Hellobee Boards

@lawbee11: not yet! This weekend, hopefully.

@mrs. bird: The issue is that there is a federal law, RFRA, that says when it's appropriate for the government to burden a person's exercise of religion. The basic policy of RFRA is to prevent government from writing laws that preclude people from living in accordance with their religious beliefs.

RFRA contains a two-part test (described in another of my posts above). The government lost here because they could not meet the second prong, which is the requirement that the imposition on religious beliefs be the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interest. The least restrictive means test makes sense in the context of the policy goal of RFRA: We are okay with some encroachment on religious beliefs in circumstances where the government has a compelling interest, but the government has to show that the proposed encroachment is the least obtrusive way to fulfill its objective.

@honeybear: Well, I thought it said that, but frankly it is a fairly established fact that HL did used to provide coverage to their employees for all types of birth control, plan B and IUDs included - I've read so many long papers going over both sides of the case that they're all kind of muddled together in my brain at this point. But HL has done this for years and even admitted as much, stating that they 're-examined' this after the ACA rolled out.

But in any case, we are not going to agree on this. Just as you believe the government cannot infringe on religious beliefs, I believe that corporations cannot do so and should not get to have an opinion on religious beliefs either. If the law says birth control must be covered under health insurance, that's what should happen. And I believe HL employees are having their religious beliefs infringed on significantly more than HL is - why does HL even get to have religious beliefs?

And really, the whole argument just goes out the window if people stop ignoring the scientific fact that neither Plan B or IUDs are actually abortifacients. Not that I think it should matter, I still don't believe HL should be able to pick and choose what kinds of birth control their employees will be covered for. The fact that they also pay into their employee's insurance plans is beside the point for me, the point is that they want to make changes based upon their religious beliefs. And as many many posters have stated, I don't think a corporation gets to have religious beliefs. RFRA shouldn't even apply to corporations, in my opinion. Obviously you disagree, but that is what I think.

@looch: Here's a link to the full opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

@looch: The dissent begins on page 60 of the opinion.

@looch: nah. I have just had more practice!

@honeybear: The RFRA uses the word "persons" . . . and in the context of these recent rulings (HL and Conestoga), the majority expanded the term "person" to include a closely held corporation.

ETA: And with regard to your comments about Clinton (even though this pains me, because I am not a fan) . . . facts cannot be divorced from the time, place, and manner in which they occur. Events that led to the passing of the RFRA were largely involving use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Smith case) and land use issues involving religious organizations. To say that this particular result should have been anticipated is absurd.

@lawbee11: I read it. I really wish a lot more people on all sides of the argument would do the same, instead of relying on news articles. I don't mean to direct that specifically here, just to everyone debating this opinion in general. I think the debates would get further toward the real issues instead of getting bogged down by misinformation.

@honeybear: I assume you're referring to the Dictionary Act's definition of "person"? "[T]he words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals" I sincerely doubt that when Clinton signed the RFRA he meant to include all of those listed in the Dictionary Act's definition of "person." It's fine if you disagree, but I don't agree with the Court's expansion of the term.

@MsLipGloss: I think it's unnecessary to make it seem like @honeybear: is making an outrageous claim by stating that the word "person" can easily be interpreted to extend to a corporation. You and I both know there are numerous examples of this in the law. Example from the bankruptcy code: 11 U.S.C 101(41) - the term "person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does no include governmental unit . . ." Example from 1 U.S.C. 1 - "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— . . . the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals[.]"

You may disagree with that definition and its application here, but it's not exactly unfounded.

@honeybear: The Dictionary Act also begins with: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise..." I think the context of the RFRA in stating that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" obviously indicates otherwise.

@Mrs. Blue: Ah, never mind.

@MrsTiz: The one about turning a dream catcher into a diaphragm was the best!!!

@Mrs. Blue: DH and I were reading and discussing it last night....one of the "perks" of being married to a lawyer??

@MsLipGloss: LOL! Your edited version is my marriage theme song

@lawbee11: @Mrs. Blue: And @lawbee11:'s use of the word *perk* . . . well, it certainly led me down a garden path of glorious filth . . . (Merriam Webster helped too).

@MamaG: hear hear!

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider-impact-of-hobby-lobby-ruling/#more-214630

@lawbee11: and so it begins

@lawbee11: This is exactly why the ruling for Hobby Lobby is so upsetting... It's just opened up a huge can of worms.