Congrats, American women, you are now 2nd class citizens to Corporations!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Question, in America what are the laws regarding time off for pregnancy and similar?

We have none.

Balls.  FMLA.

True, but only applies under certain conditions.  see above wiki quote.

Yeah, okay.  Still not "none".  Obviously not up to the standards of the civilized world, of course.

[Suu]

Facebook friend made a hell of a point:

The Hobby Lobby suit was never over whether the employer had to offer its employees birth control. The answer to that has always been "No." If you are am employer and you don't want to offer health care at all, that's fine. (If you have a large company, that decision might cost you a penalty, but you were going to be paying -- for health care -- anyways.) Rather, the issue has been one of taxes. Since WWII, employers have offered employees health benefits, and under most circumstances that's earned the employer a tax incentive. The question is: can Hobby Lobby offer *partial* health coverage and call it health insurance and get those tax incentives. Until today, the answer was "No. If you want the tax break, you need to offer comprehensive coverage." That's no longer the case.

So, just to be clear. This ruling doesn't require employees to be Christian. Or to adhere to Christian beliefs. And HL might have backed out of offering health insurance entirely, so this isn't about whether employees have a right to contraception coverage. This is a question about taxes, and whether Hobby Lobby can get the benefits of offering health insurance to its employees while not covering products or procedures the owners don't like.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Facebook friend made a hell of a point:

The Hobby Lobby suit was never over whether the employer had to offer its employees birth control. The answer to that has always been "No." If you are am employer and you don't want to offer health care at all, that's fine. (If you have a large company, that decision might cost you a penalty, but you were going to be paying -- for health care -- anyways.) Rather, the issue has been one of taxes. Since WWII, employers have offered employees health benefits, and under most circumstances that's earned the employer a tax incentive. The question is: can Hobby Lobby offer *partial* health coverage and call it health insurance and get those tax incentives. Until today, the answer was "No. If you want the tax break, you need to offer comprehensive coverage." That's no longer the case.

So, just to be clear. This ruling doesn't require employees to be Christian. Or to adhere to Christian beliefs. And HL might have backed out of offering health insurance entirely, so this isn't about whether employees have a right to contraception coverage. This is a question about taxes, and whether Hobby Lobby can get the benefits of offering health insurance to its employees while not covering products or procedures the owners don't like.

Wow, that puts things in a different light altogether. So they can deny certain coverage they don't like while still reaping tax subsidies paid for by the very people they're denying coverage for.

[LMNO]

And this is interesting.  Ginsberg's opinion linked to a Forbes list of the largest "closely-held" corporations...

She cited in a footnote to this section a Forbes ranking of the largest closely held companies in the U.S., including family-owned candy giant Mars Inc., with 72,000 employees and $33 billion in revenue, and Cargill Inc., with 140,000 employees and $136 billion in revenue.

Koch Industries, which Ginsberg does not single out, is second on that list, with 60,000 employees and $115 billion in revenue.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/30/justice-ruth-bader-ginsberg-trolls-scalia-in-blistering-dissent-of-hobby-lobby-ruling/

[Suu]

Facebook friend made a hell of a point:

The Hobby Lobby suit was never over whether the employer had to offer its employees birth control. The answer to that has always been "No." If you are am employer and you don't want to offer health care at all, that's fine. (If you have a large company, that decision might cost you a penalty, but you were going to be paying -- for health care -- anyways.) Rather, the issue has been one of taxes. Since WWII, employers have offered employees health benefits, and under most circumstances that's earned the employer a tax incentive. The question is: can Hobby Lobby offer *partial* health coverage and call it health insurance and get those tax incentives. Until today, the answer was "No. If you want the tax break, you need to offer comprehensive coverage." That's no longer the case.

So, just to be clear. This ruling doesn't require employees to be Christian. Or to adhere to Christian beliefs. And HL might have backed out of offering health insurance entirely, so this isn't about whether employees have a right to contraception coverage. This is a question about taxes, and whether Hobby Lobby can get the benefits of offering health insurance to its employees while not covering products or procedures the owners don't like.

Wow, that puts things in a different light altogether. So they can deny certain coverage they don't like while still reaping tax subsidies paid for by the very people they're denying coverage for.

Yup yup yup! By using Jesus as a crutch for greed. Fucking irony.

[Suu]

I just thought of something else. I have no idea if it will work, though.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of practice and from oppression, as well a Congressional favoritism or lawmaking regarding religion. This does not grant separation of church and state on a national level, only the above forementioned rights. This is why Congress is allowed to open sessions with non-denominational prayer.

Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or expert by any stretch, but I'm a historian who may know a couple of odd facts. Let's jump to the 10th Amendment: sovereignty of states. Each state has the right to step in and do what they want in this ruling, to a point. Rhode Island is the only state in the entire United States that has absolute separation of church and state granted by King Charles in the 17th Century, and upheld in the state constitution. If Rhode Island was so inclined, they could go after the Hobby Lobby in Warwick in violation of their state constitution by allowing religion to mix with government mandated healthcare, which gets into the nasty grey area of freedom of practice versus total separation. The sovereignty of the state has to be obliged. If this is brought back before SCOTUS, and HL wins again, that could put corporate personhood above federalism.

Wow. Rhode Island needs to stop spending money on state appetizers and jump in the fire. This could be a game changer.



EDIT: NEVER MIND, MARBURY VERSUS MADISON. I AM AN IDIOT.

[Suu]

In other news, the Non-religious right doesn't seem to be thrilled with this. The usual shitnecks who I deal with on Facebook who seem to hate all the things Obamacare are actually up in arms about this and are apparently not the militant pro-life teatards I thought they were. I'm in shock.

[PopeTom]

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and
should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,
e.g.,for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily
fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

It only applies to the contraception issue.  Because like any good religious decision we should pick and chose what is followed, how far it is followed, and who it actually does and does not apply to.

[Cain]

Why should I have to pay for healthcare for witches who get stoned by decent, upstanding citizens?

It's an outrage really.  I am religiously and morally offended.

[Suu]

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and
should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,
e.g.,for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily
fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

It only applies to the contraception issue.  Because like any good religious decision we should pick and chose what is followed, how far it is followed, and who it actually does and does not apply to.

Yeah, but for how long? How many more cases is this going to bring up?

[PopeTom]

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and
should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,
e.g.,for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily
fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

It only applies to the contraception issue.  Because like any good religious decision we should pick and chose what is followed, how far it is followed, and who it actually does and does not apply to.

Yeah, but for how long? How many more cases is this going to bring up?

Hopefully not long.

It seems to me the men of the court who gave us this ruling were at least passably aware of what a can of worms it could open and that section is their desperate attempt to keep it closed.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

The current system of income tax with holding violates Sharia prohibitions against usury.

Then there's California's ban on bareback porn...

[PopeTom]

I should start a business based on the principles of the Church of Euthanasia (as interpreted by myself of course) and argue that the only medical procedures our insurance can cover is sterilization.

[Suu]

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and
should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,
e.g.,for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily
fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

It only applies to the contraception issue.  Because like any good religious decision we should pick and chose what is followed, how far it is followed, and who it actually does and does not apply to.

Yeah, but for how long? How many more cases is this going to bring up?

Hopefully not long.

It seems to me the men of the court who gave us this ruling were at least passably aware of what a can of worms it could open and that section is their desperate attempt to keep it closed.

Ginsburg doesn't think so, but this will be interesting to see.

[Faust]

Question, in America what are the laws regarding time off for pregnancy and similar?

We have none.

More or less, but there's a bit of nuance:

Federal legislation:
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, signed into law during President Bill Clinton's first term, guaranteed maternity leave to many new mothers across the nation. It mandated a maximum of 12 weeks unpaid leave to mothers for the purpose of attending to a newborn or newly adopted child. However, the act did not attain universal coverage as it included several limiting stipulations. In order to receive maternity leave, employees must work in a firm of 50 or more employees, maintain employment with the same business for 12 months and have accumulated at least 1,250 working hours over those 12 months.

State legislation:
Paid maternity leave by state
Many states have supplemented these federal regulations and provided more extensive maternity leave benefits. There are currently 25 states that expand upon federal legislation in some manner. Fourteen of these states, along with the District of Columbia, have addressed eligibility requirements by lowering the firm-size threshold from 50 or more employees down to as low as 10 employees.
Seven other states, in addition to the District of Columbia, have adopted more generous maternity leave lengths that allow longer absences for the purpose of child rearing. Moreover, some states have enacted legislation enhancing the benefits of leave programs. California, New Jersey and Washington, for instance, operate programs that require private-sector employers to pay their employees who utilize maternity leave at partial replacement rates. Similarly, three other states and the District of Columbia designate childbirth as a temporary disability thus guaranteeing mothers paid maternity leave through Disability Insurance (TDI) provisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_States

Fucking hell, and I thought Irelands six months paid leave was stingy. So do single mothers just lose there jobs there?