Hellobee Boards

I haven't read all of the posts, so this may have already been mentioned. I fear what comes next. What if my employer decides my eating disorder is all a part of "God's plan" or my own fault and decides to exclude coverage for mental health?Treatment is extremely expensive (even WITH insurance coverage), and there's no way I'd be able to continue with the treatment that I need to save my life.

It's a slippery slope, and that is what gets me.

Also, I am not 100% if this is true as I haven't had time to research...but I've seen many mentions that Hobby Lobby's medical insurance plan will cover vasectomies for males? What in the world.

It isn't always as easy as "choosing another employer" or "choosing to work elsewhere." That is your privilege speaking.

@MamaG: This. Exactly.

I've been following this thread closely and have been reading all of the posts. My perspective has been changed a bit, although not entirely, and it's been good to have a feel for both sides of this issue. I appreciate all of the thought and time you all have put into your posts!

@MrsH: Your analysis does not incorporate the majority's stated "narrow" holding that the HL (/Conestoga) opinion(s) only applies to closely held corporations (and then only under certain circumstances). The opinion does not speak to the validity/applicability of the ACA generally (or any provision thereof generally, i.e., as to all employers as opposed to the at-issue employers).

There are so many smart people on this thread. I am not a lawyer and don't know much beyond my American History classes in high school, I was hoping someone could confirm my understanding of this whole situation, or explain where I'm wrong:

Obviously, health insurance and health care in the United States is (was?) less than ideal.

The ACA attempted to help fix this broken system in many ways (making everyone have heath insurance, no lifetime caps, kids can stay on insurance until 25, preventative care needs to be covered in). All these things were debated (and are still debated), and many people disagree with them, but the act passed, it is law (and has been upheld by the supreme court).

Contraceptive coverage is considered "preventative care" by the act and must be covered your policy by health insurance companies.

Many workplaces provide health insurance to their employees as a benefit. Regardless of where you get your coverage, your policy has to cover certain things. There is also a law that says that employers over a certain number of people have to provide some sort of insurance coverage.

The owners of Hobby Lobby are morally against a few types of contraceptives due to their religious beliefs, so they think that they should not have to provide a policy that covers something they oppose.

So the majority of the supreme court made an exception to a law that means a for-profit (closely-held) company does not have to follow a law because of the religious belief of the owners of the company.

Obviously, this is so, so simplified that it might lose it's meaning completely, but I don't know if I completely understand the situation. Is this what happened or am I missing something?

@MrsH: Does that mean that that portion of the law is no longer valid for anyone, or just that Hobby Lobby gets an exemption because of their owner's religious views and the specific type of for-profit company? I'm not sure I understand, but this is just all way over my head.

@MrsH: My understanding is that the majority did not invalidate the applicability of the provision to the at-issue employers, rather, the majority allowed the employers to exclude several types of contraceptives from the ACA-approved list, but that the remaining portions of the provision (ETA which include other contraceptives) are still covered services.

ETA: oh, and no need to change your statement!

ETA2: And I have only read the HL decision.

@MsLipGloss: I get where you are coming from. I think you are reading into my "smacked down" to imply invalidated. IMHO an exemption to for profit religious corporation = "smack down"

Regardless - I was just trying to point out that the ACA is what started this issue and certainly is not a "separate" discussion per @Adira:

@MrsH: Yep, that was my translation of "smack down."

@TemperanceBrennan: Yes, that is basically what happened. The contraceptive mandate is still valid. Previously, religious organizations (like churches) and non-profits were eligible for an exemption from the contraception mandate. Now the Supreme Court has expanded those eligible for the exemption to certain for-profit closely held corporations.

I have question to pose that I didn't during the initial exchange, but feel pretty comfortable in so doing now . . .

Would you feel differently about the decision(s) if the closely held religious beliefs were not Christian or Catholic . . . but, say, Shi-ite Muslim, Pagan, or Scientology (just a few examples)?

@MsLipGloss: George Takei posted this same question on his blog.

I personally would feel the same. Religion is religion and corporations can't be religious in my opinion!

@Adira: "I personally would feel the same. Religion is religion and corporations can't be religious in my opinion!"

Agreed!! I don't even want to KNOW anybody's religious views when it comes to business. There is a time and a place for it for some people, but not in the workplace and certainly not when it affects employees. I'm still so angry about this decision.

@MsLipGloss: I would not feel differently, but I do not agree with the ruling so I suppose that is to be expected. I think it's an excellent question though. It seems that because Christianity is the most popular, and IMO most accepted, religion in our country, people are much more open to altering laws to align with that set of beliefs. It's so intertwined with our country (people's fierce belief in keeping 'under God' in the pledge and 'in God we trust' on our money being key examples) that I feel like for some reason Christian beliefs too often slip past the separation of church and state.

I saw a Seth Rogen quote online earlier today about this whole thing that really amused me. It was, "People love defending people's rights to deprive other people of their rights."

I also wonder if people would think differently if it didn't have to do with the ACA.

@sunny: I wonder that too!!!

@MsLipGloss: nope! I would feel the same. To me, government mandates that force people to contribute to services that they find immoral (regardless of how hypocritical it may seem at face value) is an overstep that this ruling is helping to correct. I do not believe that the government has the right to legislate away religious freedom.

@sunny: not to put words in @LovelyPlum's mouth but "not in favor" doesn't exactly reach immoral.

@MrsH: Her wording was different, but I don't think it's a reach to say that some people find war to be immoral.

ETA: Sorry @Sunny, I see we were typing at the same time!

@wonderstruck: really? Most (a majority?) religious groups have wars over their beliefs.

@MrsH: right but you can still object to a specific war. Plus there are also pacifists who may object to all war.