Supreme Court: religious corporations may restrict women's reproductive health care

Today the US Supreme Court ruled that business owners may cite religious beliefs to be exempt from federal law that requires private companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control. The decision means employees of such such companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along partisan lines in favor of two plaintiffs. One was arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby, which is owned and operated by evangelical Christians David and Barbara Green. The other was Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., which is owned and operated by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn, who are Mennonites.
(Source)

Ironically, while the Supreme Court has just allowed for-profit corporations to restrict women's reproductive health care for superstitious reasons, they are not allowed to restrict men's reproductive health care, including coverage for Viagra.

Tags: Court, Hobby, Lobby, Supreme, contraception, rights, women's

Views: 561

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ironically, while the Supreme Court has just allowed for-profit corporations to restrict women's reproductive health care for superstitious reasons, they are not allowed to restrict men's reproductive health care, including coverage for Viagra.

The basis (basis) of Hobby Lobby's objection was that some (not all) forms of female birth control effectively cause abortions. They don't object to the other forms of birth control (the regular pill, diaphragm, many but not all IUD's, etc.).

No form of male contraception, including Viagra, function post conception. It may be unfair, but it's logical.

I can understand why someone who believes abortion is wrong would object to any form of contraception that is effective after conception, and a blastocyst wouldn't exist apart from a conception.

No decision of the Supremes is so free of adverse consequences to some interested parties as to be fair to all involved.

What is the adverse effect on religious if they are not permitted to impose their personal religious beliefs on women in their employ? 

The only adverse effect I can see may be the added cost, but even that doesn't really wash.  The insurance companies customize policy packages for companies, and they negotiate pricing in order to sign up new large blocks of customers.  The insurance company would likely throw in something like birth control for free in order to sign up the 21,000-odd Hobby Lobby employees as new policy holders. 

The Supreme Court could have ruled that superstition is insufficient grounds for a corporate exemption to a federal health care law that benefits women.

And eviscerated the First Amendment.

The obvious and logical solution to this problem is to extend Medicare to everyone, or some other form of universal health care.  That's much less contentious than  trying to force people to comply with your own beliefs about superstition, unless you want to empower them to try to force you to comply with their beliefs.  I agree with @Unseen, though, the unintended consequences of this ruling are legion.  It's a classic case of hard cases making for bad law.

I would feel better about Hobby Lobby if along with limiting certain types of contraception they went way out of their way to provide for day care, extended family leave, educational opportunity, and extended medical and other care for born children.

Preventing discrimination by a group is NOT discriminating against that group. 

Preventing a group from forcing its superstitious beliefs on others is NOT the same as forcing non-superstitious beliefs on that group.

Why can't xians get that?

I would feel better about Hobby Lobby if along with limiting certain types of contraception they went way out of their way to provide for day care, extended family leave, educational opportunity, and extended medical and other care for born children.

They could have expressed sentiments like those in commentary perhaps, but they only decide the case before them and it's generally and up or down yes or no, not friendly advice given to the other branches of government. They can decide cases, not legislate new laws.

Huh.  Thanks, @Gallup.  Appreciate your research on this.

The desires of the many do not outweigh the rights of the individual, in the same way the desires of the business owner (either private or corporate) do not outweigh the rights of a single employee, except in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

What supposed "right" is involved? I think I know that getting health care at all isn't a constitutional right and supplying it isn't a legal duty. Give companies too hard a time and they'll just stop helping at all!

The needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the one. The one may choose to sacrifice for the greater good, but it's up to the one to decide, not the many.

a blastocyst wouldn't exist apart from a conception.

You realise, of course, that the human body "aborts" blastocysts before implantation with surprising frequency?

Lacking intent, there's no moral/ethical issue there.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service