"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.
In fact, I would recommend this article: http://gawker.com/a-
Which pulls out some of Ginsburg's greatest hits on this ruling.
----
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?
----
And lastly, on the lighter side of things, the Daily Show mocks bourgeois liberals for their stupidity/narrow-mindedness too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
