Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge
A number of people have posted to the effect that this ruling opens all sorts of doors for business leaders to deny employees various things on the basis of religious beliefs. But the ruling says clearly that business leaders won't be able to do that in cases where the government has a compelling interest in enforcement of a provision of the law despite religious objections as long as the law is the least restrictive on religious practice possible. That forecloses the possiblity of many of the horribles raised by left wingers.
That's likely true, although we don't really know the impact yet. The remedy the court suggested was, essentially, "Let taxpayers fund the mandate" then compared the unknown cost to $1.2 trillion and concluded the cost would be no real concern. But pretty much any amount over 1.2T is small, so what kind of solutions would meet the 'least restrictive' if the alternative is the Feds pick up some number that is small in relation to $1.2T? Not sure. We'll see.
In addition, the court also said that people who work for businesses that object to contraceptives can get contraceptives from the government through a plan set up by HHS for non-profit religious organizations.
That's true, and if the Court rules such accommodations legal - they're being challenged by religious groups who refuse to facilitate the accommodation - then HL and other affected women will see little effect. But this isn't a done deal till it survives court challenges.
Poor women will get contraception from where they have always gotten it -- planned parenthood and other similar organizations. Or they should be able to get it through Medicaid in which case employment doesn't matter.
This isn't a big part of the discussion, but Planned Parenthood is under a blistering attack by the same groups fighting for the right of employers to deny contraceptive coverage, and Medicaid just isn't available to most poor women in most states until they have a child, often after an unplanned pregnancy. So those solutions are partial at best and under attack from the religious right wing.
Left wingers have a hard time explaining why this ruling is such a bad thing without lying about it or distorting it. It doesn't deny anyone any rights. It in all likelyhood won't cost anyone anything. It won't have much of an effect on the ACA. It will only affect employees of closely held corporations in which the owners are a small, homogenous group with shared religious beliefs and who all object to paying for certain medical expenses. I seriously doubt that all religious objections will be a slam dunk, either. Jehovah's Witnesses might object to blood transfusions but I'm betting that they won't be able to refuse to pay for them through employee insurance because the government will claim a compelling interest in keeping people alive in the case of accidents, etc., without unduly burdening hospitals with the expense of transfusions that the accident victim can't pay for.
I find it a bit odd that to dismiss concerns about the impact of the ruling, you're having to claim that it will have no actual impact on anyone. Like I said above, if true then we're fighting over the ability of a few employers to engage in what is in practice an empty gesture, to 'deny' coverage for abortifacients, then take positive steps to make those same drugs available to the same women for free, from the same insurer who's handling the company plan. Like I mentioned, the lawsuits challenging the accommodation make this assumption unclear at the moment and perhaps it will be proven false.
I do agree some of the reaction by liberals/leftists to the ruling are overblown, but if that's true then so is the concern by right wingers over some employers' objections to contraceptives. But, hey, if the HL women just get coverage through taxpayers instead of HL, and that's the entire effect of this ruling, I'm OK with it. Frankly I'd do away with employer insurance altogether in part for just this reason, but if the result works, then OK. But I'm not at all sure that's a fair assumption at this point.
BTW, part of this is definitely optics and politics, but the right wing has done itself no favors so far. The all male hearing on the mandate for contraception for women was a telling example, and five old male Catholics issuing an extremely narrow ruling, against 3 women and a Jew on the other side, doesn't help the optics either, and comments like many in this thread that treat preventing pregnancy as somehow not a legitimate medical need for women is just piling on.
