Supreme court strikes down Obamacare birth control mandate

[Borgholio]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /11473189/

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that closely held corporations with religious objections to the "contraception mandate" in President Obama's health-care law cannot be forced to offer birth control coverage.

The ruling, announced on the last day of the term, came two years after the justices narrowly upheld President Obama's health care law as constitutional.

With its combination of controversial issues -- religion, abortion, contraception, the health care law, business rights and government regulations -- the case had emerged as the most controversial of the term that began in October. Groups on both sides of the debate pitting religious freedom against reproductive rights had inundated the court with briefs.

On one side were the owners of two for-profit companies -- the giant Hobby Lobby chain of crafts stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Mennonite-owned cabinet maker -- claiming they should not have to include in their insurance plans certain forms of birth control that they equate with abortion.

On the other side was the Obama administration, whose regulations implementing the health-care law make exceptions from the "contraception mandate" only for churches and religious non-profits.

Most companies with more than 50 employees who do not provide the coverage face fines of $100 per day per employee. That could cost Hobby Lobby $475 million a year for its 13,000 workers.

The companies say that intrauterine devices (IUDs) and morning-after pills cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. That is disputed by groups that lobby for reproductive rights, who contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring.

The case represented the second major one this term testing the Constitution's protection of religious rights. Last month, the court upheld the centuries-old tradition of opening government meetings with a prayer, even when nearly all the prayers are Christian.
Protesters from both sides of the birth control issue wave signs and chant slogans in front of the Supreme Court on June 30 in Washington.The court was ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, which challenged the Affordable Care Acts mandate that employee health plans must provide full contraceptive coverage. (Photo: Mark Wilson, Getty Images)

The contraceptive requirement remains the subject of more than 80 lawsuits across the country. Federal appeals courts were evenly divided on the rights of for-profit companies such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga.

The court's ruling does not affect the broader aspects of the law -- its extension of coverage to millions of needy Americans or its requirements that most others buy insurance from state or federal marketplaces.

Well...this is a thorny issue. I can actually see both sides of the coin. Just as long as the religious corporations don't see this as a sign they can use religious objections for other ways to screw over their employees.

[Edi]

That's exactly what they will do.

[Mr Bean]

Corporations are people. People can have religions, therefor Corporations will be convert to Christian scientist who believes that modern medicine is bad because Prayer fixes everything. Therefor Christian Scientist Corporations will not have to offer healthcare.

[Block]

This is a logical extension of their moronic refusal to realize that corporations may be a legally separate entity but are not in fact a person, thus can't be given the same rights as a person.

[Borgholio]

Corporations are people. People can have religions, therefor Corporations will be convert to Christian scientist who believes that modern medicine is bad because Prayer fixes everything. Therefor Christian Scientist Corporations will not have to offer healthcare.

...

DON'T give them ideas...

[Simon_Jester]

We don't have to; their lawyers are better at this than us.

The catch, I think, is that this is inevitably going to lead to a wave of abuses and the Supreme Court is going to have to confront a whole new wave of cases where a corporation claims a 'religious' right to do this, that, or the other thing.

Corporations are immortal, bodiless hive-minds; they are not human. Many of the rights that citizens of our society receive, they receive because they have human needs and limits. Corporations don't have such needs and limits.

I retain the fond hope that sooner or later, the court will realize that the root of the problem here is our legal definition of corporate personhood, and the idea that an immortal, bodiless hive-mind can have freedom of religion.

[Block]

Not til Scalia dies and Thomas is caught sexually harassing someone important.

[Spekio]

Well, this is preposterous and ripe for abuse. I would hate to be a worker in the U.S.

[TimothyC]

First, who else here is reading the actual decision?

I'm reading the syllabus the decision right now, but it looks like it is a very narrow ruling that the HHS regulations that requiring birth control funding (remember, the birth control mandate wasn't in the original ACA, but was in the HHS regulations that were required to make the ACA work) run afoul of the earlier Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

I could be wrong, but this looks like in situations of religious freedom the RFRA trumps agency written regulation.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandate, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate. Pp. 45–49

It looks to be a very narrow ruling (as most SCOTUS rulings are). I think everyone here can stop hyperventilating now.

[Simon_Jester]

As far as I can tell, this still trips over the problem that the RFRA is here being used to promote the religious freedom of a corporate employer.

My objection is that even if the corporations are "closely-held," the owner is still getting the many legal benefits of having his business incorporated.

We give corporations a lot of rights. My impression is that we can reasonably expect the corporations to honor certain responsibilities as a side-effect. Among them, we expect the corporations to be politically and religiously neutral, rather than being discriminatory.

If you wish to profit by trade, I think the state has reasonable grounds to regulate how you do business consistent with the values of the community at large, rather than letting you use a for-profit economic organ as a tool to impose your religious beliefs on others.

Conversely, if you wish your company to be an expression of your religious views, then you should register it as a nonprofit.

I get that the ruling disagrees, arguing that merchants are thus forced to choose between their religious beliefs and their profits. But I don't think this is a serious problem; you cannot necessarily honor God and Mammon at the same time.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It looks to be a very narrow ruling (as most SCOTUS rulings are). I think everyone here can stop hyperventilating now.

I don't really see how this makes it any less of a terrible decision. While there's some comfort that the wording of the ruling will make it more difficult to expand it in scope, it is still establishing a legal precedent for an incredibly idiotic, illogical, and harmful thing. There really isn't any way to justify it, and mumbling "it could be worse" sounds pretty hollow.

Besides, the narrowness of the ruling isn't going to stop moronic business owners from not realizing it is that narrow and discriminating against employees in all sorts of awful ways, claiming religious exception. Sure, when those cases filter through the court system they will likely be stricken down, but that could take years. In the mean-time, this inarguably makes things worse (or, at the very least, prevents things from possibly improving).

[Gaidin]

It looks to be a very narrow ruling (as most SCOTUS rulings are). I think everyone here can stop hyperventilating now.

I don't really see how this makes it any less of a terrible decision. While there's some comfort that the wording of the ruling will make it more difficult to expand it in scope, it is still establishing a legal precedent for an incredibly idiotic, illogical, and harmful thing. There really isn't any way to justify it, and mumbling "it could be worse" sounds pretty hollow.

Besides, the narrowness of the ruling isn't going to stop moronic business owners from not realizing it is that narrow and discriminating against employees in all sorts of awful ways, claiming religious exception. Sure, when those cases filter through the court system they will likely be stricken down, but that could take years. In the mean-time, this inarguably makes things worse (or, at the very least, prevents things from possibly improving).

I think his point is stop hyperventilating. He didn't say you had to start liking the decision. It's not exactly as far ranging as the first few posts are making it out to be, especially given, iirc, there are points in the actual decision that wall off vaccinations and blood transfusions and other things that people have begun to try to tie to religion.

[TimothyC]

I think his point is stop hyperventilating.

Yep. There was a lot of speculation early in this thread not based on the actual text of the decision.

He didn't say you had to start liking the decision.

Correct again. Heck, I'm not even sure I like the outcome (even if I think the justices ruled correctly in this case). I think the way that the contraceptive mandate was put in place was very poor, and that the HHS regulations likely did run afoul of the earlier RFRA* (please don't forget that the RFRA was passed in 1993 with a unanimous vote in the [then held by Democrats] House of Representatives and a nearly Unanimous vote [97-3] in the Democrat held Senate, before being signed by Clinton).

It's not exactly as far ranging as the first few posts are making it out to be, especially given, iirc, there are points in the actual decision that wall off vaccinations and blood transfusions and other things that people have begun to try to tie to religion.

Exactly. This is a narrow ruling, and likely only impacts closely held companies (which IIRC are often seen as extensions of their owners).

*The RFRA establishes a two part test for violating what is claimed under religious freedom:

1. Compelling Government Interest
2. The method of infringement/violation is the least restrictive.

From what I recall reading, the Majority ruled that while the first was met, the second was not. I think (I haven't finished reading it yet) that the Minority stated that they think the RFRA as a whole was unconstitutional.

[Rogue 9]

So if corporations are people, religious convictions, free expression rights, and all, when are stockholders going to be hauled to the docks for violating laws pursuant to the 13th Amendment?

[Terralthra]

Exactly. This is a narrow ruling, and likely only impacts closely held companies (which IIRC are often seen as extensions of their owners).

Something that "only" impacts about 90% of US companies is not exactly low on the priority list.

Plus, what exactly is the religious objection to hormonal birth control? It prevents ovulation, there's no "life begins at conception" argument to be made. Not to mention that a variety of women take birth control pills for non-birth control reasons, including management of PM cramps, PCOS, etc. At what point does a corporation's (laughable) ostensible "religious freedom" start to be completely intrusive into its employees' private medical decisions? What happened to the conservative talking point that government shouldn't be between a patient and a doctor. Government shouldn't interfere in the doctor/patient relationship, because that's your boss's job?

[Patroklos]

This ruling has no impact on using specific drugs that happen to used for birth control for any other purposes. There are lots of drugs that are used for multiple medical needs. I can't think of any others for the particular birth control methods in question in this case which were not hormonal so it irrelevant here but I see you are looking to the future.

As to the government not being between a patient and their doctor that is a hilarious claim given that the ACA is basically the equivalent of the governement sticking its finger in the asshole of that relationship as well as your relationship with your employer. Think your rhetoric through a little more please.

[Highlord Laan]

This is what happens when Paleocons get stacked in a court. Now it's more important than ever to make sure the fanatic neanderthal bastards don't win the Senate.

[Broomstick]

Plus, what exactly is the religious objection to hormonal birth control? It prevents ovulation, there's no "life begins at conception" argument to be made.

First, there are people who believe ANY form of birth control is immoral. See "quiverful" movement.

Then there's the Catholic Church, which disapproves of any method outside "natural" or "rhythm" method. Of course, the Catholic Church's position has been around for ages, and largely ignored by American Catholics anyhow. If you work for the Catholic Church or one of its close subsidiaries they won't buy birth control of any sort for you, although if I recall correctly they will pay for those same medications to treat other issues.

I'm not familiar with the Conestoga Woodworking company or whatever it's called exactly, but from what I understand the Hobby Lobby owners' objections are not to conception preventing hormonal birth control but to post-conception birth control, which does exist. Thus, no IUD's, which are believed to prevent implantation, and no "emergency contraception" like Plan B and the "morning after" pills. It's a more nuanced position than simply "we won't pay for birth control".

I somewhat have a dog in this race as my current employer is also one of those "closely-held" corporations under the control of a single family. Fortunately, in my case, that family is OK with things like birth control and pretty progressive overall. Very much of the "what you do on your own time is your business attitude", has same-sex benefits, will only drug-test you if they have reason to believe you have a drug problem, and while they do have guidelines about discussing your employer in social media the rules are simple, sensible, and clearly spelled out - otherwise, they don't give a flip what you're discussing. In other words, what you'd want in an employer.

I'll make another comparison between Hobby Lobby and my employer as well - both are positive are allowing employees time for worship/religion and family, but Hobby Lobby puts that as Sundays. They even have it posted on their front doors: "We are closed Sundays to allow our employees time for worship and family". Sucks if you have other requirements. My employer, however, doesn't mandate a particular day. You let them know you're a Sunday church-goer or Saturday synagogue goer or Friday mosque-goer they'll work around that (because, if you think about it for a minute, all those folks can cover the days the other group isn't there).

I'm also appreciative that, three weeks after I was hired, they allowed me to take a week off to visit family in Buffalo. Of course, I brought that up during the hiring process, but the point is a lot of employers would not do that.

[Gandalf]

On the upside, this might get more people onto the idea of a more socialised healthcare system, like that in... the rest of the civilised world.

[Borgholio]

On the upside, this might get more people onto the idea of a more socialised healthcare system, like that in... the rest of the civilised world.

HAH

Yeah...that's funny.

[General Zod]

What really grates me about this whole mess, is that there's absolutely no test to determine if someone's "deeply held religious beliefs" are sincere or not. This means that theoretically anyone can make a challenge whether they actually practice what they preach, or if they just pulled it out of their ass to avoid paying for stuff they don't like.

How great of a burden to their religious beliefs can paying for these methods possibly be if they're more than happy to invest heavily in a company that develops birth control?

[Elheru Aran]

How great of a burden to their religious beliefs can paying for these methods possibly be if they're more than happy to invest heavily in a company that develops birth control?

Not to mention sourcing something like 80% of their shitty product (seriously, visit one of their stores someday. Knick-knacks everywhere as far as you can see, and they start selling Christmas shit in July) from China, a nation considered infamous among the religious right thanks to their hyperbolic visions of its family-planning and religious policies. If they were serious about their beliefs, they wouldn't touch China with a ten-foot pole apart from funding missionary efforts there... but nope. It's all about the bottom dollar. With Conestoga, they're a Mennonite company that does furniture and such IIRC, made in the US. Those guys get a bit more sympathy from me on the economic front.

[TimothyC]

From further reading, it does look like the reason the regulations (remember, the requirements for the types of birth control in question were NOT included in the text of the ACA, but were in the HHS regulations written as a result of the ACA) were found invalid is because there are other less religiously intrusive methods of providing the coverage via funding of both state and local health organizations, as well as groups like Planned Parenthood (which is already done).

To be candid about the outcome of Burnwell v. Hobby Lobby, I honestly think that providing coverage for morning-after meds is more important than insurance coverage for other forms of contraception, mostly because the situations I see the greatest need for the morning after meds are those that in theory are the least predictable.

[Broken]

From further reading, it does look like the reason the regulations (remember, the requirements for the types of birth control in question were NOT included in the text of the ACA, but were in the HHS regulations written as a result of the ACA) were found invalid is because there are other less religiously intrusive methods of providing the coverage via funding of both state and local health organizations, as well as groups like Planned Parenthood (which is already done).

To be candid about the outcome of Burnwell v. Hobby Lobby, I honestly think that providing coverage for morning-after meds is more important than insurance coverage for other forms of contraception, mostly because the situations I see the greatest need for the morning after meds are those that in theory are the least predictable.

Oh, don't worry, the Supreme Court clarified matters on Tuesday. Not only are the "abortifacients" the Hobby Lobby objected to (even though apparently they don't work they way the Hobby Lobby executives think they do, so their beliefs > facts) covered by this ruling, so are ALL of the contraception methods covered by the ACA. I'm pretty sure Viagra is still covered though.

Even though Alito doesn't think “a flood of religious objections regarding a wide variety of medical procedures and drugs, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions.” is incoming or that racial discrimination could not “be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction.” I don't think we have heard the last of "closely held" (aka 90% or so of American corporations) businesses flexing their newly acquired religious freedoms. It will be interesting (and horrifying) to see what comes of Ginsberg's dissent "Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?".

[Broomstick]

Two things:

First, how is "closely held" legally defined for a corporation?

And second - I wish to clarify that in medical matters the vast majority of Jews do NOT object to using pig-derived items. Under Jewish law preserving life trumps the bias against pigs, which applies to eating them and not other uses. Even so, in times of famine or, for example, when Jews were deliberately starved in Nazi camps, the rules regarding kosher and non-kosher food are suspended, again, because preserving life takes precedence.

Muslims are the ones who regard pigs as unclean not just for eating purposes but for all purposes. I am not conversant with their stance on pig-derived medical things, though.