Now instead of consulting with your doctor, loved ones and insurance company, your boss will dictate what contraceptive methods, if any, are affordable for you.
—
The Supreme Court is on a roll to limit women’s reproductive freedoms in America, with potential implications to a variety of other health issues for women, men and kids as well. On the heals of the nonsensical Massachusetts Clinic Buffer Zone ruling, comes the nonsensical Hobby Lobby decision that a privately held for-profit corporation can decide to opt out of the contraception and screening care provisions of the affordable care act, on personal religious grounds.
The 5 Justice majority based their decision on The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which prohibits:
“Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability… At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group insurance plans to furnish ‘preventative care and screenings’ for women without “any cost sharing requirements.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Hobby Lobby is an arts-and-crafts chain, owned by an evangelical Christian family, and Conestoga Wood Specialists, is a cabinet making business, owned by the Mennonite Hahn family. In their suit ,these two companies contended that since their religions consider certain birth-control methods immoral, they are not obliged to help provide them to their employees under the religious-freedom law and therefore don’t have to comply with that affordable care act requirement.
The issue centers on what it means to be a “person” and whether corporations are a corporate “personhood” for purposes of denying and limiting access to “preventative care and screening.”
RFRA, passed in 1993 with bipartisan support, was a bill introduced by Charles Schumer of New York. In a statement Monday, Mr Schumer indicated that the Supreme Court’s decision is “dead wrong” and went on to say that The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was:
“Intended to give individuals the ability to exercise their religious beliefs without government interference and not intended to extend the same protections to for-profit corporations whose very purpose is to profit from the open market.”
A supporting brief by the research and policy group Guttmacher Institute indicated that:
“Many women cannot afford the most effective means of birth control and that the law will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions”
I would add here that preventing unintended pregnancies and especially abortions should be the goal of everyone and especially those with religious beliefs and the ones that believe that life begins at conception.
In the majority opinion, Justice Alito explained, following and reminiscent of the logic in the political campaign funding Citizens United decision, that:
” A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends, so that, when rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”
That logic would work if the human beings in the corporation all agreed on this issue and supported it, and if the purpose of the corporation is to promote religion, like non-profit Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or any other religion based organizations. When decision making power is given to powerful owners of a privately held for-profit business (where the business is not religion), to decide which health benefits would be available to their employees, it effectively denies those employees (who may and often have other religious beliefs), access to health care choices and treatments their doctors recommend, and is a violation of the employees individual health care rights and choices, in favor of beliefs and choices of their bosses.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsberg touched on this critical issue and said:
“The Court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers. For- profit corporations do not fit this bill…This opens the door for for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith. Would the exemption for employers with religiously grounded objections to use certain contraceptives 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 (Christian Scientists), among others?
Health care should be an issue and choice between a person and their doctor (some methods are not medically possible for some individuals). People have a right to make those choices and they should be encouraged to make the right ones. Engaging in preventative care benefits society as a whole in addition to each individual. Preventative care is cheaper and produces healthier individuals who are more productive in their business and live longer and healthier lives.
Family planning is a freedom each person deserves and it can be achieved with affordable and available forms of birth control with best choices for each individual woman’s medical needs. Hobby Lobby claims to cover some birth control methods but not others (do they know that the pill prevents ovulation so there is no egg to fertilize and no conception?) The big question is: Does your employer have the right to dictate to you which health care treatment or procedure is covered under your employee insurance plan, and specifically which kinds of birth control, or should that be a decision between you and your doctor?
Parting thought: Does Hobby Lobby employer insurance plan cover vasectomies and erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra ,and if so, is that because man birth control procedure and sexual function pills don’t offend their religious beliefs? And if they did offend their religious beliefs and were removed from the plan, what would the Supreme Court say?
Photo: Coffee Party USA /Flicker
Tsach,
So you are ok with the ACA denying men access to birth control, reproductive health services, HIV+ counseling, HPV screening and medical help if a victim of domestic violence, on the same basis ($0 co-pay, $0 deductible) as ACA mandates those services for women?
And don’t tell me to write my Congresswoman. I did. She could care less about men, because we are a minority of the voting age population.
CW, look at Bush and Reagan’s records for executive orders (triple Obama’s # and not legal) and shadow government (Iran contra under Reagan) and then make a determination about Obama. And the distinction of for-profit is due to exception made for religious organizations which are not-for-profit. And Shaun, read my article and read the 2nd amendment and you will see that your are wrong on all levers. I I am not against the 2nd amendment. 2. The 2nd amendment specifically pertains to “well regulated militia” and not private citizens as such and 3. Background checks and limits on type of… Read more »
RFRA applies to both for profit and not for profit corporations. It’s not a relevant distinction. At the time of the founding fathers “militia” meant volunteer civilians who showed up with their own weapons (often far superior to the professional military’s. Finally, “bush didi it” is 6 years old and counting. Reagan did it is far far older. Both presidents were challenged for executive overreach just as President “so sue me” will be.
Next
You are missing the point of this ruling. Can a for-profit employer avail themselves on an exception carved out for religious organizations who’s business if religion? The answer is no. The supreme court decision is very troubling to anyone who values personal freedom and separation of church and state, which is a principal this republic was founded on. What drugs your insurance company covers in your policy is not the issue. Insurance policies always included items you might never use to spread the cost for the companies. Since birth control is a health care issue and since the law dictates… Read more »
Obviously they can because the highest court in the land said so ….
I find it odd that Tsach here is all for the constitution yet wants the 2nd amendment removed. Hypocrite much?
And they do still cover contraception. 16 of the 20 forms. The ones they don’t cover include the morning after pill. For a company that believes life begins at conception, it is their right. Why do you people act like the employees don’t have a choice? They can work for another company that does cover what they want.
For profit vs not for profit is a legal distinction that is only legally relevant to the IRS for tax purposes. It’s a useless distinction in this situation. Legally it doesn’t apply. Hobby Lobby is a corporation that is so closely held that all owners agree on a certain course of action due to common belief. Your local Catholic Charities is probably incorporated in a substantially similar way. I’m sure you hate them too. No one is forced to work for a given employer- they can vote with their feet but, given Hobby Lobby’s stellar reputation as a place to… Read more »
Anyone who supports president Obama cannot be taken seriously when they talk about separation of powers, over reach and constitutionality.
The corporations are “closely” held corporations, not publicly traded corporations. Closely held corporations are corporations owned by small groups of people, often families who in the Hobby Lobby case were a devout Christian family. To compel them to pay for coverage that goes against their religious belief is an infringement on their freedom of religion and a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed by a Democratically controlled Congress and signed by a Democratic President to wit Bill Clinton. The provisions of the ACA which compelled employers to pay for forms of birth control that are akin… Read more »
My doctor would love to prescribe me certain medications, but they aren’t on the formulary of my insurance company, so I don’t get to have them, unless I am willing to pay out of pocket (forget about applying it to a deductible). It is my understanding that this ruling means that Hobby Lobby employees still get their contraceptive of choice; they simply have to pay a deductible for it rather than getting it completely free. Nothing has changed for them. There is no reason for contraceptives to be a special class of drugs to be given out for free, when… Read more »
Amen to that Lynn … I’m even restricted as to the pharmacy that I can and can’t use. My co-pay is over $100.month. And that’s just mine, my wife’s is over $50 a month.
“Covered services” are applied to deductibles so if the medication isn’t covered, you’re SOL.
So what we’re talking about here are medications that are needed to live vs. medications for convenience. The most inexpensive contraception? . Rhythm method …. but then again that would mean thinking and self control.
Tom.
This is the Supremes interpreting a law passed by a dem congress and signed by a dem president.
As to the article, EKBA. That’s an acronym for Everybody Knows Better Already. Even the people who wrote the article.
Women are strong, empowered, ,competent and they need somebody else to pay for their contraception, plus they should be in Infantry combat.
Hard to keep up, isn’t it?
Do men need somebody else to pay for their Viagra?
Because this covers Viagra, but doesn’t cover my friend’s IUD which she needs for severe Fibroids.
Viagra is over rated … I have no clue why so many men need it. But the difference is that viagra, is treating a medical condition whereas an IUD in most cases is used as a contraceptive. I’m not a doctor But all I can do is reference what I’ve read about it and it appears that IUD’s do help. So yeah, in a case where a women needs it for a medical problem, I can see that it could be an issue. But let’s be honest here. The brouhaha has nothing to do with “medical need.” So using this… Read more »
And your friend doesn’t work for Hobby Lobby either.
That is not true. Viagra is not covered by insurance and nothing in the ACA compels insurance companies to cover it. The Supreme Court’s ruling upholds the religious freedom of “closely” held corporations. Those are not public corporations but family owned companies that are incorporated. A family that holds strong religious beliefs that life is sacred should not be compelled to pay for forms of birth control that can cause or are akin to abortion. You can’t make me pay for that. That would be an infringement on my religious liberty. Insurance premiums reflect the breadth of coverage. The less… Read more »
LOL, sorry courage, I’ve never used it so I didn’t know viagra wasn’t covered.
Does your employer have the right to dictate to you which health care treatment or procedure is covered under your employee insurance plan, and specifically which kinds of birth control, or should that be a decision between you and your doctor?
Take a look at the ACA, do you have a clue as to how many people lost their long term providers, providers who in some cases were in the middle of treatment of a patient? Managed care and EPO’s PPO’s have been doing it for decades!
Insurance companies/employers have been limiting what you can and can’t have for decades as well as dictating where I get my services. Where have you been? “Not a covered medication” is common in my world. A world where I take 8 different medications a day and have been doing so for the past 20+ years. So now all of a sudden because of the recent ruling, it’s a big issue? My corporate career was in managed care development and I know as a consumer as well how these systems work. BTW, the employer has never mandated what birth control the… Read more »
Blimey! I’m never failed to be amused by the sheer complexity of the American healthcare system! Here in the UK where we have socialised healthcare paid for through taxes, if you want prescribed contraception you go to your doctor and just… ask for it. not being a woman myself, I have no idea whether or not you have to pay for prescription charges for it – and even then it’s only around £8. So all of this talk of co-pays, pre-tax dollars, insurance programs, cancellations of cover due to pre-existing medical conditions etc. leaves me pretty bemused. I recently discovered… Read more »