Birth Control Question

[TexasTiger 14,071]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"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[?] …"

You didn't read the ruling...transfusions were actually mentioned.

I read the ruling. So did the dissenters-- that is what I'm quoting from. Please cite the specific passage you believe firmly closes that door.

The. SCOTUS ruling addressed that:

"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, 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. "

Okay , that's what I read, too . It simply states what this decision addresses, but it hardly closes the door. It says that other coverages won't "necessarily fall, " not that they won't if they conflict with the sincerely held beliefs of the corporate owners. The dissent addresses the logical extension of the decision.

First of all, the dissent means zilch. The majority opinion is what becomes binding precedent. The dissent is there so we know what they thought about the issue, but literally means nothing in from a legal standpoing.

The SCOTUS has clearly signaled by putting this narrow decision together and calling out things like blood transfusions and vaccinations that while those employers are free to waste their time and money, they will lose should they bring such objections to the Court. If even the majority in a 5-4 case say it's a non-starter, it's pretty clear that they are saying they do not view those situations in the same way.

With all due respect , it doesn't appear that you've read a lot SC cases if that's your reading. By what reasoning would it fail given the logic guiding this decision? The language you cite is pretty typical boilerplate in Court opinions that clarifies what the particular decision addresses, not what future decisions might be with different fact patterns.

[Tigermike 3,657]

FTR this has been an interesting discussion.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"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[?] …"

You didn't read the ruling...transfusions were actually mentioned.

I read the ruling. So did the dissenters-- that is what I'm quoting from. Please cite the specific passage you believe firmly closes that door.

The. SCOTUS ruling addressed that:

"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, 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. "

Okay , that's what I read, too . It simply states what this decision addresses, but it hardly closes the door. It says that other coverages won't "necessarily fall, " not that they won't if they conflict with the sincerely held beliefs of the corporate owners. The dissent addresses the logical extension of the decision.

First of all, the dissent means zilch. The majority opinion is what becomes binding precedent. The dissent is there so we know what they thought about the issue, but literally means nothing in from a legal standpoing.

The SCOTUS has clearly signaled by putting this narrow decision together and calling out things like blood transfusions and vaccinations that while those employers are free to waste their time and money, they will lose should they bring such objections to the Court. If even the majority in a 5-4 case say it's a non-starter, it's pretty clear that they are saying they do not view those situations in the same way.

With all due respect , it doesn't appear that you've read a lot SC cases if that's your reading. By what reasoning would it fail given the logic guiding this decision? The language you cite is pretty typical boilerplate in Court opinions that clarifies what the particular decision addresses, not what future decisions might be with different fact patterns.

Well, no, I don't spend a lot of my leisure time reading SC cases. But I do know that such language is a clear signal to anyone that thinks the court is inclined to hear any ol' religious objection to medical treatments that their chances of success are somewhere between slim and none. Of course the "fact patterns" matter, just as they did here. Facts such as it being closely held rather than widely held or publicly traded mattered. Facts such as whether the government had a reasonable alternative to providing this care in place that was less restrictive than the method they chose mattered.

Am I the only one that think all this slippery slope stuff from the left sounds just like the people on the right who think legalizing gay marriage means we'll wind up making it legal to marry your cat?

[TexasTiger 14,071]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"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[?] …"

You didn't read the ruling...transfusions were actually mentioned.

I read the ruling. So did the dissenters-- that is what I'm quoting from. Please cite the specific passage you believe firmly closes that door.

The. SCOTUS ruling addressed that:

"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, 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. "

Okay , that's what I read, too . It simply states what this decision addresses, but it hardly closes the door. It says that other coverages won't "necessarily fall, " not that they won't if they conflict with the sincerely held beliefs of the corporate owners. The dissent addresses the logical extension of the decision.

First of all, the dissent means zilch. The majority opinion is what becomes binding precedent. The dissent is there so we know what they thought about the issue, but literally means nothing in from a legal standpoing.

The SCOTUS has clearly signaled by putting this narrow decision together and calling out things like blood transfusions and vaccinations that while those employers are free to waste their time and money, they will lose should they bring such objections to the Court. If even the majority in a 5-4 case say it's a non-starter, it's pretty clear that they are saying they do not view those situations in the same way.

With all due respect , it doesn't appear that you've read a lot SC cases if that's your reading. By what reasoning would it fail given the logic guiding this decision? The language you cite is pretty typical boilerplate in Court opinions that clarifies what the particular decision addresses, not what future decisions might be with different fact patterns.

Well, no, I don't spend a lot of my leisure time reading SC cases. But I do know that such language is a clear signal to anyone that thinks the court is inclined to hear any ol' religious objection to medical treatments that their chances of success are somewhere between slim and none. Of course the "fact patterns" matter, just as they did here. Facts such as it being closely held rather than widely held or publicly traded mattered. Facts such as whether the government had a reasonable alternative to providing this care in place that was less restrictive than the method they chose mattered.

Am I the only one that think all this slippery slope stuff from the left sounds just like the people on the right who think legalizing gay marriage means we'll wind up making it legal to marry your cat?

Well, you don't know what you think you know. When the Court says we won't "necessarily" find something they are leaving themselves wiggle room, not saying your chances are "slim and none." You're the one having your objectivity impaired by ideology in this case, not me. In regard to "slippery slope" arguments my response is the same regardless of the leanings of the person asserting it-- "what is your specific reasoning and what is the guiding principle on which the governing decision was made?" You've avoided that question here as vigorously as those that erroneously apply slippery slope arguments.

[homersapien 12,172]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"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[?] …"

Already does. Many religious groups refuse medical care everyday. Where have you been?

And they have that right as individuals.

But the question is should a business owner be allowed to deny health insurance to his employees based on his religious beliefs when he would otherwise be required to provide them coverage?

[TitanTiger 21,068]

Well, you don't know what you think you know. When the Court says we won't "necessarily" find something they are leaving themselves wiggle room, not saying your chances are "slim and none." You're the one having your objectivity impaired by ideology in this case, not me. In regard to "slippery slope" arguments my response is the same regardless of the leanings of the person asserting it-- "what is your specific reasoning and what is the guiding principle on which the governing decision was made?" You've avoided that question here as vigorously as those that erroneously apply slippery slope arguments.

Of course the Court is leaving wiggle room because the specific facts of each case matter, just as they did in this case. It's simply not the free for all that you're acting as if they have unleashed upon us.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure I can answer the question exactly. But if I were to take a stab at it I would say that the reasoning was that forcing an individual to provide for something that they sincerely believe violates the tenets of their religion violates the RFRA and by extension the Free Exercise Clause. The government did not prove it used the least restrictive means possible to resolve this apparent conflict between a government aim and religious freedom. And they also reasoned that a closely held company cannot be appreciably distinguished from an individual and thus the law applied to Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Future cases that you are concerned about, should they be brought, will hinge upon the specifics but similar tests will be applied to those.

[homersapien 12,172]

I just don't see your hypothetical making it back to the SCOTUS with this in the ruling. JMHO. And if it does, I think it will suffer a sound defeat.

And if so, it could be argued that a law exists that "respects" the establishment of a particular religion.

[homersapien 12,172]

I just don't see your hypothetical making it back to the SCOTUS with this in the ruling. JMHO. And if it does, I think it will suffer a sound defeat.

By what reasoning would it fail given the logic guiding this decision? The language you cite is pretty typical boilerplate in Court opinions that clarifies what the particular decision addresses, not what future decisions might be with different facts patterns.

Exactly. It doesn't reduce the value of the current decision as precedent. In fact, some analysts have proposed that as the "John Roberts court" strategy. Don't pass sweeping rulings to change the status quo, instead pass incremental rulings. They open the door.

[homersapien 12,172]

Tex, i dont know. But it hasnt happened yet. The ruling was narrow, specific, and final.

You might not like the Supremes now, but i bet you liked it when they declared ACA a tax so it could remain in place.

Now, what about all those 1300+ orgs that got exemptions? Arent those women not getting BC coverage right now, today?

Why isnt everyone in America worried about them?

Strange days indeed, most peculiar...

It was not narrow and is just the beginning.

Hey thanks for playing..AND NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

Calm down and act like an adult.

Really? Grow up. We're done.

AAANNNDDDD...you ran from the question...AGAIN.

Again, thanks for the "Warm & Fuzzy " Tex.

You are as reliable as the sun.

He always does avoid questions. Militant, intolerant liberals usually do.

:-\ Pack behavior.

[TexasTiger 14,071]

Well, you don't know what you think you know. When the Court says we won't "necessarily" find something they are leaving themselves wiggle room, not saying your chances are "slim and none." You're the one having your objectivity impaired by ideology in this case, not me. In regard to "slippery slope" arguments my response is the same regardless of the leanings of the person asserting it-- "what is your specific reasoning and what is the guiding principle on which the governing decision was made?" You've avoided that question here as vigorously as those that erroneously apply slippery slope arguments.

Of course the Court is leaving wiggle room because the specific facts of each case matter, just as they did in this case. It's simply not the free for all that you're acting as if they have unleashed upon us.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure I can answer the question exactly. But if I were to take a stab at it I would say that the reasoning was that forcing an individual to provide for something that they sincerely believe violates the tenets of their religion violates the RFRA and by extension the Free Exercise Clause. The government did not prove it used the least restrictive means possible to resolve this apparent conflict between a government aim and religious freedom. And they also reasoned that a closely held company cannot be appreciably distinguished from an individual and thus the law applied to Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Future cases that you are concerned about, should they be brought, will hinge upon the specifics but similar tests will be applied to those.

Okay, and while I've hardly said a free for all had been unleashed, that reasoning certainly opens the door to that argument and the dissent validly raises the question of how the Court denies similarly sincerely held religious beliefs.

BTW, far from ranting about this, I think the religious freedom argument has validity to sole proprietorships and partnerships, but corporations invoke certain protections individuals don't enjoy.

[homersapien 12,172]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"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[?] …"

You didn't read the ruling...transfusions were actually mentioned.

I read the ruling. So did the dissenters-- that is what I'm quoting from. Please cite the specific passage you believe firmly closes that door.

The. SCOTUS ruling addressed that:

"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, 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. "

Okay , that's what I read, too . It simply states what this decision addresses, but it hardly closes the door. It says that other coverages won't "necessarily fall, " not that they won't if they conflict with the sincerely held beliefs of the corporate owners. The dissent addresses the logical extension of the decision.

First of all, the dissent means zilch. The majority opinion is what becomes binding precedent. The dissent is there so we know what they thought about the issue, but literally means nothing in from a legal standpoing.

The SCOTUS has clearly signaled by putting this narrow decision together and calling out things like blood transfusions and vaccinations that while those employers are free to waste their time and money, they will lose should they bring such objections to the Court. If even the majority in a 5-4 case say it's a non-starter, it's pretty clear that they are saying they do not view those situations in the same way.

Look, in the end it comes down to this: The First Amendment doesn't stop when you leave the church building on Sunday mornings. You don't forfeit your freedom to live out your beliefs when it comes to decisions on how to spend your money or how to run a business. In this case, the justices followed the law which requires the government to use the least restrictive means possible in accommodating religious freedom and government aims. It is clear that the mandate did not meet that criteria in this instance. As I said, we as taxpayers through our representatives and president may decide that we want certain things to be provided to our citizens as a "right"...in this case free birth control. But in creating this new right it does not automatically come prepackaged with the right to run roughshod over someone else's Constitutional rights... in this case, forcing them to violate their beliefs by facilitating or purchasing plans that cover objectionable BC methods. If John and Jane Taxpayer want this, then they need to pony up for it themselves. The government (us) must foot the bill.

This is not an argument over whether BC is a good or bad thing, it's simply an argument over whether you can force someone else to buy it for you.

One can just as easily argue that the employer's responsibility is to provide insurance coverage period. And to extend restrictions to the individual on what services they are allowed to access is tantamount to imposing their personal religious beliefs on to their employees.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I think this is a good writeup from someone with a good understanding of constitutional law and religious freedom:

Here’s my shot at trying to summarize what the majority was saying in the Hobby Lobby decision. Note that I’m saying this in the voice of a hypothetical Supreme Court justice trying to quickly explain his decision; I’m not necessarily endorsing the statements made below but just trying to accurately capture the majority’s reasoning.

1. Congress has decided that religious objectors may go to court to demand religious exemptions from federal laws, when the law makes them do things that they view as religiously forbidden. That’s not required as a constitutional matter under the Free Exercise Clause; the Court decided that in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). But in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Congress chose to give religious objectors a statutory right to such exemptions, at least in many cases:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion

even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, …

[unless the Government] demonstrates that application of the burden to the person …

is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.

2. RFRA doesn’t exclude laws which impose a burden on closely held religious corporations. To be sure, a corporation is a legal fiction; it cannot itself practice religion, or for that matter do anything else. It acts only through people.

But — precisely because a corporation is just a legal fiction — when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners, and not just of the fictional corporation itself. “[P]rotecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”

3. The owners of Hobby Lobby sincerely believe that it’s wrong for them to buy their employees insurance plans that they see as supporting abortion. They have no objection to contraception as such, but they view contraceptives that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg as tantamount to abortion drugs.

The government acknowledges that its regulations require businesses to pay for such contraceptives (on pain of substantial monetary penalties). Therefore the law substantially burdens the owners’ religious practices, by requiring them to do something they think religiously forbidden.

To be sure, the law doesn’t require the employers to personally get abortions or perform abortions. But the employers sincerely believe that even buying insurance policies that pay for such abortions is religiously forbidden complicity in abortion.

It’s not for courts to second-guess the reasonableness of such judgments about how to define religiously forbidden complicity. “[T]he Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

4. Of course, the legal system has many rules that require people to do what they think religiously wrong (or, the legal equivalent, to not do what they think religiously required). Not all religious exemptions can be granted. RFRA provides that, if denying the exemption is really the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest, a court should indeed deny the exemption.

But “[t]he least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding.” Under RFRA, if the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.

And here, the government can indeed both provide free contraceptives (as the regulations under the Congressionally enacted Affordable Care Act provide) and exempt religious objectors (as the Congressionally enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides).

First, the government could pay for the contraceptives directly. Though that would cost taxpayer money, religious exemptions sometimes do cost money, and the extra cost would be a tiny fraction of the ACA’s $130 billion expense per year. Indeed, RFRA’s sister statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, provides that it “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.”

Second, the government has already exempted some religious nonprofits from the law. Under this exemption, insurers would (1) exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer-paid health plan, and (2) separately pay for contraceptive coverage that the insurer would provide directly to the employees. (The government has concluded this is fair to insurers because the cost to them of contraceptives would be balanced by the savings from lower pregnancy costs and other health costs.) A similar plan is available for self-insured religious nonprofits.

These exemptions could easily be extended to for-profit religious objectors such as Hobby Lobby. Such an extension would mean the government can still ensure that contraceptives are provided at no cost to patients, but Hobby Lobby and similar objectors wouldn’t be required to do what they think their religions forbid.

5. This sort of accommodation is what Congress has mandated. When both the government’s compelling interests and religious objectors’ religious beliefs can be adequately accommodated, Congress said (in enacting RFRA) that they should be accommodated.

But Congress also said that these decisions must turn on the facts of each exemption request, and the options available for accommodating such accommodation requests. In future cases — for instance, ones involving race discrimination in employment, or insurance coverage for vaccination or blood transfusions — the result might be different.

It might not be possible in those cases (as it is in this case) to adequately accommodate both the government interests and the religious objections. If that’s so, then those religious exemptions would not have to be granted. Wisely or not, Congress has required courts to sort through religious exemption requests, granting some and denying others. This is what the Supreme Court has done here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

I think the bottom line here is that balancing religious freedom and compelling government interests is always a tricky task to undertake. Those looking for some easy, blanket, one-size-fits-all type approach to these issues may as well be looking for unicorns.

[homersapien 12,172]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"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[?] …"

You didn't read the ruling...transfusions were actually mentioned.

I read the ruling. So did the dissenters-- that is what I'm quoting from. Please cite the specific passage you believe firmly closes that door.

The. SCOTUS ruling addressed that:

"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, 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. "

Okay , that's what I read, too . It simply states what this decision addresses, but it hardly closes the door. It says that other coverages won't "necessarily fall, " not that they won't if they conflict with the sincerely held beliefs of the corporate owners. The dissent addresses the logical extension of the decision.

First of all, the dissent means zilch. The majority opinion is what becomes binding precedent. The dissent is there so we know what they thought about the issue, but literally means nothing in from a legal standpoing.

The SCOTUS has clearly signaled by putting this narrow decision together and calling out things like blood transfusions and vaccinations that while those employers are free to waste their time and money, they will lose should they bring such objections to the Court. If even the majority in a 5-4 case say it's a non-starter, it's pretty clear that they are saying they do not view those situations in the same way.

With all due respect , it doesn't appear that you've read a lot SC cases if that's your reading. By what reasoning would it fail given the logic guiding this decision? The language you cite is pretty typical boilerplate in Court opinions that clarifies what the particular decision addresses, not what future decisions might be with different fact patterns.

Well, no, I don't spend a lot of my leisure time reading SC cases. But I do know that such language is a clear signal to anyone that thinks the court is inclined to hear any ol' religious objection to medical treatments that their chances of success are somewhere between slim and none. Of course the "fact patterns" matter, just as they did here. Facts such as it being closely held rather than widely held or publicly traded mattered. Facts such as whether the government had a reasonable alternative to providing this care in place that was less restrictive than the method they chose mattered.

Am I the only one that think all this slippery slope stuff from the left sounds just like the people on the right who think legalizing gay marriage means we'll wind up making it legal to marry your cat?

What is the logical basis for choosing this issue over the ones they claim it doesn't apply to?

[TitanTiger 21,068]

One can just as easily argue that the employer's responsibility is to provide insurance coverage period. And to extend restrictions to the individual on what services they are allowed or access is tantamount to imposing their personal religious beliefs on to their employees.

One can argue anything they want. The question is whether that argument is reasonable or constitutional.

I think what this case really highlights is the need to disentangle health care coverage from employers altogether. Now, that can be a government single payer system or it could simply be some system where employers could offer higher salaries that compensate for the money they now pay for health insurance or some sort of HSA that has designated tax free dollars that a person can then use to go buy whatever health insurance plan they want on the open market. Then that definitely removes the employer from the equation in terms of any responsibility they may feel for what is eventually bought.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I have no problem with the decision.

I have a broader question though. Maybe it has already been decided through "Citizens United", which I do not agree with. Do business entities now have all of the rights of an individual? Should they? Was that the intent of our founders?

Can a business entity practice religion? Only "closely held" ones?

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I have no problem with the decision.

I have a broader question though. Maybe it has already been decided through "Citizens United", which I do not agree with. Do business entities now have all of the rights of an individual? Should they? Was that the intent of our founders?

Can a business entity practice religion? Only "closely held" ones?

According to this decision, a distinction was made between 'closely held' ones and other types such as publicly traded companies. They reasoned that in such situations, a closely held corporation cannot be distinguished from the individual in this area. To force the corporation to engage in activities that violated the religious beliefs of its small circle of owners was violating the rights of the owners themselves not just the legal fiction of a "corporation."

[TexasTiger 14,071]

I think this is a good writeup from someone with a good understanding of constitutional law and religious freedom:

Here’s my shot at trying to summarize what the majority was saying in the Hobby Lobby decision. Note that I’m saying this in the voice of a hypothetical Supreme Court justice trying to quickly explain his decision; I’m not necessarily endorsing the statements made below but just trying to accurately capture the majority’s reasoning.

1. Congress has decided that religious objectors may go to court to demand religious exemptions from federal laws, when the law makes them do things that they view as religiously forbidden. That’s not required as a constitutional matter under the Free Exercise Clause; the Court decided that in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). But in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Congress chose to give religious objectors a statutory right to such exemptions, at least in many cases:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion

even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, …

[unless the Government] demonstrates that application of the burden to the person …

is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.

2. RFRA doesn’t exclude laws which impose a burden on closely held religious corporations. To be sure, a corporation is a legal fiction; it cannot itself practice religion, or for that matter do anything else. It acts only through people.

But — precisely because a corporation is just a legal fiction — when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners, and not just of the fictional corporation itself. “[P]rotecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”

3. The owners of Hobby Lobby sincerely believe that it’s wrong for them to buy their employees insurance plans that they see as supporting abortion. They have no objection to contraception as such, but they view contraceptives that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg as tantamount to abortion drugs.

The government acknowledges that its regulations require businesses to pay for such contraceptives (on pain of substantial monetary penalties). Therefore the law substantially burdens the owners’ religious practices, by requiring them to do something they think religiously forbidden.

To be sure, the law doesn’t require the employers to personally get abortions or perform abortions. But the employers sincerely believe that even buying insurance policies that pay for such abortions is religiously forbidden complicity in abortion.

It’s not for courts to second-guess the reasonableness of such judgments about how to define religiously forbidden complicity. “[T]he Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

4. Of course, the legal system has many rules that require people to do what they think religiously wrong (or, the legal equivalent, to not do what they think religiously required). Not all religious exemptions can be granted. RFRA provides that, if denying the exemption is really the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest, a court should indeed deny the exemption.

But “[t]he least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding.” Under RFRA, if the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.

And here, the government can indeed both provide free contraceptives (as the regulations under the Congressionally enacted Affordable Care Act provide) and exempt religious objectors (as the Congressionally enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides).

First, the government could pay for the contraceptives directly. Though that would cost taxpayer money, religious exemptions sometimes do cost money, and the extra cost would be a tiny fraction of the ACA’s $130 billion expense per year. Indeed, RFRA’s sister statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, provides that it “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.”

Second, the government has already exempted some religious nonprofits from the law. Under this exemption, insurers would (1) exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer-paid health plan, and (2) separately pay for contraceptive coverage that the insurer would provide directly to the employees. (The government has concluded this is fair to insurers because the cost to them of contraceptives would be balanced by the savings from lower pregnancy costs and other health costs.) A similar plan is available for self-insured religious nonprofits.

These exemptions could easily be extended to for-profit religious objectors such as Hobby Lobby. Such an extension would mean the government can still ensure that contraceptives are provided at no cost to patients, but Hobby Lobby and similar objectors wouldn’t be required to do what they think their religions forbid.

5. This sort of accommodation is what Congress has mandated. When both the government’s compelling interests and religious objectors’ religious beliefs can be adequately accommodated, Congress said (in enacting RFRA) that they should be accommodated.

But Congress also said that these decisions must turn on the facts of each exemption request, and the options available for accommodating such accommodation requests. In future cases — for instance, ones involving race discrimination in employment, or insurance coverage for vaccination or blood transfusions — the result might be different.

It might not be possible in those cases (as it is in this case) to adequately accommodate both the government interests and the religious objections. If that’s so, then those religious exemptions would not have to be granted. Wisely or not, Congress has required courts to sort through religious exemption requests, granting some and denying others. This is what the Supreme Court has done here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

I think the bottom line here is that balancing religious freedom and compelling government interests is always a tricky task to undertake. Those looking for some easy, blanket, one-size-fits-all type approach to these issues may as well be looking for unicorns.

It is tricky. Which makes another argument for single payer.

But in reference to one of your highlighted points, when an individual chooses to incorporate they are doing so because they have decided there are legal advantages to doing so-- so should one be able to retain all the rights of an individual while forgoing some of the responsibilities?

[MDM4AU 337]

One can just as easily argue that the employer's responsibility is to provide insurance coverage period.

Explain this argument to me in light of the insurance exchanges. I have never thought that employer-provided insurance was a right. I do think it is a moral issue for a business owner. And, health insurance wasn't originally supposed to be much more than hospital or catastrophic coverage. It has morphed into this cover-every-ailment-with-little-skin-in-the-game-for-the-insured insurance, especially with the ACA mandates.

[MDM4AU 337]

There still hasn't been an aswer to my original question, either.

[TexasTiger 14,071]

There still hasn't been an aswer to my original question, either.

What was it?

[homersapien 12,172]

One can just as easily argue that the employer's responsibility is to provide insurance coverage period.

Explain this argument to me in light of the insurance exchanges. I have never thought that employer-provided insurance was a right. I do think it is a moral issue for a business owner. And, health insurance wasn't originally supposed to be much more than hospital or catastrophic coverage. It has morphed into this cover-every-ailment-with-little-skin-in-the-game-for-the-insured insurance, especially with the ACA mandates.

I am not arguing for the concept of requiring employers to provide insurance. Personally, I think it would make a lot more sense from a philosophical standpoint to have the government do it. In fact, the only reason that employers are involved at all is because of the precedent of employer-provided insurance which I think came out of wage regulations during WWII.

My point is there exists a current legal requirement they do so, which is why Hobby Lobby sued in the first place.

The argument I propose is similar to the situation with paying taxes, which Hobby Lobby presumably does. You don't get to avoid paying taxes because you object to how some of the tax money is spent.

[homersapien 12,172]

One can just as easily argue that the employer's responsibility is to provide insurance coverage period. And to extend restrictions to the individual on what services they are allowed or access is tantamount to imposing their personal religious beliefs on to their employees.

One can argue anything they want. The question is whether that argument is reasonable or constitutional.

And IMO, the argument I present is just as reasonable or constitutional as the SCOTUS ruling.

I think what this case really highlights is the need to disentangle health care coverage from employers altogether.

Agreed.

Now, that can be a government single payer system or it could simply be some system where employers could offer higher salaries that compensate for the money they now pay for health insurance or some sort of HSA that has designated tax free dollars that a person can then use to go buy whatever health insurance plan they want on the open market. Then that definitely removes the employer from the equation in terms of any responsibility they may feel for what is eventually bought.

Agreed, but I would argue that the employer having met his obligation of providing insurance, is already divorced from any responsibility for how that insurance is used by the individual employee. That's up to them and their doctor.

But granted, it would be a lot "cleaner" to take the employer out of the loop, and I would support that for other reasons as well.

[homersapien 12,172]

I have no problem with the decision.

I have a broader question though. Maybe it has already been decided through "Citizens United", which I do not agree with. Do business entities now have all of the rights of an individual? Should they? Was that the intent of our founders?

Can a business entity practice religion? Only "closely held" ones?

Yes. We have created the opportunity for the perfect criminal. A corporation can do whatever they want, but there's no one person who can be held personally responsible - a criminal that can't be tried and incarcerated if you will.

[MDM4AU 337]

There still hasn't been an aswer to my original question, either.

What was it?

What makes BC so much more of an "essential benefit" that it must be the only Rx mandated by ACA to be offered for free?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

There still hasn't been an aswer to my original question, either.

What was it?

What makes BC so much more of an "essential benefit" that it must be the only Rx mandated by ACA to be offered for free?

I would guess the consideration is, the effects of unwanted children on all of society.