SCOTUS: Obamacare Rebuffed by High Court in Contraception Ruling (Hobby Lobby wins)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 3:19 PM GMT
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-30/obamacare-rebuffed-by-high-court-in-contraception-ruling.html

    The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to President Barack Obama’s health-care law, ruling that closely held companies can claim a religious exemption from the requirement that they offer birth-control coverage in their worker health plans.

    Voting 5-4, the justices today sided with family-run businesses, including the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., that say they regard some forms of contraception as immoral.

    The ruling carves a hole in Obama’s biggest legislative accomplishment, the 2010 health-care law that the Supreme Court upheld two years ago. More broadly, the decision marks an expansion of corporate rights, saying for-profit companies, like people, can claim religious freedoms under federal law.

    Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
  • chris24rcon

    Posts: 51

    Jun 30, 2014 4:21 PM GMT
    Meanwhile, every female who lives their lives in contrast to the views of hobby lobby are screwed.

    It is my right to choose not to ever shop at hobby lobby (as if I ever have), and to vote this November
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Jun 30, 2014 4:32 PM GMT
    Just more right wing love of oligarchs. The few should be able to control the many. If you don't fund the politicians, you have no rights, especially in the bedroom. This is an odd Supreme Court.

    "Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court."

    The religious rights of corporations. How could any rational person say that?
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 4:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-30/obamacare-rebuffed-by-high-court-in-contraception-ruling.html

    The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to President Barack Obama’s health-care law, ruling that closely held companies can claim a religious exemption from the requirement that they offer birth-control coverage in their worker health plans.

    Voting 5-4, the justices today sided with family-run businesses, including the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., that say they regard some forms of contraception as immoral.

    The ruling carves a hole in Obama’s biggest legislative accomplishment, the 2010 health-care law that the Supreme Court upheld two years ago. More broadly, the decision marks an expansion of corporate rights, saying for-profit companies, like people, can claim religious freedoms under federal law.

    Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.


    "We the Corporation of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

    Yup. That's what they meant.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Jun 30, 2014 4:47 PM GMT
    Kind of a bullshit headline. One adjustment to Obamacare. Hardly the primary point of Universal Responsibility, as I like to call Obamacare.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 4:53 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidKind of a bullshit headline. One adjustment to Obamacare. Hardly the primary point of Universal Responsibility, as I like to call Obamacare.


    And this:
    "including the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., that say they regard some forms of contraception as immoral."

    But SCOTUS already said the AHCA was the law of the land. So, by logical extension, "regard some forms of the LAW OF THE LAND as immoral."

    Well, if that's the standard....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 5:48 PM GMT
    The vote that will matter most is if women choose not to work for Hobby Lobby.

    Will this cost them quality employees?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 6:03 PM GMT
    this is bad
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 6:36 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidJust more right wing love of oligarchs. The few should be able to control the many. If you don't fund the politicians, you have no rights, especially in the bedroom. This is an odd Supreme Court.

    "Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court."

    The religious rights of corporations. How could any rational person say that?




    This is why, even more power given to corporate America, like they need more icon_rolleyes.gif

    The Supreme Court Still Thinks Corporations Are People
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/

    If the Justices won't change their minds, we're going to have to amend the Constitution.


    CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE
    http://corporationsarenotpeople.com/advance-praise-for-corporations-are-not-people/

    “Ben Cohen is a person. Jerry Greenfield is a person. Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, Inc? Not a person. Why can’t the Supreme Court keep this straight? In Corporations Are Not People, Jeff Clements tells the story of how some of the biggest corporations in the world took over our Constitution,
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 7:21 PM GMT
    scruffLA said... The Supreme Court Still Thinks Corporations Are People ...
    I wonder if there's ever been a funeral for a corporation that "died."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 7:51 PM GMT
    "More broadly, the decision marks an expansion of corporate rights, saying for-profit companies, like people, can claim religious freedoms under federal law.

    Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court."

    So the humans who control these companies have TWICE the rights? And any company, even without ANY religious affiliation, can deny people their rights on religious grounds????

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 7:52 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]unckabasa said[/cite]"More broadly, the decision marks an expansion of corporate rights, saying for-profit companies, like people, can claim religious freedoms under federal law.

    Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court."

    So the humans who control these companies have TWICE the rights? And any company, even without ANY religious affiliation, can deny people their rights on religious grounds????

    In a nutshell? Yes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 8:47 PM GMT
    Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
    Follow
    My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
    11:02 AM - 30 Jun 2014

    Erick Erickson owns RedState.com and is a strong voice representing rightwing opinion.

    This brings up the question:

    If your employer decides that they don't condone your HIV+ status(unless you can prove that your condition was acquired through a blood transfusion or some other "innocent" means)...

    this SCOTUS decision may allow a company to not pay for your HIV meds based on religious disapproval of your sex life.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 9:07 PM GMT
    Determinate saidErick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
    Follow
    My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
    11:02 AM - 30 Jun 2014

    Erick Erickson owns RedState.com and is a strong voice representing rightwing opinion.

    This brings up the question:

    If your employer decides that they don't condone your HIV+ status(unless you can prove that your condition was acquired through a blood transfusion or some other "innocent" means)...

    this SCOTUS decision may allow a company to not pay for your HIV meds based on religious disapproval of your sex life.


    How about their simple "religious disapproval" of your being married, legally, to someone of the same sex? Their "religious objection" trumps the law. I think SCOTUS is asleep at the wheel on this one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 9:12 PM GMT


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    ...omg

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html

    No wonder they don't want to help pay for contraceptives. They prefer aborting the day after.

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 9:12 PM GMT
    "Their "religious objection" trumps the law. I think SCOTUS is asleep at the wheel on this one."

    Exactly. How can their "religious objection" be limited to reproductive issues?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 30, 2014 9:15 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidJust more right wing love of oligarchs. The few should be able to control the many. If you don't fund the politicians, you have no rights, especially in the bedroom. This is an odd Supreme Court.

    "Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court."

    The religious rights of corporations. How could any rational person say that?


    Exactly!! Someone asked today, "Why shouldn't a private business have the right to religious objection? I don't see anything wrong with that." I had to explain to him that "Because a business, an artificial entity created by man, cannot claim a divine source as its Creator; therefore, it can have no religion."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 9:22 PM GMT
    I would be fine with the "I'm too Cheap to pay for it exception."

    Or any argument based on a health care provision being financially burdensome to the company

    But the "My God Tells Me" exception is going to be HELL to deal with.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 10:06 PM GMT
    Determinate saidI would be fine with the "I'm too Cheap to pay for it exception."

    Or any argument based on a health care provision being financially burdensome to the company

    But the "My God Tells Me" exception is going to be HELL to deal with.


    Yes, a real pandora's box. Remember, the history of our jurisprudence allows for all kinds of exceptions (refusing to take an oath to bear arms; conscientious objection; etc) that must be on "religious" grounds; they cannot be on "moral or philosophical" grounds.

    This is nothing more than an invitation to "an establishment of religion" via a backdoor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 10:57 PM GMT
    "Alito says that his opinion only addresses the contraceptive mandate because mandatory coverage of blood transfusions and vaccines weren’t a part of the case.

    He didn’t actually shut the door on another company claiming that mandatory coverage of blood transfusions or vaccines abridges religious freedom.

    If anything, he’s swung the door wide open for these kinds of cases. I could easily see a company make the argument that a person getting HIV is being punished by God for sinful behavior and treatments like Truvada abrogate punishment for that."


    quoting from http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 11:00 PM GMT
    Determinate said"Alito says that his opinion only addresses the contraceptive mandate because mandatory coverage of blood transfusions and vaccines weren’t a part of the case.

    He didn’t actually shut the door on another company claiming that mandatory coverage of blood transfusions or vaccines abridges religious freedom.

    If anything, he’s swung the door wide open for these kinds of cases. I could easily see a company make the argument that a person getting HIV is being punished by God for sinful behavior and treatments like Truvada abrogate punishment for that."


    quoting from http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/


    Again, correct. It makes as much "sense" as this "religiously based ARGUMENT" that they just won.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 11:04 PM GMT
    Yes, I'm replying to myself because this third-rate mind Alito and his cohorts have simply....ugh...

    What if my "religious belief" tells me to be a cannibal? Well, you can't do that, because it's AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND.

    What if my "religious belief" tells me I can have 32 wives? Well, you can't do that, because it's AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND.

    These fools SAID, AFFIRMED that the AHCA was the "law of the land."

    Have they had such a "long" year that they'd all been drinking deciding this one???
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jul 01, 2014 6:16 AM GMT
    well the unions got an exception, now Hobby Lobby does

    Hobby Lobby still covers most birth control - I think 4 are excuded

    such a light-weight decision though, as bad as the ACA itself

    they could have had pre-existing conditions and people 26 and under covered by their parent's policies with much simpler laws instead of the ACA behemoth cluster fuck
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 01, 2014 5:29 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    Destinharbor saidJust more right wing love of oligarchs. The few should be able to control the many. If you don't fund the politicians, you have no rights, especially in the bedroom. This is an odd Supreme Court.

    "Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court."

    The religious rights of corporations. How could any rational person say that?


    Exactly!! Someone asked today, "Why shouldn't a private business have the right to religious objection? I don't see anything wrong with that." I had to explain to him that "Because a business, an artificial entity created by man, cannot claim a divine source as its Creator; therefore, it can have no religion."


    Yes, that's what "makes sense" to us... but the Court two-stepped that in Citizens United by basically saying that corporations are not "artificial entities" but are comprised of "people" (in the sense that corporations are "juridical persons": that is, you can sue a "corporation", but we don't mean you're suing the buildings, computers, etc., but the people of which it is comprised).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 12:29 AM GMT
    tj85016 saidwell the unions got an
    they could have had pre-existing conditions and people 26 and under covered by their parent's policies with much simpler laws instead of the ACA behemoth cluster fuck

    That's always been my thought, too. If a healthcare law was passed with only those provisions, it would have been hailed as one of the best laws of the 2010s.

    But we got Obamacare instead.