• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Supreme Court to hear ACA case mandatory contraception

It's likely to be struck down. Even Ginsburg said the ACA can't do this.
 
Last edited:
Before Numby comes to drop some 2L wisdom, a couple of questions:

1) Would co-pays still be considered Constitutional? Are the same forms of contraceptives that have religious objections not being subsidized by the employer's health plan under a shared co-pay system?
2) What would the standard be for which forms of contraception are banned? Hobby Lobby seems to be ok with diaphragms and/or condoms, but there is a religious argument to be made against these forms as well. Who chooses what is allowed and under what standard?
 
It's outrageous beyond comprehension that any corporation would be granted "freedom of religion".
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Before Numby comes to drop some 2L wisdom, a couple of questions:

1) Would co-pays still be considered Constitutional? Are the same forms of contraceptives that have religious objections not being subsidized by the employer's health plan under a shared co-pay system?
2) What would the standard be for which forms of contraception are banned? Hobby Lobby seems to be ok with diaphragms and/or condoms, but there is a religious argument to be made against these forms as well. Who chooses what is allowed and under what standard?
Click to expand...

I think you could make the argument that condoms and diaphragms prevent conception. Birth control intentionally disposes of an already occurred conception.
 
A follow-up to what I said from an old WaPo article after last year's SCOTUS decision on the ACA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...will-continue/2012/06/28/gJQAkl5D9V_blog.html

The attorneys honed in on two parts of Thursday’s ruling. One, from the majority opinion, said: “Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.”

The second, from Justice Ruth Ginsburg, said “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”
 
Not a constitutional lawyer, or a 2L, so take this comment for what it is worth. Under ACA, a company has to either cover its employees or pay a fine. The SCOTUS has determined that the fine is a tax. If the employer has religious objections (or any other kind of objections) to buying the insurance, the employer can pay the fine. Thus the law and the penalty is religion-neutral - it doesn't target religious scruples, or business scruples, or I-just-think-insurance-is-a-scam scruples, it presents a binary option and doesn't inquire as to why you make the decision to pay the fine.

Every year in this country we all pay taxes and those taxes go to buy things that many of us may be religiously opposed to - contraception for government workers through their health plans, bombs to kill Pakistani children. We don't get to carve out religious exceptions for that.

Leaving aside legality for a minute, the arguments made by Hobby Lobby seem to totally ignore the agency of the employee. The employee is making the decision to use birth control. How there is a principled distinction between paying an employee a salary which she uses to buy birth control, vs. channeling that money into an insurance policy that indirectly pays for the birth control? I am giving the employee a package of income and benefits to induce her to work for me. Same money either way, the choice is up to the employee, not the employer. What she does with that package of benefits is between her and God, not between me and God.

Put another way, I cannot understand how the owners of Hobby Lobby think they're going to come up to the Pearly Gates and St. Peter will say "sorry, some of your employees used their insurance to buy birth control, say hi to Lucifer for me". That kind of religious thinking makes no sense to me as a Christian.

ETA: some religions don't believe in things like blood transfusions and some pastors have been known to preach against vaccines. Are we going to allow companies (or individuals) to opt out of Obamacare for these kinds of religious scruples that most people acknowledge are off-the-reservation crazy? Because if you allow an exception for contraception, I don't see how you can deny an exception for the anti-blood transfusion people. Maybe there's some kind of principled distinction there that I am missing, but if the point is to allow for freedom of religion how can the government pick and choose between sincerely held religious beliefs? Answer: it can't.
 
Last edited:
Deacon923 said:
Not a constitutional lawyer, or a 2L, so take this comment for what it is worth. Under ACA, a company has to either cover its employees or pay a fine. The SCOTUS has determined that the fine is a tax. If the employer has religious objections (or any other kind of objections) to buying the insurance, the employer can pay the fine. Thus the law and the penalty is religion-neutral - it doesn't target religious scruples, or business scruples, or I-just-think-insurance-is-a-scam scruples, it presents a binary option and doesn't inquire as to why you make the decision to pay the fine.
Click to expand...

I believe SCOTUS addressed the individual mandate and (incorrectly) termed it a tax. The individual mandate and not a company mandate. Regardless, I don't see how a company being forced to pay a fine for their religious objections makes the law "religion-neutral." A fine is a punitive action so they are effectively punished for their religious objections.
 
Wrangor said:
I think you could make the argument that condoms and diaphragms prevent conception. Birth control intentionally disposes of an already occurred conception.
Click to expand...

So then Genesis 38:9 is not the inherent word of God to a Biblical literalist?
 
Deacon923 said:
Not a constitutional lawyer, or a 2L, so take this comment for what it is worth. Under ACA, a company has to either cover its employees or pay a fine. The SCOTUS has determined that the fine is a tax. If the employer has religious objections (or any other kind of objections) to buying the insurance, the employer can pay the fine. Thus the law and the penalty is religion-neutral - it doesn't target religious scruples, or business scruples, or I-just-think-insurance-is-a-scam scruples, it presents a binary option and doesn't inquire as to why you make the decision to pay the fine.

Every year in this country we all pay taxes and those taxes go to buy things that many of us may be religiously opposed to - contraception for government workers through their health plans, bombs to kill Pakistani children. We don't get to carve out religious exceptions for that.

Leaving aside legality for a minute, the arguments made by Hobby Lobby seem to totally ignore the agency of the employee. The employee is making the decision to use birth control. How there is a principled distinction between paying an employee a salary which she uses to buy birth control, vs. channeling that money into an insurance policy that indirectly pays for the birth control? I am giving the employee a package of income and benefits to induce her to work for me. Same money either way, the choice is up to the employee, not the employer. What she does with that package of benefits is between her and God, not between me and God.

Put another way, I cannot understand how the owners of Hobby Lobby think they're going to come up to the Pearly Gates and St. Peter will say "sorry, some of your employees used their insurance to buy birth control, say hi to Lucifer for me". That kind of religious thinking makes no sense to me as a Christian.

ETA: some religions don't believe in things like blood transfusions and some pastors have been known to preach against vaccines. Are we going to allow companies (or individuals) to opt out of Obamacare for these kinds of religious scruples that most people acknowledge are off-the-reservation crazy? Because if you allow an exception for contraception, I don't see how you can deny an exception for the anti-blood transfusion people. Maybe there's some kind of principled distinction there that I am missing, but if the point is to allow for freedom of religion how can the government pick and choose between sincerely held religious beliefs? Answer: it can't.
Click to expand...

Can we just cut the bullshit and fast forward to single payer, please?
 
Wrangor said:
I think you could make the argument that condoms and diaphragms prevent conception. Birth control intentionally disposes of an already occurred conception.
Click to expand...

Once a corporation is formed, you aren't working for the individual. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

This family should have to decide if they want the protection that corporations give them or own the business as individuals.
 
Could a corporation run by Jehovah's Witnesses demand not to cover transfusions or any other blood products?

Could a company declare itself a Christian Science company and thus not cover any health insurance?

Or is this only about abortion and contraception?

The craziest position is held by those who oppose abortion and oppose contraception.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I believe SCOTUS addressed the individual mandate and (incorrectly) termed it a tax. The individual mandate and not a company mandate. Regardless, I don't see how a company being forced to pay a fine for their religious objections makes the law "religion-neutral." A fine is a punitive action so they are effectively punished for their religious objections.
Click to expand...

I guess this is how the plaintiffs want to frame the argument, but the fact is that there are a lot of reasons why companies might choose not to provide ACA-compliant insurance. Not least of which, it is expensive and they calculate they're better off paying the fine and letting their employee get insurance on the (currently completely nonfunctional) exchanges. Why should I have to pay a fine for deciding insurance is too expensive, but not have to pay a fine because I have religious objections? Seems like a wide open door for a lot of people to suddenly get religion - how do we police it?

If I decide I can no longer provide funding to the military or Department of Health or whatever because of my religion, so I refuse to pay income taxes, I get fined and maybe put in jail. Period. There is no religious exemption to paying a tax, and the ACA mandate is a tax per the SCOTUS.
 
DeacMan said:
How so? The Catholic church is probably organized as a corporation of some sort.
Click to expand...

Of course. Churches still have to register with the state as an organization of some sort. RJ is being obtuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top