Hellobee Boards

@MrsSCB: ....so pretty much, business as usual. Ugh. Keeping women and our scary, magical vaginas in check since the dawn of time.

@Maysprout: Your initial comment points to the fundamental misunderstanding that some people are inserting into the discussion of this opinion, not exclusively in this thread, but more generally across the Internet today. The case was about whether the government can require Hobby Lobby, as a privately-held, family-owned corporation, to pay for birth control for people who are their employees. It isn't about access to birth control more generally. It's about who has to pay.

The ruling says that the government can't compel HL's owners to buy birth control for their employees because it violates the owners' religious beliefs and those are protected from encroachments such as this one under a federal law called RFRA. The HL employees are 100% free to buy birth control with their own money, or via another channel that HHS has set up to provide subsidized access. Now, even after this ruling, there could be a situation in which the government can compel an employer who is a privately held company to buy their employee something that would violate the employer's religious beliefs, but before the government can write that law, it has to show that making the transfer that way is the least restrictive means of doing so. The government didn't do that in writing the HHS regulations that applied to Hobby Lobby, so it lost.

An important point to note is that Congress wrote RFRA and they wrote it broadly, with the least restrictive means test, for a reason. You can probably guess what they were trying to do by including that test. Also, just a bit of historical trivia for color: RFRA was enacted by a majority Democrat Senate and House and signed by President Clinton.

***
@Adira: Should the administration have to follow the law? RFRA unquestionably has a least restrictive means test and HHS's regulations do not meet that test. Why should the ACA be exempt from legal requirements imposed by a previous Congress?

***
As a general matter, I'm displeased that a 5-4 decision in Hobby Lobby seems to be popularly viewed as an ideological attack on women that will throw us back to the Stone Ages when it adheres to the law that Congress wrote, but a 5-4 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius that disregards the actual words that Congress chose and interprets "penalty" to mean "tax," despite Congress's having bent over backwards not to use the word "tax" in the statute, is all of a sudden the law of the land that is not to be upset or altered in any way, shape or form.

@MediaNaranja: agreed. Well put.

@honeybear: HL is a for-profit closely held corporation. It is not a private corporation. There is a significant difference between these two types of entities (publicly traded versus not publicly traded). Nonetheless, the real issue of this case has nothing to do with birth control, rather, the issue is whether a for-profit corporation qualifies for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law? There is no case law support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations (of any kind). This is an exploitation of the free exercise rights that have previously only been recognized (and closely controlled) for non-profit religious organizations.

ETA: And that's only if you buy that Plaintiffs (both HL and Conestoga) carried their burden . . . it is clear neither corporation did.

@kjpugs: well, I could be off base here, so I hope someone chimes in and corrects me if I am wrong..

The type if insurance available to a company is dependent on several factors, including the policies available and the insurance provider options. Locally, I can think of two providers. Using my dad (small business owner) as an example, he could only choose from a specific set of available plans from either carrier. It's not like he has the pick of the litter!

Regardless, the ACA mandates that birth control be covered. It doesn't mandate if IF coverage can be included, and to my knowledge it doesn't state that that every carrier has to provide the same options for the same price point with the same available copays and co insurance. But it is across the board that each should cover BCP.

@Mrs. Jump Rope: I don't think that changes anything about what I'm saying... if different companies are given different options (for example there have been times when my DH and I were both on his plan because it was much better than mine) either way, they're not always the same, and good benefits is a choice a company CAN make or at least offer. My first job out of college was a non profit which paid 25k a year "but great benefits!" and it's true- they were pretty dang great. Not as great as my mom the teacher's. My employer that I left actually got really sick and then tried to get us to agree to get a health insurance plan (which he hadn't previously offered.) My 2 coworkers were both on their wives' insanely awesome plans (and wouldn't be allowed to stay on them if they had an option for insurance) and I was going to pay more than we did for me to be on DH's, so we all told him no. He needed a certain # of us to opt in to get it. I am sure that much of this may have changed with Obamacare (my insurance at work just got pricier but didn't change so I truly haven't paid much attention to the changes) but from company to company options differ, so benefits are often considered a perk and considered along with pay, PTO, etc. They may not have amazing options but they do have choices.

And I do know that the ACA mandates BC coverage, however, then lets discuss what should be required to be covered. What makes BC required to cover but not IF? What about vision? Does a company have to offer that? Or dental? What about weight loss surgery? Or skin reduction surgery? I could go on and on... there are reasons to say yes or no to all of those and that's something that varies from company to company, plan to plan. I think it becomes problematic when we start drawing lines in the sand, that's all.

And in all of this, I would LOVE to see BC covered for all women, and in general, more things covered, more people covered, etc. I just think we have to go about it the right way.

@kjpugs: So if a private company decided that they believe that minimum wage is more than their God intended for people to live on and they were going to pay under it, that would be okay too? No, because it is the law. You don't have to agree with the law to believe that there should be no exceptions for it.

@Radish: and that's what can be argued in court. People could claim anything and it's up for a court to determine if that truly is a belief. Religious beliefs are honored above and beyond in many areas and it's a thin line. I'm not in the courtroom so it's not my decision but I just shared my opinion. You can get mad at the people who failed to argue this case that's one of the most frustrating but also, important, things about our legal system.

@Mrs. Jump Rope: insurance itself is a confusing cluster. Like I said I think all women should have that option. But I think they should also have IF coverage and lower specialist copays and I mean let's not even talk about how varied the costs are for HB-ers to have a baby in a hospital! Insurance blows! What do I know? Just my opinion on the ruling, even if it's not what if want as a HL employee I think it was the correct ruling.

@honeybear: They're not paying for birth control.
They give money to employee, employee goes to doctor and gets birth control with money from employer

or give money and insurance to employee, they go to doctor and get birth control with money and insurance from employer.

I don't see how insurance is any more direct of a route than money.

Especially since some of the money that hobby lobby is paying employees is from investment funds in companies that make birth control.

I loved this.

@travelgirl1: ditto this, i was refraining commenting, but just reading and being appalled.

Oh man, @luckypenny: yes. Your last paragraph is everything I wanted to say. This is a disturbing ruling to me. I'm also frustrated by the lack of perspective. We all here are from different backgrounds, yes, but not likely in a place to have a decision like this so immediatley and seriously impact our lives:
"Just because it does not feel particularly burdensome to you does not mean that it would not to others. Just because there are other choices does not mean that an entity should be making the decision about what choice is best for the employee"

@MsLipGloss: sorry, I still need clarification ( I am having a tough week)...is hobby lobby a listed, publicly traded corporation? Or does it not matter, because it is for profit?

That's honestly where I am having trouble with the whole debate. I have stated this before...this is why I am in support of a heath insurance program where it is independent of employer and each individual chooses their coverage level.

@looch: first, it's for-profit (which absolutely is material to the analysis). second, as a closely held corporation, it is, periodically, publicly traded. it is not a private corporation (never publically traded). and it's both the for-profit and corporation designations that make this opinion problematic.

@honeybear: A practice that they had zero problem with in the past, you're aware of that, right? And then when you get into the fact that they're investing money in companies that produce birth control...doesn't really seem like they actually feel that it's morally wrong. Seems like they're just trying to make a point and don't care that it's completely hypocritical of them.

And as many of us have asked - if a company is owned by someone who is a Jehova's Witness, should they be allowed to not cover blood transfusions and similar treatments for their employees? Because it's the same exact thing, minus the hypocrisy. And in states that where gay marriage is legal, should Hobby Lobby be able to exclude those spouses from being covered by their husband of wife's health insurance? This is a very slippery slope we're on.

@MsLipGloss: @wonderstruck: @honeybear: I apologize for my ignorance in this matter, I have never lived in a country with this kind of healthcare system. But, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the employer and employee usually pay into an insurance policy and then if the employee has medical needs a portion of the funding to meet it comes from that policy. Is that not the case here? Does HL literally give money to their employee for health matters? I know how simple this question is masking me sound but I'm genuinely confused (but fascinated) by this issue.

@travelgirl1: Yes, typically the employer and employee share the cost of the insurance premium with the employer paying the majority particularly for an employee only premium. The policy will then set forth the parameters ($1,000 deductible, $20 co pay for office visit, 10% coinsurance after deducitble is met and often co pays for prescriptions as well, for example) that the employee pays related to the claims they incur.

Has anyone else read the opinion? I read the first 55 pages last night (the majority opinion in full). Still have 40 pages left.

I thought this TIME interview with Hillary Clinton was interesting.

http://time.com/2942666/hillary-calls-hobby-lobby-decision-a-really-bad-slippery-slope/

"Clinton defended her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which underpinned the court’s decision, saying that the legislation had been intended for a different purpose and was a product of another time.

“Bill signed [the act] in the ’90s, because at that point there were legitimate cases of discrimination against religions,” she said. “The people who wanted to build a church or a synagogue or a mosque in a community, and they fit into the zoning but the community was saying ‘we don’t want one of those in our community.’ You know, that was blatant discrimination on the basis of religion.”

Religious freedom for corporate entities, Clinton added, is “certainly a use that no one foresaw, and Justice Ginsburg makes that very clear.”

@mrs. bird: my issue is also with that part of the law. I think that the contraceptive mandate as written is total crap. I support most of ACA, but not this. The exceptions are so narrow, even for non profit religious organizations, so as to be almost useless. Expanding those exceptions is a good thing , in my opinion. I am less concerned about Hobby Lobby as a for profit company and more interested to see what impact this ruling will have on other pending suits by non profits against the mandate.