Corporations now have religious freedom

I dont agree with the verdict but i dont think the floodgates have been opened. I dont know why the court agreed to take the case. Its probably the most timid verdict Ive ever seen. The court agrees with the plaintiff but makes the effort to say the case should not be a precedent for other kinds of employer religious beliefs. Did they just flip a coin?

Ill be interested to see what happens to Hobby Lobby sales over the next few quarters. Considering the overwhelming majority of their customers are women it will be interesting to see if there is any consumer backlash. Might be a good time to buy stock in Michael's

Just the facts - of 20 birth control products - Hobby Lobby has an issue paying for 4 of the 20. These were "morning after" pills that terminated a fertilized egg. Good for them for standing up for their rights. This is no "war on women" it was a war on religious freedom. Now if we can only do something for the Little Sisters of the Poor being forced to sign off on an onerous agreement to opt out of force government abortion coverage.

So how is that different than a Scientology employer refusing to pay for psych drugs, or an Orthodox Jew employer refusing to cover non-emergency surgery on the Sabbath, or a Muslim refusing to cover a woman's exams if her doctor is male? "Religious freedom" for all?

Didn't I just suggest putting together a non-profit that pays for poor women's birth control? Why rely on 'Hobby Lobby'? I imagine lots of poor women don't even have jobs.

All it means is Hobby Lobby offers it's employees a health insurance policy that only offers 12 kinds of birth control instead of 16. If you don't like that then don't whine about it do something about it. Start up an organization that gives away the morning after pill to women in need. I'd support that.

This makes zero sense Mal, actually less than zero my friend.

You really think that women took a job at HL for free birth control or more importantly, that they would actually leave because no more free BC?

No. It has to do with the poorly conceived Obamacare's pandering politicization of free birth control products for all women. Does it cover condoms or vasectomies for men? Why not?

Like I said, I'd like any woman who can't afford birth control to be able to get it for free...not from forced Health Insurance requirements but from a new charitable organization...DHKYDWO. (Don't Have Kids You Don't Want Organization). They'd even pay for condoms and vasectomies for men who couldn't afford it.

But will Forkie et al get off their butts and actually make something they believe in happen? No, they're going to bitch and moan and try any way they can to use this as a political wedge.....because they'd rather other people foot the bill.

The ruling doesn't apply to only Hobby Lobby it apples to all religious private for profit companies. In fact there were two plaintiffs in this case not one. There are already companies that have publicly said since the ruling they aren't going to provide birth control or other female reproductive services to employees because it is against their morals. This rule applies to every privately held company in the U.S. not just Hobby Lobby.

Link for Alan


Seems that companies are already saying on the record that they are going to use it to opt out of covering wide range of services for female employees. Whichever ones they don't like again for purely personal reasons they are going to deny. The whole point of having corporations, LLCs and other entities is that they aren't people and they are distinct from the people that have ownership interests in them. This ruling turns all of that on its head. Now you can inject your own personal belief system into what laws you opt follow in a business that you elected from the get go to have its own separate distinct identity from your own. How bizarre. If you want to run a business based upon your personal belief system that is what partnerships and proprietorships are for.

Yes, but we already have those non-profits, and they aren't effective enough, as this case suggests.

It's silly to tie health insurance to employment, but that's the approach our tax system has encouraged for 75 years. Another dumb consequence of our unwillingness to go single payer, but it is what it is.

Government would save a lot of money by giving women better access to the means for controlling their reproductive systems. If nonprofits could do that for government, fine. But they don't, which is why it makes sense for the government to step in and decrease the burden on society from unwanted children. If Guttmacher's right, every government dollar spent on birth control saves $5.68 just in Medicaid dollars.

How is that not a smart dollar for government to spend?