Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

a reply to: bbracken677
you found the wiki, can you link me the .gov link please?

Anyone can edit wiki...

a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

you found the wiki, can you link me the .gov link please

Are you really that lazy?

Follow the links in that article, and eventually you'll wind up here: CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION on the Supreme Court's web site. The Supreme Court has treated corporations as people since the 1800s, for pity's sake.

a reply to: adjensen
no, pretty sure I said I couldn't find anything through searching, so, thanks for the link

upon reading the first 3 pages I hope this eventually gets in to where private businesses are considered as persons without a governing body...because so far I'm reading about limits in campaign funding....

originally posted by: KnowledgeSeeker81
a reply to: SM2
Hobby Lobby is actually a model of a company...that is until they took religious beliefs to the SCOTUS level.

Corporations whether they be private or public do not reserve the same rights as a living breathing person. There is no law saying they do.

Please allow me to illustrate where you are most decidedly wrong in that comment.

first i will post the source
en.wikipedia.org...

and seeing as though you will most assuredly not go and read the offered link, i will post the relevant portions for you to save the trouble of clicking....

"Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts."

here is a link to that specific case....en.wikipedia.org...

"In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis,[1] noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[2] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since."

en.wikipedia.org...
supreme.justia.com...

a reply to: adjensen
they aren't with this ruling.
we the people can't prevent from buying insurance coverage that includes birth control and avoid the dreaded tax!!

let's all face one fact
most employees accept the policy that their employers provide because it's not financially feasible to obtain it any other way.
that policy may or may not provide birth control coverage depending on the business person's beliefs..

some people who want birth control will be harmed with this decision.

but well the people's rights are still not protected!
obviously they are treating hobby lobby as something above a person!!
unless a person with those beliefs are working for one of these businesses with exemptions they still have only two options either ignore the pang in the gut and buy the insurance or pay the fine
basically the same option that hobby lobby was spared from.

so it seems that we are at the whim of our employers religion or lack of it for our freedom to practice our religion!

a reply to: dawnstar

holy crap man, no one is cutting off birth control.

They have always covered it in the plan they offer to employees. They are just not covering the morning after pill and others like it.

THEY ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE COVERED 16 OF the 20 MANDATED BY OBAMACARE!!!!!!!!!!

i know the facts are inconvenient for you and your agenda, but it is what it is. go troll somewhere else

a reply to: SM2

everything I wrote in that post concerned protecting the religious values of the people!
Ya I believe that birth control should be included in insurance packages
I am bypassing that issue at this time to bring light to a bigger issue!
how about you meeting me halfway??
this ruling less to do with religious beliefs than it does with "the employer's right to decide what is in their plan" and comments like yours only tells me that you also aren't that concerned with our religious rights and instead concerned with the business's right to have full reign of their business operation
although I might agree with you on this I am sorry but I believe the gov't and the courts aren't in agreement! they have decided that the businesses need to provide coverage for their employees just like the employees have to purchase the insurance (don't agree with this one also and would like to point out that that one is romney's baby!)
they also mandated that these policies must meet their standards and one of those standards is birth control coverage!
so while hobby lobby and the rest get nice exemptions protecting their rights to religious beliefs
unless the person works for hobby lobby and is entitled to their insurance package I don't see anyway that they can avoid it outside of just paying for the penalty.
hobby lobby could have done the same thing but they were spared that discomfort with the exemption.

by giving this exemption the courts decided that the mandate was just too intrusive on hobby lobby's religious rights.

those religious rights are explicitly given to people you know you and me??
but it took another law for them to be extended to business entities like hobby lobby.

as it stands now I think that business entities stand on a higher podium than us actual people because their rights have been protected while ours has not!!
I am not talking about the right to abortion or to healthcare here
I am talking about the right to practice our religions and weather a business entity's rights to this can be set on a higher podium than what the people have!

The funny thing is, if Hobby Lobby were to put a sign above every one of their doors that states "We support Planned Parenthood" and the government stepped in to make them remove the signs, the very same folks who are claiming corporations don't have the same rights as people would be screaming bloody murder in support of Hobby Lobby's first amendment rights.

a reply to: dawnstar

the difference in that is pretty simple really.

Hobby lobby was forced to to provide a product they felt was wrong in according to their deeply held beliefs.

You as a person have a choice they did not. If the same 4 types of products ( that really can not be called birth control with the exemption of the copper IUD) offend your religious sensibilities, then you have have the option to not use those 4 types. you can use one of the other 16 types that are required to be offered.

That is the test really. Does the individual have a choice? Yes. test passed
does the corporate entity ( person by legal standards ) have the choice? no, test failed. law needs revision.

a reply to: SM2
the person also buys insurance for the family members some time
then that choice is handed over to another just like the employer hands it over to the employee
there isn't a difference!

As others have said, I think this is a wonderful ruling anything that chips away at Obamacare I'm for it and I hope the SC keeps it up.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: windword

Those are not rights.

What are not rights? What are you talking about?

You do not have a RIGHT to free contraception. that too is a privilege.

Okay, you're another one that can't comprehend or won't read. I never said anyone has the "right" to free contraception, however, the Supreme Court HAS ruled that birth control and abortion are "rights". Low cost and free birth control are privileges.

Here's what I said, again. Jeeeeeze!

If I have given the impression that I believe that the ACA is supposed to hand out free birth control, I apoligize, I never meant to infer any such thing. Contraception is mandated as part of the ACA, and the ACA isn't free, is it?

Complications, obstacles and expense? Ok, I see the expense but the process to access contraceptives remains the same. The exact same. Still have to get a prescription, still have to get it filled.

Obstacles, complications and expense are still to be seen. SCOTUS, in their syllabus, suggested that women might have to pay a premium initially, up front, and then be reimbursed through tax credits later. Not all women can afford to pay 2 premiums, even if they will eventually be reimbursed.

You seem to be making it up as you go. What further complications are there? What further obstacles? Please elaborate...

For one thing, women will have to have 2 doctors for their female needs, one for things that are covered, and one for those things that are not.

This ruling has nothing to do with defunding Planned Parenthood. I would be more than happy to join you in a thread regarding Planned Parenthood to discuss that subject.

This ruling squarely placed the responsibility of birth control for women who employers have denied them, on the shoulders of the tax payers, under Title X.

If Hobby Lobby is motivated to deny women, based on the "belief" that they NEED to protect their employees from committing an immoral act that they have enabled, how will tax payers feel about paying for something that they "believe" is an abortion? Definitely, there will be protests, outrage and dumbass politicians writing bills to defund Planned Parenthood.

a reply to: thesaneone

okay just don't come back crying when your see that the pretty sculpture that they created by all their chipping is far worse than the obamacare that they started with!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: thesaneone

okay just don't come back crying when your see that the pretty sculpture that they created by all their chipping is far worse than the obamacare that they started with!!!

What does this even mean?

a reply to: Daedalus

i mean, the timing fits, it really depends on how your define pregnancy

Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it. Pregnancy isn't a "belief", it's a medical condition. According to the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, pregnancy begins upon implantation.

Frozen embryos aren't people, and when an embryo is transferred to a women during a fertility procedure, she "hopes" to become pregnant. She isn't pregnant until that embryo implants.

Again, pregnancy isn't a belief, but when "life begins" is.

a reply to: windword

From a religious standpoint, Hobby Lobby isn't protecting their employees from God's judgment, they're protecting their selves and the success of their company. Why is that so hard to understand?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SM2
the person also buys insurance for the family members some time
then that choice is handed over to another just like the employer hands it over to the employee
there isn't a difference!

That argument is just weak.
Most likely, a spouse is covering their spouse and children. Which generally speaking have the same set of beliefs and values. If not, then spouse B has the choice to not be covered under spouse A's plan an to acquire coverage thru an exchange or through their employer. there is still choice. Just not choice you like.

a reply to: thesaneone
it means that I kind of get the feeling that so much of what is going one is orchestrated.
they were perfectly okay with mandating we the people to buy birth control coverage regardless of our religious beliefs
they are perfectly okay with shifting the burden of hobby lobby's birth control coverage onto we the taxpayer's backs to protect a business entity's "religious beliefs" who cares of some of those taxpayers have the same belief or not!!

the law was a train wreck from the beginning and any attempts to fix it just seems to make it worse!
you'd think that even the most leftest of liberals would have decided by now that the whole bill needs to be ditched!!
not over religious liberties or employers right to run their business any way they want
but rather it is quite destructive and sloppily put together and quite frankly approach the problem with so many misconceptions about what needs to be done!

maybe they want a trainwreck to use to further their agenda? which I am sorry but both parties have been playing their part all along to bring about!

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: windword

From a religious standpoint, Hobby Lobby isn't protecting their employees from God's judgment, they're protecting their selves and the success of their company. Why is that so hard to understand?

How are they protecting the success of their company with this?

They could have just dropped insurance all together and paid a fine of twenty something million a year. instead they opted to fight 4 types of required birth control that they deemed to be abortion methods and risked losing over a hundred million a year.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: windword

From a religious standpoint, Hobby Lobby isn't protecting their employees from God's judgment, they're protecting their selves and the success of their company.

From God's Judgement, for following the law?! I could cite biblical scripture that says they're wrong!

Why is that so hard to understand?

What's so hard to understand? The SCOTUS decision, that's what!

The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.

The Greens and the Hahans have made it clear that, if they were to obey the law, they couldn't trust their employees to make the right choice, and therefore have decided to limit their options, lest their employees make a immoral choice.