hobby 2
Huffingtonpost.com:

The owners of a chain of stores called Hobby Lobby don’t like Obamacare. In particular, they really don’t like the part that requires insurance companies to cover contraceptives. Normally, people who don’t like a law petition the government to change that law. That’s how a nation of laws works.

But these men are Christians. The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Christian business owners are special. Their deeply held religious belief that some particular form of contraception is immoral carries more weight than the force of law, five conservative Christian justices ruled. The court — in a fairly bald admission that its ruling is incoherent — added that no general amnesty from other laws should be assumed to be the result of its ruling and that its reasoning was strictly limited to women’s contraception. Such a limitation raises legitimate questions about the rather perverted and obsessive minds of the five men who made the ruling, but it also carries little legal weight. Precedent is precedent, whether the precedent-setters say so or not.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered aloud in her dissent, “Would the exemption … extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus)?”

I know 2 people who have artificial heart values taken from pigs. If a company is Jewish or Muslim, could they be allowed to deny their employee a heart operation to replace a defective valve? This is insanity. Why should your boss be able to make life and death health decisions for an employee?  They shouldn’t be.

Graveyards are full of young women who died in the prime of their life from childbirth.  Repeated pregnancies take their toll on women.  My great grandmother was one such woman.  She was middle class and simply had to bear too many children.  Her children, in particular, my aunt Mildred had to raise all her brothers and sisters.  This death happened in the 20th century, not in the 18th or 19th.  Death from childbirth or complications from earlier childbirth were commonplace.

Some women with diabetes also find childbirth extremely dangerous.  Very often those women cannot take the pill and must use an IUD.  That is one of the contraceptive devices denied in the Hobby Lobby petition.

So when does this insanity stop?  When are men going to stop trying to make the rules for women?  We have the men of Hobby Lobby making rules for their female employees.  I don’t think any of those men would know an abortifacient if it was on the end of each of their noses.  RU-486 is an abortifacient.  Plan B is not.   Have they confused the two “pills?”  IUDs are also contraceptives, not abortifacients, in reality.  Is “abortifacient a medical word or a political word?

After the men of HL finished dictating women’s lives, then the moss-back uber conservative men on the Supreme Court finished the job by validating the HL men’s request.

HL should give the money to women who cannot find appropriate birth control  on the “acceptable list.”  No questions asked. Let’s also not forget that many supposed “pro-life” people are also anti-contraception. They might not tell that on themselves right up front but if you listen, it will be revealed. Many also believe that birth control pills are immoral.

The Hobby Lobby decision is perhaps the dumbest, most inconsistent, most biased Supreme Court ruling of all time.   I am surprised they didn’t try to overturn Griswold while they were at it. The Supreme Court has effectively chosen one religion over another. They left the Jehovah Witnesses and the Scientologists hanging. Evangelicals good. Others bad.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a scathing dissent totally 35 pages.

Michael Hichborn

42 Thoughts to “Supreme Court: men still making rules for women-folk”

  1. Jackson Bills

    Oy veh…. “The owners of a chain of stores called Hobby Lobby don’t like Obamacare. In particular, they really don’t like the part that requires insurance companies to cover contraceptives.”

    Not true at all. They provide ALL types of contraceptives, except for 4 that are seen as those that would destroy a fertilized embryo. How long are liberals going to keep this fake narrative going? And if you don’t like it, blame Bill Clinton, Hilliary Clinton has called the reason the SCOTUS ruled the way they did as “deeply disturbing”. The exact reason is because of the law her husband signed into law.

    1. No, they don’t like it. It didn’t say why or that they didn’t do it.

      Lots of people don’t like that they have to provide contraception. Its the Republican thing to do.

      Have you read that Margaret Sangor autobiography yet?

      How long are uninformed people going to keep calling Plan B and IUDs “abortifacients?” One isn’t pregnant until the fertilized ovum implants in the uterine wall.

  2. Kelly_3406

    To the surprise of many, it turns out that the First Amendment applies to business owners. Business owners cannot be forced to pay for items prohibited by their particular religious beliefs even if female employees are the primary users of said items.

    Nevertheless, employees get to exercise free choice by buying said items on their own or by seeking employment elsewhere.

    So it is a win for free choice and a loss for government mandates that infringe on religious liberty.

    1. Nice if you live in Northern Virginia where there are lots of employment options. Not so nice if you live in BumF*** USA and don’t have all the employment options. I also have a sneaking suspicion that employees at Hobby Lobby don’t make that much money. An IUD “fully installed” supposedly costs a months salary for a minimum wage worker. Plan B is about 40 bucks a pop. That’s a lot of money for some folks.

  3. blue

    @Kelly_3406

    Have to disagree there Kelly. Once again the Libs and their big government / media allies have won the day by converting a debate about religous freedom that focused on a regulatory (not statutory) requirement for private support of abortion directly or indirectly into a debate about (a) whether or not abortion is a contraceptive, and (b) whether or not women have a constitutional right to require privately held companies to transfer their wealth in the form of free contraception – arguing for a new contitutionally quaranteed and privately funded entitlement – regardless of whether it is contraception or post conception abortion. Moreover, the Libs and their big government / media allies have won the day by moving the discussion away from the SCOTUS having again ruled against the Administration and Obamacare and other scandals.

    1. I am glad the “libs” have won the day. Blue, doesn’t it bother you at all that the 4 banned contraceptives aren’t abortifacients? I might even agree with the ruling if RU-486 was knocked off the list. That chemical does cause an early abortion. The others really don’t. How can you get unpregnant if you aren’t pregnant to start with?

      You need to think past name calling and apply some logic here. Can these clowns also be moon worshippers and decide the moon is made of green cheese? The UNscience involved is horrifying.

      I will bet not one of those old moss back geezers has any idea what really constitutes contraception. Yet they are making the rules for us wimmins.

  4. Pat.Herve

    What was the justification for saying that the contraception mandate could be removed, but other things like vaccinations or blood transfusions are not – this is putting one religions beliefs and practices over anothers.

    1. Agreed.

      Also HL thinks you can give abortions to unpregnant women. The bastardization of science really bothers me.

    2. Hopefully people will see now why these declarations that “life begins at fertilization” are so scary.

  5. Pat.Herve

    The four contraceptives that are at issue are not designed to cause abortions – they are designed (and do work to ) prevent fertilization. Do they cause a fertilized egg to abort – maybe or maybe not. There are plenty of medications that can cause an abortion (unintentionally) – should they are be removed from drug formularies so that they are not used off label to induce an abortion?

  6. Jackson Bills

    Pat.Herve :
    The four contraceptives that are at issue are not designed to cause abortions – they are designed (and do work to ) prevent fertilization. Do they cause a fertilized egg to abort – maybe or maybe not. There are plenty of medications that can cause an abortion (unintentionally) – should they are be removed from drug formularies so that they are not used off label to induce an abortion?

    I see… can you list the 4?

    1. I listed them for you. Stop goading people. I can see you leaning back into troll territory. Whining about moderation. Goading people.

      No one here has to do your bidding.

  7. Jackson Bills

    Also, most people don’t know this but the ‘contraception mandate’ isn’t even in the ACA. It was a regulation, as Blue pointed out, that was written post-ACA passage. It’s yet another example of the tricks and deception that were used to pass ACA. If it were in there then it wouldn’t have gotten enough Democratic support to pass.

    1. Of course Democrats would have passed it. Democrats are smart enough to know that if you prevent unwanted pregnancy, it cuts down on the number of abortions.

      Not so sure about everyone else.

  8. Jackson Bills

    Sorry Moon, I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. Hopefully some time soon I will find the time, then we can have a good debate about her. 🙂

  9. Pat.Herve

    Jackson Bills :

    Pat.Herve :
    The four contraceptives that are at issue are not designed to cause abortions – they are designed (and do work to ) prevent fertilization. Do they cause a fertilized egg to abort – maybe or maybe not. There are plenty of medications that can cause an abortion (unintentionally) – should they are be removed from drug formularies so that they are not used off label to induce an abortion?

    I see… can you list the 4?

    Plan-B
    Ella
    IUD-Copper
    IUD-Progestin

    All 4 work to prevent fertilization and there is no scientific evidence that they cause an abortion.

  10. Pat.Herve

    @Jackson Bills
    Many laws are written like this, where the definition and implementation requirements are directed to an agency. In this way, many requirements can be changed to meet new developments and technologies – without rewriting laws.

  11. Pat.Herve

    @Jackson Bills
    now, can you tell me the difference between the treatment of contraception and blood transfusions (from a religious perspective) in light of the SCOTUS decision?

  12. Pat.Herve

    @Moon-howler
    Moon – RU-486 is not a contraceptive and is not on the list.

    1. I know it isn’t and that is the point I am trying to make. (not very well, apparently) :mrgreen:

      If it were on this list, I could understand their concern. But it is not because it isn’t a contraceptive but an abortion method.

      Sorry for the confusion.

  13. Pat.Herve

    Also, if these 4 contraceptives are just so so so bad, why did Hobby Lobby have two of them paid for on their healthcare plan until 2012?

  14. blue

    Blue, doesn’t it bother you at all that the 4 banned contraceptives aren’t abortifacients?

    You need to think past name calling and apply some logic here. Can these clowns also be moon worshippers and decide the moon is made of green cheese? The UNscience involved is horrifying.

    Perhaps we need to investigate this a bit more, because it is being reported that HHS in its own brief admitted that the four drugs contested by Hobby Lobby were in fact designed to kill a human embryo and are, therefore, abortifacients. Somebody ain’t telling the truth here.

    And as for name calling, hmm well, as noted by Justice Kennedy, since ObamaCare does not mandate birth control coverage – much less abortion coverage, it is determinative that the Congress did not invest in HHS the authority to superceede one religioous convictions. End of story.

    1. Its policy. ACA doesn’t have to mandate anything specific.

      It hasn’t superceded anyone’s religious convictions unless they are told themselves to take contraception.

      HHS should not have reported that those things are designed to kill human embryos because it simply isn’t true. Can you find that in print somewhere or is it one of those stories that just becomes an urban legend amongst the right to life set?

      I did call them clowns. Guilty as charged. I was thinking more of pinning labels on people like Dem or Lib when I typed that.

      I still want to know if the word “abortifacient” is a medical term or a political term. Would it be limited to humans?

  15. Kelly_3406

    @Moon-howler

    That is completely irrelevant. One does not forfeit his first amendment rights because it imparts an economic impact. This would be a perfect opportunity to create a nonprofit organization that raises money for people impacted by this decision. I am certain the IRS would approve its non-profit status very quickly.

  16. Kelly_3406

    Moon-howler :
    It hasn’t superceded anyone’s religious convictions unless they are told themselves to take contraception.

    Frankly you do not get to draw such a conclusion for another citizen, and neither does a government agency. Allowing unelected bureaucrats to impose limitations on the Bill of Rights to achieve transfer of wealth makes us look like a Banana Republic.

  17. ed myers

    Hmm.. From an election wining strategy, I think Republicans would have wanted to lose this case. It was narrowly drawn from a short-term implementation standpoint but has the potential to bring out the Democratic base (ala vaginal probes) and lead to fewer Republican wins than expected in the fall. It is a symbolic victory but at the cost of energizing the majority women voters to work towards a legislative fix. We know that social wedge issues like same-sex marriage were used by the Republicans to wins elections a decade ago and I can see Democrats effectively doing a counter punch with birth control. Republicans would have rung the religious freedom bell to energize the evangelical base had they lost the HL case. Instead they gave the bell to Democrats.

  18. @Kelly_3406

    There is no conclusion to be drawn. Anyone can say something is against their religious convictions. History if full of such events. Since when does an individual’s religious conviction set the course for this country.

    I can’t tell you how many people I have talked to in my life who were against integration and justified it with biblical quotes. Those people would swear up and down of their religious beliefs.

    Suck it up, buttercup. Integration happened. A big old government agency is still overseeing how that one plays out. I think we call it the DOJ.

    Individuals really don’t get to cherry pick what policy they are going to adhere to and what they aren’t. Congress passes broad based laws. Agencies usually provide the details. Why should this be any different with the ACA?

    How about being more specific in your point.

  19. @ed myers

    Not just the Democrats…there are a lot of Independents and moderates out there ringing the bell like crazy.

    The anti-science bunch are beating a steady drum to their own self defeat and ridicule.

  20. Furby McPhee

    Pat.Herve :
    All 4 work to prevent fertilization and there is no scientific evidence that they cause an abortion.

    Actually, three of the four do prevent implantation or at least may prevent implantation. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what the FDA has to say on the subject:

    http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications/ucm313215.htm

    The FDA article covers all four (and a bunch of others) and says that Plan B, Ella, and Copper IUD may prevent implantation. For someone who believes life begins at conception that would be akin to abortion.

    I really don’t care about it. I’m just annoyed by how little actual facts play into the debate over all this.

  21. Other than conception is implantation in the uterus.

    Is someone pregnant if there are fertilized ova in a petrie dish in a lab? No. Pregnancy begins AT implantation. No implantation, no pregnancy.

    Birth control keeps pregnancy from taking place in various ways. To most thinking people, that simply isn’t an abortion. We are getting to the point where some of these people must be thinking that masturbation is abortion. Geez.

  22. Furby, there is a big may written with those methods listed.

    If conception hasn’t happened, then I find it hard to believe that abortion has taken place.

    I think it is time for everyone to understand the real danger of enacting laws that state life begins at fertilization. The delegate assembly tried that stunt here in Virginia. I don’t think it is up to politicians to decide when life begins. Most of our ignorant politicians voted for this bill. It would have knocked out many forms of contraception as even being legal.

    This is the problem when people start slap dashing laws when they don’t know what they are talking about.

    Obviously abortion is abortion and taking RU 486 is abortion. Now the anti contraception crowd is squeezing in and trying to blur the lines. I don’t think for one minute that Hobby Lobby acted independently. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have had coverage for a lot of these procedures up until 2012. If they were that dedicated to “life” they would have screened their mutual funds a little more carefully.

    This case was mighty costly in terms of cross over votes. Hobby Lobby will be a rallying cry for a long time and conservatives really didn’t gain all that much.

  23. Furby McPhee

    @Moon-howler

    I know it says may. I even said so:

    The FDA article covers all four (and a bunch of others) and says that Plan B, Ella, and Copper IUD may prevent implantation. For someone who believes life begins at conception that would be akin to abortion.

    My point is that it clearly isn’t settled science when the FDA isn’t sure. I don’t know know exactly when life begins. But I can accept that Moon-howler has a belief of when it does and so does the family that runs Hobby Lobby. I don’t need to agree with either of you to accept that each of you is entitled to your own beliefs. And that the government should respect those beliefs unless there is a very compelling reason not to. Paying for contraception isn’t that compelling since nobody was required to include contraception before 2012. If Hobby Lobby doesn’t cover your BC method of choice, don’t work there or pay for it yourself.

    I just don’t see what the big deal is that some women would (gasp) have to pay for their own birth control. If I ran a company, I’d probably cover birth control just because it seems like it is a popular benefit, but I can accept that Hobby Lobby’s owners have the right to not offer it.

  24. This what I cannot get through to men. Birth control is expensive. If your contraception isn’t covered (along with doctors visit to get it) then you will be shelling out some bucks. Maybe you needed an extra tank of gas this month. There goes the birth control money.

    What if you have to have an IUD because you are unable to take the pill, your husband wont use barrier methods, and you cannot risk another pregnancy. That can be a month’s salary.

    Many people don’t have a number of jobs at their fingertips. People living in rural areas or in depressed areas often have to take the work they can get.

    You know, even if one person is uncovered, then that’s one too many.

    Furby, all sorts of people have their beliefs trampled on by government daily. The biggest example I can think of off the top of my head is the Iraq war. Nuff said?

    It really doesn’t matter what my beliefs are. If the laws and policies of the land tell me one thing, I have to comply.

    Let’s get real down and personal on this one. I seriously don’t believe in public prayer before municipal meetings. It is a religious belief, in fact based on biblical verse. I am SOL on it also. No one cares. In fact, the Supreme Court doesn’t care about my personal beliefs. It could have just as easily ruled in favor of a moment of silence so my beliefs weren’t stepped on. They didn’t.

    Finally, conception and fertilization are not the same thing.

    One more thing, I wish that everyone in the world had a $2 copay on the contraception. Think that would shut things up?

  25. Pat.Herve

    @Furby McPhee
    Yes, it says may. They are designed to prevent fertilization, but may, MAY cause implantation to fail. The same as Celebrex and Advil MAY cause a miscarriage.

    This was a very bad decision by SCOTUS. It picked out a want for one religion and explicitly discounted beliefs of other religions.

  26. Furby McPhee

    Why are people trying to convince me what these drugs do? My opinion is irrelevant. That’s the whole point. The owner’s of Hobby Lobby believe that drugs that prevent implantation are causing abortions. The RFRA says that they cannot be forced to go against their beliefs unless there is both a compelling government interest AND that it is the lease restrictive means of meeting the compelling interest.

    HHS killed their own case when they admitted that they had a waiver program for non-profit corporations where the insurance companies paid for the BC drugs. That completely destroyed the least restrictive test and guaranteed they would lose the case.

    So if this is such a bad decision, are you saying that forcing the employers to pay for BC was the LEAST restrictive way of providing BC to the employees? That was the only point that was of contention. Everything else about the case was irrelevant to the argument. The case could have been about cookies and the outcome would have been the same.

    I’ll repeat yet again that I’m not saying if I like or dislike the outcome of the HL case. I’m just explaining the legal arguments the court used and that it’s hard to see how the court could have ruled differently.

    I’d like to suggest that having some understanding of ConLaw is of value in understanding the logic of court decisions. You may not like the verdict, but you’ll understand it and you’ll be a lot less surprised at the outcomes. I highly recommend the Life of a Law Student podcast, at least the ones on ConLaw. He does a great job explaining concepts like strict scrutiny, compelling interest and other phrases that have very specific meaning in law that we mortals generally don’t understand.

    1. Or, it could be an activist court, which is obvious. In a 5-4 decision it is pretty likely that personal beliefs play more a part of the outcome than conlaw.

  27. Furby McPhee

    @Moon-howler
    Really? Of all the arguments over government compulsion, you are going to pick the easiest one to refute. Ok, it’s your dime:

    Your Iraq war analogy doesn’t hold water because no one was being compelled to serve in the Iraq war against their will. There is currently no draft, and even when there is a draft we allow for religious exemptions.

    But you probably meant you objected to funding the Iraq war. We’ve already had this debate in the thread about Hobby Lobby before the case was decided. I explained that the courts and US law see taxes as fungible. You disagree. You are certainly entitled to that belief, but it is not recognized or supported by US law.

    The fungibility argument breaks down here: Hobby Lobby is paying for the health care of these employees. It is a direct cost that they are paying for. You are not paying for the Iraq War. You didn’t get a bill for it and your taxes didn’t go up to pay for it. You are paying the same income tax you were paying before the Iraq War to fund some small percentage of the government’s total expenses.

    I get that you don’t see it that way. But that’s the way the courts have seen it for centuries.

    Your idea of having a government funded BC system ironically undermines your position on the Hobby Lobby case. It shows that there are other ways to accomplish the goal (providing BC to women) that are less restrictive on the religious freedom of the HL owners. And to answer your inevitable follow up question, the owners of Hobby Lobby would not be able to claim a religious exemption to funding the government BC program because their taxes are fungible, just like yours and mine.

    Quite frankly, I don’t understand why Obama hasn’t done just that. Wait for the court to decide then announce he is directing HHS to make BC available to women impacted by the decision. It solves the problem and passes constitutional muster.

    1. Then everyone would do it to avoid the cost.

      I am so sick of having to argue about birth control in 2014. It is preventative health care. Your boss shouldn’t decide. I just think it is all so bogus. Religious restrictions are actually about personal use. This one might be the biggest stretch of all time.

  28. Pat.Herve

    @Furby McPhee
    Furby – and one’s objection to birth control (based on religion) is different to one’s objection to blood transfusions (based on religion) – how, what is the difference?

  29. Furby McPhee

    Pat.Herve :
    @Furby McPhee
    Furby – and one’s objection to birth control (based on religion) is different to one’s objection to blood transfusions (based on religion) – how, what is the difference?

    I’ve already explained that the court sees a difference as this: blood transfusions and vaccinations are necessary to treat or prevent injury or illness. Birth control (in the eyes of the court) does not treat or prevent an illness or injury. Birth control is considered to be elective. The same argument is why viagra and other ED medications were covered by insurance when BC was not. ED medications are medicines that treat an illness (ie. it is natural for men to be able to perform) (And yes, I am aware that some BC methods have medicinal use and I believe they have generally been treated like other medications. But BC purely for contraception is considered to be elective.)

    Again, I’m not saying I agree or that you should, but that’s the distinction the court made.

    1. This is where I just can’t hold back. Then the Court is simply full of shit, at least 5 of them are.

      I would like to take each male who thinks that contraception is an elective and castrate them, after I beat them black and blue. This is 2014 and validates beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a war on women.

  30. Pat.Herve

    @Furby McPhee
    Thanks – can you point me to that reasoning in the decision. I have not found it.

Comments are closed.