Hobby Lobby is only symbolic with zero practical effect

[Cicada]

Alito on page 4 of his opinion says the practical effect on anyone wanting birth control is in his words "precisely zero." Kennedy also says this in his separate opinion. That is because the HHS department already has a program to provide all approved birth control for free to those who work for religious nonprofits who (legally) choose not to provide certain contraception to their employees; and HHS will certainly extend this program to employees of Hobby Lobby and others like Hobby Lobby.

Most health insurers will provide this extension at no cost because contraception is cheaper than babies and for self-insuring Hobby Lobby type firms the cost to HHS to provide contraception is very small.

The case is only symbolic, not practical.

I learned this from discussions at the great Balkinization blog run by Yale Law professor Jack Balkin.

[emsimon33]

1. Nevertheless, It sets a bad precedent & reaffirms corporations as people!

[PoliticAverse]

2. The analysis at scotusblog discusses this issue and how the decision can be implemented in practice

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opinion-analysis-does-the-new-religious-exemption-go-far-enough/

And some additional speculation/analysis can be found here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/what-comes-next-for-contraception-coverage/

[BootinUp]

3. Did you read Ginsburgs Dissent?

[Cicada]

5. Maybe the majority opinion was watered down at last minute to get Kennedy

Justice Ginsburg, one of the greatest judges of all time imo, could have assumed the ruling will be narrowly construed in the future. But she starts with a five bell alarm instead. Sandy Levinson at Balkinization repeats a friend's theory that the original Alito opinion may have been watered down at the last minute to get Kennedy's vote. That made it too late for Ginsburg to rewrite her opinion in a calmer tone.

[BootinUp]

6. I don't think it will go down in the history books

as a case with minor effects.

The Supreme Court has set a new and apparently confusing precedent virtually guaranteeing it will be revisited in the future.

Then there is the political ramifications.

Then there is an unsettled question of how these women will actually get the desired insurance coverage. Apparently the religious companies do not want to send forms to the government that would result in these women getting the coverage.

[theHandpuppet]

7. "That made it too late for Ginsburg to rewrite her opinion in a calmer tone."

Wow. Okay, up to this time I really was considering your posts but I can see where this is going. Who knew that Justice Ginsberg was just another hysterical female.

Later.

[joshcryer]

4. This is what I said, however, it opens up a lot of other crazy shit.

For-profit corporations requiring their employees to adhere to some crazy asinine crap, and since it takes practically years for something to make it to the SCOTUS, the abuses can be crazy. It's probably not the end of the world, but it's just placing more burden on the HHS and the health care industry as a whole, at the behest of bigots and sexists.