Fundamentalist employers can opt out of paying for health insurance for contraceptive coverage for their workers, the U.S. Supreme Court said last week in the Hobby Lobby decision. Defensively, the five Catholic male Supreme Court justices in the majority took some time to insist that their ruling is narrow. Don’t believe it. The decision is a radical departure from prior law with monumental implications.
New rule #1: Your religion can curtail my birth control options
The U.S. is the most religious and most conservative first-world nation, and believers have tried to opt out of our laws for centuries. For the most part, courts haven’t allowed it. May Christian Scientists forego lifesaving medical treatment for their children? No. May Native Americans ingest illegal peyote as part of their religious ceremonies? No. May the Amish refuse to pay Social Security taxes that violate their sincere religious beliefs? No.
The simple general rule has always been that you are free to practice Protestantism or Wicca or Zoroastrianism or any belief of your choice, provided your religious practice does not harm others. You may swing your arm just until it reaches my shoulder, as the old legal epigram goes. Nor may you impose your religion on me, thank you very much. And whether you’re Hindu or Muslim or Baha’i, you must follow general U.S. laws, including paying a wide array of taxes and fees, and more recently, buying certain kinds of insurance, like auto and health insurance.
Probably every American, religious or not, can point to services provided by moneys we are required to pay that we despise on moral or religious grounds. For my part, as an ethical vegan, government subsidies to hideously cruel factory farms tops the list of most vile uses of my tax dollars. Can I opt out? No, just as a religious Jew can’t say no to his tax contribution to the pork industry and a Quaker can’t hold back tax payments for wars. We can lobby to change the laws. But once they’re passed, we must all follow them. We can’t have 300 million different legal exceptions for the 300 million Americans who’d like to pick and choose which laws comport with our personal beliefs.
The Hobby Lobby decision’s first radical move is in its wide departure from these core American principles. For the first time in the Court’s history, it ruled that a law requiring one to merely vicariously enable another to take an action contrary to one’s religious beliefs violates religious freedom.
Hobby Lobby’s owners have always been free to express their extremist religious views (nine in ten Americans believe birth control is morally acceptable) in their words or conduct. They have a constitutional right to say that IUDs and morning after pills – the birth control methods they object to – are abortifacients, even though that is scientifically false. According to the FDA, these methods prevent fertilization, rather than preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, as fundamentalists claim.
The wealthy business owners behind Hobby Lobby have the free speech right to espouse an illogical course of action – foregoing birth control – that actually increases abortion, the evil they oppose. They are free to preach that birth control is a sin, even though it’s never mentioned in the Bible. But they wanted more: they wanted, and got, a ruling that they didn’t have to pay for employee health insurance, as required now by the Affordable Care Act, because contraceptive coverage was part of what was required.
To be fair, in its 95-page ruling, the Court relied heavily on a law passed by Congress twenty years ago, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which codified an expansive view of religious freedom. The good news here is that what Congress enacts Congress can repeal. We don’t need a constitutional amendment to reverse Hobby Lobby, just legislative action to stop the madness.
Let’s take a moment to remember what was entirely forgotten in the Hobby Lobby majority opinion: that birth control is vital to women’s health and equality, even our very lives. The United States has one of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the developed world, in part because we have not had universal coverage of birth control as is the case in much of Europe, which – shocker – has far fewer unwanted pregnancies. Unintended pregnancy rates for poor American women are high and have shot up in the last two decades, as the prices for contraception for those without health coverage make it unattainable.
Most American women spend about three decades trying to avoid unplanned pregnancies (puberty to menopause minus the few years they seek pregnancy, are pregnant or postpartum). An IUD – a safe, highly effective, convenient form of birth control that is the number one choice for women in Europe – can cost a month’s salary for a U.S. minimum wage worker and is used by only 8 percent of U.S. women. Let’s get real. If it’s not paid for by her health insurance, she’s not getting it, which is why the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to include it.
The morning after pill, the other form of contraception Hobby Lobby’s owners find sinful, is commonly prescribed after sexual assaults. Forcing a woman or girl to carry her rapist’s baby to term is morally repulsive to most Americans of all religions. Hobby Lobby would deny coverage for that small mercy.
In wide swaths of America, abortion is so unavailable we may as well be living in the nineteenth century. 87 percent of U.S. counties lack any abortion provider. For many poor American women, an unplanned pregnancy means a surprise baby, full stop.
All medically approved forms of birth control are far safer for women’s health than childbirth, as is abortion, a safe and simple medical procedure when performed by a doctor. Childbirth, in contrast, can be dangerous for poor American women. Most of us are unaware of the shocking fact that a U.S. woman’s chance of dying in childbirth is high and on the rise. We rank 60th in the world in maternal mortality rates, worse than China with its hundreds of millions of rural poor. Nearly 800 American moms died in childbirth in 2013, double the rate of Saudi Arabia and Canada, triple the rate of the U.K.
After giving birth, in stark contrast to women elsewhere in the developed world, American moms do not have publicly financed day care to turn to, nor even legally required paid maternity leave. While a baby is a life changing event for women everywhere, in the U.S. parents are left to fend for themselves, and overwhelmingly it’s women whose careers are derailed. Single moms plunge into poverty after the birth of a child, scrambling to pay for day care which averages nearly $12,000 annually. Women who give birth to unintended babies face significantly higher rates of depression and anxiety and their babies are more likely to be preemies with low birth weight, facing substantial medical problems.
All of which is why you’d think that in 2014 we could unite behind supporting free or low cost contraceptive coverage. Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger understood a century ago that birth control was a core women’s rights issue:
“No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”
Since 1965, the Supreme Court has found that access to contraception, because it involves the important decision whether or not to become a parent, is a fundamental constitutional right. But no matter: Hobby Lobby shrugs away that line of cases.
Women’s right of access to vital contraceptive medications and devices were outweighed in the court’s view by the religious freedom of extremists to avoid the absurdly tenuous link between their payment of some dollars to an insurance company that might pay other dollars to a pharmacy or doctor that then provides birth control pills or devices to their worker in her off duty hours.
Of course, insurance companies don’t earmark their dollars – money rolls in, money rolls out. Dollars are fungible. No one could track Hobby Lobby’s premiums to Emily Employee’s IUD. Hobby Lobby’s money paid to Big Health Insurance Company after this decision, for coverage without contraception, goes into the insurance company’s general fund, out of which comes insurance payments for whatever is needed, including contraception for all the other companies who include that coverage for their employees.
In the name of religious freedom, thousands of Hobby Lobby employees and their dependents lose access to safe, effective, important forms of birth control, so that Hobby Lobby’s owners can rest easy that their money isn’t paying for contraception. Except – oops — they are still funding the same insurance companies who do provide contraception to others. So, allowing Hobby Lobby to opt out to assuage its religious conscience plays along with a fiction, and is a groundbreaking prioritization of hypertechnical and nonsensical religious freedom over the rights of real women.
New rule #2: For-profit companies are persons entitled to religious freedom
Equally disturbing is the second radical aspect of the Hobby Lobby ruling: establishing for the first time in U.S. history a right to religious freedom not for flesh-and-blood humans (the kind who get pregnant, for example), but for corporations.
Because remember, corporations are people too now, since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and a now-growing body of dangerous Supreme Court precedent extending rights to these powerful entities – rights previously reserved for actual people.
Corporations are legal fictions that provide business owners protection for their personal assets. That’s why Hobby Lobby, which employs thousands of people, is a corporation. For-profit corporations are legally required to do everything they can to maximize the profits of the company, their raison d’etre. Board members who act out of other motives are breaching their fiduciary duties and can be removed on this ground alone.
Corporations exist for decent reasons. I myself operate my law firm as an LLC to protect myself. But let’s not pretend that these artificial beings are people. They are in it for the money. Explicitly. Solely. That businesspeople may do good things with their money is nice but irrelevant.
As ridiculous as the holding was in Citizens United – corporations get to make virtually unlimited campaign contributions because they’re people expressing free speech! – it’s even more insane in the Hobby Lobby birth control context. Corporations don’t vote, and as they are soulless, they don’t go to church, mosque or synagogue. Allowing corporations to opt out of general laws based on religious extremism is downright scary.
Can Chik-fil-A claim an exemption from employment discrimination laws and fire LGBT employees? Can a company refuse to hire those who don’t, like its owners, keep the Sabbath holy? May Jehovah’s witnesses ask that their corporation not pay for blood transfusions? May Christian Scientists opt out of health insurance premiums that cover vaccinations?
For now, the majority says no, insisting that its ruling applies “only” to contraceptives (as if birth control was a frill, a luxury). But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues in her powerful dissent, its reasoning is broad enough to give ground to advocates for these positions, who are surely writing their legal briefs as you read this.
Even if the ruling was limited to birth control, where does that end? May Hobby Lobby fire an employee who uses money from her paycheck to buy an IUD? Refuse to hire women of childbearing age altogether to avoid the possibility that Hobby Lobby wages will buy Plan B? Make employees sign a pledge that they’ll spend their wages in accordance with fundamentalist principles? Under the Court’s reasoning, which bends over backwards to protect Hobby Lobby from any conceivable use of its dollars from going through any channels that end with birth control, why wouldn’t these be next?
The Hobby Lobby decision misses entirely an important reason why for-profit companies should not have religious rights: because they are far more powerful than their employees. Having represented employees against employers for nearly three decades, I can tell you it is a rare, brave worker who sues her company. Most put up with violations of their rights for months or years, afraid to make waves and risk losing their paycheck.
Many employers, emboldened by Hobby Lobby, will now impose their religious beliefs or practices on their workers, few of whom will complain. Every company can now “get religion” and wreak havoc on laws that have traditionally been opposed by religious groups, like civil rights laws. Do not doubt that many will try.
Finally, don’t be fooled by those who say the ruling is narrow because it only applies to closely held corporations. According to Mother Jones, “this 5-4 ruling applies to about 90 percent of all American businesses, and 52 percent of America’s workforce.” So far 71 other companies filed cases similar to Hobby Lobby’s, with 46 still pending.
Lifelong women’s rights advocate Justice Ginsburg correctly called the Hobby Lobby opinion a “decision of startling breadth.” Ginsburg pointed out that enormous companies like candy maker Mars Inc., with its 70,000 employees, qualifies as closely held. Even family-owned Walmart Inc., with its 1.3 million employees, the third largest employer in the country, would qualify.
New rule #3: Merely signing a form on the subject of contraception violates a college’s religious freedom
If there was any doubt about the wide reach of Hobby Lobby, the far less publicized but even more absurdist Supreme Court case involving Wheaton College a few days later clarifies how far the Court will now go to exalt extremists over women.
Wheaton, a Protestant school already given a pass from paying for health insurance that includes birth control coverage – the Affordable Care Act exempts churches and nonprofits from the contraception mandate – objected to signing a form that expressed its religious objections to complying with the contraception mandate.
Why would filling out a two page statement like this be a problem? Because, the school argued, that would enable a third party, like the insurance company or the government, to step in and provide the contraceptive coverage, which is the point of the form. We’re not paying for birth control and no one else should either!
Astoundingly, the Supreme Court, at least for now, blessed that argument and issued a rare emergency temporary injunction, pending the Court’s full review of the case, sparing Wheaton from what the school claims is an intolerable infringement on religious freedom – putting pen to paper to disclose its position.
In Hobby Lobby, the majority insisted that women working for religious employers could still obtain contraceptive coverage through workarounds like this – no harm, no foul! A little extra work for women, perhaps, but they’ll still get their birth control! Everyone wins.
By the end of the week, the Wheaton injunction demonstrated that this very workaround was considered to be so offensive to the delicate sensibilities of religious fundamentalists that it warranted extraordinary relief. “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe that they can take us at our word,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the dissent. “Not so today.”
The monster of Hobby Lobby is already on the loose, busting out of the shackles its authors swore just a few days before would contain it. We so often worry about extremism abroad, but our own homegrown religious fundamentalists now have authorization from our highest court to deny women coverage for basic health services that profoundly affect our lives.
Historically, mainstream organized religion has opposed nearly every advance for women’s rights, from suffrage to workplace equality to birth control. Clearly, that fight continues now, well into the twenty-first century.
All three female justices vigorously dissented to the rulings in both the Hobby Lobby and Wheaton cases.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Avvo.
This article originally appeared in The Huffington Post on July 7, 2014 and is republished here with the author’s permission.
Photo credit: Dan Holm / Shutterstock.com
53 comments
spidersareyourfriend
Most of these comments are appalling and absolutely terrifying in their lack of medical knowledge or basic logic. Yes, for most of us, sex is optional. However, so is water skiing. That doesn't mean that if I get a head or spinal injury while water skiing that my insurance gets to deny me coverage of treatment. Many athletes wind up with repetitive strain injuries, but that doesn't mean their insurance companies should be allowed to deny them coverage because they didn't HAVE to play baseball. In all honesty, most of the things we do every day are optional to an extent. Should insurance companies only have to pay for those injuries which occur when somebody is sitting in their own home doing absolutely nothing (but even then if they end up with diabetes their treatment wouldn't be covered because they didn't "have to" sit in the house all the time). Also, sex isn't always "optional." There's this thing called rape. And the morning after pill (which is completely different from RU-486, BTW) is really the only easy way to prevent those pregnancies.
Also, birth control is relatively safe. Why move, for example, endometriosis patients to more dangerous treatments when we already know of safe and effective treatments that don’t cost insurance companies any more (and that in fact, probably cost them LESS since they’re safer)? I work in women's health research and it really hit me how ridiculous this is while editing the risks section of a consent form which stated that there are no common side effects for a progestin-based hormone therapy. I don't even know why anybody should every have to say this, but the best known treatments should be available to patients. Patients should not be forced to use more dangerous and subpar treatment when simple, safe, and effective treatments are available. Outside parties should not have a say in a patient’s treatment without that patient’s consent.
Also, birth control is much cheaper for insurance companies to cover than costs of pregnancy, its complications, childbirth and an entire life's worth of insurance for the resulting child. Without birth control, costs will go up and public health will go down.
Shasiti
Has anyone checked to see if men are being discriminated against as the women are? Are they paying for Cialis or Viagra for those aging employers who cannot "get it up anymore"? I bet they are paying for it!!
As a woman being discriminated against "no I am not an employee"
I WILL NEVER EVER shop at Hobby Lobby again and neither will any of my friends or family. I put this out to as many people as I could. They are rich enough ladies do not make them richer. So Hobby Lobby has the right to discriminate against women, we also have the right to use any portion of or health insurance. If the Justices are going to support their "Religious Freedoms" then they also have to support "Women's rights in the work place".
BOYCOTT LADIES BOYCOTT !!!!!!
Liz
John, I am curious what rights you are referring to specifically when you comment that women have MORE rights than men?
Liz
I love how a vast majority of these comments are posted by men. Your strongest claim is that sex is an option so therefore just abstain? I would find it extremely unlikely that this an option you would readily chose for yourself. What very few of the commentators to this article, and admittedly the article itself, are all missing is an objective view of either side of this issue. The argument that this company will pay for other forms of birth control can not be ignored. The fact that these women can get another job is another argument, though considerably less effective, as many of these women are living paycheck to paycheck. I have a graduate degree and I still wouldn't risk leaving my job at this point in my life. The issue really has little to do with this company, or the issue of birth control. The concern that I have is what doors have now been opened? What needs to be understood is how rulings are made in our judicial system, the precedent that has been established here is truly alarming. Big business, the wealthy few, with pockets deep enough to persuade in Washington, and the FDA (Monsanto crisis) and now the precedent to take what little the middle class has left... A semblance of control over our own situations in life, the dollars in our pockets and our bodies.
A consideration needs to be taken into account for the babies that may come to fruition because of this ruling as well; if these women are working in minimum wage positions, let's consider who will likely be paying for this child. The father? The mother? Perhaps, but in all reality this financial burden will likely fall to those of us struggling in the middle class as she becomes part of a stereotype... One she likely would have preferred to avoid. But hey... Maybe she should have thought of abstinence. There is certainly no faulty logic there (please note the sarcasm).Nice work boys.
John
It's step up for Religious Freedom and putting women back in a "equality zone". The reality is Women have MORE rights and privileges then men. Women may have been treated poorly a long time ago, but i had nothing to do with that. Why should men from today's era be punished for men in the past.
dave c
Hobby Lobby only objected to fewer than six birth control choices, all of which abort fetuses, they had no objection to and willingly pay for dozens of other birth control options. And that's after we move past the state forcing an employer to provide free birth control in the first place.
Angie
The author works at NBC. That automatically disqualifies her argument.
Cabezon hueca
I'll pay for your birth control when you pay for my ammo.
timmer1001
Oh man. My eyes hurt after the first "rule" way too much rambling and desparate attempts to connect dots that dont need to be connected. You are missing a fundemental point and that is "individual responsibility" the woman having sex is presumably enjoying it. Why should her employer pay for the unintented consequences of her pleasure? Have sex, enjoy it and pay for the damages/ consequences yourself
Can you imagine my employer's response if i need a new headboard paid for by him because i had a great night last night?
Josh R
How can you just completely disregard personal responsibility. Do you believe in cause and affect? I love how this mentality of making decisions that could have an unplanned or undesired outcome is the fault of others. This had perpetuated across the world and kids today are now unfortunately brought up with this mindset. "It's ok, if you make a bad choice it's somebody else's fault or we will take care of that for you. " "This is unfair and I think you should have sex all day with whoever you want and when you still don't use the free birth control we give you...well we will open 24/7 abortion shops to take care of this bad card you have been given. How dare this situation happen and I know just who to blame."
I am a Catholic who disagrees with some of the elements of the church and their stance on birth control. I am not a fan of the affordable healthcare act amd typically side with - if you dont like it work or shop somewhere else. So, even if I was to give your side of the argument on contraceptives...please, please, please recognize that at some point in time we all have to be held accountable for our own decisions. I am fortunate to have been brought up with the belief that introspection is an important thing. I hope we can teach this to folks who are having "unplanned" pregnancies. One thing for certain is that well educated and articulate individuals like you do so much more harm by these kind of articles. This is lined with some good content but is ruined by peretuating the "it's ok, not your fault, someone else will get the blame and fix it for you." You are part of the in thing which is making this emotional and altruistuc argument that no matter what we do their is plausible justification for it. Even worse the justification is blaming someone else for your actions. Let's approach it from a common sense side instead of telling pepole their bad decisions are ok. Thank you
Dave
First of all, nobody is denying any woman the right to use any form of birth control and you certainly know it. You want to use it, go ahead and buy it yourself. And to say that birth control is vital to women's health is at least a stretch and more appropriately redicilous. And if you don't like the pay, benefits, location, or even the name of a company - GO WORK FOR ANOTHRR COMPANY! What a silly position - you give women a bad rap.
Dale
"The simple general rule has always been that you are free to practice Protestantism or Wicca or Zoroastrianism or any belief of your choice, provided your religious practice does not harm others. "
The key point of your statement is " provided your religious practice does NOT harm others." Isn't killing a fertilized egg harming another? If abortion is a part of your religious belief then by your definition you shouldn't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision.
James
Wow, how perplexing. The premise to her argument is insane and I am by all accounts a degree dumber for reading het argument that somehow I as a axpayer owe her anything...pay for her promiscuity, if she cant afford a condom, Abstain from sex! Does she not realize that her premise rests on self control, her arguments are stupid, she profers that all women are stupid, and I am stupid for reading her poorly worded, poorly thought out, dribble.
On a side note. Creek Indian definition of " Vegan"....." poor hunter"
Psypaul
This article is so full of half-truths and misleading statements. I'm glad to see most commenters caught this. Can't believe CNN published it. Stunning, really.
Jason
Liberal women are pissed because they can no longer rely on others to accept responsibility for them. They want to be able to play Russian roulette with their body at the taxpayer expense. Why is it we don't hear these arguments--as suggested above in the article--from conservative women? Oh, it's because they accept responsibility for their actions. Whiny-entitled liberals, exercise your right to work elsewhere if you don't like your healthcare. I'm sure there's plenty of jobs out there created by your liberal master.
Jason
Did a lawyer write this? "The United States has one of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the world, partly because we don't have standardized universal health care"? Really? So, not having universal health care causes unplanned pregnancies? That's your logic, that's your implication? I sure hope you don't practice law, much less safe sex! Here's a novel idea...just say No or visit aisle 2 where all the contraceptives are located. It's you vagina--you have every right to protect it with your own money. Stop with the incessant emotional need to have your private parts made America business.
Have a great day!
Paul
I 'DON'T want the taxes I pay to the Federal
Government used to pay for someone else's
Mistakes that needs to be responsible for themselves.
It has nothing to do with women's rights.
Women still have a right to any form of
Abortion as long as they
PAY for their mistake.
Ladies, loosely speaking, keep yor pants on
amd think before you act.
Walt
Yet another libtard not letting facts or the constitution get in the way of her opinion. (I love when they call others "radical"...) Great read to start my morning.
Zachary
I'm so tired of liberal dribble. Abortion is murder, that's it, case closed. 11 million people killed by the Nazis in WW2 and 55 million babies killed since roe vs. Wade. That makes liberals 5 times as bad as Nazis... And counting.....
Phil
Wow, where did this reporter come from? The morning after pill is medical abortion...which is used as such and abused by the unisured American female population who visit local health clinics, funded by our tax dollars, to obtain these pills as well as the IUD. The Supreme Court has finally ruled in favor of the working middle class, so that we are not required to provide contraceptive measures for female employees, I.e. ius, morning after pills.
And onto the argument overall, when does is become constitutionally viable that working Americans are forced to pay even more for health insurance so that ALL who reside in these great States of America can have access to health insurance. Thank you Obamacare for demanding more out of my paycheck to pay for others neglect to work and get free health coverage.
mary
I dont want to hear any of you complaining when your husband runs off with another woman because she will have sex with him. You say you have two kids so your husband doesnt get anything anymore? ?? Right as the other comment suggested above since when does hobby lobby as a corporation have religious freedom but the employees do not? More women suffer from other problems that only an IUD or birth control can fix and you all are jerks for not trying to even understand.
Gage
I thought this article was a parody of sorts...this woman is serious!! Hahaha! I just wasted 5 minutes of my life, that I will NEVER get back. Little by little people are losing their minds believing crap like this ...must Americans agree, the Hobby Lobby decision was a victory...albeit a small one. Personal responsibility is all but lost in this dark mist called liberalism.
Mike t
Stretchbthevtruth much? If a wonan wants an abortion, she can pay for it her self. Women still have the right to employer based birth control. Why are leftists such liars?
robert berger
Obama breaks all the laws he does not want to in force
Jay
This article is incorrect. The female employees have all options. The ruling makes the gov. must support or furnish the 3 options that hobby lobby objected to. Get your facts straight commi.
ron coleman
Native Americans can ingest peyote as part of their religion.
Self-employed Amish do not pay social security tax.
Shawn
To me the simple and smart decision would be not to engage in sexual intercourse without a form of contraception or not to have sexual intercourse. This solves the problem and shows you are responsible for your actions.
I must also state, as part of this discussion, I believe no has the right to take the life of another individual unless it is the only option left to persevere life. Even in that situation I still have moral conflicts. That is why I oppose all forms of abortion because I believe life begins at conception (in vivo and in vitro) when the two strands of DNA (one male + one female) combine and the "cell" starts to divide and differentiate. Of course, many do not believe this because they claim other cells can divide and differentiate. However, they forget the difference is no other cell in the body can combine with another's DNA and produce "a person". Just because other cells in the body do similar processes does not invalidate the concept of life at conception.
Dr. SC
Just another example of certain individuals (mostly liberals) who want to accept NO responsibility for their actions by claiming it is their "Right", when in truth, it is a CHOICE. Everyone's Rights in this country (USA) are defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
How inane can anyone be to seriously believe that they have the "Right" to make their employer financial responsible for a means to correct what they obviously consider a mistake, because of a conscious decision they made to engage in an activity that may result in a situation that conflicts with their current lifestyle. Next they will want their employer to covered the cost of an attorney for a divorce, in case their marriage falls apart.
Torpedo
If the informationbis accurate, Hobby Lobby is allowed not to offer 4/16 options of birth control, so they are still offering birth control we should stop wining and pick from the other 12. Since its a benefit, then consider this when accepting a job like any other benefit.
LSCa
Just another example of certain individuals (liberals) who want to accept no responsibility for their actions by claiming it is their "Right", when in truth, it is a CHOICE.
One of the biggest problems with liberals is that they believe they know what is best for everyone. In addition, anyone who disagrees is doing so purely out of hate for their particular "group" and not because of an intellectual or philosophical difference.
Melissa Yackley
The author of this article must be a Liberal.
Jeremy
YOU'RE AN IDIOT...
David
I'm saddened for people misled by one of the most evil religious practice of sacrificing children to the god of this earth.
Keep drinking your fluoride, taking your SSRI's and eating your GMO's so you won't feel the guilt.
Larry Rogers
Great to see that few people are buying this poor attempt to push the liberal agenda on espn readers. The Hobby Lobby case is one of the few victories our constitutional republic has had against this leftist administration hell bent on collapsing this government from within.
Lisa
I'm still trying to figure out how the Supreme Court ruling tramples on women's rights. As was elequently stated previously, since when should one person's rights trump another? When it comes to freedom of speech, companies have the same rights as individuals. Hobby Lobby's religious freedom should not be legislated away. Isn't this one of the founding principles of our great nation? For heaven's sake, the employees have only four birth control options that the company won't pay. The employes have 16 other paid options. It isn't like these employees are prevented from paying for these birth control options themselves. Forcing a person to pay for someone else's birth control when it is against that person's moral conviction, is the epitomical trampling of an individual's rights. Don't take my freedom of religion any more lightly than your freedom of birth control. I don't ask you to pay for mine.
leeway
Shocked and pleasantly surprised by all the logical comments for this pathetic article.
Sick of grown adults who have jobs but very little self control, expecting us to pay for their mistakes. Take care of yourself babe. If you can't do that, marry someone who will. And get off the dole.
Stephanie
You stated that people do not have a right to impose their religion on you. Well, what makes the double standard acceptable? Birth control shouldn't be the issue here. The real issues should be helping families, not just single struggling moms, with things like better paid maternity leave. Women struggle with the burden of leaving our precious children at 6 weeks old with strangers so we do not have to sacrifice our careers when our neighbors to the north take up bread making because they need to find things to occupy their 50 week maternity leave. Canadian and other world leaders know it's more important to focus on building families up and we just can't seem to get that.
lori
By the way, from my understanding Hobby Lobby DOES pay for about 16 different kinds of birth control!
lori
I am a married woman, after stating this I will say there is a real SIMPLE solution to this problem that would save the government, taxpayers, etc. millions if not more, money! If you do not want a pregnancy.....do not have sex! Same way...if you do not want lung cancer, do not smoke! This is easy. I personally was told I had to have an abortion to save my life. I refused because I did not believe in it. Today I have two beautiful children (twins) who are 34 years old, with 3 of the most loving grandchildren because of my decision. I think of what I would have missed had I listened to the doctors at the time. I am so THANKFUL I did not have the abortion!
Beth Edge
OMG!! Of course, a guy that can't get pregnant would tell a woman just pay for it yourself. Health insurance is a way of paying for it. My taxes go to pay the child support that most guys won't pay. So leave my birth control alone.
cbm
More liberal drivel trying to be passed off as basic US law.
If a woman decides to freely engage in behavior that will result in pregnancy she has the power and freedom to set the terms that will prevent a pregnancy.
Liberals always trot out rape as justification for abortion when the truth is pregnancies produced by rape are rare and, by the way, rape is already a CRIME!!
David
I am tired of people talking about rights .. What makes one persons rights more important over another persons rights.. Women's rights vs freedom of speech vs religious rights.. I'm actually debating is this a woman's rights issue and not a "Woman's Choice" issue. I mean when has the availability of medical covered contraceptives forced it's way up there with previous bouts for equal pay equal consideration for jobs or the past battles of voting rights and so on. Now if a woman cannot get the morning after pill covered by her PPO it's all of a sudden a woman's rights issue. I'm lost. All this court litigation and time being spent on dumb pointless inquiries. I'm tired of it someone please tell me what makes one person or set of people rights more more important than another's rights and freedoms which are both in the constitution.
But for the love of God please stop saying women's rights. Having sex is a choice not a right having protected or unprotected sex is a choice not a right go to the grocery store and look at all the choices of contraceptives they have. Maybe that should be covered on my PPO to? These groups that recently came to tear down all things Christian don't EVER recognize that these people/organizations have rights also. Here is the last CHOICE I'll leave you with if the fact that your company does not provide you medical coverage for birth control then get another job.
The author does some writing on a very slippery slope to make a point. The whole tirade of refusing treatment to a dying baby or smoking illegal drugs or tax evasion. Those points don't prove your stance because sex is a choice it's not a right like the right to live or illegal like drugs or tax evasion.
Dr. Brian Tyson
This is simply false information. Hobby Lobby has provided the ability for all employees to seek healthcare. There are plenty of birth control options on their plan. An employer who is providing its employees healthcare options certainly has the right to choose what drugs are covered and not covered as long their are options available. In most insurance plans that referred to as Formulary and non-formulary. Patients can pay for non-formulary drugs or chose the drug that is covered. Get your facts from the source and not propaganda stories that are dividing this county.
J Andrews
This is a win in my book. My wife and I were done having kids and decided the best way to prevent was by me getting a vasectomy. Guess what...this was not covered by my insurance. But I did it anyway. Yes, I used my own money. Wow!! It was not inexpensive by the way! In my opinion the fewer things the government can MAKE us do the better! And still no mention of the harm done to an unborn/unplanned child is evident in this article. No choice has been forfeited anyone in this ruling but better still freedom has won.
chad
It's not your "right" to require an employer to pay for your health insurance, much less birth control or abortions. That's not in the Constitution. Stop imaging that what you "want" (and "feel" someone else should pay for) is a " right."
chad
The entire premise of this article is faulty (and embarrassingly uninformed).
There are 20 types of birth control, hobby lobby objected to 4 of them which kill a fetus after conception. They still provide the other 16. And it's a setback for women's right if they can't force their employer to pay for all 20?
Thanks author, for parroting others who are also uninformed - - or who are, but choose to misrepresent the facts in a way that pushes their political agenda.
At least I know now that it's not worth coming back to this site for intelligent articles.
Gman
Hobby lobby has up to the "affordable" care act paid for 16 different birth control options and still would now.
Why is freedom to have something means other people have to pay for it? If you can't afford the consequences of sex then don't engage in this behavior. Be an adult and take care of yourself. Don't justify ending life for your convenience and don't ask others to pay your way.
Alison
People also have the right to choose where they work. If you don't like the benefits offered (if they don't pay for birth control, or your doctor is out of network), then you may choose to work somewhere else or buy your own private health care policy. That's why its called a "benefit", not "a completely comprehensive health care policy at no cost to you".
I understand that jobs are not plentiful, which of course limits our choices. Still, that does not make it the responsibility of employers to pay for all things health care related.
Bobby stewart
As the libtards now say about obummer care:: it the law now!!!!!! So its the law now...snap out of it!!!!!!
Dan
Zech, problem is the arguments can go even further to where the job can determine if they pay for specific things, much like insurance companies do today.. Insurance companies are more about the costs, where some companies have a side-business of controlling their employees. If I worked for Target, and something happened to me at Walmart, should me company insurance plan cover me? I wouldn't want to give them that decision.
Cris
It would be two males who don't see the bigger picture. Does the average American woman have $1200 laying around? No, but that is the safest and one of the most reliable form of contraception that is not covered. The IUD. I'm sure you would feel differently if you had to have an emergency operation to save your life and discovered that because of your employer's religious objections you could not receive treatment unless you could pay for it out of your own pocket, but maybe you have an extra $50,000 laying around "just in case" the courts decide to trample on more of our rights. This is a dangerous road directly downhill.
paul
So if the contraceptive is not free, then it's against women's rights? Their right to purchase their choice of contraception has not been taken away.
Zech
Why don't you just pay for your own birth control!? Any company that wants to opt out should be slowed to do so and I, being a tax payer shouldn't have to foot the bill! Take care of your own. Quit relying on others because you coose to make poor choices!