[Goober5000]

From http://cnsnews.com/news/article/court-gov-t-must-halt-enforcement-sterilization-contraception-abortifacient-mandate

(CNSNews.com) – Following on yesterday’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Hobby Lobby can continue its lawsuit against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate on religious grounds, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled today that the federal government must halt all enforcement of the mandate (and related financial penalties) against the Christian-based company.

Hobby Lobby and sister company Mardel are suing the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, arguing that to force the company to pay for health insurance that must offer abortion-inducing drugs, as well as sterilization and contraception, is a violation of its religious liberty.

In his order issued on Friday, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton said the “court concludes plaintiffs [Hobby Lobby] have made a sufficient showing to warrant the issuance of a temporary restraining order in the circumstances existing here."

[...]

For those who aren't familiar with this case, Obamacare mandates that employers of a certain size must pay for insurance coverage that covers the "morning-after" pill and other contraception/abortifacient drugs.  Hobby Lobby raised objections to this mandate on religious grounds, and now the Court has issued a temporary restraining order against HHS from enforcing the mandate.

This comes a day after the 10th Circuit Court ruled that yes, business owners do indeed have religious liberty rights.  (I'm surprised we needed a court to tell us that, but there you go.)

This is good news, and a relief for Hobby Lobby especially, which would have faced draconian fines starting Monday if the case hadn't been fast-tracked.  It's only a temporary restraining order, but it gives Hobby Lobby some respite while they prepare to make their full case.

[NGTM-1R]

contraception/abortifacient

We have always been at war with East Asia.

[The E]

Hang on, let me understand this.

Does this mean that if my medical insurance included contraceptives and the like a prospective employer could force me to change insurers just because they disagreed with the idea of contraception?

What kind of bull**** is that?
(Also, ROFL at the idea that in the land of the free, an employer is totally free to discriminate on religious grounds when it comes to this.)

[MP-Ryan]

I am pretty damn sure that the Constitution specifies rights of people, not corporations.  A corporation should not have the right to freedom of religious belief; while its members/owners may, forcing a corporation to comply with a law that is incompatible with the owners' religious beliefs should not be a violation of those rights.

Apparently the lower courts in the US disagree with me, however.  Well, so did the Supreme Court when they ruled that corporations have free speech rights and therefore cannot be regulated in terms of political donations (a ruling that has basically ****ed the notion of equal democracy in the US).  For a country that constantly proclaims the superiority of its Constitution, the enforcement of it sure is messed up in some areas.

Basically, it seems the liberty of special interest groups and corporations now trumps the guaranteed rights of individuals, and that is unbelievably ridiculous.

[MP-Ryan]

Does this mean that if my medical insurance included contraceptives and the like a prospective employer could force me to change insurers just because they disagreed with the idea of contraception?

No, it means that your employer can freely choose to only use an insurer that will not fund contraceptives/abortifacients because your employer - corporation - disagrees with the notion of them on religious grounds, and therefore if you need such drugs you will be paying for them entirely yourself.  In short, it's yet another way that certain "Christian" groups would like to financially **** people that don't agree with their agenda.

Not that I've ever purchased anything from Hobby Lobby to begin with, but I certainly won't ever do so in the future.

[The E]

And that is why real socialized medicine is so awesome.

Around here, stuff like this wouldn't even be possible. People choose their healthcare insurance, tell the employer, and then the employer has to pass the money over. Corporations may fund something called a Betriebskrankenkasse ("Corporate Health Insurance", more or less), but they may not force any of their employees to join it (Although it is usually a good idea to do so anyway, as they more often than not provide perks above and beyond the basic service all health insurers must provide). Do note that contraceptives etc are always covered for those who desire them, regardless of which health insurer you subscribe to.

Churches, and institutions owned by them, are the only ones allowed to break labor laws for religious reasons, and that's a ****ing shame. But even they may not interfere with whatever health care provisions their employees make.

[SypheDMar]

This is sad news. This only affects the 10th Circuit Court right?

[Goober5000]

contraception/abortifacient

We have always been at war with East Asia.

That article is long on the rhetoric and short on the facts.  It blasts evangelicals for hypocrisy (and to be fair, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Church nowadays) but it completely omits the reason for the change.  Which is in the author's own interests, because if he were to take a serious look at the reason then his whole case would fall apart.  The reason is simply that many people who don't have a problem with condoms or the pill do have a problem with the morning-after pill.  The classical pill inhibits ovulation so that there is never an egg to fertilize.  The morning-after pills disrupt the pregnancy (usually by inhibiting implantation) after fertilization has taken place.  That constitutes abortion.  Naturally, those who have a problem with abortion would have a problem with those medications.

Does this mean that if my medical insurance included contraceptives and the like a prospective employer could force me to change insurers just because they disagreed with the idea of contraception?

What kind of bull**** is that?
(Also, ROFL at the idea that in the land of the free, an employer is totally free to discriminate on religious grounds when it comes to this.)

I'm astonished that you think it is right to force an employer to go against his strongest moral principles for the sake of your convenience.  It's not enough that you have the ability to purchase your own insurance if you so choose.  It's not enough that you are free to find another employer whose views are more compatible with your own.  You want to force someone else to pay for a thing that goes against his religious convictions, simply because you don't agree with him.

Would you approve of a government mandate requiring employers to print propaganda denying the Armenian genocide as a condition of employing Turkish nationals?

I am pretty damn sure that the Constitution specifies rights of people, not corporations.  A corporation should not have the right to freedom of religious belief; while its members/owners may, forcing a corporation to comply with a law that is incompatible with the owners' religious beliefs should not be a violation of those rights.

First, you have that backwards.  The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not specify or grant them.  The Constitution lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, it does not lay out what rights people do and do not have.

Second, I agree with you that a corporation is not a person, and a corporation does not have the rights that a person has -- never mind that the Supreme Court has held the opposite since the late 19th century.  This incorrect application of the 14th Amendment has led to all kinds of problems and imbalances in the business world.

However, none of this applies to this situation.  Regardless of whether a corporation itself has the right to freedom of religious belief, its employers and owners most certainly do.  And its employers and owners are the ones who would be forced to implement this unjust regulation.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm astonished that you think it is right to force an employer to go against his strongest moral principles for the sake of your convenience.  It's not enough that you have the ability to purchase your own insurance if you so choose.  It's not enough that you are free to find another employer whose views are more compatible with your own.  You want to force someone else to pay for a thing that goes against his religious convictions, simply because you don't agree with him.

Versus you apparently feel an employer is free to choose whatever medical benefits they want to provide to their employees based solely on the employers religious convictions.  Can't wait until some Jehova's Witnesses decide not to insure all procedures related to blood transfusions for their employees - I'm curious what your tune will be then.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if the consequences of uninsured employees weren't so dire, but the United States has the most expensive medical system per capita in the world - which actually doesn't equate to the best patient outcomes - largely because of bull**** insurance policies.  Nevermind that many of the social problems these "Christians" deride are a direct consequence of poor medical coverage, unwanted children, and low-income single-parent households raising large numbers of children.  As education, income, and health coverage go UP, the birth rate and crime rates go DOWN.  But let's not let facts get in the way of ideology and the nonsense that if people have access to birth control they might *gasp* have sex.  This is the same breed of idiocy that is content to condemn their teenage daughters to a higher risk and possible death due to ovarian cancer because HPV is technically a sexually-transmitted disease (nevermind that it is as easily transmitted from husband to wife as it is among non-married people).

Unless the US wants to socialize medicine like every other Western country on the damn planet, employers should not be free to discriminate what coverage their employees get on the grounds of the owner's religious convictions, for the reasons I shall lay out at the end of my post momentarily...

First, you have that backwards.  The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not specify or grant them.  The Constitution lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, it does not lay out what rights people do and do not have.

This is a 'conservative' semantic argument.  The Constitution lays out protected rights.  This notion of recognize/grant/specify, etc is semantic only and is utterly irrelevant except as an ideological talking point.  Without the Constitution, you can believe you have a right to go have sex with sheep.  I can believe that you ought to be hung up by your testicles for that particular offense.  Neither view matters because the rights only exist if someone or something says they do.  In this case, it's the Constitution of the United States.

Second, I agree with you that a corporation is not a person, and a corporation does not have the rights that a person has -- never mind that the Supreme Court has held the opposite since the late 19th century.  This incorrect application of the 14th Amendment has led to all kinds of problems and imbalances in the business world.

However, none of this applies to this situation.  Regardless of whether a corporation itself has the right to freedom of religious belief, its employers and owners most certainly do.  And its employers and owners are the ones who would be forced to implement this unjust regulation.

No, they wouldn't.  The owner may own the corporation, but the corporation is the entity to which the law applies.  If the owner doesn't like that their corporation has to comply with certain laws, they are free to unincorporate themselves and take all the business risks as individuals with sole proprietorships, in which case they may argue that such benefits violate their rights (and I agree with them then).

Business owners cannot have it both ways - you cannot have all the protections of incorporating a business to legally protect yourself, and then try to say that laws shouldn't apply to your corporation because of your individual rights.  The whole purpose of incorporation is to legally dissociate the person from the business.  And THAT, my friends, is why this entire lawsuit is legally unfair bull**** and why the courts should immediately reject these arguments.  Corporations do not and were never intended to have the same rights as persons, and the continual expansion of case law to the contrary shows just how ****ed up property rights in the United States have become.  Normally I accord the courts a fair amount of deference, but this is one area of law which the US courts have gotten completely backwards.  It has already ****ed your political system - PACs are the end of democracy as you knew it, I'm sorry to say - and now it threatens to allow corporate rights to trump individual legal protections.  I don't care what side of the political spectrum you're on - I'm a classical liberal along the lines of Swift, Jefferson, Mill, Smith, and Locke on most matters of politics - this is wrong.

My only consolation is that I do not live in the United States and the court system in my country has generally seen these arguments for what they are - an attempt by corporate owners to gain a legal double standard of protections to the detriment of their employees.

[NGTM-1R]

That article is long on the rhetoric and short on the facts.  It blasts evangelicals for hypocrisy (and to be fair, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Church nowadays) but it completely omits the reason for the change. 

No, actually he doesn't. He elaborates on the reason at length. (So that the Protestant side of the religious right could stir up support against Obamacare, because they have pacted with the Republican Party and signed it in blood. Yes, the imagery is intentional, and appropriate.)

The reason is simply that many people who don't have a problem with condoms or the pill do have a problem with the morning-after pill.  The classical pill inhibits ovulation so that there is never an egg to fertilize.  The morning-after pills disrupt the pregnancy (usually by inhibiting implantation) after fertilization has taken place.  That constitutes abortion.  Naturally, those who have a problem with abortion would have a problem with those medications.

Your statement would make sense if that was the stance being taken by Hobby Lobby, and by extension you. It is not. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for the pill either and has taken the stance it's abortion in open court.

It's also wrong. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It thus requires a pregnancy to be an abortion. By no stretch of logic is it possible to claim that pregnancy begins until implantation, because asserting otherwise requires some kind of medical magic on the part of the female body equivalent to Todd Akin's legitimate rape.

And, well... Life and hence pregnancy begins at conception is an inherently Catholic argument, though at least more medically sound than the one you're attempting to make.

[BloodEagle]

I'm curious, is Hobby Lobby okay with insurers who pay for Vasectomies and... Tubal ligation?

[Ghostavo]

If Hobby Lobby has employees that do not share "their" religious views, just by paying them, they are paying for activities that they do not agree with.

I don't see why paying for health insurance with contraceptives is somehow worse than paying their salaries.

[KyadCK]

Pay for your own anti-pregancy stuff, geeze. No company should ever cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford condoms/pills/whatever, then simply stop screwing people (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can afford booze or to go to a club), or only screw people who have their own. It's not a right to be able to **** with no side effect, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of condoms, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. 

Next thing you know, jobs will be forced to cover Dental and plastic surgery too. 

---------------------------------------------

Does everyone here understand that, atleast in the US, some jobs don't cover any health insurance? That such a thing, at least until obamacare, was simply a perk of the job you had if it did?

Why are companies being forced to cover anything anyway? Unless you get hurt while on the job or doing work for them, it's your own damn fault, or whoever hurt you, but not the company.

Gov covered medical: Taxes pay for it.
Private medical: monthly payments pay for it.

Not sure where the privately owned companies come into play here. Forcing them to cover it if you're over 30 hours (obamacare) will simply make them either;

A: Not hire you because they don't want the cost.
B: Hire you, but make you part-time under 30 hours, cutting you off from all other benefits too.
C: Take it out of your salary.

None of the above are good, and in this particular case there is zero reason the job should cover something that is so completely not related to the job if they don't want to. The fact they had to pull the religion card is just sad.

I honestly can not see how this becomes the employer's responsibility at all...

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Interesting.  I propose this as well then for you:

KyadCK, pay for your own anti-cancer stuff, geeze.  No company should cover that anyway.  It plays no role in your health as a human being.  If you can't afford chemo/radiation/experimental medications/whatever, then simply stop getting exposed to carcinogens (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can cigarettes, or charcoal-cooked foods, or paint, or fast food, or drycleaning, or a myriad of those things that cause cancer), or only get exposed to carcinogens in countries that'll pay for it for you. It's not a right to be able to live without cancer, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of chemotherapy drugs, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. 

If that's ludicrous, so is your argument about contraceptives.  Oh, cancer affects health you say?  SO DOES PREGANANCY.  Google "maternal complications of pregnancy and childbirth."  OH, you choose to get pregnant but you don't choose to get cancer?  Tell that to rape victims, or smokers.  Oh wait, now you're going to tell me that it doesn't violate anyone's religious beliefs to provide live-saving drugs for cancer patients.  Wrong!  It's against my beliefs, and I just started a company that bought the one you work for!  Congratulations, you no longer have any coverage for any cancer-related treatments.  Hope you don't get sick!

If you have a problem with any of what I just wrote, I expect we shall see your post revised shortly to be a little less simplistic and a little more thoughtful.  Now that we've gotten opinion without any factual basis out of the way, let's look at some data, shall we?

The policies you apparently support are why you, and every other taxpayer, and every other man, woman, and hicld pay far more for healthcare and get far LESSER results that virtually every other democracy on the planet.  If you're OK with that, well, I can't help you.

[KyadCK]

-snip-

Interesting.  I propose this as well then for you:

KyadCK, pay for your own anti-cancer stuff, geeze.  No company should cover that anyway.  It plays no role in your health as a human being.  If you can't afford chemo/radiation/experimental medications/whatever, then simply stop getting exposed to carcinogens (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can cigarettes, or charcoal-cooked foods, or paint, or fast food, or drycleaning, or a myriad of those things that cause cancer), or only get exposed to carcinogens in countries that'll pay for it for you. It's not a right to be able to live without cancer, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of chemotherapy drugs, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. 

If that's ludicrous, so is your argument about contraceptives.  Oh, cancer affects health you say?  SO DOES PREGANANCY.  Google "maternal complications of pregnancy and childbirth."  OH, you choose to get pregnant but you don't choose to get cancer?  Tell that to rape victims, or smokers.  Oh wait, now you're going to tell me that it doesn't violate anyone's religious beliefs to provide live-saving drugs for cancer patients.  Wrong!  It's against my beliefs, and I just started a company that bought the one you work for!  Congratulations, you no longer have any coverage for any cancer-related treatments.  Hope you don't get sick!

If you have a problem with any of what I just wrote, I expect we shall see your post revised shortly to be a little less simplistic and a little more thoughtful.  Now that we've gotten opinion without any factual basis out of the way, let's look at some data, shall we?

The policies you apparently support are why you, and every other taxpayer, and every other man, woman, and hicld pay far more for healthcare and get far LESSER results that virtually every other democracy on the planet.  If you're OK with that, well, I can't help you.

Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.

One more time: Why is it the company's problem?

If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?

Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.

So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.

[Beskargam]

I'd like to point out that a lot of girls I've known have taken/take birth control for regulation of their cycles, rather than preventing pregnancy. I hear having a period is an absolute pain.

However, if the argument is only about preventing pregnancy, for the insurance company, paying for birth control is much less expensive than paying for pregnancy. And if someone is not pregnant they do not get maternity leave, and are still able to work full time. That's the whole point of providing benefits for employees, happier, healthier, more motivated individuals do more and better work.

Also health insurance usually covers vasectomies. Double standard? 

So why should business care? I'm too tired right now to put something coherent down. Will come back to this later

[watsisname]

* watsisname steps in

Kyad, MPRyan analyzed your argument, pointed out its flaws, and even provided data to support his points.  I wholly grant that the manner in which he did so could have been a lot better, but dismissing his post as stupidity, asserting that he has no answer, and asking that he leave does not make for a strong response either.  It makes it look like you're the one struggling.

People on both sides of this issue should try to calm down.  Agitated posts are not very compelling ones and will only make things worse.

* watsisname steps out.

[Flipside]

Roughly 8% of all women suffer from Endometriosis, a condition where the body does not properly shed the extra layers formed during menstruation and a build up occurs. This leads to extremely painful cramps and a difficulty operating in a work environment because of them. A friend of mine has had several operations to remove excess build-up around the uterus caused by this condition.

One of the treatments for this which can work in some cases is a 12-weekly contraceptive injection that thins the womb lining, reducing the build-up of excess tissue.

My main concern about this ruling is where the line will be drawn. Should women have to suffer for 1/4 of their reproductive lives from pain purely because a company doesn't like the fact that such treatments exist at all?

Whilst this is only a preliminary ruling, people need to understand it's a lot more complex than just 'buy your own condoms'.

[The E]

Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.

One more time: Why is it the company's problem?

If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?

Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.

So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.

Because something critical as health care should not be a multi-tiered system. The basic coverage available to everyone should provide for adequate care in all areas, regardless of how much money they make. That's the socialist perspective on it.

Here in Germany, the Employer covers half the medical insurance cost for his employees (the other half is deducted from the wage as part of taxes etc). This is because health care is ****ing expensive, and also because it's in the Employer's best interest to have healthy workers who do not have to worry about something silly like "Can I afford a visit to the Doctor this month".

Given that our system (and the equivalent system of other countries) is much more efficient than yours, both in terms of per-capita costs and in keeping the workforce healthy, I can see no real argument for keeping the Employers out of the loop.

Oh, and I fully agree with MP-Ryan, needless to say.

[666maslo666]

Regarding comparisons with European healthcare systems, keep in mind the differences. As far as I know, here in Europe individually purchased health insurance is the norm. That means the employee chooses an insurance (unless there is a single payer and so no choice) and pays for it with what is already considered a part of his money. While in the US employer healthcare plans are the norm (because they tend to be less expensive than individually purchased), where an employer chooses a plan for his employees and pays for it with what is his own money.

He who pays gets to decide. Thats why this ruling makes sense under US system but not in European system.