[perrjojo]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

I take a different approach to analyzing this decision.

1. Critics of the decision object to the view that a corporation should be regarded as a "person." However, it is long established law that a corporation has legal standing as a person.

2. As I understand it, the decision relied heavily upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed into law by President Clinton, which applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."

The law is aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

Apparently the writers of Obamacare failed to "explicitly exclude" application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Obamacare, so the rights of the "person" (Hobby Lobby) were preserved in this case.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Hobby Lobby's insurance does provide for sixteen different methods of birth control. What they objected to paying for was four methods that destroy a fertilized egg, which they regarded as abortion, contrary to their religious beliefs.

The issue was not about birth control, but about abortion.

3. People who object to the decision based upon concerns about employers whose religious beliefs might make them object to paying for insurance that provides blood transfusions, etc. miss the point.

The point is that the law as currently written was followed. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to decide.

What might the court decide in a future case about other closely held corporations with different religious beliefs remains to be seen. It could take years for a similar case to work its way up through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

If it is foreseen that the law as currently written and enforced could have extremely negative consequences in the future it is the duty of the Congress to change the laws, not of the Supreme Court to make a decision contrary to current law.

.

At last soeone who really understands and has the ability to verbalized what many of use have failed to articulate. Thank you Carl.

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by biker1

Check the facts of the case. This was about 4 forms of abortion-inducing birth control. Hobby Lobby did provide and will continue to provide 16 other forms of birth control.

It's obvious that you are a man.

Four forms of birth control that they will not cover, eh? Well, one of them is an IUD and according to everyone BUT Hobby Lobby, it is NOT a form of abortion; it is a medically approved form of birth control!

So the Supreme Court sez in so many words (my version, short and sweet) . . . Okay, Hobby Lobby must be correct. We can't take the word of the medical profession or scientists. If HL says it's a form of abortion, it must be.

I have an idea! Hobby Lobby should pay for vasectomies for all their male employees. Let them help to correct the issue before it even happens, okay? Furthermore, that should be a requirement for any male with whom they do business, including all the Chinese who probably supply 80% of their stores' inventory. We all know how the Chinese feel about female babies, don't we???

Yes -- pretty stupid. Well, it's as stupid as not providing full medical coverage to a woman. I am tired of men making decisions for women. Women have been maligned for too many reasons and too many years. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby has no right to bring that kind of religious belief into the workplace. They are a commercial business and not a monastery, convent or church. Being closed on Sunday harms no one.

The ONLY reason this got through the Supreme Court is because of the religious beliefs of five of them, and that is shameful! Obviously, the separation of church and state no longer exists.

Trust me. This is only the beginning. We haven't heard the last of this one!

[njbchbum]

Bonanza - Would you be so good as to provide the website where you read the supreme court decision that allowed you to form the opinions you stated in post #92. I would like to read it and try to understand where your thoughts were formed.

Would also like to know which IUD does NOT prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

Thanks

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Bonanza - Would you be so good as to provide the website where you read the supreme court decision that allowed you to form the opinions you stated in post #92. I would like to read it and try to understand where your thoughts were formed.

Would also like to know which IUD does NOT prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

On a serious note, I have read so many articles online and heard so many national news broadcasts, I couldn't even guess where I heard or read any of them. If you Google Hobby Lobby I'm sure you will be able to read most of the articles I've read.

I'm not sure what thoughts or opinions of mine you are referring to, but I would be happy to expand if you let me know specifically, what you mean.

I am not in the medical profession so I couldn't possibly go into detail about any of the many IUDs in use today. But if an egg is fertilized, it is already "implanted," no?

My bottom line is that I am angry -- very angry, at the way women are treated in this world. It's everything from getting the same pay for the same job as a man, to women who are stoned to death because they married a man their family did not choose for them, to a woman's right to choose, to female Chinese babies left on the side of the road, to Hobby Lobby's stand on incomplete health insurance for women. The list could go on and on ad infinitum. THAT is where I am coming from.

[biker1]

OK, lets go point-by-point.

1) IUDs actually prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and are therefore as much of a form of abortion as the morning after pill.

2) Abortion is a form of birth control, not one that is acceptable to the owners of Hobby Lobby.

3) I suspect that vasectomies are covered by Hobby Lobby's health insurance plan. It is not a form of abortion.

4) The Supreme Court made a ruling based on an existing Law - The Religion Freedom Restoration Act. That is what the Supreme Court does - they interpret the existing laws. They don't make new laws - that is the role of Congress. If you want Hobby Lobby to have some specific requirements to do business with the Chinese you should right your Congressman and Senator because the Supreme Court has nothing to do with that.

5) According the Law and the interpretation of the Law by the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby has every right to decide not to pay for abortions. If you don't like the Law, write your Congressman and Senator.

6) Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court are not making any decisions about woman's health. They are simply saying that when it come to abortion inducing forms of birth control they aren't going to pay for them. An employee of Hobby Lobby is free to purchase those on their own.

Originally Posted by Bonanza

It's obvious that you are a man.

Four forms of birth control that they will not cover, eh? Well, one of them is an IUD and according to everyone BUT Hobby Lobby, it is NOT a form of abortion; it is a medically approved form of birth control!

So the Supreme Court sez in so many words (my version, short and sweet) . . . Okay, Hobby Lobby must be correct. We can't take the word of the medical profession or scientists. If HL says it's a form of abortion, it must be.

I have an idea! Hobby Lobby should pay for vasectomies for all their male employees. Let them help to correct the issue before it even happens, okay? Furthermore, that should be a requirement for any male with whom they do business, including all the Chinese who probably supply 80% of their stores' inventory. We all know how the Chinese feel about female babies, don't we???

Yes -- pretty stupid. Well, it's as stupid as not providing full medical coverage to a woman. I am tired of men making decisions for women. Women have been maligned for too many reasons and too many years. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby has no right to bring that kind of religious belief into the workplace. They are a commercial business and not a monastery, convent or church. Being closed on Sunday harms no one.

The ONLY reason this got through the Supreme Court is because of the religious beliefs of five of them, and that is shameful! Obviously, the separation of church and state no longer exists.

Trust me. This is only the beginning. We haven't heard the last of this one!

[Taltarzac725]

Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision: Alito’s argument is stronger than Ginsburg’s.

Here's an article by a U of Chicago Law Professor that discusses the Hobby Lobby case.

I would like to see one written by a female Law Professor though.

Here are some more opinions by leaders in the Law Profession on this decision-- http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/30/...-lobby-ruling/

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

On a serious note, I have read so many articles online and heard so many national news broadcasts, I couldn't even guess where I heard or read any of them. If you Google Hobby Lobby I'm sure you will be able to read most of the articles I've read.

I'm not sure what thoughts or opinions of mine you are referring to, but I would be happy to expand if you let me know specifically, what you mean.

I am not in the medical profession so I couldn't possibly go into detail about any of the many IUDs in use today. But if an egg is fertilized, it is already "implanted," no?

My bottom line is that I am angry -- very angry, at the way women are treated in this world. It's everything from getting the same pay for the same job as a man, to women who are stoned to death because they married a man their family did not choose for them, to a woman's right to choose, to female Chinese babies left on the side of the road, to Hobby Lobby's stand on incomplete health insurance for women. The list could go on and on ad infinitum. THAT is where I am coming from.

Thanx for that response, Bonanza, it explained everything I needed to know. Since you know as little about the Hobby Lobby decision as you know about women's reproductive health, perhaps you might try reading this pdf file of the decision: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/im...3-354_olp1.pdf [copy/paste the link into your browser]

It probably won't change your mind but it should change your awareness of what the real issues were in reaching the decision. The Judges words are the facts as opposed to the sound bites and rants of the talking heads you have listened to. The Judges were playing to the law - talking heads are playing to an audience they want to attract and/or keep.

[PS If you believe H.L. provides incomplete health ins for women because it will not pay the premium for 4 types of contraceptive care, know that the ACA also then provides incomplete health ins for women since it requires coverage for less than all of the contraceptive medications that are available to women.]

[blueash]

I am not an attorney. My understanding of the decision is not that it was in any way at all as claimed by post Carl an abortion case. It was a case that said the provisions of the ACA requiring all qualifying insurances to cover a particular list of services including woman's health services should or should not be enforced. The law Carl mentions giving religious exemptions was narrowly constructed and was passed before the very recent and very controversial (and I believe wrongly ) Citizens United finding that corporations are people for purposes well beyond what had been anticipated. Of course the RFRA did not include language saying anything about corporate religions as no one anticipated such a need. For a cogent explanation of the over-reach of the Robert's court in using the Religious Freedom act to set aside not only earlier Supreme Court findings but several cases that have been heard since that law, see
After Hobby Lobby, there is only RFRA. And that’s all you need.

And of course that narrowly made Hobby Lobby ruling that Alito said was made only because the Federal government already had made religious accommodations for what I will call "real" religious institutions like the catholic church by providing a separate mechanism for getting women's health covered without the employer having to provide it. Well it took an entire 24 hours for the court to completely ignore that declared important point. I am going to block quote a very significant explanation. It is clear why all three women on the court are furious

" The court didn’t say that the government could never require a company to do something that violated its religious beliefs, but rather that the government had to use the “least restrictive alternative.” That means that if there is a slightly less burdensome way to implement the law, it needs to be used. To prove that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate was not the “least restrictive alternative,” the court pointed to a workaround in the law for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word.

If you wish to better understand the issue in Wheaton here are some links:
Wheaton College injunction: The Supreme Court just sneakily reversed itself on Hobby Lobby.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us...lege.html?_r=0

In Hobby Lobby the court held that a corporation with a religious objection because that corporation would tell the government it did not want to cover services and then the government would provide the way to get those services covered outside of the corporation's insurance. In Wheaton the court held that an organization can not be compelled to even notify the government that it is not providing the ACA mandated services thus there is no way for the government to alternatively provide women's services. A complete reversal of reasoning.

[njbchbum]

blueash - Wheaton is not a determination as is Hobby Lobby; Wheaton was granted an injunction so that Wheaton does not have to provide the notification while the case works its way thru the legal process. And it is not to be said that Wheaton will receive the same consideration and decision. "Yesterday’s order and others sending cases back to appeals courts for reconsideration does not mean that companies are going to get blanket exemptions, as dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in Hobby Lobby, from any law “they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” " [http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...ts-own-logic/]

Do you have any resources from the conservative side or a middle-of-the-road opinion for analysis or just the left wing side of the issue? It would be interesting to read those points of view. The sources you cite fail to highlight the numerous qualifiers that are part of the Supreme Court decision in making this decision one of very limited scope.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by buggyone

There is absolutely nothing that states a woman is mandated to secure birth control from any source. If she does not want birth control, no one is forcing her to use it.

No, it is not a short step to require only one child or to force abortions. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There are no "freedoms" being taken away one slice at a time.

There are freedoms being formed similar to the civil rights freedoms of the 1960's that show courage.

Hi buggyone: past is prologue to the future. From the Civil rights Act of 1964 to The Endangered Act to the Dept of Education, Energy, EPA IRS ad nauseam government has through tax policies and regulations stepped on our freedoms so much so that I find myself singing "Do You Hear The People Sing"?

Powerful forces have said out loud that people are bad at choosing and so we must choose for them.

While HL ended up denying a selected few abortion pills/remedies it left available birth control RX.

From an economic position i don't want to pay for someone's birth control and more importantly I don't want the government to tell anyone it has to be paid/covered under a policy of insurance. Because if the government can do that then in time they will nimble away until they can force someone to abort.
You say no the explain ACA

I want government out of my life and out of my back pocket because everything they touch turns to

Opportunist will paint this HL decision as the war on women. and the unfortunate truth is that the electorate is so divided or so unsophisticated
that they buy in to propaganda .

Freedom is a very delicate balance and far too many Americans take it for granted

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by gomoho

I think what all this really comes down to is what one believes an employer is responsible to provide in your life. I never really expected much more than a fair wage for a fair day's work. Anything else was a bonus.

In today's world, health insurance is very much a part of a person's salary.

A bonus is a whole 'nother story.

.

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

In today's world, health insurance is very much a part of a person's salary.

A bonus is a whole 'nother story.

.

I was fortunate to work for a large company that provided my health insurance, not health care - I paid for my on birth control pills. That is my only point. Didn't expect them to be responsible for my sexual activities.

And I can promise you with Obamacare that insurance provided by companies will not be so available - in some cases costs less to pay the penalty than provide the insurance.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

In today's world, health insurance is very much a part of a person's salary.

A bonus is a whole 'nother story.

.

Bonanza - I guess you forgot the headlines like these:
UPS to drop 15,000 workers' spouses from insurance, blames Obamacare - Aug. 21, 2013 and
UPS, UVA Drop Health Care Coverage for Spouses of Employees - California Healthline and
Target to Drop Health Insurance for Part-Time Workers - Bloomberg

There are lots more stories about companies in "today's world" who are revising their company offered health insurance benefit coverage DOWNWARD; you can read them if you do an internet search on 'drops health insurance'. So It seems there are 'salary' decreases in store for lots of folks.

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Thanx for that response, Bonanza, it explained everything I needed to know. Since you know as little about the Hobby Lobby decision as you know about women's reproductive health, perhaps you might try reading this pdf file of the decision: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/im...3-354_olp1.pdf [copy/paste the link into your browser]

It probably won't change your mind but it should change your awareness of what the real issues were in reaching the decision. The Judges words are the facts as opposed to the sound bites and rants of the talking heads you have listened to. The Judges were playing to the law - talking heads are playing to an audience they want to attract and/or keep.

[PS If you believe H.L. provides incomplete health ins for women because it will not pay the premium for 4 types of contraceptive care, know that the ACA also then provides incomplete health ins for women since it requires coverage for less than all of the contraceptive medications that are available to women.]

I don't know it all and don't know everything. I can be enlightened in many areas. However, I DO know about the Hobby Lobby fiasco. I don't need to read your PDF to know what the decision is. I do know about IUDs and contraception. So please don't demean yourself by saying I don't.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. But what (also) doesn't sit well with me is that the ruling won because 5 Supreme Court MEN agreed with Hobby Lobby. These 5 Supreme Court MEN also happen to be CATHOLIC. Hmmmmm . . . Interesting, no???

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the ruling is solely based on opinion. The decision was not unanimous; they did not all agree. So it's the Catholic men who made the decision. I guess you don't see anything wrong with that picture.

I will say again and always will: Too many things hapening in this world are against women. It needs to stop!

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by gomoho

I was fortunate to work for a large company that provided my health insurance, not health care - I paid for my on birth control pills. That is my only point. Didn't expect them to be responsible for my sexual activities.

And I can promise you with Obamacare that insurance provided by companies will not be so available - in some cases costs less to pay the penalty than provide the insurance.

Let's leave Obamacare out of this conversation.

Companies don't offer health "care."
Most of them provide health insurance only.
Big difference.

So you think it's okay for a man to receive insurance
that pays for his Viagra,
but it's not okay for a woman to choose a type of birth control,
even if it's recommended by her physician,
and be covered by insurance for that???

Interesting .