Breaking: Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare Going to SCOTUS

[Jackson]

Breaking: Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare Going to SCOTUS

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Hobby Lobby case against Obamacare on whether they should be forced to cover their members...

Hobby Lobby Challenge weigh religious objections to Obamacare... Hobby Lobby should not have to provide contraceptives to their employees which is the same as abortions and against their religious values.

Case should be heard in March

No link yet per Fox News

 

[Kosh]

Obamacare is crashing burning.

 

[Jackson]

Obamacare is crashing burning.

And I don't see any fire trucks.

 

[g5000]

Worst case scenario from Obama's perspective is that Hobby Lobby won't have to include contraception coverage to its employees. That's hardly the death knell of ObamaCare.

Besides, the precedents are stacked against Hobby Lobby.

 

[g5000]

In 2004, the Catholic Charities of Sacramento, a social-service organization, brought suit over the Women’s Contraception Equity Law, which required it to provide its employees with contraception coverage. The law made an exception for churches, just as the Obama regulation does, based on the criteria that such “religious employers” primarily hire people who embrace the tenets of the faith and exist mainly to inculcate religious beliefs, but Catholic Charities did not qualify on those grounds. The California State Supreme Court ruled against it. In doing so, the judges cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1990 case Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith: “The right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes.)’ ” A law of general applicability that served a legitimate state interest was not unconstitutional even if it placed a burden on a religious practice. It was unconstitutional only if its intent was to do so. The Women’s Contraception Equity Law had sought to end gender inequity in health insurance: women pay sixty-eight per cent more out of pocket for health care than men do, primarily because of the costs of prescription contraceptives and the health consequences of pregnancy. Its intent—like that of the Obama regulation—was not to punish Catholics but to promote women’s health care.

In 2006, when Catholic Charities and nine other religiously affiliated social-serves groups sued the state of New York over a similar law, the New York Women’s Health and Wellness Act, which also required employers to cover contraception, the New York State Supreme Court came to the same conclusion.

Birth Control and the Catholic Church : The New Yorker

 

[OriginalShroom]

I truly hope Hobby Lobby wins.

There is no reason that the average woman can't buy her own B/C pills

 

[g5000]

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe the federal government has any place dictating to employers what benefits they should be providing to their employees, much less birth control.

I believe employer-sponsored health insurance is a gigantic boondoggle that needs to go away. It drives the cost of healthcare up. ObamaCare exacerbates this disaster by actually embedding it deeper into our national fabric.

It is one of the examples which proves ObamaCare was a bait-and-switch con.

 

[martybegan]

I truly hope Hobby Lobby wins.

There is no reason that the average woman can't buy her own B/C pills

I have to buy my own damn rubbers, fair is fair.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If "Precedent" is all you have, then Slavery would still be legal as would "Separate but Equal".

 

[Kosh]

Obamacare is crashing burning.

And I don't see any fire trucks.

Because they are not as transparent as promised.

 

[g5000]

I truly hope Hobby Lobby wins.

There is no reason that the average woman can't buy her own B/C pills

From the link in my previous post: "...women pay sixty-eight per cent more out of pocket for health care than men do, primarily because of the costs of prescription contraceptives and the health consequences of pregnancy."

 

[g5000]

Obamacare is crashing burning.

And I don't see any fire trucks.

Because it isn't crashing and burning. ObamaCare is here to stay. Until single payer healthcare.

 

[g5000]

Here are the precedents you can read to get you up to speed on the mandatory contraception coverage issue:

Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v Serio

 

[oldfart]

Worst case scenario from Obama's perspective is that Hobby Lobby won't have to include contraception coverage to its employees. That's hardly the death knell of ObamaCare.

Besides, the precedents are stacked against Hobby Lobby.

Actually it's narrower than that. Hobby Lobby is objecting to four specific types of "emergency contraception"; two types of IUDs that may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, the "Plan B" pill and a similar pill. They claim that destroying a fertilized egg is a form of abortion. So one course for the Supremes would be to rule that Hobby Lobby must pay for all other forms of abortion.

There is a second case to be heard at the same time from a Mennonite furniture producer in Pennsylvania which may be broader. I'd like to find more specifics on that case as it could be broader.

 

[Clementine]

Even though they approved of covering some of the birth control, there were a few they said went against their religious beliefs. If they are forced to go against their religion to provide all of the things in Obamacare, then the Muslims should be forced to participate despite the fact that they consider insurance gambling.

Everyone, including congress and the pres, must participate fully or everyone should be let off the hook. So tired of breaks for this or that group while most of us are getting this shoved down our throats by force of a tyrannical regime.

 

[g5000]

Even though they approved of covering some of the birth control, there were a few they said went against their religious beliefs. If they are forced to go against their religion to provide all of the things in Obamacare, then the Muslims should be forced to participate despite the fact that they consider insurance gambling.

I see you drank the piss about Muslims and mandatory health insurance. You have been lied to. ObamaCare does not exempt Muslims from the mandate, and Muslims make exceptions for health insurance mandates.

ETA: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/muslims_exempt_health_insurance_mandate.htm

 

[Plasmaball]

Hobby lobby isnt a religious group. They are a store that sells toys.

 

[Jackson]

Hobby lobby isnt a religious group. They are a store that sells toys.

The Company itself is a Christian company and owns Christian book stores.

 

[Jackson]

Hobby lobby isnt a religious group. They are a store that sells toys.

[

The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Nearly four years ago, the justices expanded the concept of corporate "personhood," saying in the Citizens United case that corporations have the right to participate in the political process the same way that individuals do.

The administration wants the court to hear its appeal of the Denver-based federal appeals court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain that calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance. The Green family, Hobby Lobby's owners, also owns the Mardel Christian bookstore chain.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said corporations can be protected by the 1993 law in the same manner as individuals, and "that the contraceptive-coverage requirement substantially burdens Hobby Lobby and Mardel's rights under" the law.

We'll see what happens under the law.

 

[g5000]

Hobby lobby isnt a religious group. They are a store that sells toys.

Correct. Which is why the two precedents I posted apply.