Posted on 06/30/2014 11:04:14 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Reliance on junk science, backwards ideas about religious freedom—it’s all there in the conservative majority’s awful Hobby Lobby ruling.
In its much-anticipated Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled by the usual 5-4 margin that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. The ruling was narrowly tailored to apply only to the Obamacare contraception mandate and no other insurance mandates and explicitly does not shield employers who might rely on religious grounds to justify other discrimination. That said, while the ruling could have been worse, it's still dumb.
At the heart of both Hobby Lobby and its sister case Conestoga Wood is the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that employer-provided health insurance plans include coverage for basic preventative care. The law outlines what such preventative care encompasses and includes contraception. Contraception is, after all, by definition prevention. But two private for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, both argued that for their insurance plans to be forced to cover contraception would violate the companies' freedom of religion. Hobby Lobby, which sells arts and crafts materials, is owned by devout Southern Baptists. Conestoga Wood, which makes wood cabinets, is owned by conservative Mennonites.
Both companies currently provide health insurance to their employees, which is what makes their plans subject to the preventative care requirements under Obamacare. And both companies say they don't object to all contraception, simply drugs or intrauterine devices that prevent pregnancy after fertilization, contraceptive methods that folks on the right mis-label and malign as "abortifacients." That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue. In fact, it's worth noting that Hobby Lobby actually provided the contraception coverage before it dropped it and decided to sue. For the Court to even get to its ruling that the contraception mandate "substantially burdens" the exercise of religion, it has to believe this bunk science. Moreover, in a free and secular society, birth control is about medicine and science and personal health, not religion.
The Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg bristles at the majority's "decision of startling breadth." Justice Kennedy tries to argue otherwise in his concurring opinion, arguing that the majority opinion "does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent." And yet majority opinion held that corporations are "persons" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act! That's huge! While the court limits part of its ruling around the contraception mandate to closely held corporations (defined by the IRS here), the essence of the decision is a profound and radical shift in corporate rights.
Further, the ruling in part eroded the distinction between religious non-profits (which were already exempted from parts of Obamacare) and private corporations. If you think going to the mall is like going to church, that makes sense. To everyone else, it's nuts.
The Supreme Court had already granted all kinds of other special rights and powers to corporations — including "corporate personhood" or the right for businesses to be treated as people under the law. And because corporations are people, the Court has ruled that corporate spending to influence elections is equivalent to speech and cannot be infringed. At a time when economic inequality is reaching record highs and support for big business is at an all time low, the Supreme Court has consistently seen fit to confer more and more power and privilege to already powerful and privileged corporations. At a time when we should be putting more checks and balances in place for corporate America, the Supreme Court is loosening the reigns.
Moreover, this case is a perversion of religious freedom. Our values of religious freedom and tolerance were meant to protect individuals in our nation from the tyranny of government and business. Recall that in the earliest days of American history, it was not only the King of England but the powerful East India Company out from under the mutual thumb of which American colonists were trying to crawl. Moreover, as I have written previously, freedom of religion explicitly includes not only the freedom to practice one's religion but to be free from the imposition of someone else's religion. The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
But it's the conflation of these points that is truly frightening: the idea that in continuing to give corporations more and more unchecked power and reign, we are giving them the power of religious tyranny — the ability to wantonly and unilaterally impose religion as they see fit on their workers and perhaps more. Under such a ruling, it's not far-fetched to imagine companies (genuinely or disingenuously) claiming religious exemptions in refusing to serve gay customers or denying health insurance coverage to the multi-racial child of an employee. In fact, what would stop companies from saying that their religion makes them opposed to taxes or obeying pollution regulations or you name it? Just what we need in America, more corporations with more excuses to not play by the same rules that ordinary Americans have to obey.
But in its rulings, this Court repeatedly gives more power to the interests of already-powerful corporations than the needs of the American people. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg writes, "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure." Except the majority ruling makes clear the interests of those women simply don't matter as much as the whims of corporations.
Let's all pray to the corporate gods who control our elections that someday we have a Supreme Court that values the American people more than big business.
When did they start caring about “fairness”? Obama has no right to require anyone to buy anything (Obamacare). They sure are selective, aren’t they?
Boo Hoo. The Supreme Court ruled against the national socialist democrats for a change and they’re SO unhappy.
I started to read it and came to the same conclusion as you: who cares what “s/he” thinks?
She certainly has a queer opinion of religious liberty.
“She” probably already had this article prepared days ago, with ample outside help from the White House radicals and sympathetic left-wing university professors.
Now expect the same from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc., as the White House sends out its marching orders to all their boot-licking media lackeys.
Check out post #16. LOL!
Sally’s “wombie” Sandra Fluck.......heh, heh!
;^)
So, somehow science is the determining factor on what believers are allowed to believe?
This conflated argument is farcical: It is the first I’ve ever heard that the establishment clause went something like this: “Congress, or the East India Company, or any other large corporation, shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” While the colonists had issues with the East India Company, they were all about restriction of trade and taxes - nothing at all about religion.
The government stating that one’s religions beliefs do not comport with the latest science opinions, and therefor said one cannot adhere to their religious beliefs - is EXACTLY what the establishment clause prohibits.
All else is simply the yowling of a cat who finds its tail unfortunately positioned relative to the rockers on Granny’s chair.
If, after having sex during a fertile time, a female doesn't take the drugs, a woman might be pregnant and deliver a baby.
Take the drug, kill the embryo and - no baby!
That is not contraception, it's abortion and many of us are not only opposed to that but refuse to be forced to pay for someone else to abort their baby by taking it!
Sally....show it to me in the constitution, where its a bad decision.
Oddly this is the logic of rape..
Part of Hobby Lobby's case was that it was going to be forced to provide abortification drugs; which ARE a form of abortion.
I doubt Sally’s bed-hopping will ever produce an offspring since the only bodily fluid exchanged is saliva.
Really, Sally? I thought eugenics was so 1920's. You 'progressives' have some backwards ideas.
Y'all watch. Persecution of Christian-led companies is next. There will be arson and violence. This is what the Left does, as they are soulless.
It was not the film Sally cakes! Things went very bad as the CIA and Obobo were handing off a few thousand hand held S to A and antitank weapons to the bad guys. The real death toll has not even started thanks to people like Hill. You would really look good in a burka!
the left is already threatening violence aren’t they?
Oh those poor women that don’t share the company’s religious beliefs might have to pay for their own abortion pills...or get them free from various liberal clinics and Planned Parenthood. I am so sick of liberals trying to claim this is some sort of war on women malarkey!
I do wonder if this will have an effect on businesses that do not want to support gay marriages that have lost in lower courts. I remember there was a baker that was ordered to make wedding cakes for gays.
People who don’t like the policies of Hobby Lobby and other companies that do not support abortion are free to work somewhere else. I think many of us have passed up or left jobs because we did not like the policies.
It is my understanding that the companies are willing to cover contraception, just not things like the morning after pill type things that are seen as abortion rather than contraception.
It seems to me that every other religion on earth gets special consideration by this administration now, other than Christians. The war on women is bogus but I do see a liberal war on Christians.
Well, Sally. That was pretty hysterical. Do you feel better now? Do you need to lay down with a cold compress on your fevered forehead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.