From McJoan at Daily Kos. Supreme Court clarifies it means ALL contraceptive coverage in ACA

[madfloridian]

Supreme Court clarifies: Yes, Hobby Lobby is about all slut pills

Joan's words, not mine. But that really is just about what the highest court thinks of women.

That argument you keep hearing from the Right, about how Hobby Lobby still offers 16 kinds of birth control that they don't believe is abortion-y, so quit your bitchin' libs? Yeah, well, the Supreme Court punched a hole in that one.

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.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception. […]

The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.

[spanone]

1. k&r...

yep

[ZombieHorde]

2. That is good to know.

I knew Hobby Lobby was still covering 16 other contraceptives, but a company owned by a Catholic could choose to not cover any contraceptive. Seems fucked up to have your boss decide your contraceptive.

[leftyohiolib]

8. decide your contraceptive" that's disingenuous he's not deciding what you can use

he's just not willing to have it covered under the insurance - you cant still get and use what ever you want

[ZombieHorde]

11. If you have money.

Generally speaking, people got medical insurance because they can't afford medical procedures, medication, devices, etc. Now insurance is mandated, so that is obviously a new motivator, but it is mandated because it is needed for most people to afford medical procedures, etc. With this ruling, people will have less money to afford contraceptives because they are paying for their mandated insurance which may not pay for contraceptives. They may not get full coverage even if they are paying for full coverage because their boss thinks God will have a sad. At the very least, insurance that won't cover contraceptives should be discounted the cost of the contraceptives they won't cover.

[JDPriestly]

29. That's the point. This is another decision that harms lower middle-class and poor people.

The Supreme Court Justices do not care because they earn enough to cover what is to them the relatively small cost of contraception. Again, this is about the disparity in income in this country.

A Justice who earns maybe over $200,000 cannot imagine what it is like to be earning only $20,000 and having a child or maybe more than one child.

We need to ask our Supreme Court Justices to spend 6 months living only on the minimum wage. They need to have that experience. Then they would understand why women want birth control and abortion.

[leftyohiolib]

31. i know but the title, which said something else and has since been changed ,

said the employer can decide which contraceptive you can use and it was to that which i was responding. but yea stuff costs money my cholesterol pills total 50 a month with insurance. if they stopped covering that i'd have to pay more. btw before it comes up (no pun intended) my insurance company does not cover cialis or viargra

[jeff47]

20. Because money grows on trees.

Vasectomies cost $350-$1000.
Tubal Ligation costs $1500-$6000.
IUDs cost about $800.
Non-insured cost of birth control pills runs around $30-$150/mo, depending on which pill.

There's a reason that people turn to insurance to pay for these.

Also, why do insurance companies want to cover those? Because a no-complications pregnancy costs $30,000. Complications cause the cost to shoot up quickly. For example, if the pregnancy ends with a c-section, that's another $20k.

[leftyohiolib]

32. that's what i dont get why wouoldnt anyone not want to cover b.c pills

b.c. pills or birth. you'd thnk that from a strictly financial perspective it would make sense to give women b.c. pills but there it is

[jeff47]

33. Because the goal is not financial. The goal is theocratic. (nt)

[madfloridian]

37. Exactly.

[passiveporcupine]

46. Insurance that every person is required to have under law

and that coverage should be equal for everyone (meet all the ACA requirements), not limited by someone's boss's religious objection, so that some women have to pay more for things other women get for free. But you are a man arean't you?

Hobby Lobby employees get health care from HB, but I'm sure, as everywhere else, the employee is required to contribute part of the cost, and because it is offered at work, they do not get to switch to an ACA exchange that might treat them fairly. So you are just SOOL if you happen to be a HB employee and a female.

[RockaFowler]

3. Thanks for posting this

This is what this case was always about

They wanted to do away with all of Contraceptives. It was always their intention and of course the men on that court went right along with them Remember Corporations are people not Women according to them

[JDPriestly]

18. Right.

This is an attack on Griswold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

This Court is positively medieval.

Elevating corporations to the status of persons in interpreting our Constitution with regard to things like campaign contributions and, with regard to closely-held corporations with regard to paying for access to birth control in insurance policies is a modern form of feudalism.

The seigneur, the master, the boss, the employer has the right to determine how a woman manages her reproductive life? That's positively medieval. Pretty soon,, the Court will overturn the laws on harassment in the workplace and reinstate the right of the first night for the lord and master employer.

This Court is medieval.

But in the medieval period, women had it better. The fetus was not considered to be a person until the quickening -- until it moved in about the fifth month.

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before 'quickening'; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the foetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before 'quickening'; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the foetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_1.shtml

So, our court is picking the worst concepts from the Medieval period to apply to our times. What a bunch.

We need to gain seats in both the Senate and the House this November. That has to be how we answer this Supreme Court. That way we have the power of impeachment should we need it.

[PADemD]

38. Why wait until November?

I want four women nominated to the Supreme Court right now. That would give us a Supreme Court with 7 women and 6 men, which would be more reflective of the general population.

[JDPriestly]

40. Good idea. But we have to have control of the House and Senate to be able to impeach

one or more of the current justices. We need to find a basis for impeaching one of them. It's very hard to do.

[IronLionZion]

4. They are deliberately trying to confuse people

"They" meaning the 5 conservative justices and the whole RW propaganda machine.

[Rex]

5. The supreme cave dwellers got a chance to woman punch, one of their favorite sports.

When will this SCOTUS get it's head out of corporation asses...or is it just my imagination? I mean, I gave up long ago ever hearing anyone seriously charge Scarface and Tomas with clear conflict of interest violations in 2000...nobody seemed to care much. BUT seriously, how fucking stupid do we have to go with these serial 5 assholes? Why not just rule that money is free speech...oh wait they did that too.

They fuck up the country, give corporations anything they want, decide women should go back to being more like objects...not that I expect Congress to lift a finger. They are too busy trying hard to look relevant, but actually do nothing but blaming the POTUS for every sneeze and cough.

All I expect from Congress, is a bill for all the booze the GOP seems to be able to put down daily. I think their plan was to get their average voter down to the LCD, so that they could do anything they wanted and not worry about their voters actually having a brain cell to notice.

[madfloridian]

6. Scalia's getting his revenge on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025177502

[Anansi1171]

7. So much for the lies of the RW media repeating "it's only the four abortion drugs"!

Since Republicans can't fathom any political metaphor beyond, of course, football - I would say this amounts to two-points. Otherwise known as rendering most of yesterday's commentary lies, and pointing out the veracity of the "hair on fire crowd" of which I am proudly a member.

Or put yet another way - this is what they call a "slippery slope".

[WillowTree]

9. Still doesn't say.......

.......that an employer's plan must either cover all contraceptives or none at all. Just that they can refuse to cover all or any that conflict with their religious beliefs.

[frazzled]

10. Are you trying to defend, or minimize, this ruling?

I don't care if it's one thing, or everying, that they can refuse to cover: the ruling remains discriminatory, horrific, and with vast unintended consequences.

[WillowTree]

12. I didn't defend or minimize anything.

I was just saying that this "clarification" doesn't make their intent any more or less clear.

[kcr]

28. But it applies to all birth control.

So those of you who were spreading that RW talking point were spouting misinformation.

[passiveporcupine]

30. what you just said

does not make any sense.

That they can cover any or all is the point of their clarification.

[JDPriestly]

41. Why is that important?

Why should an employer make any decision about the health care or reproductive life of an employer?

[cerveza_gratis]

13. If there were comparable male contraceptives

would they be covered? An IPD (although it hurts me to think about it)? A morning after pill if it worked that way? I think it would just be marketed in Maxim magazine like hangover cures for bros.

[Hekate]

14. Well there you have it

Honey, where's my burka?

[BrotherIvan]

15. Medicare. For. All.

NOW

[randys1]

26. No shit, you would think it would upset some rightys that this decision

isnt based in the law, at all, no way shape or form, if anything it flies in the face of all precedent including the constitution itself.

Amazing how corrupt these 5 guys are, right out in the open, but we knew that the day they handed W the presidency

[underpants]

16. " still offers 16 kinds of birth control" shows full of sh!t this whole thing is

They are so delusional and gullible to the latest dashboard talking point that they don't see how that can't be an argument FOR them. Sheesh!

[Zoonart]

17. Worse than is even being discussed

"The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision."

This is the watershed moment.

This is KEY, by legitimizing the "abortificant" argument, they have also in this decision- declared their opinion that life begins at conception. If not so, then the "abortificant" argument does not hold water.

Am I wrong?

[HereSince1628]

25. I think you are largely correct in the way you see the argument playing out

But like most arguments on this topic it muddles together issues of life and personhood.

I personally have little biological respect for rhetoric about life beginning at conception or sometime later.

It's fairly well established that life began on this planet over 3.5 billion years ago...since then all life has come down in an unbroken succession to everything that is currently alive. There are really no gaps of non-life between adults humans and their offspring. I don't see how acceptance of biological evolution and definitions of biological life can be reconciled in any 'life begins at ____'.

I support abortion rights. Abortion is basically self-defense for women. Guaranteeing women the right to control their fecundity is essential to guaranteeing women the right to self-determination of their lives.


IMO the buying into 'life begins at ____' condemns the entire discussion that follows to the influence of mirky myths, traditional social mores, and misunderstanding of basic features of biology.

[Zoonart]

35. Very much agree

My first husband was a philosophy professor who specialized in biomedical-ethics, so I am well versed in the ins and outs of the conception/life argument.

I was simply pointing out, that SCOTUS has seemingly codified the "life begins at conception" point in law with this decision, by conceding that a host of birth control methods are "abortificants".
And that is very big.

[JDPriestly]

43. You make such a good point.

It's fairly well established that life began on this planet over 3.5 billion years ago...since then all life has come down in an unbroken succession to everything that is currently alive. There are really no gaps of non-life between adults humans and their offspring. I don't see how acceptance of biological evolution and definitions of biological life can be reconciled in any 'life begins at ____'.

I feel one with all life around me. That even includes my avocado trees and even the earth. Isn't the biblical phrase "From dust to dust . . . "

[BlancheSplanchnik]

44. great points, and well said.

Accessible, safe abortion and contraception are life or death issues FOR WOMEN.

[blkmusclmachine]

19. The War On Women has arrived at the SCOTUS. 5 fascists in black robes!

[progree]

21. Associated Press too, in case someone wants a mainscream media source

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html

Justices act in other health law mandate cases, Associated Press, 7/1/14

Washington (AP) - 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.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices. ((pills and devices that prevent the implantation of the developing embryo, what some call "abortifacients" - Progree))

Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

....

The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.

I know the Daily Kos article links to this, but just in case somebody didn't take the time to go to the Daily Kos article, and then didn't take the time to click the hyperlinked words to see where it led...

At least the Supreme Court 5 are consistent -- a slut is a slut is a slut.

[madfloridian]

24. Direct link is good idea.

So often people don't follow links.

[KoKo]

42. Recommend...this makes it clear what the intent of those 5 Jutices was about....

[muntrv]

22. This case is another argument for the public option.

[lark]

23. I. FUCKING. HATE. EACH. AND. EVERY. ONE. OF. THEM!!!

[randys1]

27. Not half as much as they hate YOU if you are a Woman and how much they hate Obama

This is about thumbing their nose in that uppity N's face...

their words, not mine

Hobby Lobby arent xtians, they are racists and misogynists and if Jesus existed and came back his knuckles would be bleeding from the face punching he would be doing to these filth

[lark]

39. I think I hate them more.

I loathe the day each one of these misogynists was born, would not cry if they all died at once from the weight of their heinous acts. I am totally sure they hate ms, because I am a working class, far left, liberal activist woman who raised both my children to also be liberal. The only way they'd hate me more was if I was also a minority. I'm also totally sure they hate Obama, more for the sin of being not right wing and being the president than anything else, but also with some racism as well. The thing is they hate me as a "class" of people they see as inferior, while I totally hate them as individuals, for their own personal treason to the country. In the future, if sanity ever returns to this nation, they will be seen as the worst so-called justices ever to serve in that high office and many of their rulings will be overturned as poorly reasoned.

[Freddie]

34. Not getting pregnant can be a matter of life or death

A dear relative of mine has a heart condition; she was told years ago that the stress on her heart from pregnancy and childbirth could be fatal. Couldn't take the Pill because of blood clot risks so she eventually had her tubes tied, thankfully covered by her insurance. SCOTUS would prefer she be given a choice of a celibate marriage or death, or "pay for your own major surgery!"
They can eat shit and die.

[madfloridian]

36. So true. It's a dangerous thing..

And denial of the right to get an abortion late term if needed as life and death matter. It's like they are playing God.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

45. ^^^ this^^^

I'm so angry at these fucking puke christofascists, I can hardly speak.