US Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case

**Pazu the Kitsune** · July 01, 2014, 09:06 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/hobby-lobby-...oodgate-256990

For those unfamiliar with this, basically the Hobby Lobby petitioned that it shouldnt have to cover the cost of contraceptives in its healthcare plan, took the case to the supreme court, and the Supreme Court ruled that it didnt have to......all over Facebook now all I see is rage against this ruling.

I really dont understand why though. If a company doesnt want to cover the cost of contraceptives for its employees then it shouldnt have to.....realistically a company doesnt even need to cover health insurance for its employees, since nobody is forcing anybody to work there....so why all this anger? If I started my own company why should I be forced to do something with it that I dont want to?

**snuggans** · July 01, 2014, 09:08 PM

justice ruth bader ginsburg is my hero

**alex man142** · July 01, 2014, 09:17 PM

As sympathetic as I am towards the opposition, one should not forced to choose between violating one's beliefs or closing down the business. I agree with the decision wholeheartedly. @OP, I'm different; I've seen nothing but praise

**Phier** · July 01, 2014, 09:48 PM

They were only against BC which could cause an abortion. This is one of those things which got blown out of proportion. I heard women whining and fuming that they wouldn't have been able to get hormonal BC for medical reasons blah blah blah.

I'm actually proud of the mudpit, it took a full day to get here.

**IZob** · July 02, 2014, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Pazu the Kitsune

http://www.newsweek.com/hobby-lobby-...oodgate-256990

For those unfamiliar with this, basically the Hobby Lobby petitioned that it shouldnt have to cover the cost of contraceptives in its healthcare plan, took the case to the supreme court, and the Supreme Court ruled that it didnt have to......all over Facebook now all I see is rage against this ruling.

I really dont understand why though. If a company doesnt want to cover the cost of contraceptives for its employees then it shouldnt have to.....realistically a company doesnt even need to cover health insurance for its employees, since nobody is forcing anybody to work there....so why all this anger? If I started my own company why should I be forced to do something with it that I dont want to?

Maybe its to do with the limited health coverage in the US. Obama care doesn't cover everything(?) and so that puts some of the onus on companies to fill in those gaps through their health insurance.

**tarvu** · July 02, 2014, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by IZob

Maybe its to do with the limited health coverage in the US. Obama care doesn't cover everything(?) and so that puts some of the onus on companies to fill in those gaps through their health insurance.

I don't think you understand what Obamacare is, it is not public healthcare.

The only state healthcare we have in the United States is Medicare/Medicaid for the elderly (over 65) and certain (very limited) qualifying individuals.

Obamacare is still paid private health insurance, it is the same as employee based healthcare except instead of being in a group with other employees you are on an exchange (large group within state, with fixed price ~$4,500/yr in Colorado for a working adult who makes a livable wage).

Very few people are on "Obamacare", most adults/families have insurance through their employer. Part of the affordable care act sought to improve health plans by mandating equal coverage for many things including women's healthcare (so they could not be discriminated against by insurance carriers). This ruling struck down the ability for women, and anyone else from receiving equal treatment when it comes to their health insurance if their employer objects to any coverage because of "religious reasons".

It is an absolute atrocity that Hobby Lobby is allowed to get away with this, it is not as if these employees can simply opt out of their employer provided healthcare and get "obamacare". Benefits are a major part of the compensation packages of most jobs in the United States, you do not get a cash equivelent to their worth if you want to actually choose your health plan. With individual insurance still being prohibitively expensive, this is just punishing women who wanted a career in craft goods at Hobby Lobby because they live alone with a dozen cats rather than because they are

ing nutty repressed conservative christians like the founder/owner.

God help us if the Christian Scientists buy a grocery chain and the only thing their employees can have covered are free bibles for praying away the sickness. What of coverage for sexual transmitted diseases? Surely that will come under attack by these fundamentalists soon enough as well.

**conon394** · July 02, 2014, 07:28 AM

@Pazu the Kitsune

Well the is more and less than meets the eye about the case for me.

First one thing I think a lot of people miss is that this was an interpretation of Federal laws not a constitutional matter - in this case the application of the RFRA. So at any time congress could simply past a law excepting the affordable care act from the RFRA.

For me the real problem is that it continues a march of making corporations super wealthy, undead super super citizens. Corporations are legal fictions they do not deserve the rights of real live people.

Beyond that there is the rather massive hypocrisy of at least Hobby Lobby in that until what 2012 there own insure plans offered the very coverage they objected too. Until just when they started their case which implies to a rather political aim not some long held practice (company was founded in 1972).

I would also add that its a bit disconcerting to see a narrow majority of old men decide this case and decide aspects of ADA are a burden on somebody's religion but then also claim this a specific supposedly narrow finding - but rather seem to ignore the burden to a lot of women that's OK but not say blood transfusion hey that could hurt men -directly.

On the plus side (for me) Ginsburg's dissent clearly lays out the ground work that this is a violation of the establishment clause - a case in constitutional law. In this I think she is clearly correct I seriously doubt that if the same objection had been raised by say Christian Science demanding they need only pray for health care it would have been accepted. Nor do I think a 'closely held' company owned by Wabbi Sunni believers would have got the same treatment by the narrow majority.

Finally The court's increasing detachment from actual science is on display again give they seem to understand what or how an IUD works. I guess its a bit to icky to think about lady parts...

All in all it is still a ludicrous decision since the religious burden the family owners object to is one they have apparently been carrying for dozens of years but only now don't want to and I can't really see how their rather not supported by science beliefs trump the burden of thousands of women (employees and dependents) who of course have their own beliefs as well.

**GrnEyedDvl** · July 02, 2014, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by tarvu

It is an absolute atrocity that Hobby Lobby is allowed to get away with this, it is not as if these employees can simply opt out of their employer provided healthcare and get "obamacare". Benefits are a major part of the compensation packages of most jobs in the United States, you do not get a cash equivelent to their worth if you want to actually choose your health plan. With individual insurance still being prohibitively expensive, this is just punishing women who wanted a career in craft goods at Hobby Lobby because they live alone with a dozen cats rather than because they are

ing nutty repressed conservative christians like the founder/owner.

I suggest you actually go and read this ruling. The company still provides 16 of the 20 required by the HHS mandate. They only objected to the ones which prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. Stuff like the "morning after pill". Normal contraceptives and things like vasectomy are still covered. I know all the media outlets other than Fox made a blanket statement about not covering "birth control" but that is because its part of their agenda. Take this from NBC as an example.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ontrol-n144321

That is a flat out lie. They are still mandated (and still want to) cover the 16 choices that prevent the egg from ever being fertilized, or even prevent the egg from being there in the first place. Nowhere in this article does it mention that there are 16 choices still available to their employees. Nowhere in this article does it say the entire case was about 4 procedures. CNN, ABC, the NY Times, and Time handled it the same way.

They told you part of the story, not the entire story, and they did it just to get you worked up. When you see people talk about "media bias" this is exactly what they mean. They took the news and deliberately removed part of it so it would fit into their agenda.

**Condottiere 40K** · July 02, 2014, 01:21 AM

On the pragmatic side, I'd prefer not to have my employees apply for maternity leave, unless I didn't have to pay for it and their position is a plug and play slot.

**conon394** · July 02, 2014, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K

On the pragmatic side, I'd prefer not to have my employees apply for maternity leave, unless I didn't have to pay for it and their position is a plug and play slot.

That's right all those women should be barefoot in the kitchen or just pop that baby out and go back to the rice field...

**Ciciro** · July 02, 2014, 01:27 AM

Wait, so i don't have to pay taxes if my religion is against it? Whats to stop someone from claiming they sincerely believe taxes are from the devil, so they shouldn't have to pay them?

**Geronimo2006** · July 02, 2014, 07:48 AM

I'm a liberal from Europe but even I find it puzzling that contraception should be included in a health insurance plan. No wonder it's so expensive in the states! The virgins and celibates are paying for the frisky to have safe sex.

**conon394** · July 02, 2014, 07:59 AM

I'm a liberal from Europe but even I find it puzzling that contraception should be included in a health insurance plan

Why getting pregnant or not certainly impacts a women's health. The Glib response is the Viagra is routinely and uncontroversially covered. So a man's ability to have sex is important but not a women's to control what happens when she has sex? Again consider that many women do not tolerate the hormone approach of typical birth control and thus a simple IUD is in fact a more healthy choice - is that not health care?

**Geronimo2006** · July 02, 2014, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by conon394

Why getting pregnant or not certainly impacts a women's health. The Glib response is the Viagra is routinely and uncontroversially covered. So a man's ability to have sex is important but not a women's to control what happens when she has sex? Again consider that many women do not tolerate the hormone approach of typical birth control and thus a simple IUD is in fact a more healthy choice - is that not health care?

The man is also effected certainly financially by a pregnancy.

**Phier** · July 02, 2014, 08:01 AM

Hormonal BC is $9 a month from the major chain drug stores.

**conon394** · July 02, 2014, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

Hormonal BC is $9 a month from the major chain drug stores.

Again the point would not all women tolerate it well - other approaches are more expensive.

I would also point out Hobby Lobby gets a tax credit for health care compensation, but not for regular wages. So by bypassing the contraception mandate are they burdening somewhat unfairly and apparently female employees and or dependents while just sort of because just noticing a loop hole?

**Phier** · July 02, 2014, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by conon394

Again the point would not all women tolerate it well - other approaches are more expensive.

I would also point out Hobby Lobby gets a tax credit for health care compensation, but not for regular wages. So by bypassing the contraception mandate are they burdening somewhat unfairly and apparently female employees and or dependents while just sort of because just noticing a loop hole?

Being the only form of birth control hobby lobby was opposed to were the ones which were known to cause abortion or stop implantation of a fertilized egg, I'm failing to see why this matters as a cost/benefit type of thing. I doubt this will be saving hobby lobby any money.

**conon394** · July 02, 2014, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

Being the only form of birth control hobby lobby was opposed to were the ones which were known to cause abortion or stop implantation of a fertilized egg, I'm failing to see why this matters as a cost/benefit type of thing. I doubt this will be saving hobby lobby any money.

IUDs are abortion - since when? The second question is why the beliefs of a few owners of hobby lobby trump the beliefs of the employees. And third how come these beliefs just materiaized in 2012?

**Phier** · July 02, 2014, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by conon394

IUDs are abortion - since when? The second question is why the beliefs of a few owners of hobby lobby trump the beliefs of the employees. And third how come these beliefs just materiaized in 2012?

Well....

http://ec.princeton.edu/info/eciud.html