The Hobby Lobby Decision

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You are right, it will provide all forms of birth control, but will not support abortifacients. Their belief is that after conception, it is considered murder. Normal birth control prevents conception. Abortifacients are used "after" conception.

In a nutshell, we are a nation founded on the history of fleeing religious oppression. It is our legacy. Our Founding Fathers placed "Freedom of Religion", under the Bill of Rights, as our FIRST protection BEFORE Freedom of Speech and BEFORE Freedom of the Press.

We must be able to worship God within the dictates of our conscience. We cannot allow that to be taken away. If that is taken away, anything can be taken away.

There is nothing else to add to the argument. It is cut and dried.

Agreed. But that's not good enough.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, ILG. If she wants to be really legal. LOL!

I am going to print this out. Thanks PO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

Agreed. But that's not good enough.

Right. And it is starkly scary that the 10 Amendments to our US Constitution are not good enough anymore, huh?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

HL does in fact provide coverage for birth control. They sought relief from the court to not be forced against their conscience to provide medical care that could/would cause the end of a life.



Here is the basis of the court finding.
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (RFRA)

The law was passed unanimous in the House of Reps. It passed the senate 97-3 and was signed by Bill Clinton into law.(2 dems 1 rep voted no)

The law seeks to clarify situations where Congress passes a law that while not intended to be a burden to the free exercise of religion, in fact becomes such.
The law establishes 2 basic principles that must be applied to see a law stand when there is a challenge.
First there must be a compelling interest for the government to proceed with the law.
Second the law must seek the “least restrictive” way to apply the rule.

The court found that the mandate was “not the least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest.”


That really is the legal argument.

At the end of the day, the owners of HL have a deeply held and historically consistent belief system. Then that belief system was challenged, not by a federal law, but by a mandate handed down by the Department of Human Services.
In American politics and Juris prudence, no person has been compelled to provide an abortion when they have a religious aversion to it. Even our taxes have been held back from supporting abortions.

The case was not about contraception. HL provides 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods. It was about forcing these people to do something we historically do not do. And the court actually came down on the side of precedent.

The court stated quite clearly that the government did not provide a clear and compelling reason for the government to proceed with the mandate in the face of the RFRA.

The fact is, in the beginning the administration attempted to force this mandate even on religious institutions. But because of backlash, and a clear indication that they would lose a First Amendment challenge, they backed off and carved out an exception for religious institutions. Then they proceeded with force to compel private businesses to comply with a mandate (not a federal law but a regulation determined by the HUD secretary) they knew they would lose if it was done to an individual/ religious group.

What those on the left fail to recognize is this is not an attempt by the government to protect people or to continue to provide the kind of protections that have been in place, rather this is an attempt to change the course of American political precedent. THEY are the ones that must provide the compelling reason for the act.

This is brand new territory and they have not provided a cogent legal argument that stands against established law.

This is a great piece on RFRA.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS
Federal legislation

Background:

During the 1960's and 1970's, a series of decisions by the US Supreme Court supported individuals' religious freedom by limiting the authority of governments to pass restrictive legislation. Two important examples were Sherbert v. Verner in 1963 and Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972.

During the late 1980's, the US Supreme Court's philosophy shifted in the direction of allowing governments to restrict religious freedom, as long as the limitations applied equally to all faiths. The US Supreme Court decision of Employment Division v. Smith in 1990 was a key decision in this area. The court ruled that native religious use of peyote (a hallucinogenic drug) is not a constitutionally protected religious right. Some native religious traditions had been using peyote in their religious rituals for millennia.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra1.htm

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Ferd

HL does in fact provide coverage for birth control. They sought relief from the court to not be forced against their conscience to provide medical care that could/would cause the end of a life.



Here is the basis of the court finding.
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (RFRA)

The law was passed unanimous in the House of Reps. It passed the senate 97-3 and was signed by Bill Clinton into law.(2 dems 1 rep voted no)

The law seeks to clarify situations where Congress passes a law that while not intended to be a burden to the free exercise of religion, in fact becomes such.
The law establishes 2 basic principles that must be applied to see a law stand when there is a challenge.
First there must be a compelling interest for the government to proceed with the law.
Second the law must seek the “least restrictive” way to apply the rule.

The court found that the mandate was “not the least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest.”


That really is the legal argument.

At the end of the day, the owners of HL have a deeply held and historically consistent belief system. Then that belief system was challenged, not by a federal law, but by a mandate handed down by the Department of Human Services.
In American politics and Juris prudence, no person has been compelled to provide an abortion when they have a religious aversion to it. Even our taxes have been held back from supporting abortions.

The case was not about contraception. HL provides 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods. It was about forcing these people to do something we historically do not do. And the court actually came down on the side of precedent.

The court stated quite clearly that the government did not provide a clear and compelling reason for the government to proceed with the mandate in the face of the RFRA.

The fact is, in the beginning the administration attempted to force this mandate even on religious institutions. But because of backlash, and a clear indication that they would lose a First Amendment challenge, they backed off and carved out an exception for religious institutions. Then they proceeded with force to compel private businesses to comply with a mandate (not a federal law but a regulation determined by the HUD secretary) they knew they would lose if it was done to an individual/ religious group.

What those on the left fail to recognize is this is not an attempt by the government to protect people or to continue to provide the kind of protections that have been in place, rather this is an attempt to change the course of American political precedent. THEY are the ones that must provide the compelling reason for the act.

This is brand new territory and they have not provided a cogent legal argument that stands against established law.

Thanks Ferd. Doing lots of reading and bookmarking here.

[Pressing-On]

ILG,
I think it is interesting that the Catholic Bishops were the earliest to proclaim that early contraception pills were combined with the issue of abortion and because "contraception" was a lifestyle choice, insurance companies shouldn't be required to pay for it.

However, 10 years later, Viagra was rapidly approved and covered by insurance, opening the door to have contraception also covered by insurance.

To our 1st Amendment rights, the article I posted earlier quotes:

Twenty years ago it would have been inconceivable that a Christian or Jewish organization that opposed gay marriage might be treated as racist in the public square. Today? It’s just not clear.

“In Massachusetts I’d be very worried,” Stern says finally. The churches themselves might have a First Amendment defense if a state government or state courts tried to withdraw their exemption, he says, but “the parachurch institutions are very much at risk and may be put out of business because of the licensing issues, or for these other reasons–it’s very unclear. None of us nonprofits can function without [state] tax exemption. As a practical matter, any large charity needs that real estate tax exemption.”

He blames religious conservatives for adopting the wrong political strategy on gay issues. “Live and let live,” he tells me, is the only thing around the world that works. But I ask him point blank what he would say to people who dismiss the threat to free exercise of religion as evangelical hysteria. “It’s not hysteria, this is very real,” he tells me, “Boston Catholic Charities shows that.”

It also mentions the Becket Fund, who litigated the ACA lawsuit. It's interesting how the Fund has always focused on cases involving all religions, but now finds itself focusing on more political and religious right cases.

Kristina Arriaga, the firm’s executive director, has this to say, although referencing the current ACA results:

“We find there has been an aggressive push from the government to become the sole arbiter of morality, which is not good for the country. Regrettably, religious liberty work has augmented exponentially.”

So, there we are with these two lawsuits - our 1st Amendment rights are being abridged, producing a fight in the courts.

Again, in the article I posted, I agree with this point - "The war could be averted if the left were to do as Stern suggested the right should have done when it held the high ground: adopt a live and let live attitude, consonant with pluralist democracy. The left can’t and won’t do that, because Error Has No Rights."

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

ILG,
I think it is interesting that the Catholic Bishops were the earliest to proclaim that early contraception pills were combined with the issue of abortion and because "contraception" was a lifestyle choice, insurance companies shouldn't be required to pay for it.

However, 10 years later, Viagra was rapidly approved and covered by insurance, opening the door to have contraception also covered by insurance.

To our 1st Amendment rights, the article I posted earlier quotes:



It also mentions the Becket Fund, who litigated the ACA lawsuit. It's interesting how the Fund has always focused on cases involving all religions, but now finds itself focusing on more political and religious right cases.

Kristina Arriaga, the firm’s executive director, has this to say, although referencing the current ACA results:

“We find there has been an aggressive push from the government to become the sole arbiter of morality, which is not good for the country. Regrettably, religious liberty work has augmented exponentially.”

So, there we are with these two lawsuits - our 1st Amendment rights are being abridged, producing a fight in the courts.

Again, in the article I posted, I agree with this point - "The war could be averted if the left were to do as Stern suggested the right should have done when it held the high ground: adopt a live and let live attitude, consonant with pluralist democracy. The left can’t and won’t do that, because Error Has No Rights."

In reading the things you and Ferd sent me, it seems that the conservative vs liberal standpoint somewhat boils down to personal responsibility vs you owe me. Conservatives generally feel that we are all personally responsible for ourselves and if we want contraception or abortions then we should have to pay for it. The libs feel that you owe me everything I want if I work for you. You are the big, bad corporation who has all the money and power and I am the little peon who works for peanuts and needs contraception so you owe it to me.

[ILG]

Okay so does anyone want to post some good counterpoints to these?

The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision
—Dana Liebelson on Mon. June 30, 2014 11:32 AM PDT

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Charlie Neuman/ZUMA
On Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a blistering dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the government can't require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control and emergency contraception that conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

In reading the things you and Ferd sent me, it seems that the conservative vs liberal standpoint somewhat boils down to personal responsibility vs you owe me. Conservatives generally feel that we are all personally responsible for ourselves and if we want contraception or abortions then we should have to pay for it. The libs feel that you owe me everything I want if I work for you. You are the big, bad corporation who has all the money and power and I am the little peon who works for peanuts and needs contraception so you owe it to me.

Right, and that is taught in our colleges by liberal professors. Well, it used to be in college. Now it is getting stronger in the public school system.

It gets into a Marxist theology. Marxist feminism claims that a woman's oppression by men and sexism is more a fundamental problem rooted in capitalism. They feel we must move away from capitalism into socialism.

Basically, it is what you said, personal responsibility that liberals don't want. They want a classless society.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

Okay so does anyone want to post some good counterpoints to these?

I don't have a lot of time, but generally people choose their employment/employer by the benefits offered.

In my area, people love Hobby Lobby, because they pay above minimum wage, and are closed on Sundays. They also like the nature of what the company is built upon - religious values.

If you don't like the healthcare benefits, find another place to seek employment. That's all there is to it, Ginsburg.

All of her other "scare tactics" are simply to keep pressure on religious freedom.