Had enough yet?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control

Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.

The Affordable Care Act had listed 20 forms of contraception that had to be covered as preventive services. But Hobby Lobby, a craft supply chain, claimed that Plan B, Ella, and two types of IUD were abortifacients that violated the owners' religious principles. The science was against Hobby Lobby—these contraceptives do not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and are not considered abortifacients in the medical world—but the conservative majority bought Hobby Lobby's argument that it should be exempted from the law.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the the 5-4 opinion, used numerous qualifiers in an attempt to limit its scope, but a series of orders released by the court Tuesday contradict any narrow interpretation of the ruling.

The court vacated two decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—Autocam Corp. v. Burwell and Eden Foods v. Burwell—and commanded the appeals court to rehear the cases in light of the Hobby Lobby decision. In both instances the Sixth Circuit had rejected requests from Catholic-owned businesses that sought to exempt the companies from offering insurance that covered any of the 20 mandated forms of birth control. The Supreme Court also compelled the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reopen a similar case, Gilardi v. Department of Health & Human Services. "With Tuesday's orders," wrote The Nation's Zoë Carpenter, "the conservative majority has effectively endorsed the idea that religious objections to insurance that covers any form of preventative healthcare for women have merit."

More @ http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

This is getting ugly.

[rose-cat.livejournal.com]

SHIT SHIT SHIT.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Appropriate icon is appropriate. VERY appropriate. *shudder*

[spamwarrior.livejournal.com]

So corporations are allowed to use insincerely held beliefs that are not factual at all in order to get around government mandates and still qualify for the tax bonuses that are associated with following them?

Great.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

First of all, this is a wildly over-stated misinterpretation of what the Supreme Court has done. Likely only a prelude to an "expansion" of the Hobby Lobby holding, sure, but the Supreme Court has hardly "broadened" anything here.

Second, I'm not sure anyone who understands the nature of the Hobby Lobby claims and the legal reasoning behind the opinion has any reason to be surprised or, to be honest, indignant about the opinion's "expansion" to other forms of birth control. There was nothing about the opinion that narrowed the application of its principles to "abortion-causing" forms of birth control, and it seems to follow quite easily from those principles that just about any other medical procedure or service that is "mandated" to be covered by health insurance under the ACA is going to be vulnerable to the same kind of challenge. We're going to see years of cases rolling back regulations before we reach a new equilibrium, I suspect.

That's not to say that I don't find this development troubling or unfortunate, nor do I want to suggest that I'm entirely happy with the Court's decision here. It's unfortunate, though still absolutely true, that our jurisprudence is just not sophisticated enough to be able to grasp that there is no clear line between Judeo-Christian religious belief in the west and systemic, patriarchal oppression of women, especially by controlling their sexual behavior. All that they see, in a specious and factually incorrect claim about "abortifacients," is a "sincere religious belief," not "an apparently religious belief that partially constitutes, sustains, and is motivated by an inherently sexist culture."

Some people claim that a society that respects free exercise of religion also respects the freedom not to exercise any religion. But what Hobby Lobby makes clear is that the entire discourse about what constitutes a legitimate "religious belief" entitled to respect and what is not is itself deeply shaped by a conceptual framework that already heavily prefers so-called "religious beliefs."

What makes this a further Pyrrhic victory for self-styled fauxbertarians is that the Hobby Lobby decision will necessarily result in two things: (i) courts getting increasingly involved in determining what constitutes a "substantial burden" on religious belief and what amounts to the "least restrictive" means of serving a compelling governmental interest and (ii) increased regulatory activity (at the margins of statutory authority) by the president to try to accommodate those various court decisions. Neither bodes well for one who thinks the government shouldn't get involved in religious matters or that the government should govern less, not more.

Personally, I hope that the Court's endorsement of cost-shifting to insurance companies will result in more insurance companies refusing to do business with employers who insist on religious exemptions.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Maybe libertarians are happy with the idea that these religious issues will mostly stymie progressive government activism, and furthermore, with people more involved with their Jesus, they can perhaps continue to pile up the wealth with abandon and impunity. It's not so much that they especially care about government getting involved with religious matters as much as it is about government getting involved with wealth matters and redistribution.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Well, I try to take "libertarians" at their word, when they try to describe the appropriate relationship between government, religion, and the private activities of citizens. If the mandate had been upheld as challenged, the question would have been settled, and religious people would find whatever ways they needed to be able to cope (I suspect, in large part, by deciding they were cool with it after all). But now we have instituted a legal regime that invites religious people to come to the state and ask it to make highly subjective judgments about what's "burdensome" and whether there are "less restrictive" means to serve "compelling government interests" that outweigh their religious freedom. So be it - the judges can officiate over our ecclesiastical disputes. But that's a far ways from non-involvement in matters of faith, which is what I thought libertarians wanted.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

This is not the work of libertarians, only of those that call themselves libertarian out of convenience as a way to obfuscate their actual corporatist leanings (which is just what the bulk of your post describes).

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I would think that libertarians shouldn't have anything to do with Republicans, but I have the impression they have been coopted by the Party. I was especially surprised sometime back when I saw that libertarians came around to support anti-abortion rights. I see an unhoy alliance among Republicans and libertarians.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's actually what's going on with a conservative friends FB feed. A friend of her's wrote this:

Why all of a sudden do people feel ENTITLED to free BC?! It wasnt FREE 20 years ago. If you have and can prove a medical need for BC pills for some reason by all means it should be covered but some forms of BC cost all of $10 a month.. Im plum fed up being taxed to death just so people can be given more free $hit. Its real simple, birth control that isnt needed for medical reasons shouldnt be covered (not by force) by health insurance anymore than my morning coffee should... I like it.. I use it everyday... just as millions of others do...but i dont expect someone else to pay for it!! geez!

Wes pointed out (accurately) a lot of employers do provide morning coffee free in their break rooms, even if not all the employees drink it ;)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

People 'getting angry' seems to have become kind of a cool thing to do.
If you ain't angry, something's wrong with you.

Of course, liberals are rather angry too, but
I guess it is for somewhat different reasons,
and we try to maintain the coolness of rationality.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

i) courts getting increasingly involved in determining what constitutes a "substantial burden" on religious belief and what amounts to the "least restrictive" means of serving a compelling governmental interest and (ii) increased regulatory activity (at the margins of statutory authority) by the president to try to accommodate those various court decisions.

Yeah, I think Justice Ginsberg mentioned that in her scathing dissent, particularly the way this will burden the court system.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think Justice Ginsberg mentioned that in her scathing dissent, particularly the way this will burden the court system.

It sounds like the SCOTUS has opened a real Pandora's box with this decision.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

It's unfortunate, though still absolutely true, that our jurisprudence is just not sophisticated enough to be able to grasp that there is no clear line between Judeo-Christian religious belief in the west and systemic, patriarchal oppression of women, especially by controlling their sexual behavior.

Dammit. I wish I'd said that.

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

Some people claim that a society that respects free exercise of religion also respects the freedom not to exercise any religion.

The worn out shouting point It's freedom OF religion, not FROM religion! makes me want to do a Rip Van Winkle.

Yes, atheists have the right to go about their daily business without the worship of all the deities that American Christians don't worship along with the addition of Jesus.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> The worn out shouting point It's freedom OF religion, not FROM religion! makes me want to do a Rip Van Winkle.

I've been hearing that since 9th grade :)

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

I it since the mid-90s since I moved away from the NY metro area. I'm still so tired of hearing it.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Time for the Jane Collective to make a comeback, unfortunately.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

New reference to me. Thanks.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Sure sounds like it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

I think I love her.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

GIve her a thumbs up on youtube!

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

Already done! :)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

WASHINGTON — In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.

The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”

The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.”

-- NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”

The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.”

She's got that right.

Speaking for myself, personally, my confidence in the SCOTUS is at an all-time low.