It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: butcherguy
The Supreme court granted an exemption to the contraceptive mandate.
Most contraceptives in the Hobby Lobby case will still be provided by Hobby Lobby and are therefore not affected. That's what USA today is saying.
From the Decision
Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.
...
)
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion. Pp. 31–38
...
The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga . . . would deny [their employees] access to contraceptive
coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure”)
originally posted by: ABNARTY
With corporations are people and money is free speech, expect nothing but more of the same as this is the insanity this road produces. The 1st Amendment becomes jibberish.
originally posted by: butcherguy
The SCOTUS ruled on what the plaintiff brought forward, nothing else.
The SCOTUS ruling did not affect all contraceptive measures.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: butcherguy
The Supreme court granted an exemption to the contraceptive mandate.
Most contraceptives in the Hobby Lobby case will still be provided by Hobby Lobby and are therefore not affected. That's what USA today is saying.
From the Decision
Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.
...
)
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion. Pp. 31–38
...
The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga . . . would deny [their employees] access to contraceptive
coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure”)
As we noted above, RFRA applies to "a person's" exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb-1(a) , (b) , and RFRA itself does not define the term "person." We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult "[i ]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise." 1 U.S.C. §1 .
Under the Dictionary Act, "the wor[d] 'person' . . . include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." Ibid .; see FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 6) ("We have no doubt that 'person,' in a legal setting, often refers to artificial entities. The Dictionary Act makes that clear"). Thus, unless there is something about the RFRA context that "indicates otherwise," the Dictionary Act provides a quick, clear, and affirmative answer to the question whether the companies involved in these cases may be heard.
We see nothing in RFRA that suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition, and HHS makes little effort to argue otherwise. We have entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit corporations, see Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA); Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. ___ (2012) (Free Exercise); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993) (Free Exercise), and HHS concedes that a nonprofit corporation can be a "person" within the meaning of RFRA. See Brief for HHS in No. 13-354, at 17; Reply Brief in No. 13-354, at 7-8. 19
This concession effectively dispatches any argument that the term "person" as used in RFRA does not reach the closely held corporations involved in these cases. No known understanding of the term "person" includes some but not all corporations. The term "person" sometimes encompasses artificial persons (as the Dictionary Act instructs), and it sometimes is limited to natural persons. But no conceivable definition of the term includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations. 20 Cf. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371 , 378 (2005) ("To give th[e] same words a different meaning for each category would be to invent a statute rather than interpret one").
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: butcherguy
So, you're saying the court ruled on specific contraceptives and NOT the contraceptive mandate?
I say, "Keep telling yourself that".
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko
I think you have it wrong. It was Hobby Lobby that was worried that their employees would make the wrong choice. They were the ones hanging out in their employees bedrooms, making sure that no pseudo "abortions" were taking place, on their behalf.
Hobby Lobby didn't trust their employees to make decisions on their own, and felt the need to interject and limit their choice. They were the ones that went crying to the Supreme Court to make sure that they could limit their untrustworthy employees' choices.
The ACA doesn't mandate anyone use contraception. just that all FDA approved methods are available.
And finally, is it all right with you that a billion-dollar corporation is considered a "person"?