Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thanks Tree14Thanks

Thread: When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women

  1. #1
    Trumpaloompa Tormenter Cicero's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    36,825
    Thanks
    23800

    From
    Virginia

    When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women

    When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women And Not Just Birth Control

    By Ian Millhiser on March 23, 2014 at 9:30 am

    "On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga Wood Specialties’ claims that they should be exempt from their legal obligations to provide a full range of health coverage — in this case, contraceptive care for women — because they object to providing this coverage on religious grounds. Yet, for women who worked for a California private school in the 1980s, this lawsuit must feel like déjŕ vu. Nearly three decades ago, the Fremont Christian School claimed a similar right to deny health coverage to its female employees, citing its religious beliefs as justification for doing so. Fremont Christian’s case does bear one important difference from Hobby Lobby’s, however, they did not just want to deny birth control to their employees — they wanted to deny all health coverage to many of the women in their employ.

    Fremont was owned by a church which claimed that “in any marriage, the husband is the head of the household and is required to provide for that household.” Because of this belief, they had a very unusual compensation package for their employees — though Fremont offered a health plan to its workers, the plan was only available to “heads of households” which Fremont interpreted to mean single people or married men. When a woman became married, she was to rely on her husband for health care. "
    When 'Religious Liberty' Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women And Not Just Birth Control | ThinkProgress

    First, let's dispose of Hobby Lobby's primary argument, that they don't oppose any contraceptives...but rather only use of the "Plan B" pill (and equivalents), as well as IUDs, as abortifacients.

    "The Greens contend that the ACA's requirement that health insurance plans cover contraception will force them to choose between violating their religious beliefs or suffer huge financial penalties for violating the law. They don't object to covering all contraception, only the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella and intrauterine devices (IUDs), which they (erroneously) believe are abortifacients... The company argues that emergency contraception pills, such as Ella and Plan B, destroy fertilized eggs by interfering with implantation in the uterus. Hobby Lobby's owners consider this abortion. But the pills don't work that way. When Plan B first came on the market in 1999, its mechanism for preventing unplanned pregnancies wasn't entirely clear. That's why the FDA-approved labeling reflected some uncertainty and said that the pills "theoretically" prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. Since then, though, there has been a lot of research on how these pills work, and the findings are definitive: They prevent pregnancy by blocking ovulation. In fact, they don't work once ovulation has occurred. As Corbin recently wrote in a law review article, "Every reputable scientific study to examine Plan B's mechanism has concluded that these pills prevent fertilization from occurring in the first place…In short, Plan B is contraception... (IUDs generally work like spermicide, preventing conception.)"

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ourt-obamacare

    These facts are not open to dispute. Even the Catholic Church and the bioethics center at Christian Cedarville University accept these facts AS facts. Unfortunately the scientific facts are not before the Supreme Court (if they were this case would be resolved in a matter of seconds.)

    What is before the Supreme Court is whether the business is distinguishable from the owners. If the answer is "yes" then Hobby Lobby's case must fail, because the owners' belief systems do not govern. If the answer is "no", then the SCOTUS opens the door to a bunch of unintended consequences, not the least of which is to overturn (in fact) all the protections the law affords the CEOs and Corporate Officers in the matter of being sued for the bad acts (or negligence) of their corporations. One cannot claim that the identity and values of the company are identical (and inseparable) from those of the corporate officers (in the matter of religious values governing how the company operates) and then claim that they are separate entities in all other matters. A secondary concern is that deciding in favor of Hobby Lobby necessitates that the court either open the door to ALL religious objections to all laws OR it must pick and choose among the cults and faiths (thereby placing themselves squarely in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.)

    If Hobby Lobby prevails, then it is not (by any means) a stretch to say that we could see a long series of judicial "reversals" which would have the potential to resurrect the Freemont Christian School's argument...with a corresponding harm to women, everywhere, in the United States.
    Last edited by Cicero; 23rd March 2014 at 07:44 AM.
    Thanks from OldGaffer, labrea, Redwood and 3 others

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    28,898
    Thanks
    3537

    We did a whole thread on this. The OP presentation of this thread is skewed and biased. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS handles this and I think we have already covered the breadth and depth of the issues involved. But hey, repetition can be fun, even though we have 1,327 posts on the topic

    Thank You, Hobby Lobby

  3. #3
    Trumpaloompa Tormenter Cicero's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    36,825
    Thanks
    23800

    From
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    We did a whole thread on this. The OP presentation of this thread is skewed and biased. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS handles this and I think we have already covered the breadth and depth of the issues involved. But hey, repetition can be fun, even though we have 1,327 posts on the topic

    Thank You, Hobby Lobby
    Nope, but I'm not surprised YOU would try to deflect from the question at hand.
    I get it that you don't want to discuss the unintended consequences of the Hobby Lobby decision, if it goes in their favor. Neither do you want people to know how "Christian Businesses" have tried to discriminate against women in the past.
    Thanks from Friday13

  4. #4
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,758
    Thanks
    4326

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
    When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women And Not Just Birth Control

    By Ian Millhiser on March 23, 2014 at 9:30 am

    "On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga Wood Specialties’ claims that they should be exempt from their legal obligations to provide a full range of health coverage — in this case, contraceptive care for women — because they object to providing this coverage on religious grounds. Yet, for women who worked for a California private school in the 1980s, this lawsuit must feel like déjŕ vu. Nearly three decades ago, the Fremont Christian School claimed a similar right to deny health coverage to its female employees, citing its religious beliefs as justification for doing so. Fremont Christian’s case does bear one important difference from Hobby Lobby’s, however, they did not just want to deny birth control to their employees — they wanted to deny all health coverage to many of the women in their employ.

    Fremont was owned by a church which claimed that “in any marriage, the husband is the head of the household and is required to provide for that household.” Because of this belief, they had a very unusual compensation package for their employees — though Fremont offered a health plan to its workers, the plan was only available to “heads of households” which Fremont interpreted to mean single people or married men. When a woman became married, she was to rely on her husband for health care. "
    When 'Religious Liberty' Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women And Not Just Birth Control | ThinkProgress

    First, let's dispose of Hobby Lobby's primary argument, that they don't oppose any contraceptives...but rather only use of the "Plan B" pill (and equivalents), as well as IUDs, as abortifacients.

    "The Greens contend that the ACA's requirement that health insurance plans cover contraception will force them to choose between violating their religious beliefs or suffer huge financial penalties for violating the law. They don't object to covering all contraception, only the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella and intrauterine devices (IUDs), which they (erroneously) believe are abortifacients... The company argues that emergency contraception pills, such as Ella and Plan B, destroy fertilized eggs by interfering with implantation in the uterus. Hobby Lobby's owners consider this abortion. But the pills don't work that way. When Plan B first came on the market in 1999, its mechanism for preventing unplanned pregnancies wasn't entirely clear. That's why the FDA-approved labeling reflected some uncertainty and said that the pills "theoretically" prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. Since then, though, there has been a lot of research on how these pills work, and the findings are definitive: They prevent pregnancy by blocking ovulation. In fact, they don't work once ovulation has occurred. As Corbin recently wrote in a law review article, "Every reputable scientific study to examine Plan B's mechanism has concluded that these pills prevent fertilization from occurring in the first place…In short, Plan B is contraception... (IUDs generally work like spermicide, preventing conception.)"

    Are You There God? It's Me, Hobby Lobby | Mother Jones

    These facts are not open to dispute. Even the Catholic Church and the bioethics center at Christian Cedarville University accept these facts AS facts. Unfortunately the scientific facts are not before the Supreme Court (if they were this case would be resolved in a matter of seconds.)

    What is before the Supreme Court is whether the business is distinguishable from the owners. If the answer is "yes" then Hobby Lobby's case must fail, because the owners' belief systems do not govern. If the answer is "no", then the SCOTUS opens the door to a bunch of unintended consequences, not the least of which is to overturn (in fact) all the protections the law affords the CEOs and Corporate Officers in the matter of being sued for the bad acts (or negligence) of their corporations. One cannot claim that the identity and values of the company are identical (and inseparable) from those of the corporate officers (in the matter of religious values governing how the company operates) and then claim that they are separate entities in all other matters. A secondary concern is that deciding in favor of Hobby Lobby necessitates that the court either open the door to ALL religious objections to all laws OR it must pick and choose among the cults and faiths (thereby placing themselves squarely in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.)

    If Hobby Lobby prevails, then it is not (by any means) a stretch to say that we could see a long series of judicial "reversals" which would have the potential to resurrect the Freemont Christian School's argument...with a corresponding harm to women, everywhere, in the United States.
    A VERY strong post. Whatever you FEEL about the details.. this is a PROBLEM in that it can change the foundations of "Law" in several key ways.

    Is " it's my religion" a catch all excuse to avoid whatever law,rule,regulation? That really opens Pandoras box, as you can INVENT a Religion...then claim some privelege or exemption based on that.

    Being a CORPORATION...seperates the BUSINESS as an entity from the owner or owners...To cherry pick how it's a corporation...sometimes..and a proprietorship at others... scrambles up everything.

    Hobby Lobby...in theory..COULD figure out the average cost of contraception... give EACH female employee that amount in CASH.. and provide a policy that does not directly pay for contraception... thus...leaving individual employees the RIGHT to choose either way. Were it just about the RELIGIOUS angle...and not MONEY... that would have obviously been a clean compromise...but it COSTS MORE. THIS? Hobby Lobby wants to SAVE SOME $... they do not want to pay out MORE $...to stand for whatever religious dogma. They want the ADVANTAGE of incorporation but the advantages on NON incorporation. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
    Thanks from Cicero

  5. #5
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44,200
    Thanks
    20625

    From
    Vulcan
    On the other hand, when it is a privately-held corporation, rather than a publicly-traded one, does that make a difference?

  6. #6
    enduring patience Blackjack 4 Champion, Spurs Poker Solitaire Champion, Free Cell Solitaire Champion, Joker Poker Web Champion, P O K E R Champion, Texas Holdem Poker Champion, Deuces Wild Champion, Spider Solitare Four Suit Champion, Solitaire Champion, Fruit Slots Champion, Slingo Bonus Bet 21 Jumbo Champion, Centipede Classic Champion, Marble Motion Champion, Yeti Sports 1 Long Ass Shot  Champion, Hollywood Hotel Champion, Pub Quiz Champion Vortex's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    19,921
    Thanks
    6943

    From
    home
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    We did a whole thread on this. The OP presentation of this thread is skewed and biased. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS handles this and I think we have already covered the breadth and depth of the issues involved. But hey, repetition can be fun, even though we have 1,327 posts on the topic

    Thank You, Hobby Lobby

    Your posts are skewed and biased, as you ignore Federal law and precedence.

    https://www.vwc.edu/center-for-the-s...eflections.php

    Or read this editorial which clearly explains the legal issues.

    The legal question is whether the contraception coverage rule violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which says government may not “substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion” unless the burden is necessary to further a “compelling government interest” and does so by “the least restrictive means.”

    There are several reasons why the court should find that the law does not apply, starting with the fact that secular, for-profit corporations are not “persons” capable of prayer or other religious behavior, which is a quintessentially human activity. Also, as an amicus brief filed by corporate law scholars persuasively argues, granting the religious exemption to the owners would mean allowing shareholders to pass their religious values to the corporation. The fundamental principle of corporate law is a corporation’s existence as a legal entity with rights and obligations separate from those of its shareholders.

    The claim that the contraception coverage rules put a “substantial burden” on religious exercise is very weak. The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose and to argue (incorrectly) as much as they want that some of the contraceptive drugs and devices on the F.D.A.’s list actually induce abortions. If an employee decides to use an insurance plan for such contraceptives, that would be a personal decision. It does not burden religious exercise.

    Finally, as Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, has emphasized on the legal blog Balkinization, employers are not actually required to offer employee health plans. They could instead pay a tax to help support the government subsidies that are available to those using a health insurance exchange.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/op...f=opinion&_r=0
    Last edited by Vortex; 23rd March 2014 at 12:02 PM.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Cicero

  7. #7
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44,200
    Thanks
    20625

    From
    Vulcan
    The reason there's no burden on "religious exercise" is because there is no such thing as the religious freedom to prevent others from violating your religious principles.
    Thanks from Cicero, Vortex and Friday13

  8. #8
    Trumpaloompa Tormenter Cicero's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    36,825
    Thanks
    23800

    From
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    On the other hand, when it is a privately-held corporation, rather than a publicly-traded one, does that make a difference?
    I wouldn't know. I don't know enough about the differences in how they are incorporated, or, indeed, if any such differences exist. I would speculate that the answer is no, but that would just be a guess. In what way does being a privately-held corporation allow one to move back and forth between personas (corporate and individual) allowing one to reap the benefits of both and avoid the downside of either? Is that even possible?

  9. #9
    Precious Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    44,534
    Thanks
    20881

    From
    Ohio
    If they don't even provide health care to their workers, why is their shit so expensive?

    I made my living making woodcrafts for quite sometime and when they built a Hobby Lobby here I thought it would be a good place to shop for supplies.

    But their priced are ridiculous. How do they even stay in business?

  10. #10
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10,470
    Thanks
    12532

    From
    SoCal
    That really opens Pandoras box, as you can INVENT a Religion...then claim some privelege or exemption based on that.
    ALL religions are INVENTED. They are human constructs, not natural laws.
    Thanks from Cicero

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 5th October 2010, 02:08 AM
  2. Thousands of women rally to protest Health Care Refrom
    By Dr.Knuckles in forum World Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22nd March 2010, 03:50 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th February 2010, 02:42 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd October 2008, 11:55 AM
  5. California to deny Smokers Health Benefits and Cut Welfare
    By johnnyoc in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th June 2007, 10:49 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed