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: 494

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.

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.

Unfairness to women is reason enough to condemn the Court's ruling. As for logic: the "morning after" pill is used to prevent implantation, which occurs when the blastocyst consists of just a few hundred cells. Opposition to "morning after" pills is illogical like any other superstition.

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.

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.

I understand and agree, but that doesn't mean a superstitious belief is logical or that it's not junk science.

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

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

Women and men could have fair access to reproductive health care. The fundies could have fair practice of their religion (in not having abortions or using contraception).

It's patently unfair that women must comply with the personal religious convictions of their bosses at work and it should be obvious that this has adverse effects on women.

What is the adverse effect on religious if they are not permitted to impose their personal religious beliefs on women in their employ? None. The business (not the private owners) must pay penalties in taxes. The ruling just gave corporate personhood the new right to have religious beliefs.

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.

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

Bob: And eviscerated the First Amendment.

The ruling was based on an Act of Congress, namely the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was not intended as a means for an employer to impose religious beliefs on women.

Hobby Lobby would be paying for contraception right now if the ruling had been based on Supreme Court decisions regarding the First Amendment and religious accommodation.

"The Court does not pretend that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause demands religion-based accommodations so extreme, for our decisions leave no doubt on that score. See infra, at 6–8. Instead, the Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’s decision endorses. In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent." - BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. (p. 62)

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!

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 4 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service