Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception
An anonymous reader writes In a legislative first, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that for-profit companies can, in essence, hold religious views. Given the Supreme Court's earlier decisions granting corporations the right to express political support through monetary donations, this ruling is not all that surprising. Its scope does not extend beyond family-owned companies where "there's no real difference between the business and its owners." It also only applies to the contraception mandate of the health care law. The justices indicated that contraceptive coverage can still be obtained through exceptions to the mandate that have already been introduced to accommodate religious nonprofits. Those exceptions, which authorize insurance companies to provide the coverage instead of the employers, are currently being challenged in lower courts.
The "closely held" test is pretty meaningless, since the majority of U.S. corporations are closely held.
Go get all the abortions you want, but private businesses have the option to not pay for it.
So I hope that a business can refuse to pay for it even without having to pretend to believe in an invisible man in the sky..
If not, I hope one of them sues, because the government is then preferring one religion over another.
(I think this, and many other things, should be paid for by the person themselves...)
Let the flame fest begin!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.
Religious fuckers are destroying this country.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My religion says that killing is wrong. Can I refuse to pay the percentage of taxes which goes to the military?
To start with Hobby lobby was NOT against contraceptives, and offered it to their employees. They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".
Avoiding the truth was a plan to harass and go after them using media bias, much like Chick-fil-A was attacked.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It was a few hundred years before that when corporations were created as legal persons who could purchase ships, undertake voyages, be sued, etc.
The whole idea of a corporation is that me, you, and a hundred other people can pool our resources to do something big, such as buying and outfitting a ship (or ISP), and if something went wrong a creditor could take the ship and its cargo, but you wouldn't be risking your house. As a legal person, the corporation could be sued, rather than filing 100 law suits against each of the individual investors, none of which could pay the judgement.
You bitch about paying for welfare kids, and you bitch about women not wanting kids to abort them. PICK ONE AND STFU!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'll be cool with the ACA mandating equal pricing for the genders when my auto insurance company is held to the same standard.
Shakrai, male, 32, 790 FICO score, zero moving violations, zero accidents, six month premium for 2012 Honda Civic: $450
Shakrai's ex-gf, female, 31, 710 FICO score, three moving violations, two at fault accidents, six month premium for 2011 Honda Civic: $390
Same liability limits, I had higher physical damage deductibles, and a 10% discount for defensive driver training that she lacked, both through Progressive.
I wonder when the big man at 1600 Pennsylvania is going to fix this gender disparity?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Healthcare is a form of compensation, just like your wages, your employer can not tell you how to spend your wages, why can they tell me what healthcare services I can utilize? Also, companies don't "pay" for healthcare like its some sort of charity they generously give to there subjects, employees pay for it themselves by providing work for the company!
This is really bad.
Lets see how quick other companies jump on this bandwagon and try to push it further.
I am betting we will actually see a few companies trying to say that modern medicine is against their religion and opt for prayer healing instead. Or maybe a few companies may use this to force their employees to follow their religious dress codes to deter employees and a whole other barrel of monkeys on this one.
Honestly, what CAN'T you do based on a religion? Especially when people can actually make up their own religion if they can get enough support, and I am betting that if enough rich people get behind one, they can make an official one with all kinds of cost effective religious practices.
What if I object to funding the health care of people who smoke, drink or don't belong to whatever small sect of a Church I belong to? That's going to create a budget hole plus an expensive tangle of red tape once that sort of "freedom" gets going.
If people want a government run on religious lines instead of for everyone there's one setting up in the middle of Iraq and Syria about now.
Particularly a $12 movie, which is what they would have to cost to equal the cost of the Pill. (Not counting the mandatory biannual medical exams, without which you can't get a prescription.) Ginsberg noted in her dissent that the cost of an IUD is comparable to a month's salary for a person making minimum wage. Then again, I'm sure you'll also agree that the cost of your own vaccines and blood transfusions are also reasonable when those folks start claiming their exemption under this stupid ruling.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
I wonder when the big man at 1600 Pennsylvania is going to fix this gender disparity?
Shut your oppressive mouth. Cock-man! Despoiler!
Everyone knows that it's only discrimination to treat people differently when women aren't happy with the disparity.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
the idea of "when life starts" which is a philosophical, not a scientific problem
Pro-life scientists point out that an embryo is a distinct organism because it has distinct DNA. The life associated with that DNA thus begins when sperm meets egg.
Getting hormonal birth control from a doctor other than your regular doctor means that those two doctors have to both have access to your medical records or both consult on any issues you might have
Isn't that the whole point of the push for EMRs? And what stops her from seeing the regular doc then getting the script filled at a clinic? Or just paying the $10/mo for it? My insurance company isn't giving me free condoms, and I don't have any get out of jail free cards made available to me if my birth control fails.
Condom breaks and the woman doesn't want a kid with the guy? She can take the morning after pill, get an abortion, or give the child up for adoption. Man doesn't want a child with this woman? Too bad asshole, we're going to confiscate 15% to 25% of your post-FICA earnings for the next 18 years, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, even if she broke the condom in the first place or lied about being on pills.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Coupling the two has always been a cluster fuck. This is just one more reason to abolish this particular linkage.
Do your 'sincerely held religious beliefs' outlaw blood transfusions? Looks like your exployees are going to be paying for that themselves.
A health insurance plan tuned for the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses would still pay for blood substitutes, iron supplements, and other expenses associated with bloodless surgery. Some insurers might prefer bloodless surgery anyway because it keeps the insurer from having to pay for units of blood and pay to treat blood-borne diseases.
Corporations are people too.
As in the Citizen's United case, this ruling is a complete perversion of constitutional rights on the American Public, and both as abominable as Plessy v. Ferguson. Here's the train of logic that the majority took:
1) Take a piece of legislation originally designed to protect sacred American Indian worship sites, though more broadly individual religious freedoms,
2) And extend those freedoms to corporations with this hocus-pocus incantation: "The purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees." (573 U.S. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Syllabus, pg. 3)
And while I was never a fan of Ginsburg in my younger years, given the recent evolution of the SCotUS, that opinion is rapidly changing, especially when she has this to say on the matter (573 U.S. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg dissent, pg. 14):
Until this (Citizens United) litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law...the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” (Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 [1819]).
Should just rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution now to read, "We the Corporations of the United States..."
on the one hand it means religions, er, corporations, can discriminate against everything from blood transfusions to births without circumcision, but...it also means the opinion shreds whatâ(TM)s known as the corporate veil (the principle that establishes a corporation as a distinct entity from its owners or shareholders). This would mess with a lot of businesses and how they do business.
Hobby Lobby 'also for all its piousness' has a retirement plan that invests very heavily in the manufacturers of the forms of contraception it claims to abhor so much. make of that what you will.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This is not the philosophy of liberty; this is the philosophy of a religious oligarchy.
If we indeed has 100% employment and people could easily float between jobs it would be a win for freedom. But since people are frequently stuck with the job they have it is a loss. Because now the people with the money get to impose their religious doctrine on their employees.
As a follower of THOR, the God of Thunder, I have been forced to operate my business in a manner which directly contradicts my faith. Government mandated building codes have forced me to maintain so-called safe electrical wiring so that my employees don't get electrocuted. I sincerely believe that this is merely a way for the faithless cowards to avoid Thor's judgment. You see, if you die of electrocution, it means that you have offended the Thunderer and have been righteously smitten by his divine will.
Thor asks little of us, save that we provide an offering of mead to him at each meal. Yet most of my foolish employees would deny him even this small request. That I'm forced to provide buildings which shield these wicked individuals with safe, modern, electrical wiring is a troubling incursion upon my religious freedoms as a business owner. I feared that if I continued to follow the Government's secular laws, that I would be denied access to Valhalla.
Thanks to the Supreme Court's wise decision today, Obama and all of the witless cretins in my employ shall soon feel the wrath of Thor's mighty hammer, Mjolnir!
Praise be to Thor!
Everyone uses the slippery slope argument in politics and the media... Even on /.
IMO, this whole fuss on Plan B is kind of a crock. It costs about $50 at a drug store (you can get it over the counter and buy it with a downloadable $10-off coupon) with a $35 generic available. Comparatively, a birth control pill runs anywhere from $10-$100 (but mostly commonly hovers around $20 and mail order saves you about $5) and generally requires a prescription to be covered in a health plan (because they will make you mail order it to save money).
Don't know how often people would need to fork over for plan B out-of-pocket in a year, but I think if a person needed emergency contraception more than a couple times a year (out of 12 months) seems like that person probably should be looking at some other form of birth control, maybe? Of course if someone else is paying for it and such a person didn't have a moral problem with it, maybe people don't really care (but people *should* care because currently existing emergency contraception has quite a few serious side effects for those under 25 or have a high BMI which described a large part of the userbase for these drugs, but of course that's not part of the marketing material and no prescription or consultation is required).
FWIW you can't get aspirin/acetaminophen, cold symptom relief, or acne medicine covered as an over the counter medicine as part of a health plan (unless you get a prescription), but because of politics, emergency contraception has a special carveout in this market. Of course the generics available outside the USA (e.g, I-pill) is only about $10 a dose (about the same price as "emergency" Nyquil or Sudafed which your insurance company won't cover). On the other hand, insurance companies would probably gladly cover it gratis (since it's cheaper than pre-natal/pregnancy for them) and they already have this exact legal carveout for non-profits, but it's more fun to raise a stink and energize the base (on both sides of the aisle)...
Saying they ARE people is a power grab ...
The US Supreme Court did **not** say that corporations are people. A spokesperson for the losing side in the court case gratuitously characterized the decision that way, in other words it was just political spin on the decision.
What the Court actually said is that
(1) Groups of people have the same free speech rights are individual persons.
(2) It doesn't matter what the nature of the group of people is; corporation, labor union, public interest group, etc.
Those exceptions, which authorize insurance companies to provide the coverage instead of the employers
If ever there were a case of smoke-and-mirrors, this is it. Saying that the insurer, not the company paying for the policy, is (wink, wink) paying for a benefit offered to the insured under the policy, a benefit the insurer does not simply give away to all comers, is transparently absurd. Whatever you may think about forcing companies to pay for policies that cover particular things, at least be honest about it.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Is a baby chicken a baby chicken when the fertilized egg/sperm combo has divided into 16 cells, none of which have differentiated, none of which are nerves, spine, brain, eye, etc.?
The answer to that -- obviously, unless you're utterly bewildered or completely ignorant of the process itself -- is no. It's not philosophical; it's fact-based science. A potato is more sophisticated. Its cells even have more chromosomes than humans do.
The line is blurry, all right, but it isn't blurry at conception (that's not a person OR a chicken) and it isn't blurry anywhere near term (that IS a person or a chicken.) The blurry part, that's the real problem, because the determination needs to be based on something rational and functionally able to ensure we do not do unintended harm or harm in ignorance. Religious hucksterism aside, there are readily determinable progressions in the process that cross various well defined lines.
Personally, I view it this way: If the organism doesn't have a differentiated nervous system, at best, it is directly comparable in its current state to plant life. As soon as it does, however, you've got animal life, and now we've crossed a line where the well-being of something that can feel is at stake.
The entire argument is muddied by the concept of potential; I agree potential is there, but it was also there for every sperm that missed the mark and every egg that remained unfertilized.
So -- were I able to make it so, which is not only not the case but laughably far from the case -- I'd draw the line for abortion that is not directly amelioration for serious health risk to the mother, or a consequence of known problems with the growing organism (no brain, etc.) right where the nervous system begins to develop such that there are actual nerves present.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Saying they ARE people is a power grab ...
The US Supreme Court did **not** say that corporations are people. A spokesperson for the losing side in the court case gratuitously characterized the decision that way, in other words it was just political spin on the decision.
What the Court actually said is that
(1) Groups of people have the same free speech rights are individual persons.
(2) It doesn't matter what the nature of the group of people is; corporation, labor union, public interest group, etc.
I actually interpreted it a slightly different way, but the difference is important.
They specifically stated that "closely held" corporations could hold this exemption. To point, these are corporations that have a very small number of owners indeed. The way I see it, the intent is this: the people who own the corporation do not wish to have the resources of that corporation...which they themselves own and govern...used for purposes that conflict with their moral views. We're not talking IBM or Google here, with tens or even hundreds of thousands of stakeholders. We're talking corporations that are held by a handful of people whose views of such things align closely with one another.
As it stands today, 85% of corporations proactively supported paying for contraception ahead of Obamacare or any other mandate from state or federal government. But the stalwarts were those that fit the above description. Me, I'm not at all aligned with the pro-life crowd...but I can at least see the logic here. Just because I own a corporation doesn't mean that I can't care about what the money produced by it helps support, even indirectly. It's one of those fine lines that makes America challenging, because of the incredible demands that freedom and the citizenship that goes with it place on us all.
And I think it's cool as shit that we are debating it. The fact that we all care, one way or another, is absolutely, utterly, and incredibly beautiful.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Pregnancy: it takes two to happen, but it's always the woman's fault.
And the resultant expense is always the man's responsibility.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sorry, but a corporation is not "just" a group of people.
If a group of people breach a contract, you can sue them and they will have to pay you back from their own assets. If a corporation breaches a contract, you can only touch corporate assets.
If a group of people dump toxins into the environment, they can be personally fined and put in jail. If a corporation dumps toxins into the environment, the corporation pays a fine and the people who initiated the dumping don't get touched.
If a group of people destroy the economy through fraud, they can be fined and put in jail. If a corporation destroys the economy through fraud, it gets a slap on the wrist from the SEC.
The law treats corporations differently from "groups of people" in many respects. One of those respects should be their rights. The underlying people have the same rights as before, but the corporation -- as its own entity -- need not have all the same rights as those people.
New here, then? That kind of moderation is not only common, there are times it comes from those in control of the site. Just read the rules: They have infinite mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them. Your post suddenly take a multi-point drop? You know it isn't a normal moderator.
This is why they never fix the mod system. If confers limitless, attribution-free power on site operators. They love it.
The good news? You can read at -1 and ignore moderation completely. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution - All rights specified in the Constitution of the United States and all Amendments thereto shall apply to Natural Persons only.
We can call it the Commonsense clause.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Completely, 100% wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all it is. Anything else, *anything*, is an add on from some other idea. I'm absolutely, completely, atheist -- I hold no belief in a god or gods whatsoever -- but I am not opposed to religion, in fact, I can cite you chapter and verse as to many of the benefits religion brings, and has brought, to our society. I live in a church. What I am opposed to is any particular religion getting control of law and/or government. Because that has demonstrably caused harm almost without surcease. But again, even this is not a consequence of my position that the idea of god or gods is ridiculous, rather it is a consequence of my observation that every religiously influenced law I know of is extremely bad law, and furthermore, tends to favor group A over group B in such a way that there is no sane basis for it.
Theism: Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism: Without belief in a god or gods.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The solution to the problem is to not incorporate. Then one can run the business however they want.
Keep in mind that a corporation is a government-created entity in the first place. The charters are granted by state or federal government. Essentially, they can (should) set the rules by which the corporation's extra-legal benefits are given.
Essentially, if your own skin isn't in the game (your personal assets are shielded from your failed company), it isn't "your" business anymore.
Essentially, if your own skin isn't in the game (your personal assets are shielded from your failed company), it isn't "your" business anymore.
Financially shielding yourself from company failure is one thing, and its also a myth to a degree. Losing your constitutionally protected right to speech because you are now part of an organization is something completely different.
Regarding the myth of being shielded from company failure. Go start a corporation. Now try to get a company credit card or other line of credit, the bank will require a personal guarantee on that card or credit line. The closely held corporations (5 or fewer people) that this ruling applies to general have skin in the game.
It takes a long and close working relationship before a bank will offer credit purely secured by company assets.
The solution to the problem is to not incorporate. Then one can run the business however they want.
Keep in mind that a corporation is a government-created entity in the first place. The charters are granted by state or federal government. Essentially, they can (should) set the rules by which the corporation's extra-legal benefits are given.
Essentially, if your own skin isn't in the game (your personal assets are shielded from your failed company), it isn't "your" business anymore.
When most of these corporations first formed, the form of contraception being discussed in this case didn't exist. So...you're saying that if anyone incorporates, they should be willing to accept the consequences of anything that technology may come up with in the future? Um...no. That's not how rights work, and starting a business does not deprive someone of their rights.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Health insurance companies have actuarial evidence just as strong as auto insurance companies do. The only real difference is that governments haven't (yet) told auto insurance companies that they must provide subsidies from some specific groups to others.
Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in a gods, goddess, etc.
Not believing in a deity means accepting on faith that the universe came into existence without the help of a deity.
You can get 50% off all your groceries for a week! Faith holders earn points on every purchase that can be redeemed at any of our outlets in heaven! Switch your religion to Waltonism and start saving today!
(This offer does not apply to purchases of contraceptives.)
I take this to mean you would have no problem with this ruling if instead of Hobby Lobby, the plaintiff had been a business that was not incorporated and whose owners, on religious grounds, objected to providing "morning after" contraceptive products to their employees?
This belief is based, it appears, on the notion that corporations, unlike natural persons, don't have "rights". Is that correct?
However, this case was not decided on Constitutional grounds (i.e., the Free Exercise clause had nothing to do with the case) so "Constitutional rights" have nothing to do with it. It was decided based on the terms of Federal statutory law - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) which raised the bar with respect to the level of justification the Federal needs to intrude on a person's religious beliefs coupled with the Dictionary Act's well known definition of how all Federal legislation is to be interpreted.
The RFRA refers to 'persons' without, as far as I can tell, any qualification to exclude corporations so the portion Dictionary Act which specifies
applies and the therefore the protections in the RFRA apply to corporations as well.
This is a simple question of legislative interpretation and there appears to be little room for debate. There is much yammering about the effect of the decision, but the court's should not, in a matter of statutory law, pay much attention to that and clearly should not override the legislators except in response to Constitutional issues or cases where there is ambiguity, conflict, or vagueness in the law which they must resolve because the legislative process did not.
If it is the will of the people to neuter this opinion, it can be done the same way the RFRA and Dictionary Act were instituted and amended over time -- via the legislative process. If that doesn't happen, then in a democratic society we can safely assume that it is not the will of the governed to do so.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
"Citizens_United" Corporations are people too.
In the Citizens United case the US Supreme Court did **not** say that corporations are people. A spokesperson for the losing side in the court case gratuitously characterized the decision that way, in other words it was just political spin on the decision.
What the Court actually said is that
(1) Groups of people have the same free speech rights as individual persons.
(2) It doesn't matter what the nature of the group of people is; corporation, labor union, public interest group, etc -- any organization will do.
So if they clone a human, the clone is not a distinct organism because it's DNA is not distinct from the original, and thus we can do away with it? Something's seriously rotten with the argument you've presented.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
One question;
How does "free speech" translate into "depriving people of medical benefits"?
The first is conceptual and raising a concern, the second is a fucking benefit, and people having babies and getting abortions is offensive to the Godly, women unwed is offensive to the Godly, and being fucking poor is obviously offensive because God must hate them.
Sorry, I was just showing my free speech. If I had acted like these religious a-holes, I'd be saying that your medical policy will not cover Cancer, because I believe that is self inflicted.
And NO this is a situation where a Corporation is treated as a person -- or a "group of people". If you incorporate -- for that benefit, you leave your provincial ideas behind. If you want to force jesus on the medical policies, stay a single proprietorship.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
How does "free speech" translate into "depriving people of medical benefits"?
No one claimed it does. Someone used the false meme from the citizens united decision that corporations are people. I respond to that. Apologies for not being clear.
And NO this is a situation where a Corporation is treated as a person -- or a "group of people".
Not really. This seems to be a situation where a law applies to both corporations and people. As other posters have pointed out the Dictionary Act states that legislation that applies to persons also applies to corporations and other organizations if this legislation does not define its scope, and since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not define any such scope it applies to corporations as well as persons.
So its seems to boil down to whether a corporation can hold a religious belief. The hobby lobby decisions seems to say that closely held corporations (5 or fewer owners) where the owners share a common religious belief would count as a corporation holding such belief.
If you incorporate -- for that benefit, you leave your provincial ideas behind.
Apparently not if there are 5 or fewer owners who share the same belief. In most such cases this would basically be a family owned business.
So you agree with the court that employer provided contraceptives is not a basic civil right, how awesome.
If employer provided health coverage and contraceptives really were a basic right then why did Obama and his cronies bother with a 1200 page law when they could have simply sued a few large corporations for violating those basic rights, won the case and been done with it?
Oh yeah, because it isn't.
For those ranting that corporations should have no religious or speech rights, realize that almost all advocacy groups are incorporated.
Just because a corporation you own does not have rights does not mean that you dont either....
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The "majority of U.S. corporations:" (90+%) have less than 50 employees and, as such, aren't required to furnish health care and aren't affected by this decision.
To me, it's yet more evidence that our health insurance should not be tied up with our employment. I don't know what the right solution to untangling that mess is, but we have to do something different.
The way I see it, the intent is this: the people who own the corporation do not wish to have the resources of that corporation...which they themselves own and govern...used for purposes that conflict with their moral views.
The way to prevent their resources being used for things they disagree with is to lobby for political change, just like any other individual. I can't arbitrarily decide not to pay some of my taxes because I don't like some aspect of what the government does. I can't pay someone less than minimum wage because I dislike what they spend their money on and wish to discourage it.
The deal is that you get to benefit from a highly educated, safe and prosperous society where you can make lots of money, in exchange for playing by society's rules. It's a democracy so you have some say over those rules, but you have to abide by them.
So if society thinks employees should get basic healthcare insurance that includes this form of contraception every corporation should be obliged to provide it, while being free to advocate changing the requirement.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
... the currently-leftwing government ...
You have GOT to be kidding. There is no left-wing in the US mainstream.
The case wasn't about corporations. It was about the owners of the corporations. And the court found that if you run your family business as a corporation you have the same rights as if you ran it as a sole proprietorship. Incorporating does not change an individual owners constitutional rights.
Hobby Lobby's owners find it religiously objectionable to provide health care to its female employees that includes birth control.
Completely untrue. Hobby Lobby provides 16 different types of contraception to its employees.
Here's their statement:
"The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
How outrageous!
The employer should pay the insurance. They have no right to meddle in what treatment a patient receives. They are not HMOs and they are not doctors. What goes on between doctor and patient is none of their business, in any way. Medicare for all will settle the issue.
In the US, employers always have had the "right" to decide what insurance and other benefits they will or will not provide and at what cost to the employee. Hobby Lobby already provides birth control and the employee is free to choose whatever one(s) from the plan that their doctor prescribes. They have never included IUDs and the morning after or week after pills, so the employees are no worse off than they were prior to the ACA.
They are not directing the health care choices of their employees, they are simply stating that they are not going to pay for 4 products that the government states that it keeps a fertilized egg from implanting because their religious belief is that life begins at conception. The other 1,000 contraceptives are including in their plan, not those 4.
> You are mischaracterizing the Supreme Court decision Citizens United.
Not at all. He's merely disagreeing with it. This is America. We get to disagree with Kings and Popes and idiots who have the gall to call themselves judges.
There is no direct 1:1 person -> corporate pass through. The whole POINT of a corporation is to prevent that.
What we have here are a legal fiction being granted MORE power than real people while still retaining all of the extra protections they get from not really being people.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.