this addition? I can't find it anywhere in the article. Scotusblog has nothing, and I'm not finding any other sources agreeing with this. It sounds like they didn't "add" anything, it's the particular orders the court made. They ordered a bunch of similar cases dealing with other forms of contraception be re-examined in light of their current ruling. quote:Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Does TPM actually say how the Supreme Court made this addition? I can't find it anywhere in the article. Scotusblog has nothing, and I'm not finding any other sources agreeing with this. Okay, I found an AP article quote:Reinforcing its decision of Monday, the high court on Tuesday left in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all methods of government-approved contraception. Perhaps you can tell me how significant the SCOTUS's action is here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
It's very strange, because it seems to conflict with some of the limiting language of the majority opinion. Jeez, this case has been an absolute mess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's very strange, because it seems to conflict with some of the limiting language of the majority opinion. Jeez, this case has been an absolute mess. Akin to a Bush signing statement. This is is pretty unprecedented, isn't it? How binding are SCOTUS orders, if at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Thankfully the legal test is not whether a belief is "true" but whether it is seriously held. Native Americans worshiping on federal land don't have to argue their beliefs are correct in any metaphysical sense to claim protection, if they did the government could just ignore any groups claim to having sacred areas and that would be pretty horrific. We don't require conscientious objectors in war to prove their is a God or that war is somehow objectively bad, we just require that they prove they believe that war is wrong according to the dictates of conscience. True, but their claim is medical and can be proven. There is over a half century of emperical evidence that the methods of contraception not being covered do not promote abortion. This is fact. Which means their belief is falsely held, no matter how much they believe it. It is also a for profit corporation, meaning that their flalse beliefs trump everyone else who is employed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:True, but their claim is medical and can be proven. There is over a half century of emperical evidence that the methods of contraception not being covered do not promote abortion. This is fact. Which means their belief is falsely held, no matter how much they believe it. Again, the claim you're discussing was stipulated in the case. It wasn't at issue. Cheekio posted:Akin to a Bush signing statement. This is is pretty unprecedented, isn't it? How binding are SCOTUS orders, if at all? Fully, otherwise most of the legal system would collapse. I suppose those courts could revisit the cases and come to the same conclusion, but that would result in the creation of a brand new circuit split over Hobby Lobby's application. I have no idea what is going on. It's making me wonder who in the SCOTUS apparatus constructs those orders- it's not a subject I covered in law school.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:True, but their claim is medical and can be proven. There is over a half century of emperical evidence that the methods of contraception not being covered do not promote abortion. This is fact. Which means their belief is falsely held, no matter how much they believe it. Counterpoint: this reasoning applies to beliefs about every single thing in the world except vaginas 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, I found an AP article Not at all, it's standard leave similar cases pending and then GVR them afterwards. And I don't see why people thought it was limited to the 4 procedures, nothing about the ruling hinged on conception.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's very strange, because it seems to conflict with some of the limiting language of the majority opinion. Jeez, this case has been an absolute mess. It's not really strange at all. This was an opinion that comes down to "employers may not be compelled to fund the purchase of contraception" and just uses a lot of words to cover it up. They opened up a legal hole big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through and then explicitly narrowed it down to basically "just contraception". The "contraceptives equals abortions" thing isn't scientifically backed, but under the standard that doesn't even matter anyway as long as it's a sincerely held belief. This obviously opens up a massive can of worms that would be incredibly frightening to an 80-year-old WASP type (Muslim employers, Christian scientists denying medical care entirely, etc), so they then arbitrarily narrow it back down to "just contraception" with absolutely no justification at all, and then issue a bunch of rulings against methods which aren't even claimed to cause abortions anyway. It's one of the more vapid rulings to come out recently, which is really saying something for the Roberts court. It's just them pissing on the black man while trying desperately to avoid the wind blowing it right back on themselves. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Perhaps you can tell me how significant the SCOTUS's action is here. A case decided by a lower court seeks SCOTUS appellate review by way of a petition. Petitions which touch upon an issue that will be resolved by a petition that has already been granted (that is, a successfully appealed case currently before the Court), are frequently "held" (that is, not acted upon) until the already-granted case has been resolved by the Court. Then, instead of granting the "held" petitions, the Court will frequently remand the cases back to the lower court to be reconsidered in light of the Court's decision in the case that had been granted. This is just common practice, as it allows the lower courts to apply the most "updated" version of the relevant legal principles (the case decided). The action does not really suggest how the remanded cases should be resolved upon reconsideration, just that it is appropriate for the lower court to consider SCOTUS's most recent decision before the case is ripe for appeal (in the form of another petition after the lower court reconsiders its ruling).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's not really strange at all. This was an opinion that comes down to "employers may not be compelled to fund the purchase of contraception" and just uses a lot of words to cover it up. They opened up a legal hole big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through and then explicitly narrowed it down to basically "just contraception". The fear is that the majority decision explicitly narrowed the hole down to "these debated contraceptive methods, because we say so", and the order widens it again. The outrage yesterday about "because we say so" was limited because of how that legal hole was explicitly not unexpandable in the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
An order remanding a petition back to the lower courts for reconsideration does not alter the substance of an opinion. TPM or whoever first started that line is mischaracterizing what these orders do. The opinion says what it says. The orders remanding petitions back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Hobby Lobby opinion means "reconsider this case in light of what the Hobby Lobby opinion says."
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:And I don't see why people thought it was limited to the 4 procedures, nothing about the ruling hinged on conception. Well it is a bit galling that conservatives cast this as a fight against abortion to save every precious single-celled soul, that it's not about misogyny, it's about protecting life and then BAM! once that foot is in the door they start extending it to all birth control, abortion be damned. I mean, I could start going back through this thread and picking out all the posts accusing liberals of hysteria over birth control when the case is only about these four methods that the plaintiffs believe are abortifacients if you want... Green Crayons posted:The orders remanding petitions back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Hobby Lobby opinion means "reconsider this case in light of what the Hobby Lobby opinion says." But the AP article says that the SCOTUS is letting lower court decisions that invalidated the mandate for all contraception to stand...is it your contention that those courts will likely narrow their rulings to cover just the 4 methods at issue in yesterday's decision? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well it is a bit galling that conservatives cast this as a fight against abortion to save every precious single-celled soul, that it's not about misogyny, it's about protecting life and then BAM! once that foot is in the door they start extending it to all birth control, abortion be damned. It was always about contraception. Hobby Lobby is just the first case that got to the Supreme Court. Right from the ruling, it says quote:The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
parasyte posted:That's the holding, that because the Hobby Lobby Corporation has a sincere belief that four approved FDA methods of contraception can be abortofacients the whole contraceptive mandate is invalid. There will be no such narrowing of any other court's ruling. My understanding is that there was language in the majority opinion (which I can't find right now because in addition to posting I'm also watching a review lecture on Torts, a subject I haven't studied in four years) that indicated the holding was in fact limited to the four methods at issue in the case. The thread, and scotusblog, treated this as a narrowing of the scope, because a broader reading would be even more absurd and destructive and nonsensical than the arbitrarily narrow reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
There is no such language to indicate that the final opinion is only limited to those four that HL objected to. The mandate, ie. you must cover all FDA approved forms of birth control or face a penalty, as stated before, violates the RFRA w.r.t. closely held corporations. The exception the HHS gives to religious non-profits allows them to opt-out if they “oppose[s] providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered . . . on account of religious objections," so too that exception can apply to closely held corps according to the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:There is no such language to indicate that the final opinion is only limited to those four that HL objected to. The mandate, ie. you must cover all FDA approved forms of birth control or face a penalty, as stated before, violates the RFRA w.r.t. closely held corporations. The exception the HHS gives to religious non-profits allows them to opt-out if they “oppose[s] providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered . . . on account of religious objections," so too that exception can apply to closely held corps according to the Court. Does it really matter if it specifically includes it or not? Can any reasonable lower-court judge look at a contraceptive case, apply Hobby Lobby and the RFRA test, see that contraceptives and the pseudo-abortifacients are part of the same regulation and have the same government provided accommodation, and rule differently?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:25
|
|