Hobby Lobby decision: Victory for religious freedom!
UDPATE 6:20p: Americans United for Life notes:
The Court acknowledged the dangerous and radical view advanced by the Obama Administration: “Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people form full participation in the economic life of the Nation.” (45-46)
UPDATE 5:10p: Ha…
Let us be clear, Imperial Obama: No, you can't! #obstructionismispatriotic pic.twitter.com/OYRycI3bRG
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) June 30, 2014
10:27a: The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4:
Breaking: SCOTUS holds govt can’t require closely held corps w/ religious owners to provide contraception coverage
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
Here’s the Supreme Court’s decision.
[Photo via ABC News]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
WOOHOO!!!! Narrow decision but we will take it for now. Praise God!!! Today is a historic day for Religious Freedom and Freedom of Conscience. We are in a fight pro-lifers but we are in it to win. “Choose LIFE, that you and your seed may live.” Jesus said “I a come to give you LIFE, and that more abundantly.” “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”.
Well, that reaction to this has been about as measured and reasonable as one would expect.
http://twitchy.com/2014/06/30/fuk-you-left-wingers-want-to-burn-down-hobby-lobby-after-scotus-win/
This is truly great news. I’m relieved.
NOW will y’all stop saying Christians are persecuted in the US?
I’m glad about this ruling. Not only is it protective of religious freedom, hopefully it will be the push for employer-provided insurance to disappear and universal to take it’s place. Otherwise start looking for a lot of employers suddenly having moral problems with covering all kinds of stuff.
Jack, it won’t get better if the government makes it illegal to have a health insurance plan that isn’t owned by the federal government, it will be 10 times worse.
What about a system like Canada’s, where the basics are covered for everybody, but it’s not illegal for companies to offer insurance plans above and beyond? It mostly works here because your benefits package is usually part of the consideration of what job to accept, so companies woo good employees that way. It has its problems, but at least everyone has basic coverage.
Yep, Roxy. Or like Australia, where health insurance is paid through taxes, but if you buy your own you can get a tax break. There are multiple models that we could use that would be a great improvement on our system.
Jack, the fact that the administration tried to deprive people of their religious liberty means that there was a serious problem to begin with. I’m thrilled for hobby lobby, who has the numbers and money to fight for their religious freedom. I hope this will trickle down to all the small business owners who aren’t so lucky.
Persecution has many stages and forms. Just because Christians aren’t being taxed with a jizya or kidnapped or killed in their homes as they are in several Islamic societies, doesn’t mean their freedoms are always respected.
This case highlights a different level of prejudice and persecution. But that’s what it’s all about- fighting to retain those freedoms that the Obama admin. has tried to take away.
The government has been pretty good at legally oppressing people… Christians just haven’t been one of them. I would bring up the issues towards other groups but I’ve been down that exceedingly depressing route and I don’t want to go there. Suffice to say that (Protestant, Catholics have been treated poorly in some time periods in our country) Christians have never not been the dominant group, and haven’t been persecuted. It’s a slap in the face to other people of varying groups who have been actually persecuted to claim so in my opinion.
Legal oppression IS low level persecution, and it’s why hobby lobby brought the suit in the first place. It’s also why they won the lawsuit. They were being legally oppressed because of their (Christian) religious beliefs.
It’s a slap in their face and people like them not to recognize this.
I like your comments in general, and the heart that you have for people, incl the preborn. Seems like you might have a blind spot when it comes to legal oppression/ low level persecution of Christians. Not sure why.
Im a Christian and been an agnostic and several other things that some people really dont like. The only real oppression I see in the US is based on race or economic status, or if you are unborn. Christians have a LOT of power in the US and sorry, I don’t see it as oppression when a law is passed and you successfully challenge it and win.
I see that the Planned Parenthood canvassers are out in full force today. They are probably going to make lots of money from this decision. The media and others are acting like contraception is being outlawed. Hobby Lobby isn’t saying it won’t cover contraception, just pills that act as abortifacients. Sheesh!
“hey are probably going to make lots of money from this decision.”
Enough money that they won’t need taxpayer funding anymore, perhaps?
Time to get rid of employer based coverage.
Who owns your benefits – I guess your employer.
Bad day for employees. Good day for activist judges.
“Who owns your benefits”
Was this ever really a question? When benefits are provided by others, we don’t own them.
Employers determine which type of health plans they’ll offer to employees.
State and Federal government determines what will be covered under Medicaid/Medicare benefits.
Lrning – it is new for a corporation to trump regulation.
I think this will be a huge step towards finally getting universal care. Next thing we need to have happen is a lot of private corporations to find religion, and for the boundaries to be pushed to try to take away other parts of health plans.
“Who owns your benefits – I guess your employer.”
If they’re the ones providing them, then, yes, of course. Don’t like it? Work elsewhere.
BTW, were you crowing that Hobby Lobby would fail?
Allowing a company to impose religious based restrictions on its employees is not ‘religious freedom’. It is imposing a particular aspect of a particular religion on others. A tiny little step towards theocracy.
Nice that the judges said that the government should pay for what the owners won’t. Might be a good idea to impose a levy on companies who want to differentiate from standard coverage.
Ex-GOP and LDPL have the right idea. Universal healthcare. Tax companies rather than have them pay for a multitude of plans then use the revenue to fund cover for all.
What’s wrong with people buying their own birth control? Women bought it for generations. Boys and men bought condoms. Also, doesn’t PP hand out all kinds of low cost birth control with our tax dollars?
BTW, I consider a gym membership, a climate controlled environment, hot water, good plumbing, soap, shampoo, and clean clothes essential to good health. So when do our employers start shelling out for gym memberships, hot water heaters, septic tank cleanings, washers and dryers, and personal care items?
“I consider a gym membership, a climate controlled environment, hot water, good plumbing, soap, shampoo, and clean clothes essential to good health.” – so start lobbying. Talk to your employer. Contact your political representatives. Petition health funds to include those items.
No Reality,
That’s why we get paychecks and take some personal responsiblity for managing our lives.
So you don’t beleive healthcare should be an optional part of employment remuneration at all.
Reality,
I don’t believe the employer can be responsible for everything. That’s why we get paychecks and that’s why there’s something called personal responsibility.
That’s a reasonable proposition. It’s time to just go to the obvious and most beneficial system of universal healthcare.
But the fact is that some employers do offer health cover. And it smacks of a judiciary that is religiously activist when a company can be determined to have religious principles which it is then allowed to impose on others.
Reality,
No one’s religious beliefs are being forced on anyone. You get a paycheck, buy your contraception.
So I assume then, Mary, that you think health insurance should only cover care for conditions that a person was either born with or developed as a result of a completely freak accident for which the person is entirely blameless?
Au contraire – employees are being told that they can have healthcover but only according to the religious beliefs of a company. Religious freedom has been diminished.
Mary, please stop feeding the troll.
BV,
You assume wrong.
But let’s face it, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Must your employer pay your gym membership because you have a weight problem? Must an employer pay for my cosmetic surgery because it will do wonders for my mental health?
If you don’t like your employer’s health plan, get one of your own. For years my employer didn’t cover certain things, that’s why I got a paycheck.
Doesn’t do much for your cred as a healthcare professional to equate really basic, preventive medicine with getting a face lift. Maybe it’s time to earn some more CME credits.
It smacks of tyranny when a government can say that you have to abandon your religious principles if you want to participate in the business world. That is what was at stake. The argument was that once you’re incorporated you no longer have a conscience as if corporations run and own themselves and the people behind them cease to exist. The vast majority of businesses in this country are small and/or closely held. Contraception is still perfectly available just as it was before. As for companies jumping on the bandwagon to exclude contraceptive coverage, if it was so much cheaper to do so, companies would have excluded it prior to Obamacare. Yet, only a handful did. Companies should be free to offer no coverage, but if the government is going to force companies to provide coverage, then it has to do so in a way that does not infringe upon religious liberty. I’m only halfway through the opinion, but it’s a good ruling.
“Employees are being told that they can have healthcover but only according to the religious beliefs of a company.”
Incorrect, employers are being forced to provide healthcare to their employees, and now they can’t also be forced to violate their religious beliefs through said provision. The law doesn’t just “provide employees with healthcare”. In order to provide it, someone has to pay for it.
They weren’t being forced to violate their religious beliefs.
The company pays the healthcare.
A company can’t be religious.
Yet the owners are pushing their religious beliefs through the company and onto other people.
BV,
You conveniently overlooked one point I raised.
If you are obese, is your employer obligated to pay for a gym membership? Exercise classes? A personal trainer? Certainly obesity is a health issue.
“Certainly obesity is a health issue.”
And the fixes you proposed don’t require a prescription.
Reality: “Allowing a company to impose religious based restrictions on its employees is not ‘religious freedom’. It is imposing a particular aspect of a particular religion on others. A tiny little step towards theocracy.”
Wrong.
You seem to be among the thousands of misguided writers who believe that contraception has been outlawed. It hasn’t.
And the Greens weren’t being forced to use a product they didn’t want to. Yet they imposed their religious beliefs on others.
Corporations have been declared people. People with religious convictions. And with more rights than women.
What rights do women magically not have because of this ruling? That’s just plain old exaggeration and untruth. First off, women have access to birth control in other ways. They just can’t have it guaranteed through their employer. That’s not taking a right, because they are still allowed to get as much birth control as they want. It doesn’t strengthen your position to claim it’s a right.
Anyway, a good compromise imo is just untying insurance from employers all together. There’s no reason for this crap to ave to exist, my employer shouldn’t be able to decide whether or not I get a vasectomy or whatever. Employer provided insurance is a terrible model and needs to go.
I mean, honestly, some of you are acting like we reenacted the Comstock laws or something. No one is being prevented from seeking, obtaining, or using any type of birth control and I really don’t think anyone but a tiny percentage of people would support any such thing.
BV,
True, but the point is should the employer pay for it?
Since birth control is supposedly essential to good health, I don’t see where physical fitness is any less so, then is the employer obligated to pay for employees’ fitness equipment?
BTW, concerning the ‘facelift”, I was in fact referring to various procedures, what you consider petty vanity may be viewed by the patient as a very serious defect. So who’s to judge, right?
Also, seeing your dentist is done without a prescription, yet your employer provides dental coverage. Is he also obligated to buy your toothpaste, dental floss, and toothbrushes? Or are there some things you use a paycheck for?
The argument was that once you’re incorporated you no longer have a conscience as if corporations run and own themselves and the people behind them cease to exist.
That is the entire point of a corporation: that the law recognize an impermeable barrier between the family and the business. I can guarantee that the Green family will not demand that Hobby Lobby be treated the same as the people behind it when it’s time to tax Mr. Green’s estate after his death. Nor will plaintiffs be able to sue the Green family’s conscience if (hypothetically) someone finds toxic levels of lead in the Chinese-made goods that Hobby Lobby sells. Why should the government grant corporate status if business owners see incorporation as nothing more than a tax dodge and a way to evade civil liability?
Seems like you might have a blind spot when it comes to legal oppression/ low level persecution of Christians.
The fact of the matter is that the Western world has been governed by Christians for nearly seventeen centuries. Historically speaking, persecution of Christians is mostly done by other Christians.
Reality: “And the Greens weren’t being forced to use a product they didn’t want to.”
They were being forced to provide it, which is the same thing.
“Yet they imposed their religious beliefs on others.”
No, they didn’t, because employees are still free to find what they want elsewhere.
We should not be looking for “insurance” (whether personal, employer-sponsored, or socialized government programs) to pay for our personal monthly lifestyle consumption of groceries, auto fuel, contraception, exercise, tobacco and alcohol, ammunition, entertainment, and education.
Seriously — we don’t want anyone (insurance corp, employer, or government) telling us how we should do these things that we should properly do for ourselves.
[…] everyone knows by now the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious freedom and against the Obama administration yesterday in its Hobby Lobby and […]
Sorry for throwing out thoughts and then bailing for a day. Summary of my thoughts, pretty well covered by others:
– Taking care of humans is important to the well-being of the country – both health, but general economy. We commit as a nation to helping people in emergencies. We save money by keeping emergencies from happening through preventative care.
– Coverage is important for preventative type care. It’s backwards to use socialized healthcare for the big things that cost a lot of money, but not the preventative things, which is what Mary and others have advocated for.
– I am neither convinced that all these drugs cause abortions, nor am I convinced that these drugs are necessary as preventative care.
– However, a few things concern me of this ruling.
– First, it is a slippery slope calling businesses “individuals”. If I get harmed by Hobby Lobby, they will be the first yelling ‘we’re a corporation”
– I am also concerned at having the government or judges declaring what is and isn’t a sincerely held religious belief. The government should decide that? Really?
– I am also concerned of how people will abuse this. We have a LOT of crazy religious people with odd beliefs that I certainly don’t want thrown on me or a family member. I might need a blood transfusion one day.
– The Democrats just got a massive gift for mid-term elections – a massive gift. Will be interesting to see how they use it.
It is not the same thing at all. They don’t want to take it – they don’t have to. But why should they be able to interfere with others obtaining a legal product. Most employers will include the products in the health plans, but not the Greens. They have imposed their religious beliefs on others.
[…] Last night Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota held a “Born After Roe Advocacy Salon” on the topic of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. […]
Reality: “It is not the same thing at all. They don’t want to take it – they don’t have to. But why should they be able to interfere with others obtaining a legal product.”
They’re not. Or did you buy me a sailboat yesterday?
“Most employers will include the products in the health plans, but not the Greens.”
Which is their right.
“They have imposed their religious beliefs on others.”
No, they haven’t, for reasons already explained to you.
Some corporations – you know, those things without gender or a heartbeat let alone the ability to pray – provide their employees with health cover. Health cover includes various forms of contraception. The Greens, not the ‘corporation’ didn’t like that because of their religious beliefs.
Their religious beliefs have interfered in the provision of the health cover available to the employees. They have imposed their religious beliefs on others.
“No, they haven’t, for reasons already explained to you” – yes they have and no you haven’t.
What happens when other ‘corporations’ don’t want their employees to have blood transfusions. Or any normal, recognised healthcare treatments.
EGV 6:48PM
“what Mary and others have advocated for”.
Now you understand why I say that nothing registers with you.
“Now you understand why I say that nothing registers with you.” – that’s a bit of a self-defeating statement isn’t it ;-)
Reality: “Some corporations – you know, those things without gender or a heartbeat let alone the ability to pray – provide their employees with health cover.”
Those corporations are run by human beings, and those human beings have rights.
Reality: “Their religious beliefs have interfered in the provision of the health cover available to the employees. They have imposed their religious beliefs on others.
bmmg39: “No, they haven’t, for reasons already explained to you”
Reality: “yes they have and no you haven’t.”
They’re not forcing their views on anyone, because contraception remains legal. My refusal to provide something for you does not equal your not being allowed to have it.
“What happens when other ‘corporations’ don’t want their employees to have blood transfusions. Or any normal, recognised healthcare treatments.”
Guess those employees can look for work where blood transfusions are covered, if they’re unhappy where they work now.
Reality,
Not at all.
Some people, including EGV, have a difficult time understanding certain things despite having them repeated time and again.
Mary –
There is a common thread in these conversations – is is that every time, you complain that people don’t understand you.
If there are continual issues in communication clarity, and there is one common thread (you), you are the issue.
bmmg39, employees of Hobby Lobby – the corporation which has no gender or heartbeat and cannot pray – have had their health cover restricted due to the religious views of the people behind the corporation. It’s straight forward.
People don’t have trouble understanding the things you say Mary, it’s finding them accurate where the difficulty lies.
EGV,
Certainly communicating with you can be, well, challenging.
However I have been patient but even then had to realize that no matter how often I repeat something, it just wasn’t going to register with you.
“People don’t have trouble understanding the things you say Mary, its finding them accurate where the difficulty lies”.
LOL, but then consider the source.
We do :-)
Reality,
When it comes to certain comments from you, we definitely consider the source. :)
I’m glad to hear it. Pity it clouds the ability of some people to acknowledge facts at times though.
[…] montage of eight women, beginning with Sr. Campbell, explaining their objections to the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, What Does the Prayer Really Say?, July […]
Reality: “bmmg39, employees of Hobby Lobby – the corporation which has no gender or heartbeat and cannot pray – have had their health cover restricted due to the religious views of the people behind the corporation.”
Reality, that corporation is run by people who have genders, heartbeats, and rights. If something is not covered by their health insurance, those employees are free to purchase it on their own, to purchase different insurance, or to try to change jobs.
bmmg –
If a person is harmed by Hobby Lobby and sues them, can they sue for assets of the owners.
Yes or no – why or why not?
They’ll probably end up with the assets of the owners, if the owners are entrepreneurs. That’s the risk that entrepreneurs take: they take from their own financial assets and start a company, and don’t get them back if the place goes under. So when you sue a company, yes, you’re going after the assets of the owners.
bmg –
Look up the rights of a limited liability corp and then try again.
[…] to Life of Michigan reminds Hillary Clinton – as she rambles incoherently about the Hobby Lobby decision that she opposes – that her own version of a 1994 healthcare bill included conscience […]
[…] United for Life praises yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, with CEO Charmaine Yoest remarking that it was “a victory for common-sense as pro-life […]
[…] everyone knows by now the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious freedom and against the Obama administration on Monday in its Hobby […]