USSC and Hobby Lobby

[Ddrak]

Seems like an appalling decision to me that will have far reaching effects. The best thing I could see coming out of it is the destruction of employer-based health care as a whole as soon as people figure out having a corporate religion that is opposed to as much medicine as possible is the best way to save. In the meantime, it's pretty much a free pass for bullshit companies to tear down whatever health care they decide to avoid.

Companies are NOT people. The USSC fucked that up a long time ago.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I disagree.

The decision seems to be VERY limited in scope. Basically applying only to what amounts to be sole proprietorships in corporate form. It doesn't apply to publically held companies with many shareholders. I don't think it will have much impact at all in general.

[Ddrak]

I'd bet the Waltons are busy with lawyers right now figuring out how they can minimise expenses. Just claim it and wait to see if someone sues.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I doubt it. Walmart is under incredible scrutiny.

[Torakus]

I seriously don't even know why this ever happened. Why is contraception immediately medically necessary? It is a choice. Employers should not be forced to cover elective procedures or medicine. EVER.

Thanks for listening.

[Ddrak]

If you make contraception a cost then it means the people least able to afford children are the ones having more of them. Why won't someone think of the children?!?

Dd

[Torakus]

If you make contraception a cost then it means the people least able to afford children are the ones having more of them. Why won't someone think of the children?!?

Dd

Details, details. Nothing a little forced sterilization can't handle.

[Arathena]

I disagree.

The decision seems to be VERY limited in scope. Basically applying only to what amounts to be sole proprietorships in corporate form. It doesn't apply to publically held companies with many shareholders. I don't think it will have much impact at all in general.

It only applies to 90% of all American corporations; and this case includes the right to refuse to allow your doctor to even TALK to you about specific procedures or medications. Under the hobby lobby decision, if a doctor tells you that an IUD exists, the insurance company is not permitted to pay for the visit, let alone for the IUD. You have the "Little Sisters" case, where the employer is suing to not have to sign the paper that says that they won't pay for birth control so that a third party can - which, btw, would require relitigating the "logic" of Hobby Lobby. We also now have Rick Warren petitioning to be allowed to take his federal dollars and fire icky gay people under the "logic" of this decision. The only thing that will restrain its impact is the fact that it's more expensive to fail to provide birth control than it is to provide it; you must be actively malicious as opposed to profit taking. Time will only tell if other objections will stick, since we'll now have to litigate things like blood products and gelatin caplets, to find out just how far Alito's logic can go. After all, it will always be "less restrictive" to allow the government to pay for it instead of the employer; unburdening employers is one of the benefits you can get from single payer.

What I want to know is this: Since the wall of liability separation between the corporation and its owners is thin enough that the corporation is morally encumbered with the religion of the owners, are the owners also liable for the poor medical decisions that they make for their employees? If a fundamentalist Catholic forbids all hormonal birth control compounds, and their discussion, and has an employee die of the complications of say, endometriosis, which would be readily prevented by those compounds, can they be found personally civilly or criminally liable? I should hope so.

[Torakus]

and this case includes the right to refuse to allow your doctor to even TALK to you about specific procedures or medications. Under the hobby lobby decision, if a doctor tells you that an IUD exists, the insurance company is not permitted to pay for the visit, let alone for the IUD.

I wonder why HHS's lawyers didn't make this argument. My guess is because it isn't a valid one.

If a fundamentalist Catholic forbids all hormonal birth control compounds, and their discussion, and has an employee die of the complications of say, endometriosis, which would be readily prevented by those compounds, can they be found personally civilly or criminally liable? I should hope so.

Except that the ruling doesn't forbid the use of hormonal contraceptives for uses other than contraceptive services. Treatment of endometriosis with hormonal contraceptives is not a contraceptive service.

[Ddrak]

The other confusing part is there's no clear distinction between which contraceptives are disallowed and which aren't. Abortion-relation is simply wrong because ALL the contraceptives in question have a anti-ovulation measure (like hormonal ones), and also have anti-implantation mechanisms (also like hormonal ones). The whole ruling seems to be based on arbitrary bullshit instead of the science of how the products actually work.

And I believe Ara's interpretation is correct. If a doctor gives any advice related to a non-covered item then the insurance can reject the claim. Of course the lawyers didn't present it quite like that, but that's the result of the decision.

Like I said, this is a gateway decision for Mormon based companies to reject anything against their religion (blood transfusions?), or Muslim based companies to reject anything against Sharia, etc. I truly see it as the death of viable employer-based health care, which is a good thing in the long term but horrific in the short term.

Dd

[Arathena]

The other confusing part is there's no clear distinction between which contraceptives are disallowed and which aren't. Abortion-relation is simply wrong because ALL the contraceptives in question have a anti-ovulation measure (like hormonal ones), and also have anti-implantation mechanisms (also like hormonal ones). The whole ruling seems to be based on arbitrary bullshit instead of the science of how the products actually work.

And I believe Ara's interpretation is correct. If a doctor gives any advice related to a non-covered item then the insurance can reject the claim. Of course the lawyers didn't present it quite like that, but that's the result of the decision.

Like I said, this is a gateway decision for Mormon based companies to reject anything against their religion (blood transfusions?), or Muslim based companies to reject anything against Sharia, etc. I truly see it as the death of viable employer-based health care, which is a good thing in the long term but horrific in the short term.

Dd

The court issued "clarifications" on the day after issuing Hobby Lobby, by remanding a large number of other cases to lower courts. The entire mandate is subject to religious objection - all 20 compounds, and all related counseling.

Narrow decision, sure. Narrow like the mouth of the Amazon, maybe.

[Torakus]

The court issued "clarifications" on the day after issuing Hobby Lobby, by remanding a large number of other cases to lower courts. The entire mandate is subject to religious objection - all 20 compounds, and all related counseling.

Narrow decision, sure. Narrow like the mouth of the Amazon, maybe.

The cases remanded were remanded because the plaintiffs were ruled by the lower courts to lack standing to bring the suit for injunctive relief. The merits of the case regarding the compounds themselves weren't even heard. Remanding the case to the lower court only ensures that the plaintiff's case for injunctive relief be heard, not approved. In the other cases, HHS does not lose the ability to challenge the ruling of the lower court, but they have to challenge on the merit of the case, not the standing of the for-profit under RFRA.

The vast majority of lower courts have granted injunctive relief in related cases. I believe all SCOTUS is saying here, is that you cannot have it both ways in different lower courts. SCOTUS set a precedent in Hobby Lobby v Burwell that closely-held for-profits, do indeed have standing and any case that was decided contradictory to that precedent must be remanded to be heard or challenged on other grounds. (you know like contraception serves some greater government purpose like controlling social welfare costs as pointed out by Ddrak [yes, I know those were not your words Dd])

But I am not a lawyer (or sock puppet) so I could be wrong.

[Ddrak]

Hmm... just saw this ad. Hardly surprising HH went ballistic!

293210_v2.jpg

I mean... seriously??!?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

The other confusing part is there's no clear distinction between which contraceptives are disallowed and which aren't. Abortion-relation is simply wrong because ALL the contraceptives in question have a anti-ovulation measure (like hormonal ones), and also have anti-implantation mechanisms (also like hormonal ones). The whole ruling seems to be based on arbitrary bullshit instead of the science of how the products actually work.

And I believe Ara's interpretation is correct. If a doctor gives any advice related to a non-covered item then the insurance can reject the claim. Of course the lawyers didn't present it quite like that, but that's the result of the decision.

Like I said, this is a gateway decision for Mormon based companies to reject anything against their religion (blood transfusions?), or Muslim based companies to reject anything against Sharia, etc. I truly see it as the death of viable employer-based health care, which is a good thing in the long term but horrific in the short term.

Dd

There was a clear distinction. In this case, the SC specifically identified three of the many birth control methods disallowed. The IUD and two of the plan B pills. All the others are still offered.

[Ddrak]

There was a clear distinction. In this case, the SC specifically identified three of the many birth control methods disallowed. The IUD and two of the plan B pills. All the others are still offered.

The way I read it, HH sued over those three, not the USSC singled out those three. There is absolutely no science, rhyme or reason why those three are bad and others are good.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Weren't those three covered by the insurance they provided and aren't they invested in a pharmaceuticals company that manufactures "abortion" drugs?

I think it's a disingenuous pile of shit.

[Arathena]

The other confusing part is there's no clear distinction between which contraceptives are disallowed and which aren't. Abortion-relation is simply wrong because ALL the contraceptives in question have a anti-ovulation measure (like hormonal ones), and also have anti-implantation mechanisms (also like hormonal ones). The whole ruling seems to be based on arbitrary bullshit instead of the science of how the products actually work.

And I believe Ara's interpretation is correct. If a doctor gives any advice related to a non-covered item then the insurance can reject the claim. Of course the lawyers didn't present it quite like that, but that's the result of the decision.

Like I said, this is a gateway decision for Mormon based companies to reject anything against their religion (blood transfusions?), or Muslim based companies to reject anything against Sharia, etc. I truly see it as the death of viable employer-based health care, which is a good thing in the long term but horrific in the short term.

Dd

There was a clear distinction. In this case, the SC specifically identified three of the many birth control methods disallowed. The IUD and two of the plan B pills. All the others are still offered.

The litigants in this case choose to continue to offer the other 16 identified methods of birth control. The decision does not distinguish - it clearly and plainly defines the entire mandate as being in violation of the RFRA. It claims to distinguish against other activities, such as vaccination and blood transfusion, but there is nothing in the logic of the decision to prevent it from doing so, merely the vapidly inconsistent claims of Alito, as noted in Ginsburg's dissent. Closely held companies have the ability to choose not to offer any birth control or related counsel whatsoever, so long as they inform the government that they object and permit the woman to seek coverage in some other fashion. The court has also issued an injunction in a related case so that neither non-profit companies nor closely held companies must file this objection, as apparently letting these women seek third party coverage might also give the religious corporation the vapors.

Yes, Harlowe. Just yes.

[Alluveal]

Plan B (aka levonorgestrel) belongs to therapeutic class progestin. It prevents pregnancy through the same mechanisms as regular oral contraceptives: (1) it thickens cervical mucus inhibiting sperm passage/survival (2) inhibit ovulation via negative feedback on the hypothalamus (3) altering the endometrium which may affect implantation. NOTE: levonorgestrel is NOT effective once implantation has begun.

Maybe it bears repeating: Plan B is not the "abortion pill."

I have a copper IUD. I can't use hormonal BC because it triggers a painful, life-threatening auto-immune response.

Also allergic to latex and even if I could use non-latex condoms, it's not 100%. I can't get pregnant. I just can't. (Also something that would put my life at risk.) But, thanks to my insurance company, tubal ligation or hysterectomy aren't covered because I don't meet all the criteria. (That's another story right there.) So, it's copper for me, or no intimacies with the husband.

My issue is that because of Hobby Lobby's narrow "religious beliefs" against IUDs (and let's face it, the Biblical "proof" here is laughable at best and open to vast interpretation), I'm essentially being held captive as to what my options would be--unless I want to pay out of pocket, of course.

Note: And don't we all love these memes that say this is "wimmin-folk whining about having to pay for cheap birth control."

The cost for the medical exam, the copper IUD (Paragard), the insertion of the IUD and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $900. I mean, ye average employee at Hobby Lobby probably has that just lying around, right?

Not to mention that all women just fuckin' love birth control. The pill is an absolutely joy. We all get in line to eat that up like candy. Because the side-effects are so goddamned great. Well-nigh spiritual.

And having an IUD inserted into your cervix? Well, fellas, take a sharp pointy thing and cram that into your pee hole. Tell me how much you look forward to that.

But you know what? Given my medical history, I'm more inclined to listen to my doctor. Not Hobby Lobby, who puts "religious freedom" above my health.

Furthermore, is anyone here truly that dumb of a motherfucker to think this is some kind of religious crusade on part of Hobby Lobby? Or is the answer more likely:

A. Money-related
B. We have to teach Obama (aka "The Kenyan" according to many ignorants) a lesson? Because, you know, it's only a matter of time before he comes door-to-door for our guns and our prayers with a commie army that pees gasoline fire and makes us pay for illegal gang members' abortions.

[Harlowe]

Well said. Yeah I love the "sluuuts be wanting their free whore pills" attitude.

This really does speak to why we need a single payer system = businesses should have exactly ZERO to do with individual's medical decisions. Zero.