General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCountersuit for Hobby Lobby?
Why couldn't a woman or group of women who take the birth control pill for a condition like endometriosis sue for damages caused them by an employer who won't cover the pill? It's an entire class of people who will experience significant harm due to gender and religious bias.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Denying them equal health care under the ACA is denying equal protection.
But the pigs on the Court won't see it that way.
Don't insult the cute lil' pigs. (at least in comparison to SCOTUS)
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,811 posts)But even if it made it to this SCOTUS she would lose. They hate our guts. This five men hate us.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)for SCOTUS!
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)These lifetime appointments are ridiculous.
unblock
(52,196 posts)the women were lying and/or would take advantage of the situation by having sex and subsequent "abortions".
the decisions was complete b.s. from the moment they decided that companies can have religious beliefs.
all manner of hell follows from that ridiculous position.
calimary
(81,220 posts)Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Why can't WE take that approach? Aren't OURS "sincerely-held beliefs"? Can't an argument be made in some way? Or some other challenge that can be mounted based on religious beliefs? Let's look at this. This is a weapon that can be used and exploited by OUR side, too, isn't it? Let's have an American Muslim challenge that operates on this law. Let's shake up the opposition so they start realizing What They've Done. I think there's a myopia in these opponents of ours that the world is not only flat but it stops at the edge of Christianity and everything else falls off. Well, that's NOT the way it is!!! There are OTHER religions. How about the Sihks? I would say Wicca but that would fail because it's not widely acknowledged or accepted. But Sihks are a widely-recognized religion, however begrudgingly. So is Islam. So is Judaism. What if the NON-Christians start making use of it?
Yes, that's kind of a sideways view of it - doesn't address the problem we all agree we have as a result of this, specific to access to contraceptives. But look at it this way: if you're stuck in a rip-tide, what do they tell you to do? Go sideways. Don't try to reach shore directly. Don't aim in. Go sideways. Swim ALONG THE SHORELINE til you move beyond the current that's keeping you stranded, and then get back to shore that way. You may wind up somewhat downrange, but your feet will be on dry land again.
Because the overriding objective, I think, is to weaken and dismantle this religious protection business. To start chipping away at it, JUST THE SAME WAY THE OPPOSITION HAS RELENTLESSLY CHIPPED AWAY AT OUR RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. Let's take a page from that book and use it against them the way they've used it against us. Those religious protections apply to more than just Christianity or extremist "Christianity."
We have to go about it creatively. We have to do what kkkarl rove always likes to do: Attack them at their strength. Let's challenge their very religious beliefs. Let's challenge their claim that they're Christian. First of all, you can't be "pro-life" if you're pro-execution. Let's establish THAT truth. Start spreading that around. Start fucking with their resolve. Start fucking with their belief system. Find the cracks and the hypocrisies in it and exploit them. The effort to draw attention to Hobby Lobby's business dealings with China - where abortion is as available as free candy - THAT needs to be pounded into the national consciousness, with people talking about it and well-aware of it and hopefully outraged about it. That can be a strike against Hobby Lobby - I'm sure they save all kinds of money buying cheap-ass shit from China when more expensive supplies from elsewhere would bite into their profit margins.
Let's think.
Let's use this.
Let's turn this around so it bites THEM in the ass.
Who knows? Maybe THEY will be the ones to undo this stringent religious protection - if that side suddenly realizes Islam benefits from this, what do you think they might do? At least, this will fuck with 'em badly and shake the ground underneath. We want their resolve shaken, too. We want them confused, confounded, and in disarray, their plans messed with and their objectives confused.
unblock
(52,196 posts)sure, we can come up with *logical* ways to illustrate the absurdity of their position, but to what end?
they can always deem any belief they don't care for to be not "sincerely-held".
they allowed hobby lobby despite facts like it's a recent view of theirs, it defies accepted law and science, and it doesn't stop them from profiting off investments that violate those same beliefs.
i'm sure they would dismiss any jewish or islamic challenge as being a silly and not sincerely-held belief.
these wacko justices do not feel themselves bound by logic or precedent or conscience. they decide first on the result, then concoct some silly excuse to rationalize it.
calimary
(81,220 posts)imperious individuals in the face. I'd guess the five male Catholic justices, if they're applying faith to decision-making as they do indeed seem to be doing, might be viewing the issue ONLY through his Catholic lenses. If you're that Catholic then you're not thinking much about how other religions would make use of this same loophole you've created for Christian-owned businesses and Christian institutions. You think monochromatically about the one and only faith - the Roman Catholic faith, particularly if you subscribe to a strength of faith that's of the fire-in-the-belly fundamentalist column.
I would like to see if their false piety in support of religious freedom-of-choice stands up as strong for that same religious free-pass if some Islamic faith-based operation claimed that same exemption.
And there should be other challenges advanced in other ways, in other areas. Think about it. Doesn't it seem, sometimes, as though we're being attacked from all sides? From every direction and seemingly every dimension! It seems not a day flits by wherein I don't see or notice a new assault on some liberal/progressive/Democratic/established-back-in-New-Deal-days campaign, person, agency, organization, mentality. Heck, maybe I'm just giving in to a little paranoia. But I find myself marveling at all the different ways the enemy seeks to attack us. Sometimes they're stopped or called out in public for it, but they're always looking for a way in, a way around, a way through, a way under, a way over. WHATEVER. And they don't care whatever. And dammit, they're keeping us busy, the way our sparring teacher coached us to do to our own adversaries on the map in order to prevail ultimately: "keep 'em busy!" And I don't think our side is very good or very shrewd in doing that. Maybe because the truly devious ones tend to gravitate toward Slytherin House rather than to the Gryffindors. But we need to be more shrewd, ourselves.
For one thing, explore THIS for awhile (The Powell Memo):
http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/
And in more detail...
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
(Paragraph 6 after the "CONFIDENTIAL..." is EYE-OPENING. He as much as said we need to protect and defend racism. Too many minorities speaking out, dammit!)
Reading through it is freakin' STUNNING, and most illuminating. I found sometimes that merely substituting any and all references to the liberal or left with tea baggers or the tea party, and astonishingly, the passage still holds true, still relevant to this very hour! Also, the strategist in me notes here the very pointed reference to Ralph Nader and what a menace to the corporate world he is because - because - because - all positives inserted here. Some of the Dark Side strategists might have read that and immediately started trying to figure out how to deal with that "menace." Wonder if their ilk convinced him (maybe a mole or two, starting a drumbeat) to run for President in 2000 - gambling on him being a spoiler for the Democratic candidate. *** NOTE, meanwhile, how devious they think. Note how they weren't content to just campaign straight out and try to win over a majority of voters. They hedged their bets. That side does things like this all the time! Whether they have enough votes to back postponing a statewide election til an odd year or an odd month, because they know there aren't as many going to the polls on our side in off-year elections, while on the other hand, they're pretty good at firing up their base for those outings.
chris christie did some hide-the-salami tricks with Cory Booker's Senate race. He moved it away from the general election because he knew more Dems would come out to support Cory Booker, and he didn't want Booker on the ballot with other issues and candidates (like himself).
http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-christie-nj-special-election-date-set-oct-16-2013-6
The GOP talked a Virginia Dem into resigning for big new jobs for himself and his daughter so his State Senate post was open and they could change the balance of power against VA governor Terry McAuliffe. Look how THAT throws a monkey wrench at the ACA.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/gop-talks-democrat-stepping-down
Combine that with the monkey wrench that they threw on Hobby Lobby's behalf. That's a two-fer. Double monkey wrenches - at the ACA and at a woman's right to choose. See how deviously they think and plot and strategize? We need to do likewise. Okay maybe we don't actually do some of this stuff they do (and some of that stuff being illegal doesn't stop them). But FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN if we can think a little deviously, maybe we might be better able to anticipate incoming jabs from them. Or maybe we might have better equipment, or training, or supporting infrastructure to nullify the attack or minimize the damages.
To know and understand the enemy, seems to me, is to start to out-think and out-smart them.
mercuryblues
(14,530 posts)prefer a suit bought by another religious corporate owner for being forced to cover organ transplants or blood transfusions against their religious beliefs. Religious discrimination. Making laws that favors one religion over another.
catbyte
(34,374 posts)Freddie
(9,259 posts)But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. Can't think of any major Jehovah's Witness or Scientologist employer who would want to inflict their medical beliefs on employees. Besides, we all know that the only sincere religious beliefs concerning healthcare somehow involve ladyparts, funny that.
Whenever I read about "sincerely held beliefs" I always think of Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to choose his pumpkin patch as the "most sincere"!
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Let them explain themselves then.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)including MOST versions of 'the pill' I would say there would be little standing.
the only types that were specifically rejected were the ones that prevent implantation. it's not to say some OTHER group might come along and deny coverage for ALL BC methods... but Hobby Lobby did not.
sP
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Endometriosis is very typically treated with an IUD and in many cases can ONLY be treated via an IUD.
And since endometriosis is an acute condition where uterine lining cells form outside the uterus, the drugs that strip the uterine lining cells which keeps a fertilized egg from implanting are the ONLY TYPES OF drugs effective in nearly all endometriosis cases.
What the court allowed Hobby Lobby to do is not cover any effective treatment for endometriosis.
PATXgirl
(192 posts)By not covering it, it places the user in a financial hardship...because if the method isn't covered, chances are the office visits to insert, monitor and remove it will not be covered.
When this very topic was brought up in a personal discussion, the conservative said, "That woman can just get her doctor to write her a note."
I replied, "He did. It's called a doctors order/prescription. And no woman should have to beg for their health care."
mercuryblues
(14,530 posts)entire fucking mandate was struck down. It is not a smorgasbord to pick and choose from. Companies either offer contraception coverage or none at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-sides-with-employers-over-birth-control-mandate/2014/06/30/852e5c84-fc61-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html
The Supreme Court struck down a key part of President Obamas health-care law Monday, ruling that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners religious beliefs.
The decision deeply split the court, not only on its holding that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects some businesses from offering contraceptive coverage but also on how broadly the ruling will apply to other challenges in which businesses say laws impose on their religious beliefs.
Our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for his conservative colleagues. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employers religious beliefs.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)the very next day, which made clear that the decision applied to all forms of contraception, not just to the four mentioned in the opinion.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)It says that an employer can exclude any or all forms of contraceptives that are in conflict with their religious beliefs. It allows that an employer may exclude coverage for all contraceptives, but there is nothing in it that prohibits an employer from excluding those that they object to while still covering the rest.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)forms of contraception if it feels like doing it. Where is there a 'misreading'?
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)They ruled. Closely held corporations have religious rights that surpass those of individuals employed by them ... they have established a precedent and I doubt there will ever be the need to rehear cases (unless they somehow can further limit individual rights)
Wounded Bear
(58,647 posts)Their biggest power is the power to refuse to take cases they don't want to.
goldent
(1,582 posts)I believe they do cover birth control pills, and for the treatments they don't normally cover (e.g. morning after pill), I think they would cover it for medical conditions like you mention. Maybe a case could be constructed - I don't know. Hobby Lobby's position is ideological and more limited than many people realize.
PATXgirl
(192 posts)The insurance plan covered both Plan B and Ella. If it didn't offend their sensibilities then, it shouldn't now.
Edited to add: I know "perjury" isn't the word I'm looking for but it's all that's coming to mind. Some kind of false claim, etc.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)health reasons. My daughter had on because of endometriosis.