Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did the USSC ruling hinge on these being abortifacients?
(I'm finding it slow going to find specific & reliable info on such aspects of the decision.)

If you want specific and reliable, you may want to go straight to the horse's mouth. You can find the actual Supreme Court decision here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

As to whether the ruling hinged on them being abortifacients... that's a bit fuzzy. It definitely hinges on Hobby Lobby's owners belief that these drugs are abortifacients. From the decision:

Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.

I find this part of the ruling strange, since the belief that these four drugs are abortifiacients isn't really a "religious" belief, IMO. It's not like there's anything in any religious creed, scripture, or tradition that says "I believe that Mirena causes abortions, so help me God."

Rather, I see this belief about these particular drugs as a position about the facts of things, which in turn informs a religious view. The real religious belief here, IMO, is that abortion is wrong. That might be legally entitled to protection under either RFRA or the First Amendment, but the belief that particular drugs do or don't cause abortions should not be, IMO.

 

[Koldo]

If you want specific and reliable, you may want to go straight to the horse's mouth. You can find the actual Supreme Court decision here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

As to whether the ruling hinged on them being abortifacients... that's a bit fuzzy. It definitely hinges on Hobby Lobby's owners belief that these drugs are abortifacients. From the decision:



I find this part of the ruling strange, since the belief that these four drugs are abortifiacients isn't really a "religious" belief, IMO. It's not like there's anything in any religious creed, scripture, or tradition that says "I believe that Mirena causes abortions, so help me God."

Rather, I see this belief about these particular drugs as a position about the facts of things, which in turn informs a religious view. The real religious belief here, IMO, is that abortion is wrong. That might be legally entitled to protection under either RFRA or the First Amendment, but the belief that particular drugs do or don't cause abortions should not be, IMO.

The main problem here is that what a religious person might call 'abortion' may not be what is legally or even scientifically called 'abortion'. What matters is what is meant by that word when it is used by each person, not the word in itself. The religious belief is not that abortion, however someone else defines it, is wrong.

By the way, if it could be shown there are other contraceptives ( supported by the company ) which work the same way as those that the company is against, then it would clearly make its case weaker.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The main problem here is that what a religious person might call 'abortion' may not be what is legally or even scientifically called 'abortion'. What matters is what is meant by that word when it is used by each person, not the word in itself. The religious belief is not that abortion, however someone else defines it, is wrong.

By the way, if it could be shown there are other contraceptives ( supported by the company ) which work the same way as those that the company is against, then it would clearly make its case weaker.

Does this religious exemption also apply to religious "killing" as opposed to the legal definition of "murder"? Say...an activist decides to take out a doctor who performs abortion services. To them they defended the unborn and did not commit murder. Do their religious beliefs trump the legal system then too?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know this is to Koldo, but barge in I must.

Does this religious exemption also apply to religious "killing" as opposed to the legal definition of "murder"? Say...an activist decides to take out a doctor who performs abortion services. To them they defended the unborn and did not commit murder. Do their religious beliefs trump the legal system then too?

The USSC decision wasn't about religious beliefs legalizing any or every act a religious zealot might want to commit. It was a balance of competing concerns regarding a narrow aspect of a specific law. When a closely held company had owners with particular religious beliefs, they'd be exempted from forced provision of certain health services. The employees could still obtain them elsewhere. They'd just to have to foot their own bill. Thus, employees lost no right, only a perquisite of employment. (Note that many companies were already exempt from providing any health services at all.) Contrast that with your example of killing doctors, in which case the doctors lose the ultimate right, ie, to life. The courts have held that the desire to "execute" abortion docs does not trump the docs right to continue living.

Consider a similar case from days of yore....the military draft. The gov exempted prospective draftees with religious convictions against war to avoid military service, thereby accommodating their practice of non-violence. In lieu of military service, gov required alternate service, & then drafted some other dumb cluck to replace the peacenik. This too was a balance of rights. (Too bad it was that.....oh, don't get me started on the draft again!)

I have problems with both of the above situations, but I see reasonable legal theory
behind them, Justice Ginsbergs the-sky-is-falling protestations notwithstanding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Hobby Lobby decision isn't based on the First Amendment; it's based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That act has more stringent requirements than just the First Amendment when it comes to laws of general applicability that have implications for religious belief. It not only requires that the law have a legitimate purpose; it also requires that the law not burden religion any more than strictly necessary.

Alito pointed out that since religious non-profit organizations have been granted an exception to the contraceptive requirements of the ACA, there exists a way to implement the law that places less of a burden on the religion of "religious for-profit" companies.

I think the real problem here is with the RFRA. Alito claims that the implications of this decision are narrow, but I don't see it that way. I'm sure there are all sorts of laws and governmental actions that burden religious organizations more than is strictly necessary... as it should be. Government is in the business of balancing the interests of a wide spectrum of stakeholders in their different policies and projects. It's rare for a policy to serve the interests of any one particular stakeholder perfectly, but that's what RFRA demands, IMO.

 

[Koldo]

Does this religious exemption also apply to religious "killing" as opposed to the legal definition of "murder"? Say...an activist decides to take out a doctor who performs abortion services. To them they defended the unborn and did not commit murder. Do their religious beliefs trump the legal system then too?

No. It falls upon the supreme court the duty of determining what rights take precendence on each occasion. Since it has already decided in the past that abortion is legal, then acting against the doctor wouldn't be justified.

Let's look at a more similar case: Imagine an employer that considers that providing any and all forms of health care is against his religious beliefs. Would his religious beliefs be accommodated? Since that would require a major overhaul of the health care system, no. Freedom of thought has limitations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It falls upon the supreme court the duty of determining what rights take precendence on each occasion. Since it has already decided in the past that abortion is legal, then acting against the doctor wouldn't be justified.

Let's look at a more similar case: Imagine an employer that considers that providing any and all forms of health care is against his religious beliefs. Would his religious beliefs be accommodated? Since that would require a major overhaul of the health care system, no. Freedom of thought has limitations.

Actually, from what I know of the RFRA, that might actually be "yes". The government had other options to provide health care (e.g. by extending medicare/Medicaid to everyone) but chose an approach that burdened religion more than the alternative. The exact same reasoning as this case would apply.

 

[Koldo]

Actually, from what I know of the RFRA, that might actually be "yes". The government had other options to provide health care (e.g. by extending medicare/Medicaid to everyone) but chose an approach that burdened religion more than the alternative. The exact same reasoning as this case would apply.

The issue is one of practicality. It would very irresponsible for the supreme court to take that decision ( regarding my proposed scenario ), since it could possibly lead to millions of americans without any health care whatsoever during a considerable ammount of time. That could put the lives of many people at risk. However, if a quick overhaul on the current system could be done to accomodate those individuals, then I agree with you. I took it for granted it couldn't be done, but I may have assumed too much.

EDIT: I wonder how many employers would use the cheap move of using their religious freedom to justify not providing any health care at all. I really do.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I know this is to Koldo, but barge in I must.

The USSC decision wasn't about religious beliefs legalizing any or every act a religious zealot might want to commit. It was a balance of competing concerns regarding a narrow aspect of a specific law. When a closely held company had owners with particular religious beliefs, they'd be exempted from forced provision of certain health services. The employees could still obtain them elsewhere. They'd just to have to foot their own bill. Thus, employees lost no right, only a perquisite of employment. (Note that many companies were already exempt from providing any health services at all.) Contrast that with your example of killing doctors, in which case the doctors lose the ultimate right, ie, to life. The courts have held that the desire to "execute" abortion docs does not trump the docs right to continue living.

Consider a similar case from days of yore....the military draft. The gov exempted prospective draftees with religious convictions against war to avoid military service, thereby accommodating their practice of non-violence. In lieu of military service, gov required alternate service, & then drafted some other dumb cluck to replace the peacenik. This too was a balance of rights. (Too bad it was that.....oh, don't get me started on the draft again!)

I have problems with both of the above situations, but I see reasonable legal theory
behind them, Justice Ginsbergs the-sky-is-falling protestations notwithstanding.

My question was to allow what Hobby Lobby considers "abortifacients" to be the qualifier for their exemption, even if the legal definition and the medical definition of the four forms of birth control do not comply with Hobby Lobby's definition, based entirely on their religious convictions.

It's bad science and bad ethics. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the blogosphere, over 100 for-profit companies have owners that consider ALL forms of birth control equivalent to abortion, according to their religious convictions. That is, except for condoms. And these companies have cases pending with SCOTUS, as well.

Which brings me back to my question about religious convictions regarding the definition of words (e.g. abortifacient) used in the medical community are allowed to be the trump card in cases such as these.

 

[Revoltingest]

My question was to allow what Hobby Lobby considers "abortifacients" to be the qualifier for their exemption, even if the legal definition and the medical definition of the four forms of birth control do not comply with Hobby Lobby's definition, based entirely on their religious convictions.

It's bad science and bad ethics. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the blogosphere, over 100 for-profit companies have owners that consider ALL forms of birth control equivalent to abortion, according to their religious convictions. That is, except for condoms. And these companies have cases pending with SCOTUS, as well.

Which brings me back to my question about religious convictions regarding the definition of words (e.g. abortifacient) used in the medical community are allowed to be the trump card in cases such as these.

Are religious objections ever scientific? This ruling does seem strange (if I understand the
terminological inconsistencies correctly), but after all, religion is about what is believed,
rather than what is (according to science).

Note too that the USSC is not known for atheistic members. It currently has 6 Catholics
serving (per Huff Po), although Breyer is suspected of lacking faith. (The rest are Jews.)
Can you imagine an atheist or agnostic getting confirmed for the bench? Oh, the horror!

 

[TheScholar]

As a Christian, I will be boycotting Hobby Lobby. Medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor, not a women and her employer.

You've opened a door that can't be shut. Next thing you know a Jehovah's Witness employer could argue that their insurance doesn't have to cover Blood Transfusions, and then the Pentecostals will argue that they can't cover Chemo, because they believe in alternative treatment.

You think I'm wrong? It's the same Wheelhouse.

 

[Koldo]

My question was to allow what Hobby Lobby considers "abortifacients" to be the qualifier for their exemption, even if the legal definition and the medical definition of the four forms of birth control do not comply with Hobby Lobby's definition, based entirely on their religious convictions.

It doesn't matter whether they call it ''abortifacients''. Since abortion is not a crime on the USA, it doesn't matter how they call it. If abortion was illegal though, then it would be a whole different matter. That would mean they are trying to use their personal definition of a word to bend what the law says. That would have nothing to do with religious rights either. But that's not the case here.

They are against contraceptives that work in certain ways, and then they go to call them ''abortifacients''. Whether that is a proper naming or not is of NO consequence to the fact that they are against their use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are religious objections ever scientific? This ruling does seem strange (if I understand the
terminological inconsistencies correctly), but after all, religion is about what is believed,
rather than what is (according to science).

I don't think it's that common for religious objections to be actually contradicted by science. Usually, they're about value judgements or about facts that are beyond the current scope of scientific knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter whether they call it ''abortifacients''. Since abortion is not a crime on the USA, it doesn't matter how they call it. If abortion was illegal though, then it would be a whole different matter. That would mean they are trying to use their personal definition of a word to bend what the law says. That would have nothing to do with religious rights either. But that's not the case here.

They are against contraceptives that work in certain ways, and then they go to call them ''abortifacients''. Whether that is a proper naming or not is of NO consequence to the fact that they are against their use.

I disagree. Religious views have legal protections; factual misunderstandings do not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think it's that common for religious objections to be actually contradicted by science. Usually, they're about value judgements or about facts that are beyond the current scope of scientific knowledge.

I underlined the salient word.
If one needs no basis in fact, then this would allow for basic
facts to be wrong, but are nonetheless protected beliefs.

 

[Koldo]

I disagree. Religious views have legal protections; factual misunderstandings do not.

And how exactly are factual misunderstandings being legally protected?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm against paying for contraceptives across the board you are not required to have sex. I'm atheist agnostic.

This doesn't seem like an Atheistic POV. I'm an Atheist. Sorry...no other qualifying psedo-titles behind it. I'm just an Atheist and in the grand scheme of things I don't have a problem paying for contraception for women even though I'm a male and will never use it. There are many things in my policy that collectively insures pay for that we don't use.

I also find it wrong that only women get free or insurance paid contraceptives. Males are not allowed to put it on their insurance or at least get a tax write off. Isn't sex as important to men as to woman.

This is why we need contraception education. Contraception for women is much more than simply about sex, preventing pregnancy.

Perhaps they would use condoms more often if they didn't have to pay for them.

Doubt it considering condoms, even the most expensive ones, are way cheaper than birth control.....:areyoucra

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a Christian, I will be boycotting Hobby Lobby. Medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor, not a women and her employer.

You've opened a door that can't be shut. Next thing you know a Jehovah's Witness employer could argue that their insurance doesn't have to cover Blood Transfusions, and then the Pentecostals will argue that they can't cover Chemo, because they believe in alternative treatment.

You think I'm wrong? It's the same Wheelhouse.

Theoretically, any company that's closely held by religious owners could use this to try to get out of anything that costs the company extra money, since they could argue that the extra expense diverts money from things like tithing or funding missionary work.

 

[Koldo]

This doesn't seem like an Atheistic POV.

There seems to be an underlying expectation that atheists agree on far more things than they usually do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I underlined the salient word.
If one needs no basis in fact, then this would allow for basic
facts to be wrong, but are nonetheless protected beliefs.

Has there been any other case where a person's incorrect belief was protected because it was religious? For instance, can people who believe that the power of their god protects them from drunkenness get out of DUI charges?