SCOTUS Upholds Religious Freedom - Hobby Lobby

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
67,719
Likes
55,280
#1
Agree with this decision. I'm not a religious person but think the company should have the right to not be made to pay for abortive treatments.

Much of the public dissent I saw assumed HL was anti-contraceptive. In reality, HL was fine with covering most contraceptives but just objected to those like the morning after pill are potentially abortive.

Justices rule for Hobby Lobby on contraception mandate
 
#3
#3
Important note:

Decision did not determine whether covering contraceptives qualified as a "compelling interest" for the government. The Court determined that the mandate failed the "least restrictive means" test as the government had already set up a less restrictive mean, namely the non-profit exemption.

This will be key when the Little Sisters of the Poor case reaches the SCOTUS.
 
#4
#4
Glad they closed the door to only as many as 60 to 70 companies. Quoting one articled I read earlier.
 
#7
#7
How the Supremes define "closely held" companies? To most people, it means not publicly traded.
 
#8
#8
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the consumers decide to continue or discontinue shopping there.
 
#11
#11
#VFL__ said:
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the consumers decide to continue or discontinue shopping there.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
#12
#12
#VFL__ said:
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the consumers decide to continue or discontinue shopping there.
Click to expand...

Did you read any details of the case?

HL only objects to the morning after pill.
 
#13
#13
#VFL__ said:
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the consumers decide to continue or discontinue shopping there.
Click to expand...

Hobby Lobby never actually opposed contraceptives. Before the mandate, their insurance plans covered various contraceptive methods. They objected to four specific products mandated by the ACA that are, in the view of the Green family, abortive in their design.
 
#14
#14
#VFL__ said:
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the consumers decide to continue or discontinue shopping there.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree.
 
#15
#15
ajvol01 said:
Did you read any details of the case?

HL only objects to the morning after pill.
Click to expand...

Yep basically ones that are "oops I messed up pills". I say the solution is making morning after pills easier to access. Essentially by passing all this non sense in the first place.
 
#16
#16
bamawriter said:
Hobby Lobby never actually opposed contraceptives. Before the mandate, their insurance plans covered various contraceptive methods. They objected to four specific products mandated by the ACA that are, in the view of the Green family, abortive in their design.
Click to expand...

Actually many bc pills can be defined as abortive in a strict sense. I think they got it right but underestimate the scope
 
#17
#17
#VFL__ said:
Yep basically ones that are "oops I messed up pills". I say the solution is making morning after pills easier to access. Essentially by passing all this non sense in the first place.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I don't understand, as I've never gone through the process of purchasing morning after pills, but...

How difficult is it to acquire a morning after pill? I mean, given that multiple variations of the medication are available over-the-counter? Is it that hard? Are they incredibly expensive? When it's as easy to access a medication as it is to access a pack of Twizzlers, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the issue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
utvolpj said:
Actually many bc pills can be defined as abortive in a strict sense. I think they got it right but underestimate the scope
Click to expand...

Whether the drugs in question are or aren't abortive is not the point. I only mentioned it to clarify Hobby Lobby's particular position.

The Court did not seek to distinguish between the various forms of contraceptives and their uses.
 
#19
#19
bamawriter said:
Whether the drugs in question are or aren't abortive is not the point. I only mentioned it to clarify Hobby Lobby's particular position.

The Court did not seek to distinguish between the various forms of contraceptives and their uses.
Click to expand...

But HL did right? Seems they accidentally left a door open
 
#21
#21
By the way, which amendment is the closely-held corporation one in the Bill of Rights? Maybe an "originalist" can help me out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
utvolpj said:
But HL did right? Seems they accidentally left a door open
Click to expand...

No, I think the door was intentionally left wide open. Hobby Lobby may well continue to provide insurance plans that cover the same contraceptives they always covered. They won't be required to provide the others.

A Catholic family-held corporation could now decline to provide any of the contraceptives. I don't think Hobby Lobby was only seeking to carve out the drugs they opposed. Their position is that the entire contraceptive mandate violated the RFRA.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top