The five conservative justices of the Supreme Court ruled today that the contraceptive mandate included as a part of the Affordable Care Act for employer-sponsored health insurance plans cannot be enforced against private, closely-held corporations like Hobby Lobby. The majority opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby authored by Justice Samuel Alito held that the contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely-held corporations like Hobby Lobby, violated the owners of the company's religious beliefs against abortions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). Regulations adopted by the Health & Human Services agency for the ACA would have subjected companies like Hobby Lobby to a penalty of $2,000 per employee if their employer-sponsored health care plans did not include the mandated contraceptive coverage that HHS determined was required to fulfill the ACA's mandate of providing preventive care and screening for women under any group employee health insurance plan.
The majority's opinion found that the government has other means of achieving its contraceptive coverage without imposing a substantial burden on the business owner's exercise of their religious freedom. The majority emphasized that its opinion was narrowly applied to only touch on the contraceptive mandate of the ACA regulations and would not touch things like vaccinations and blood transfusions. The majority also emphasized that its holding should not be interpreted as a shield for employers who might utilize religious freedom to cloak illegal discrimination. Because its decision rested on its interpretation of RFRA, the Court did not reach the First Amendment claims in the case. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply criticized the majority for allowing a private corporation to opt out of any law "they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious briefs" in "a decision of startling breadth."
UPDATE: Contrary to the leftist meme, Congress never passed a law mandating coverage in health care plans for contraceptives. The ACA mandate was a product of rule-making by the Obama-run Human and Health Services agency in implementing the ACA. As we've seen time and time again, the written law means absolutely nothing when it comes to President Obama. This President believes he's a king who can act by executive fiat whenever he so chooses without any legislative authorization from Congress. This debate should never have been based on religious grounds; rather, it should have been based on what was medically necessary to provide "preventive care" services for women within the meaning of the ACA. Taking a prescribed medication to terminate a pregnancy for convenience after having unprotected sex, in my view, doesn't not fall within the meaning of "preventive care."
13 comments:
next up - corporations may marry, adopt...
Its the conservative decision, yes, but even as a liberal I see the merits. A small, family owned business founded on conservative Christian principles can be excused from purchasing contraceptives for employees thru its insurance plan. Okay. I don’t really agree with it. But I can live with it. There has to be room for recognizing the conscientious objection. And I tire of hearing both sides talk about the war on women. I believe strongly in contraception. But if women are going to go to work for extremely Christian family owned businesses, they should do so understanding the health plan won’t pay for contraception. A reasonable accommodation. After all, we don’t want to further scare Christians who are afraid to talk about contraception. Just help the old women back into their buggy. Nothing to see here.
To me, the contraceptive mandate has nothing to do with religion. I just don't see birth control as a medical necessity.
n a country where half of all pregnancies are unwanted because they were accidental, unplanned or imposed, I always thought contraception to prevent conception was preferable to abortion after the fact. But I just hated the idea of forcing people to pay for the insurance when they so clearly objected on religious principle. Its like the vaccination debate. I believe getting vaccinations is the best policy, and don’t give a lot of merit to the “causes autism” argument. But I always hated the idea of forcing parents to do it against their will. I know we’re seeing measles again because of this. But I do think the constitution protects certain religious exceptions. On a planet with billions of people I think it makes sense to embrace population control with contraception before we all starve to death. However. Even though I have little respect for fundamental Christians and their odd beliefs, I do recognize their rights. And they won today fair and square.
"I just don't see birth control as a medical necessity."
Well said.
"I just don't see birth control as a medical necessity."
Not looking very hard, are you Gary?
Birth control is 42% of the time used for purely contraceptive purposes, but there are many more reasons.
For just a few: Guttmacher Institute and WebMD.
When the pill is prescribed for a legitimate medical purpose that's unrelated to birth control that is an entirely different matter as long as it is an approved off-label use. Don't shift the debate from what was in front of the court, which was limited to mandated coverage of contraceptives. In Hobby Lobby's case, there were only four mandated contraceptives it opposed: the morning-after pill, ella (a pill taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex) and two kinds of IUDs.
Mr. Welsh is right, birth control is not a medical necessity. Furthermore, pregnancy's not a disease.
Though, self control or contraceptive conscience might be a lifestyle necessity.
Viagra and all erectile disfunction pills are not medically necessary either so I hope they are lumped in to the mix as well.
With that said, private companies should decide how they want to run their business. If someone doesn't like the company rule, find another company.
Any mandated coverages that go beyond what is medically necessary is a slippery slope for the government. That brings us much closer to China's population control mandates that includes decisions about when and how many children a woman is permitted to bring into this world. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding, we are moving rapidly towards a government that dictates virtually every aspect of our lives.
The Guttmacher Institute survey is based on asking 1270 woman why they took birth control, 90% of those over 20 years old said that they took it for contraception purposes, some of the woman in this group stated that they had other reasons like painful menstruation or irregular periods.
The 42% figure comes from those woman who said that the only reason was birth control, It is misleading to imply that the other 58% of woman taking birth control only do so for medical reasons, when only 10% of the surveyed woman did not include contraception as a reason for taking birth control. This is one of my pet peeves about using this study.
I tend to think that the self-reported results from the teenage woman (age 15 -19) included in the study are skewed low due to some embarrassment about admitting that they are taking it for birth control.
And IUD are devices used to prevent pregnancy, they have no other purpose or benefit.
Listen up, men:
The need to prevent pregnancy can indeed have a medically-based (as opposed to convenience-based) reason. Never mind all the other reasons women use birth control (and there are myriad).
Besides, health benefits are part of wages and earned by the employee. Corporations should not be able to cherry-pick denial of earned benefits.
"Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation." - 44 law professors
Post a Comment