According to an NBC/WSJ poll, 53 percent of Americans don’t agree with the Supreme Court majority opinion siding with Hobby Lobby that employers can be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employer health plans cover prescription birth control.
From MSNBC:
“This is a deeply troubling decision. For the first time, the highest court in the country has said that business owners can use their religious beliefs to deny their employees a benefit that they are guaranteed by law,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU.
At oral argument, as hundreds of women rallied outside in support of birth control access, Paul Clement argued, “This is not about access to the contraception, it’s who’s going to pay for the government’s preferred subsidy.” Justice Elena Kagan, for her part, had a different answer: ”Congress has made a judgment and Congress has given a statutory entitlement and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage, and when an employer says, no, I don’t want to give that, that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.”
The contraceptive benefit was widely seen as a political win for Obama in the 2012 election, galvanizing single women to go to the polls. Democrats are hoping a similar strategy pays off in key elections this fall.
Pain? Yes. Anger? Of course. Mother Jones was kind enough to offer up quotes from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg’s dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
“The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would … deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”
“Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”
“Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”
“It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage
“Would the exemption…extend to employers with 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[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”
“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude
“The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”
But fear not, hipster knitters: There are other places to get your crafting on.
This article appears in Jun 26 – Jul 2, 2014.
Maybe the people who work for those companies that want that coverage in their company provided health insurance should think about getting a new employer.
When people interview their potential new employers maybe they should ask about what benefits are included. That information will become part of the decision making process for whether or not to work for an employer.
This is why I don’t take the paper….you need to point out that birth control is provided and is up to them to take it. When did these kinds of decisions become the employers responsibility and not the persons? YOu play you pay !
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa… Not forcing a company pay for birth control is like not forcing a company pay for cocktails. If you’re not having sex to procreate, then you’re having it recreationally – for pleasure – not that there’s anything wrong with that. This is not an instance of a company refusing the right of women to have total control over their bodies and the methods that they employ to maintain their lifestyles. They’re just not picking up the tab. Like Zoe said above…you play, you pay.
Zoe and Carlos: Birth control pills have vital medical uses beyond preventing pregnancy, such as controlling endometriosis–in fact, I know two women who take them for exactly that reason. Now consider this: Gout is typically caused by excessive drinking and a rich diet–recreational choices made for pleasure (not that there’s anything wrong with that.) Some gout sufferers, though, cannot control it without medication–should they have to pay out of pocket because their employer has decided gout medication subsidizes amoral choices?
Do you have a problem strictly with A: employers being required to pay for something they disagree with or are you B: questioning the whole system of employer-based health care?
In the case of A, what other religious exemptions should we allow? I can’t say it any better than Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent: “Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with 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[?]”
In the case of B, I’m all for dumping our current system that ties health care to employment. It’s an artifact of WWII-era wage controls that is inefficient and harms our economy by incentivizing people to stay in jobs that are not a good fit. But this is not what about the case is about. It’s about fucking. Specifically, the ability for women to have the same rights as men when it comes to fucking. If you don’t agree, ask yourself why Hobby Lobby has no problem paying for Viagra, Cialis, or vasectomies.
Narfinity – In case you are unaware, there are only three prescriptions affected by this decision:
• Plan B “morning-after pill”
• Ella “morning-after pill”
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (USA Today)
None of those are used to treat endometriosis or any other “lady problems”. What they have in common is that they destroy fertilized eggs, therefore, terminating unwanted pregnancies. Now, I understand that in the liberal universe that life doesn’t begin at conception but instead at birth so you may have a hard time wrapping your brain around this concept.
However, if this is “just about fucking” as you so eloquently state above, there are still a wide range of birth control options that are still mandated to be covered that will make actually terminating the pregnancy unnecessary if the woman is otherwise responsible.
OK, now bring on the rape argument…
It applies to all contraceptives, according to this AP article about the clarification issued today by the court:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_…
An excerpt: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling…Tuesday’s orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception.”
Now that you know this, feel free to go back and reread my previous post and consider my questions anew, instead of ignoring or belittling them. Thanks!
Actually, the decision is more about control of women and their bodies in a much broader sense than just “f…..g”-
I also can’t wait for the wave of new lawsuits brought forth regarding any number of health services–a lawyer’s windfall gift for sure! What about a closely held company whose owners believe in contraception but not vaccines or blood transfusions–why are only contraceptives cherry picked by the justices?
AND this decision by the five, white, male, catholic, radicals on the court is another brick in the phony wall of corporate “rights” trumping Human Rights!
If this decaying country lasts long enough, these egregious, tortuous, evil “decisions” based on the five radical’s ideology instead of any rational reading of the Constitution or the Intent of the Founders will, like Dred Scott and Separate but Equal, be overturned…
FYI:
http://www.nationofchange.org/supreme-cour…
Ultimately being a capitalist society we can vote with our feet, Hobby Lobby can keep only the barefoot and pregnant 2nd class citizen/employees and maintain their religious right to persecute the unbelievers and we can get our hobby supplies elsewhere.
Micheal’s is good, and there are still a few mom and pop places here in Tucson.
Here is a hilarious story about President Eisenhower and SCOTUS, a vacancy opened and his advisers suggested a good republican candidate, Ike desisted in favor of a more liberal judge to add balance saying ” The American people deserve to have faith in their institutions”. Poor guy couldn’t win even a local GOP primary today unless he’s pledged to stacking the court
Good reporting Ms. Herreras, but why doesn’t the Weekly post this stuff the day it happens? “News” is by its nature “new”
I love Hobby Lobby just as much as I love Chick-Fil-A! Moo-ooo!!!