Considering the Court's makeup, it was expected. It won't
help the GOP win over more young women. I guess corporations continue to
enjoy most individual rights but avoid many of the
responsibilities/punishments.
"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."
-Ginsburg dissenting opinion
----
I suppose it's not surprising, but it still sucks. Ginsburg wrote a great dissent though, for whatever that's worth.
What's
funny about the ruling is that the prevailing opinion seems to want to
restrict the ruling, by applying it only to "closely-held corporations
with strong religious beliefs" but that can still apply to a significant
number of companies with numerous employees. For example, the Mars
corporation would qualify, especially because there is no test to be
administered for "strong religious beliefs" so any company can
essentially claim they have those. The funny bit (to me anyway) is that I
get the impression that they thought there were being restrained in
their conservatism with this ruling. As if they were saying "no no it's
not all corporations who can deny you birth control coverage, just these
certain ones!"
----
I get his once we assume their freedom if religion was infringed RFRA says the gov must attempt to accommodate.
But how is the offer of health insurance that includes
birth control legally distinguished from a paycheck that pays for an
abortion? Aren't both compensation which are offered at the discretion
of the employer?
I think I saw it mentioned somewhere that hobby lobby covered birth control etc prior to the aca apparently without issue.
----
I actually had the same thought about their paychecks. Ginsburg had a
great line about how if it's against someone's religion then I guess
they don't have to follow any laws they don't want to.
Which pulls out some of Ginsburg's greatest hits on this ruling.
----
Thx for the comments and links, guys. Yeah as you said, the majority
opinion claimed that they were being really restrictive as to which
org's this ruling could apply to, but really the language was anything
but. NPR estimates that 90% of businesses are "closely held" (employing
>50% of our workforce), as in 5 or fewer individuals own more than
half the firm value (IRS definition). Maybe this is an example why
political appointees/Beltway lifers without much experience in the "real
world" may not be the best candidates for a lifetime SC appointment
where US society is literally at their mercy. And the ACA already
exempted religious nonprofits and small businesses from covering
contraception, so that is millions more Americans.
http://ocsotc.org/
In
school I worked on a business case (similar to the link above)
advocating that oral contraception should be available over-the-counter.
It's really a no-brainer, and that's how it works in Catholic Mexico
and other nations. This has been discussed for years, but the
understaffed and political football FDA has yet to act. "Plan B" (the
morning-after pill) is available no-questions-asked after a pharmacist
consultation, but it's more expensive and doesn't reduce menstrual
symptoms (also I believe there is some controversy as to what age range
it is available to). Now, women can only get the pill after a yearly or
quarterly visit to their OB-GYN, and awkward pelvic exams are often
mandated prior to giving out an Rx. This is obviously time consuming and
expensive, esp. if the patient doesn't have coverage.
Sure, I can imagine that drug companies may lose $ if the pill
goes OTC and is subject to generic competition and market price
pressures (like most other products!), and I guess OB-GYNs may stand to
lose business too (some legitimately care and it's their medical opinion
that regular exams are the best thing for their patients - so they need
to link it to the pill Rx in order to get women to comply). But most
major health org's worldwide say the OTC pill is an overwhelming
improvement with very little downside (except for right wing Christian
ire I suppose). And we are just talking about decades-old,
well-validated, super-safe, cheap basic hormone pills. The fancy
next-gen stuff can still be Rx for consumers who want it. Unintended
pregnancies and menstrual symptoms are a huge cost on societies, and
disproportionately affect women. So is that the problem - women have
most of the responsibility and incur the suffering, but the men are
writing the laws and enjoying the pleasure of sex without the
consequences? Since there is practically zero
medical/sociological/economic evidence to support the restriction of
contraceptives, I can only assume that this is another manifestation of
the "war on women". Conservatives claim to love freedom and liberty, but
have this fixation to try to control female behavior. It's really
bizarre. Maybe we can take them at their word and it's all about
religious values and "morality". If so, then why don't they pony up and
pay more taxes to help all the unintended mothers raise those kids? The
US is probably the most hostile developed economy for working mothers -
so how about changing those laws and norms first, and then you can
restrict contraception coverage as much as you want.
----
For the 4th, here is a disturbing story that
hasn't got much coverage: the US accepts non-citizens into its Armed
Forces (often with the "promise" of citizenship at honorable discharge),
but if those vets are caught in a crime (even a petty one like DUI or
financial fraud) - the laws of the land require automatic deportation.
Maybe deportation is justified for some crimes, but there has to be
exceptions or at least a review process for non-citizen vets who served
faithfully for years and got caught in one mistake. It's like the penal
system in general - how can we claim to be civilized people, yet we
judge and label criminals by the worst moment of their lives? Someone
could be a productive worker and loving parent, son, brother, and
neighbor for 99% of his life, but once they are in prison, they are
henceforth known as "robber" or "drug user".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6rjCvgRkq0
----
And lastly, on the lighter side of things, the Daily Show mocks bourgeois liberals for their stupidity/narrow-mindedness too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/google-glass-daily-show_n_5491565.html
