Supreme Court to review contraceptive coverage mandate

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider a new challenge to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and decide whether employers with religious objections may refuse to provide their workers with mandated insurance coverage of contraceptives.

The cases accepted by the court offer complex questions about religious freedom and equality for female workers along with an issue the court has not yet confronted: whether a secular, for-profit corporation is protected by the Constitution or federal statute from complying with a law because of its owners religious beliefs.

The justices accepted two cases that produced opposition results in lower courts.

One was brought by the owners of Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain that its owner David Green said is run on biblical principles. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver said forcing the company to comply with the contraceptive mandate would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-review-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/2013/11/26/e9627f5a-56bc-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

[Burf-_-]

1. This one must be decided FOR women and reproductive rights.

This case could wreck EQUAL opportunity of employment all together. Why even have EEOC rules if SCOTUS allows it?

Being the swing vote, Kennedy has said he is leaning against this, which is remarkable from him, so lets hope he keeps this moment of clarity and proves he can make a sane judgement from time to time.

[CTyankee]

3. I think he will. He's not that far out...

[Scairp]

45. Being discussed on Hardball right now

[CTyankee]

46. ACK. Thanks but I missed all but the very end...Chris didn't sound happy...

[PoliticAverse]

32. This case won't wreck EEOC rules all together. n/t

[VirginiaTarheel]

2. I think they will strike down the contraception mandate

I think they will use it as vehicle to expand religious exemptions

[Burf-_-]

6. i hope your wrong bro

Seriously , any sane judge of law would have to have the foresight to see just how far this case could reach if it were allowed... For once I'm strangely optimistic.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Yeah, the Buybull beaters are frothing over a good outcome to advance their Agenda against Women,

Science, and Church-State Separation. This is HUGE!

[Scairp]

41. Maybe not

Everyone thought they would gut ACA and they didn't, so I'm inclined to believe they won't implement legal discrimination against women over covered birth control. And I've had enough of Hobby Lobby. I already boycott them due to their fight to not cover birth control for women. If it were birth control for men I bet dollars to donuts they wouldn't have made a peep about it. Sick, sick, sick of religion trying to take over the personal lives of everyone.

[pinto]

56. Disagree. I think they'll recognize that a private company can't ignore federal legislation solely

on the owner's point of view. We'll see.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. They already make you pee in a cup

even if you don't inhale, you're under suspicion

So, they can make you have babies? Why not.

Let the corporations rule your bedroom.

The Pope, the Right to Lifers, the Birtherists,
Big Pharma, Erotic Stimulators - they're all there already

What's one more?

When they're always ready to use the state to promote their agenda,

Fertility Aids become an act of God.

We're just a few court rulings from perpetual Viagra and 17 kids for every
couple. More citizens to buy guns that way.

[ag_dude]

10. I don't think you read it. Nobody is outlawing birth control.

[bucolic_frolic]

20. I don't think you get it. Once they're in your bedroom, they're not going to leave.

It's all about control and pushing their beliefs onto you.

Lawfulness is one thing. Influence is a grayer area.

Their religious beliefs do not belong in one's secular life.

[ag_dude]

21. But "they" are not coming into your bedroom?

Nobody is outlawing or restricting your purchase of birth control.

What exactly are you talking about?

Did you read the article?

[bucolic_frolic]

22. Please leave me alone

You make no sense to me, nor I to you

Peace.

[ag_dude]

23. Well, that's rational.

Just to clarify, nothing about this prohibits you from purchasing or using birth control.

[Scairp]

43. Clearly you don't have the first clue

A prescription is a prescription and just because it's birth control doesn't mean they can refuse to cover that particular drug. Oral contraceptives are expensive and any and all prescriptions should be covered, period.

[ag_dude]

52. That's not the government coming into your bedroom.

...quite the opposite actually.

[Scairp]

62. You are correct

It's fucking Hobby Lobby, and other fundy religious businesses, coming into your bedroom. Is that more palatable to you?

[ag_dude]

67. How is Hobby Lobby telling anybody what to do in their bedroom?

Seriously, cut the snark, be specific, how is Hobby Lobby attempting to tell people what to do in their bedroom?

The OP that I was responding to is the kind of hyperbolic bull shit that has destroyed any hope of civil political discourse.

[24601]

70. But birth control is one of the few things the young actually get out of ACA. The elderly

likely don't need it.

ACA requires rates that are not based on actuarial risk - where those with lower risk pay lower premiums. ACA numbers, however, won't work if actuarial risk pricing is allowed.

So take birth control out of a plan for someone who is reasonably healthy and what's left?

[JCMach1]

36. You actually are supporting Hobby Lobby in this case? This is just another attempt

to push corporate personhood at the expense of a woman's legal due under the ACA.

?????

[ag_dude]

53. I realize the internet is poor at recognizing nuance but...

...no, my argument is not supporting Hobby Lobby.

What I was saying is this ruling has nothing to do with outlawing or restricting birth control.

[JCMach1]

65. Because we know the Right-Wing couldn't possibly be pushing such an agenda (sarcasm)

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-life-league

Couldn't possibly be an agenda, or organized effort...

an array of for-profit and non-profit businesses have now filed 77 lawsuits to push the courts to allow any employer to decide whether employees get birth control coverage. In response, 18 women's organizations are currently working to protect access to reproductive healthcare, filing amicus briefs opposing the employers trying to roll back contraception coverage. No court decisions have been made at this time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-right-wing-is-targeting-birth-control-again-20131025#ixzz2lrTWmWkZ

[ag_dude]

66. I was talking pretty specifically about the current case before the Supreme Court

[Marrah_G]

69. Yes, it is

This is just another way for religion zealots to get their hands into a woman's pants. We are quite capable of making our own decisions.

[ag_dude]

71. How so?

They aren't telling anybody what to do.

[Marrah_G]

72. They absolutely are

They are refusing to cover a MEDICINE. A MEDICINE that a woman and her doctor have decided she needs due to their fucked up religious beliefs focusing on nothing other then controlling women. They are making women pay an added expense for a necessary MEDICINE.

[JCMach1]

73. 77 cases apart from the Sibelius vs. Hobby Lobby case

77...

[Marrah_G]

68. What about a jehovah witness business owner?

Could they make sure that any blood transfusions were not covered?

And here is something else you might not understand. Birth control is a medicine. it is used for other reasons besides preventing pregnancy. Should I need to explain my medical condition to my employers and beg them to allow a medicine that I need to be covered?

How about this instead? Keep religion and corporations out of any decisions on my body. That is between my doctor and myself.

[rocktivity]

5. If it's wrong that YOU be forced to violate your relgious beliefs

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Then it is ALSO wrong for YOU to force OTHERS to violate THEIR religious beliefs!


rocktivity

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Exactly

This is about boundaries.

The owners of a corporation have no right to force their religious beliefs on you.

And no expectation that they have a right to force you to adhere to their religious
beliefs. Especially in a SECULAR workplace!!!

Unless your religious beliefs are disruptive to their business or capitalism itself. Then
you shouldn't be employed there, you should be fired.

I think liberals will lose this one. It falls in the no government money for abortions category,
government forcing private entities to provide coverage and pay for it.

But it should be an option, without recrimination, for workers to have such coverage if they
want it and to pay for it reasonably.

Others will draw the line elsewhere.

Thorny boundaries!

Church is where you force your religious beliefs on others. Work is not the place.
Government is not the place.

[nomorenomore08]

59. Birth control should be covered like any other medication. Period. Otherwise why should Viagra be?

Fuck catering to theocratic reactionaries.

[Drale]

26. Right wingers never understand the hypocrisy of their own beliefs. /nt

[christx30]

8. This is all very dramatic,

but I honestly don't see what the big deal. Hobby Lobby isn't stopping anyone from buying birth control. They are just saying that they won't pay for it. That leaves the employee to pay for it themselves, which they already do through premiums for their insurance. Condoms and birth control pills are cheap.

[christx30]

13. I don't recall

anyone attempting to stifle freedom of speech.

[Burf-_-]

15. what committee are you testifying to ?

spoken like a true shill.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. Even shills have rights to the intertoobs, too, ya know...

[Quantess]

17. They get to dictate how the employee spends their hard earned money?

Those employees earned that health insurance, and it isn't any of the employers business whether they choose insurance that covers birth control. Why can't those creeps stay out of their employees' crotches?

[Fired Pilgrim]

18. So, you agree completely with Rush Limbaugh

who said, in essence, that women should buy their own birth control pills AND buy their own breast pumps in case they want to breast feed, as most doctors recommend. Not a very nice source to (figuratively) be "in bed" with.

[JoePhilly]

27. So your Christian Scientist boss should be able to decide which treatments your insurance

can cover ... right?

Is that how it should work?

[christx30]

42. So if the law said

that you had to pay for female genital mutilation, you'd do it? Because the people that are against contraception feel as strongly about that as most of us would feel against FGM. If the law said we'd have to pay for it, I'd refuse. "I don't agree with you doing this. So if you're going to, I refuse to participate. You're on your own."

[DeadLetterOffice]

47. Seriously?

First of all -- really? Really? You're going to use female genital mutilation as a comparative to birth control? I can't even compose a rational response to that beyond "Wait, what?"

Also, I would be interested to hear your answer to the question put to you by the other poster: Would you be OK with your Christian Science employer deciding what procedures can be covered under your health insurance? Cuz there wouldn't be many, that's for sure... There really isn't any difference between saying your Catholic boss can refuse to allow your insurance company to cover birth control and saying that your Jehovah's Witness boss can refuse to allow your insurance company to cover blood transfusions.

Bottom line: your employer's religion should have no impact on your health care.

[JoePhilly]

49. You have one wild fantasy life, that's for sure.

You'd have to, to be able to equate a violent crime with a legal medical treatment.

I'll take Hobby Lobby slightly more seriously if and when they say that they also don't want to pay for Viagra for unmarried men.

Think we'll hear about them taking that stance?

[nomorenomore08]

60. If their religion prohibits interracial marriage, can they then fire someone for having a spouse

or SO of a different race? Same *&^$ing thing!

They can be as mortified by the idea of contraception as they damn well want, but comparing it to genital mutilation is so far out of bounds it barely deserves a response.

[PassingFair]

33. My daughter requires a specific type of birth control pill for her PCOS.

They cost $90 a month.

She is not sexually active and has hormonal issues if she doesn't take them.

Hobby Lobby would NOT be "paying" for anyone's birth control pills.

The INSURANCE company subsidizes the prescriptions.

[Scairp]

44. It shouldn't matter

Whatever the purpose of OC they should be covered as any other prescription is covered. This is simply ludicrous and yet another right wing religious attempt to control the sexuality of women. I guess they think if they don't have to cover it we won't have sex. Or something. I don't get it.

[LeftyMom]

50. Employees bought their health care benefits with some combination of their money and their labor.

Expecting women to pay for their health care twice to please the Baptist Vagina Police is not acceptable.

And no, not all birth control options are cheap. Especially "cheap" by the standards of somebody making $9/hr at a craft store.

[Cal Carpenter]

63. No one is making them pay for birth control

They are paying for INSURANCE. They should have *no say* in their workers' medical decisions.

Just like they should have no say in how an employee spends his/her salary.

This is a WORKERS' RIGHTS and WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue, not a religious one.

There are many reasons for taking hormonal birth control pills, not just for preventing pregnancy. It is none of Hobby Lobby's owners' fucking business.

[Burf-_-]

9. oh might i remind you

TAKE THIS TO THE RIGHT WING BLOGOSPHERE AND SLAM THEM HARD WITH IT ! THEY DESERVE THIS KIND OF AGGRAVATION !

[Fired Pilgrim]

12. To begin with, the premise that contraception = abortion is an incredible stretch.

The plaintiffs in the 10th Circuit Appeals Court case have referred to contraceptives as "abortion drugs." It's possible that this could end up being an offensive effort against women's health care on two fronts: key provisions in the ACA covering contraception, and the never ending war on safe and legal abortion.

[blkmusclmachine]

39. Science and facts and reason have no company with the Buybull beaters. Gawd's in the mix, after all.

[gopiscrap]

57. welcome to DU

[procon]

14. Given all the crazy taboos held by various religions

This can't end well.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of forcing an employer's religion on their employees, it's one step closer to the American Taliban. It opens the door to every sort of religious nutter with an superstitious agenda. If your wacko boss doesn't believe in blood products, fine, no major surgery for you, right? What if your employer believes in no medical intervention whatsoever?

How long would it be before the employer's religion trumps how the employee spend their wages after work if that activity violated the boss's belief in the supernatural taboos? Your boss could conceivably deny you medical coverage if you eat shellfish or bacon, you read a horoscope or crack open a fortune cookie, no tattoos for you either, and don't wear mixed fabrics, oh, and no single mother or divorcees will get insurance if this comes to pass.

[Burf-_-]

16. I like to remind the christains

that is this does pass ... It allows MUSLIM EXTREMISTS to have their way as well. Perhaps... that might sober them up some.

[blkmusclmachine]

40. NOTHING will "sober up" the Buybull beaters. They're high on Gawd.

[lark]

19. Screw SCOTUS

The Felonious Five are nothing more than traitors and criminals to the country if they rule in favor of no birth control for the hypocritcal crowd.

[riversedge]

24. The #ACA birth control requirement already benefits nearly 27 million women

Gwen Moore ‏@RepGwenMoore 54m

The #ACA birth control requirement already benefits nearly 27 million women #HandsOffMyBC

[riversedge]

29. 51% credited birth control with allowing them to complete their education

NWLC ‏@nwlc 12m

@Guttmacher : 51% credited birth control with allowing them to complete their education http://bit.ly/1bkQbV7 #HandsOffMyBC

[JNinWB]

25. BC pills should be over-the-counter

The FDA should allow certain pills to be purchased OTC and it would end all this religious nonsense. They would cost @ 4.00 per month

[DeadLetterOffice]

48. Too many legitimate health issues I think

for that to safely be viable -- blood clot risks etc. really should be discussed with a health care provider before starting birth control pills and throughout their use.

[DallasNE]

28. Something That Has Never Been Explained

Is how the employee is not considered in the Hobby Lobby case even though they pay roughly 50% of the cost of their health insurance (those that have insurance, that is). What if they want this coverage when they are footing half the insurance cost. Do they not have a choice in the matter? If the Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby they will not only be saying that corporations are people but that they are a higher order of people than those that work for them.

[csziggy]

34. [phone]

Stated perfectly!

[wercal]

30. Alot of Hyperbole and name calling on this thread

I think this comes down to whether or not birth control is considered 'on par' with other medical coverage.

I don't think Hobby Lobby can win on a religious exemption, but they can say its not fair for a 64 y/o man to pay for younger women employees birth control. The retort will be that the younger women pay for all sorts of procedures that 64 y/o men need and young women don't need. Its insurance and it spreads the risk.

So the big question is - is birth control 'insurable'. By the classic definition of insurance it isn't - buying preventative birth control is not an unforeseen event that represents a high risk (both to health and your finances). But then we get into the murky waters of prevention. Many insurance plans cover events that are not classically insurable, like annual check ups. They do this because it prevents larger costs down the road. The question will hinge on whether or not pregnancy is considered a 'preventable condition', in the same sense that cancer is. There is an implication that there is something negative about pregnancy, which will make pro-lifers howl.

And I guess we get into a bigger philosophical question. The ACA has defined 'acceptable insurance', and it taxes those who do not provide acceptable insurance (Hobby Lobby). The reasoning behind this deals with health as a human right, the common good, etc. Looking at the broad picture, will the justices see birth control as much as a human right as not dying early from an untreated cancer? And if so, where does it end?

BTW, I have absolutely no idea how they will rule.

[Marthe48]

31. I hope everyone who supports mandated birth control coverage

defends his and her moral beliefs by shopping somewhere besides Hobby Lobby.

[csziggy]

35. If employers don't want to provide full coverage as required by the ACA

Employees - all, not just the ones that wish the full coverage - should be able to opt out of the employers' provided coverage and opt into insurance from one of the ACA exchanges.

I would be VERY much favor of this since it would be one more step towards removing health insurance from being employer provided to a nationwide single payer insurance system.

[Freddie]

51. The whole point of the contraception mandate is to SAVE LIVES

Physicians now routinely recommend that a woman allow at least 2 full years between pregnancies, for the optimal outcome for herself and the baby. Since most married couples consider celibacy to be an imposition, contraception is needed to achieve this goal. Thus, preventive care (no co-pay under ACA).

Warms my heart that Hobby Lobby wants women and babies to die.

[nomorenomore08]

61. +1

And the apologists for religious nuttery on this thread can stick it where the sun don't shine!

[greymattermom]

54. Hobby Lobby buys from China, right

then how can they object to birth control? Employees, suppliers, what's the difference. Shouldn't they only buy from folks who follow their religion also?

[pinto]

55. Good case to be heard. From what legal commentary I've seen this one may be justly overturned.

The argument seems clear, imo - A private company can't cherry pick which federal legislation it chooses to comply with based on the owner's personal views. Big slippery slope.

[davidpdx]

58. The right is really pushing to neuter any part of the ACA they can

as well as limit a woman's right to choose. A loss on this one would be demoralizing.

[JoePhilly]

64. Companies provide insurance as part of "total compensation".

In other words, what a company pays to help cover my premiums is part of my compensation. Part of what they pay me to do my job.

Its my money. They should not be able to tell me how I can spend it.

Next Hobby Lobby will be telling its employees that its paying them, not in US currency, but in Hobby Lobby credits.