Hobby Lobby fallout

[rodentraiser]

I've posted this before in another thread on Hobby Lobby, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. There is a second article following this one that shows the creeping ramifications the Hobby Lobby decision is already having.

Danger sign: The Supreme Court has already expanded Hobby Lobby decision

Michael Hiltzik Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.c...umn.html#page=1

The Supreme Court wasted no time in delivering a message to anyone who thought its Hobby Lobby ruling was limited to religious objections to coverage of purported abortion methods:

You're wrong.

The day after handing down the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, the court issued orders pertaining to six pending cases in which employers claimed religious objections to all contraceptive services required under the Affordable Care Act. The court either ordered appeals courts to reconsider their rejection of the employers' claims in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, or let stand lower courts' endorsement of those claims.

In at least one of those cases, the sincerity of the employer's religious objections is open to question. That shows why allowing a broad "religious" exemption from a federal law can be atrociously bad policy. More on that in a moment.

Tuesday's orders are just the beginning: The Becket Fund, the religious law firm that represented Hobby Lobby in its legal case, lists 49 pending federal cases in which for-profit companies have brought purportedly religious objections to the ACA. An additional 51 cases involve nonprofit organizations. The floodgates aren't about to open--they're already open.

Obviously, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent called the Hobby Lobby ruling "a decision of startling breadth," she didn't even scratch the surface.

The companies that brought the six cases dealt with by the court on Tuesday are all owned by Catholics or their families. They employers of a few score workers ranging up to several hundred.

Their objections all apply to the ACA's mandate that their health insurance policies cover contraceptive services to women without co-pays or deductibles. But where the Green family, the owners of the Hobby Lobby crafts store chain, objected only to four birth control devices or methods they considered "abortifacients"--promoting abortions--the others object to all contraceptives, and more.

For example, the Korte family, which owns an Indiana construction company, refuses to pay for or support not only "contraceptives, sterilization, abortion, (or) abortion-inducing drugs," but "related education and counseling." (Emphasis added.) In other words, if a woman asks her doctor for advice on reproductive options, the consultation may not be covered.

The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The most interesting case, however, was brought by Eden Foods, a Michigan "natural foods" firm. Its Catholic owner, Michael Potter, claimed in his lawsuit that "participating in, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting contraception, abortion, and abortifacients" offends his "deeply held religious beliefs."

The appeals court that rejected his motion for an injunction against the mandate was skeptical. Potter's real position, it suggested, resembled more "a laissez-faire, anti-government screed." The evidence came from an interview Potter gave last year to Irin Carmon of Salon, in which he stated:

"I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story."

This hint that Potter had merely swaddled an anti-government rant within a "religious" blanket illustrates the main problem with Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Hobby Lobby: it takes claims of religious scruples for granted.

But how are government agencies or the courts to know when claims of religious piety are just pretexts for some other viewpoint, such as libertarianism or misogyny?

There's no evidence in the record of Tuesday's cases that the lower courts conducted any inquiry into the sincerity of the business owners' religious claims or beliefs. Alito's majority opinion Monday certainly didn't offer any guidelines for validating what he established as a qualification for exemption from the ACA mandate.

In a case involving the Gilardi family, owners of an Ohio produce firm, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the Washington, D.C., circuit appeals court wrote in a 2-1 decision overturning the mandate that "this case is not about the sincerity of the Gilardis’ religious beliefs, nor does it concern the theology behind Catholic precepts on contraception. The former is unchallenged, while the latter is unchallengeable."

But why should that be? If the only requisite for an exemption from this important mandate is a religious claim, why should it not be subject to challenge? Otherwise, how do we limit the exemption only to those with genuinely religious scruples?

(It's proper to observe that Brown didn't actually care much about the religious grounds of the Gilardis' case, though she dressed up her ruling as one dealing with the free exercise of religion. She overturned the mandate in part on the manifestly misognystic and non religious grounds--never mind that she's a woman--that the government hadn't shown it has an interest in "the compelled subsidization of a woman's procreative processes." The court in its Tuesday orders let her ruling stand.)

Shouldn't the courts, at the very least, determine if a family-owned company follows its religious precepts consistently? If this were the test, by the way, Hobby Lobby itself might fail: its 401(k) plan for employees has invested via its mutual funds in companies that manufacture and distribute precisely those drugs and devices that it objects to providing via its health insurance plan. The investments were first disclosed by Mother Jones, but are documented in the firm's public filings.

The investment options for the 401(k) are chosen, and the worker contributions matched, by the firm--how come its religious scruples didn't apply there?

Allowing exemptions to a federal law based on "unchallenged" and "unchallengeable" claims of subjective belief is the antithesis of secular law. That may be why religious exemptions have been handed out very carefully, until now.

The minimal rule should be, if you want one, prove you deserve it. In the past, courts have been loath to conduct such inquiries, because they can lead down a bottomless, subjective rabbit hole. But the Supreme Court has now turned claims of subjective belief into an enormous loophole. Somewhere, a court may try to narrow that loophole so not just anyone can fit through it. That's bad for the law, and it may be bad for religion, too.

[rodentraiser]

Hobby Lobby Fallout: Catholic Soy Milk Mogul Won't Cover Drugs That 'Prevent Procreation

Clare O'Connor

Forbes Staff

7/03/2014

http://www.forbes.co...artner=yahootix

Eden Foods bills itself as the oldest natural foods company in America. Founder Michael Potter started the business as a co-op in 1960s Michigan, long before terms like “macrobiotics” and “clean eating” were commonplace.

Potter and his team used to walk rural roads, knocking on doors of farms to seek out farmers willing to grow organic produce for the brand.

Today, Eden Foods is an all-American success story, resisting regular buyout bids and doing over $50 million in annual sales. Its rectangular, aquamarine cartons of sooy milk will be familiar to anyone who’s ever set food in a Whole Foods. Its chickpeas and kidney beans are pantry staples.

Now, with U. S. organic food sales growing yearly, Potter has taken on a new mission: blocking his 150-strong workforce from accessing birth control as part of their Eden Foods insurance plan.

In April 2013, devout Catholic (and sole Eden Foods shareholder) Potter sued the Department of Health and Human Services, calling the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate “unconstitutional government overreach.”

In a letter he wrote in response to a shopper complaint that month, Potter described contraceptives as “lifestyle drugs” akin to “Viagra, smoking cessation, weight-loss” tools and other medications. (He also compared birth control to “Jack Daniels” in a contemporaneous interview with Salon.)

In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals decided against Potter, ruling that Eden Foods, as a for-profit corporation, couldn’t exercise religion.

Now, in the wake of this week’s controversial Supreme Court Ruling recognizing craft chain Hobby Lobby’s religious rights, the court has changed its tune.

The day after the Justices decided evangelical Hobby Lobby billionaire David Green doesn’t have to cover certain contraceptives for his employees, the Supreme Court vacated the judgement against Eden foods and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration.

“The court of appeals is ordered by the Supreme Court to follow its decision in Hobby Lobby,” said Erin Mersino, the attorney handling Potter’s case at the Christian, conservative Thomas More Law Center.

“For years, Michael Potter, a Roman Catholic, President and sole shareholder of Eden Foods Corporation, for religious reasons, had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients,” said a statement released by the center this week.

“In accordance with his Catholic faith, Potter believes that any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or means — including abortifacients and contraception — is wrong.”

“The [Health and Human Services] Mandate forced Potter to make a choice between violating a foremost tenet of his faith or face fines up to $4.5 million per year. Potter brought the lawsuit because he cannot compartmentalize his faith and his business practices.”

Added Potter said in a statement released on Wednesday: “We are grateful for the Hobby Lobby decision and look forward to further developments.”

*edit: forgot link

Edited July 3, 2014 by rodentraiser

[Michelle]

For example, the Korte family, which owns an Indiana construction company, refuses to pay for or support not only "contraceptives, sterilization, abortion, (or) abortion-inducing drugs," but "related education and counseling." (Emphasis added.) In other words, if a woman asks her doctor for advice on reproductive options, the consultation may not be covered.

I'll go on this point alone...any doctor worth his/her salt knows most insurance companies don't pay for regular checkups and that includes Medicare. What they do, on the record, is report that you came in for a specific problem that needed to be addressed. You speak to them in the privacy of their office and there is no way to know what was discussed.

There is some major fear mongering going on here.

[aztek]

i always though contraception was something the guy and a girl, should think before having sex, i mean how much condoms cost??? or you can pull out for free. i strongly believe this issue is blown way out of proportion.

[andy4]

i always though contraception was something the guy and a girl, should think before having sex, i mean how much condoms cost??? or you can pull out for free. i strongly believe this issue is blown way out of proportion.

I must say that I agree with you. Has to be the first time ever. Lol

That is a personal issue, and yes, it has been blown way out of proportion. I can see this ruling extending to all of those who proclaim themselves Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Islamic. The floodgates really are open, and how is one supposed to prove what their religion really is? Because you go to church?

I think there will be more loopholes like this exposed within the ACA, and people are going to look for a lot of reasons as to why they can opt out of whatever they want.

[Rafterman]

Well it's already going beyond contraception - now we've got a group of religious leaders writing the President asking for exemptions on LGBT hiring for federal contractors you know, because Jesus.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/02/1311250/-Here-s-that-Hobby-Lobby-slippery-slope-in-nbsp-action#

We've also got a major soy milk producer who is Catholic wanting to not cover "anti-procreation" drugs. I can't wait to see what comes out Utah for those poor folks stuck working for Mormon companies - which is pretty much every company in Utah.

This is just insane.

[andy4]

I say let it happen. It'll make those businesses look bad. They will lose business due to their crazy beliefs and practices.

[preacherman76]

Just goes to show the ridiculasness of forcing Americans to buy a product from private for profit companies to begin with. I think its sad people think religious exemptions should even be the subject here.

[rodentraiser]

i always though contraception was something the guy and a girl, should think before having sex, i mean how much condoms cost??? or you can pull out for free. i strongly believe this issue is blown way out of proportion.

Well, when it comes to all birth control not being covered, it could become a medical issue. BC pills cost between $30 and $50 a month. Some women need BC pills because of health issues. If those aren't covered and the woman can't afford them, then it starts to be a problem. But even if BC pills were covered for medical reasons, here's the rub: you have to go to your boss and give him the personal info on your menstural problems because he's the one who will have to intercede with the insurance company for you. Now Aztek, seriously, how many husbands would want their wife's boss to know all about her private problems. Even if this becomes an option, it's a useless one because no woman is going to tell her boss those kinds of private things.

My biggest concern is where does it stop? What if you work for a religious business that doesn't want to cover your anti-depressants? I know I couldn't afford to pay for them on my own.

By the way, take a guess on how many pregnancies there have been with the result of pulling out. Let's just say a lot.

[rodentraiser]

I'll go on this point alone...any doctor worth his/her salt knows most insurance companies don't pay for regular checkups and that includes Medicare. What they do, on the record, is report that you came in for a specific problem that needed to be addressed. You speak to them in the privacy of their office and there is no way to know what was discussed.

There is some major fear mongering going on here.

I don't know. My mom is on Medicare and they pay for all her health needs except a few specific ones.

[Rafterman]

And frankly if you own a company and you're anti-abortion, you should be handing out contraception with paychecks every week.

[Beany]

i always though contraception was something the guy and a girl, should think before having sex, i mean how much condoms cost??? or you can pull out for free. i strongly believe this issue is blown way out of proportion.

They do think about it before, that's why the need for birth control pills. My last child was conceived while using a condom and a spermacide, they are not the most reliable birth control methods. And there's been plenty of babies conceived by use of the last method you suggested.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Beany

[Big Jim]

We need to look past the SCOTUS ruling and pending cases to the real root of the problem, the hasty and altogether ill-considered implementation of the ACA. The function of the Supreme Court is not to prefer one religion over another or to micro-manage peoples' employee benefits but merely to decide the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. The fact that there are so many cases pending before the court on the same or similar issues is an indictment of the law, not the ones bringing suit. Bad laws traditionally result in a flurry of cases. Sometimes loopholes are found in otherwise sound laws and sometimes entire laws are overturned. All the arguing over religious interference in peoples' lives and panic inducing scenarios of folks being denied treatment is just a smoke screen to obscure the real issue. What I never hear mentioned is where did people get their birth control before the ACA forced employers to provide it. Did everyone just quietly do without until it was ordered to be given to them for free? I doubt it. So the change here isn't in the availability of birth control but in the rights of employers to decide their own compensation packages for their employees. That is something new and that's why we are seeing all the law suits.

[Yamato]

Women and men have been doing it for eons. Never needed pills.

It's a pill entitlement complex anymore with the mountains of drugs the establishment is dumping on us like we're dumb rats. And we are dumb rats, for taking them.

[questionmark]

and here it comes:

WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) --Lawyers representing two Guantanamo Bay detainees have filed motions requesting the United States stop authorities from barring inmates from prayer, citing the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision.

The motions were filed in Washington D.C. district court on behalf of Emad Hassan and Ahmed Rabbani, both prisoners in Guantanamo Bay since former President George W. Bush's first term in office. According to their attorneys, Guantanamo Bay guards have been preventing them from praying communally during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons -- human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien -- enjoy the special religious free exercise protections," lawyers for Hassan and Rabbani wrote.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/07/08/Guantanamo-Bay-prisoners-sue-for-right-to-pray-cite-Hobby-Lobby/1921404838741/#ixzz36uEnB0dG

And let the games begin...

[aztek]

By the way, take a guess on how many pregnancies there have been with the result of pulling out. Let's just say a lot.

lets not just say, have you got pregnant from pulling out?? i know i never got anyone pregnant if i did not want to, and i do not use rubber, now that i'm married i do not need them, but back when i was young i did not either, (stupid move, i agree) so in my experience it sure works.

and even if you do not agree with me 100% you still will agree that if you pulling out you have less chances of getting someone pregnant than if you do not.

but anyway you make it sound more complicated that it is, isn't a contraception a separate clause in ins, policy??? i know my old ins, did not cover family planing, wouldn't health realted use of BC not fall under family planning?? btw, ins do not cover any medecine, prescription plan does, and it does not difirentiate between health and not health reasons, it either pays or it does not.

Edited July 8, 2014 by aztek

[Gromdor]

The whole point of Guantanamo was to house prisoners off US soil so we could deny them constitutional rights- like due process, etc.

[Jeremiah65]

The best way to get rid of these arguments and SCOTUS rulings is to get rid of the ACA....

poof...

all these Supreme Court cases and the rulings that come from them (and the potential twisting of those rulings) go away.

[Beany]

Change is going to happen, can't be stopped, however we personally feel about it. We can't turn back the clock.

[bubblykiss]

This is one of my favorite debates because both sides have very valid, very real arguments.

I just can't wait until a company stops covering heart attacks or medicine because people are supposed to die when they are sick or not well and the idea of quality of life is offensive to their faith.

Or what about when companies start demanding that their employees get religious tattoos in radio active ink across their livers?

Hyperbole aside this ruling opens the door for all manner of frivolous cases. The next 5 years will be a lot more interesting now that this has happened.

[Yamato]

Or what about when companies start demanding that their employees get religious tattoos in radio active ink across their livers?

They'd have a high employee turnover and low retention, they'd be revealed and discredited by the public.

I just can't wait until a company stops covering heart attacks or medicine because people are supposed to die when they are sick or not well and the idea of quality of life is offensive to their faith.

If you want more insurance than you've got, it's up to you to know what you've got and go get what you think you'll need. Pay the premium for heart attacks, it's not like the insurance company doesn't provide it. Maybe a company did that to keep their salaries up? Maybe that company pays its employees more than its peers, and its young workforce didn't care about heart attack insurance?

[rodentraiser]

lets not just say, have you got pregnant from pulling out?? i know i never got anyone pregnant if i did not want to, and i do not use rubber, now that i'm married i do not need them, but back when i was young i did not either, (stupid move, i agree) so in my experience it sure works.

and even if you do not agree with me 100% you still will agree that if you pulling out you have less chances of getting someone pregnant than if you do not.

but anyway you make it sound more complicated that it is, isn't a contraception a separate clause in ins, policy??? i know my old ins, did not cover family planing, wouldn't health realted use of BC not fall under family planning?? btw, ins do not cover any medecine, prescription plan does, and it does not difirentiate between health and not health reasons, it either pays or it does not.

To answer your question, no, I did not get pregnant by someone pulling out. Yes, you were lucky. Incredibly so. Look it up sometime. You can definitely get a woman pregnant even if you pull out. And by the way, that's Sex Ed 101.

To get to your second question. under normal circumstances, you would be correct. However, suppose you had a child with cancer and there was a new drug that might cure him, but your insurance didn't cover it and you couldn't afford it. This is basically the situation with the abortion pills.

A woman works for Hobby Lobby. She has a miscarriage. In order to clean her uterus out, the doctor can either do surgery or he can give her an abortion pill. Any normal company with normal insurance would have no problem having the doctor give her the pill, whether she could afford it or not. But this is Hobby Lobby. Did you read the article about the woman who miscarried and was given an abortion pill to clean her uterus out? Problem is, the woman was still carrying a twin of the miscarried baby that no one knew about because it was too early to tell by ultra sound or by hearing a heartbeat. Now you know HL is going to know about this. Do you think they are going to let their insurance company give this woman an abortion pill or do you think they will make her have the surgery even if she can afford that pill on her own?

Then there's the privacy aspect of it. To get your insurance to agree, you are going to have to have them get permission from the company you work for. You could go to your boss and have him go to HR and so forth on up the line till you get to the person who deals with the insurance, or you can start with the insurance company and have them confer with the company you work for. Either way, your medical problems are no longer just between you and your doctor. Now they are between you, your doctor, AND your company. So much for patient privacy.

[rodentraiser]

They'd have a high employee turnover and low retention, they'd be revealed and discredited by the public.

Well, that never stopped Sprint. And they're still in business, gouging their customers.

[Yamato]

Well, that never stopped Sprint. And they're still in business, gouging their customers.

So high prices are a bad thing, that's right. And not only when Sprint does it.

Radioactive tattoos on employee stomachs and Sprint though? I'm pretty sure those two things aren't related.

[pbarosso]

They do think about it before, that's why the need for birth control pills. My last child was conceived while using a condom and a spermacide, they are not the most reliable birth control methods. And there's been plenty of babies conceived by use of the last method you suggested.

you need a dna test of your last child LOL