In a direct hit to the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obamacare), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on Monday allowing “closely held” for-profit companies to refuse to cover contraceptives via their insurance programs if they hold religious objections to these sorts of fancy, first-world-sponsored creations of the devil.
As noted in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, unknown is the breadth of reach this decision could have on future “religiously based” employer mandates; whether this will allow employers to encroach upon human rights (denying life-saving coverage such as blood transfusions), or force their employees to perform actions against their will (say, mandatorily perform salat five times a day, because, Allah).
Also unknown is how “closely held” the company must be in order for the company to act upon their so-called “objections.” If you bear hug the shit out of it, does that count? Also, who’s “objections” are being voiced, exactly?
So a Priest, a Rabbi, and a Satanist go in on a company…
The joke would be funnier if the implications weren’t so frightening. Thanks, SCOTUS, you earned that 30% approval rating.
However, what is known is that the protection afforded to employees by making mandatory a certain level of coverage has now been undermined. The worst part of this debacle is that people are failing to recognize that this is a public health issue, not a religious one.
As noted in a number of articles, birth control does much more than simply preventing pregnancy. There are other aspects of taking birth control that are medically relevant to the health and well-being of women, such as reducing the risk of cancer, quelling the discomfort of menstruation, and balancing hormones.
It’s not about sex. It’s not about faith. It’s about health.
Ginsburg acknowledged that in her dissent. “What the Court must decide is not ‘the plausibility of a religious claim…’ but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States.”
Denying coverage of contraceptives, or any other legitimate medical need, leads to a lack of accessibility. Ever check to see the original cost of medications your doctor has prescribed you? It’s a hell of a lot cheaper through insurance. Wages aren’t exactly on the rise, by any means. And Washington has yet to spearhead any in-depth, fruitful inquiry into the high medical costs that plague the health care industry, let alone talk about the issue.
The Supreme Court majority royally fucked up here when they fell for the religion ploy. I place the blame, and any subsequent fallout, squarely on their shoulders – make no mistake about it. Hobby Lobby just so happened to be the good, God-fearing Christians who brought the case forward. You know, the same ones who order and stock cheaper and more profitable products produced in China by slave workers forced to live in the squalid settings of the poverty-laden repression they face every day. Those ones.
Religious beliefs should be and are protected, but to what end? The opinion issued by Justice Scalia attacked the dissent as questioning the faith of the organization. This is the same man who also said, when issuing the ruling on Employment Divison v. Smith (1990), “To permit [that a person may defy neutral laws of general applicability, such as public accommodation laws, as an expression of religious belief]would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
So a company can establish blatantly discriminatory practices based on “faith,” but individuals don’t meet the standard? Companies like Hobby Lobby make their profits off the backs of the same people they’re disenfranchising. Worker’s rights are now effectively dead.
The oft-mentioned Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) doesn’t even apply here, except to discredit the Supreme’s own majority ruling. The purpose of the law, passed in 1993 as a direct response to the above mentioned case, was to establish an overriding of a general law if it was found to be unreasonably burdensome to a person’s exercise of their religion. I see no mention of “companies” made, let alone the connection between offering a choice and forcing one’s self to exercise that choice.
There is no burden, plain and simple. There are only discriminatory tactics that are working against a sound public health policy.
I don’t agree with a lot of the ACA, but if you don’t see the flaws in this ruling, you must really hate women more than you love God.
Comatose Republic 