http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/06/30/justices-can-make-employers-cover-contraception/wQJYhgQf3Jg5e4x5HXeLmM/story.html
That's right, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. So not only are they not required to provide affordable birth control and abortion options under federally mandated ACA, this just opened a can of worms for other religious exemptions. Like, I dunno, vaccinations.
We're all gonna have lots of babies and then die of Smallpox, thanks to Jesus.
Fuck this country.
I was really hoping the buffer zone one was a sacrifice so they would rule correctly on this :(
The last few SJC rulings have made me very sad.
I just kind of want to go outside and scream right now.
In fact, I think I will.
Ginsburg hits the nail on the head, as she usually does.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision
I am amaze.
Question, in America what are the laws regarding time off for pregnancy and similar?
I'm just wondering because in the UK, even though we have a national health service, we also have rules that mean companies above a certain size contribute significantly towards paid leave for new mothers, which is not exactly small fry. So if we had an American health system otherwise, it'd still be in their best interests to cover birth control and abortion costs, as so not to lose valuable female workers.
I realise the Vatican, one of the main supporters of this ruling, does not see things this way, viewing women as mostly disposable idiots to be tolerated so long as they are in a nunnery and otherwise avoided because they have cooties. And of course the American welfare system is a lot smaller than the UK's, so the main loss is of the worker themselves, and depending on the industry they may be viewed as quite replaceable.
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
Question, in America what are the laws regarding time off for pregnancy and similar?
We have none.
Free contraception to me just sounded something from fantasy land, and here we are. :|
This is more than just about women's reproductive rights, this allows any corporation to use religion as an exemption as they see fit. You work for a Scientologist? Get ready for some fucked up healthcare that involves taking vitamins and going for walks 3x a day from your cell in Clearwater, because that's what their religion mandates. You work for a Christian Scientist? No doctors at all. Faith will heal you. You work for a Jehovah's Witness? No blood transfusions. You work for a Jew or Muslim? Certain medications contain gelatin derived from pork.
Oh, and then there's going to be vaccinations.
This is just opened a can of worms that we should not even have. Corporations now have the right to wave "religious liberty" in the face of any employee and they have to bend over and take it. God has been placed on a pedestal above human rights. Welcome to the Dark Ages, in corporate theocracy form.
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
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:
Quote from: WikipediaFederal 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
It goes with the tendency of allowing to discriminate customerd due to religious beliefs... where was that?
Huh.
Still, as an employer, I'd rather not have an employee off work because they couldn't get coverage for contraception or an abortion where possible. I mean, you have to advertise, train somebody up...and it's all for 12 weeks anyway. The cost/benefit suggests a loss, regardless.
I know, though. The Free Market does not run on rationality. It runs on some kind of Ayn Rand-ised bastard A=A bullshit magical formula calling itself rationality.
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
Question, in America what are the laws regarding time off for pregnancy and similar?
We have none.
Balls. FMLA.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 30, 2014, 04:43:03 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 30, 2014, 04:44:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 30, 2014, 04:43:03 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
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.
Facebook friend made a hell of a point:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 05:36:06 PM
Facebook friend made a hell of a point:
QuoteThe 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.
And this is interesting. Ginsberg's opinion linked to a Forbes list of the largest "closely-held" corporations...
QuoteShe 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/
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on June 30, 2014, 05:52:36 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 05:36:06 PM
Facebook friend made a hell of a point:
QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
(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.
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.
Quote from: PopeTom on June 30, 2014, 07:56:12 PM
Quote from: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
(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?
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 30, 2014, 07:56:12 PM
Quote from: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
(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.
The current system of income tax with holding violates Sharia prohibitions against usury.
Then there's California's ban on bareback porn...
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.
Quote from: PopeTom on June 30, 2014, 09:12:44 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 30, 2014, 07:56:12 PM
Quote from: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
(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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 30, 2014, 04:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
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:
Quote from: WikipediaFederal 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?
Quote from: Faust on June 30, 2014, 10:05:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 30, 2014, 04:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
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:
Quote from: WikipediaFederal 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?
It can happen, especially if it's a low wage job like serving or retail.
QuoteAt least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
States have already been wrangling with this for awhile, now. Given that I know for certain that Hobby Lobby has a store in Massachusetts, and likely have locations in other states which do require they cover any FDA approved contraceptive, they will likely have to have multiple plans, one which DOES cover birth control, and one which doesn't. This will likely increase their costs.
Quote from: Faust on June 30, 2014, 10:05:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 30, 2014, 04:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 30, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 30, 2014, 04:01:32 PM
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:
Quote from: WikipediaFederal 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?
YEP.
Quote from: Luna on June 30, 2014, 11:54:01 PM
QuoteAt least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
States have already been wrangling with this for awhile, now. Given that I know for certain that Hobby Lobby has a store in Massachusetts, and likely have locations in other states which do require they cover any FDA approved contraceptive, they will likely have to have multiple plans, one which DOES cover birth control, and one which doesn't. This will likely increase their costs.
Rhode Island has a store in Warwick, they're never busy, because, well, Rhode Island has the least amount of God anywhere thanks to the colonial charter (THANKS ROGER WILLIAMS!). New Hampshire, as far as I know so far, does not. It doesn't seem like a store that would be welcome here, even up in the parts that think they're Texas. You do not fuck with people's rights in New England. The last guy that did that ended up losing 13 colonies and got sent packing across the ocean.
However, as I brought up before, Marbury VS Madison, whatever is upheld in SCOTUS immediately effects the sovereignty of the states and the states must oblige. If not, Rhode Island could, in theory, turn around and throw Hobby Lobby back to whatever fucking flyover state they came from for violating their state constitution, and they should have done it BEFORE this shit went down, instead of focusing on making calamari the official state appetizer.
I have decided that since businesses can now be protected under the Bill of Rights, that I wish to see Wal-Mart's well-regulated militia.
Quote from: The Suu on July 01, 2014, 02:08:14 AM
Quote from: Luna on June 30, 2014, 11:54:01 PM
QuoteAt least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
States have already been wrangling with this for awhile, now. Given that I know for certain that Hobby Lobby has a store in Massachusetts, and likely have locations in other states which do require they cover any FDA approved contraceptive, they will likely have to have multiple plans, one which DOES cover birth control, and one which doesn't. This will likely increase their costs.
Rhode Island has a store in Warwick, they're never busy, because, well, Rhode Island has the least amount of God anywhere thanks to the colonial charter (THANKS ROGER WILLIAMS!). New Hampshire, as far as I know so far, does not. It doesn't seem like a store that would be welcome here, even up in the parts that think they're Texas. You do not fuck with people's rights in New England. The last guy that did that ended up losing 13 colonies and got sent packing across the ocean.
However, as I brought up before, Marbury VS Madison, whatever is upheld in SCOTUS immediately effects the sovereignty of the states and the states must oblige. If not, Rhode Island could, in theory, turn around and throw Hobby Lobby back to whatever fucking flyover state they came from for violating their state constitution, and they should have done it BEFORE this shit went down, instead of focusing on making calamari the official state appetizer.
Since this was a statutory decision, not a Constitutional one, I don't think this automatically applies at the state level. The Constitution applies across all jurisdictions, but Federal statue only has jurisdiction in interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce still falls to the states. I think this would work like minimum wage--the Federal regulation says that no state can have a minimum wage below a certain level, but other subdivisions of government can implement a higher one if they choose.
Since federal statute (according to 5 power drunk assholes) apparently sets the minimum set of benes businesses have to offer their employees at a level which does not include BC if the company has a religious problem with sluts and the like, states/counties/cities should still be free to up that minimum to include BC as a requirement for operating within their jurisdiction.
...and at this point, I just pretty much :weary:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/)
Quote"Hobby Lobby provided this coverage before they decided to drop it to file suit, which was politically motivated," she said.
We can't determine if politics motivated the company, but we did wonder whether Hobby Lobby covered the types of birth control at issue in its lawsuit but dropped the coverage before filing its complaint.
The short answer: Yes.
FB is incredible. Look at this:
Quote from: Not One Of My FriendsJust like Citizens United, when the government over steps its bounds, there are unintended consequences that they either completely ignore or willfully omit. No Citizens United decision, no unlimited corporate spending. No ACA, no law suits over who pays for what or picking and choosing which pieces of the law will be followed and which will not. There is one single common denominator of all of this; an activist government. I'm as pro choice as they come, IN ALL aspects of the human condition, not just woman's issues....
and now Muslim business owners can essentially deny life saving heart valve replacements cause they are made from pigs. Mormons can reinstate their polygamy practices and on and on it goes. These are the unintended consequences of government intervention of which I speak. They do it over and over again, you'd think Americans would catch on by now, but no. They just move to the next issue du jour cause it's too hard to follow.
Businesses owned by the Houston Free Thinkers can send workers only to that "Quantum Touch" guy instead of the ER.
Oh, good. SCOTUS just announced that the ruling applies to all contraception, not just the ones mentioned in the case.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 01, 2014, 08:45:27 PM
Oh, good. SCOTUS just announced that the ruling applies to all contraception, not just the ones mentioned in the case.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly
Because why wait?
Fucking shit on a shingle. I love being a slutty woman in America that takes slut pills.
What's going through my head is, "this is what you get when you decide not to aim for single-payer healthcare."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 01, 2014, 09:05:20 PM
What's going through my head is, "this is what you get when you decide not to aim for single-payer healthcare."
There are so many, many "when you...." that could go at the end of that "this is what you get."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 01, 2014, 06:20:42 PM
FB is incredible. Look at this:
Quote from: Not One Of My FriendsJust like Citizens United, when the government over steps its bounds, there are unintended consequences that they either completely ignore or willfully omit. No Citizens United decision, no unlimited corporate spending. No ACA, no law suits over who pays for what or picking and choosing which pieces of the law will be followed and which will not. There is one single common denominator of all of this; an activist government. I'm as pro choice as they come, IN ALL aspects of the human condition, not just woman's issues....
and now Muslim business owners can essentially deny life saving heart valve replacements cause they are made from pigs. Mormons can reinstate their polygamy practices and on and on it goes. These are the unintended consequences of government intervention of which I speak. They do it over and over again, you'd think Americans would catch on by now, but no. They just move to the next issue du jour cause it's too hard to follow.
Yeah, it's totally government intervention that did this, because deciding not to regulate something is exactly the same as government interference.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 01, 2014, 05:26:13 PM
Quote from: The Suu on July 01, 2014, 02:08:14 AM
Quote from: Luna on June 30, 2014, 11:54:01 PM
QuoteAt least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
States have already been wrangling with this for awhile, now. Given that I know for certain that Hobby Lobby has a store in Massachusetts, and likely have locations in other states which do require they cover any FDA approved contraceptive, they will likely have to have multiple plans, one which DOES cover birth control, and one which doesn't. This will likely increase their costs.
Rhode Island has a store in Warwick, they're never busy, because, well, Rhode Island has the least amount of God anywhere thanks to the colonial charter (THANKS ROGER WILLIAMS!). New Hampshire, as far as I know so far, does not. It doesn't seem like a store that would be welcome here, even up in the parts that think they're Texas. You do not fuck with people's rights in New England. The last guy that did that ended up losing 13 colonies and got sent packing across the ocean.
However, as I brought up before, Marbury VS Madison, whatever is upheld in SCOTUS immediately effects the sovereignty of the states and the states must oblige. If not, Rhode Island could, in theory, turn around and throw Hobby Lobby back to whatever fucking flyover state they came from for violating their state constitution, and they should have done it BEFORE this shit went down, instead of focusing on making calamari the official state appetizer.
Since this was a statutory decision, not a Constitutional one, I don't think this automatically applies at the state level. The Constitution applies across all jurisdictions, but Federal statue only has jurisdiction in interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce still falls to the states. I think this would work like minimum wage--the Federal regulation says that no state can have a minimum wage below a certain level, but other subdivisions of government can implement a higher one if they choose.
Since federal statute (according to 5 power drunk assholes) apparently sets the minimum set of benes businesses have to offer their employees at a level which does not include BC if the company has a religious problem with sluts and the like, states/counties/cities should still be free to up that minimum to include BC as a requirement for operating within their jurisdiction.
Right, in other words this won't impact coverage in Oregon at all, but I imagine employees in Texas and Florida are fucked.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby
Quote
Our concern about an executive order without a religious exemption is about more than the direct financial impact on religious organizations. While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion on this issue in a way that respects the dignity of all parties to the best of our ability. There is no perfect solution that will make all parties completely happy.
I mean I realize it's just a letter to the POTUS and rather expected but I imagine a few of these righteous religious types have quite the jesus rager right now.
Because there is no slippery slope. Nope. SCOTUS covered their bases, and we won't have to worry about a thing. Just trust in corporations to not take it and run with a reason to discriminate, right? Right.
Yeah fucking right.
I'm trying to understand why exactly we still need to respect the *entire* diversity of opinions on these issues.
Isn't there a point where the accepted response to certain opinions is just "shut up"?
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on July 02, 2014, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 01, 2014, 05:26:13 PM
Quote from: The Suu on July 01, 2014, 02:08:14 AM
Quote from: Luna on June 30, 2014, 11:54:01 PM
QuoteAt least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
States have already been wrangling with this for awhile, now. Given that I know for certain that Hobby Lobby has a store in Massachusetts, and likely have locations in other states which do require they cover any FDA approved contraceptive, they will likely have to have multiple plans, one which DOES cover birth control, and one which doesn't. This will likely increase their costs.
Rhode Island has a store in Warwick, they're never busy, because, well, Rhode Island has the least amount of God anywhere thanks to the colonial charter (THANKS ROGER WILLIAMS!). New Hampshire, as far as I know so far, does not. It doesn't seem like a store that would be welcome here, even up in the parts that think they're Texas. You do not fuck with people's rights in New England. The last guy that did that ended up losing 13 colonies and got sent packing across the ocean.
However, as I brought up before, Marbury VS Madison, whatever is upheld in SCOTUS immediately effects the sovereignty of the states and the states must oblige. If not, Rhode Island could, in theory, turn around and throw Hobby Lobby back to whatever fucking flyover state they came from for violating their state constitution, and they should have done it BEFORE this shit went down, instead of focusing on making calamari the official state appetizer.
Since this was a statutory decision, not a Constitutional one, I don't think this automatically applies at the state level. The Constitution applies across all jurisdictions, but Federal statue only has jurisdiction in interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce still falls to the states. I think this would work like minimum wage--the Federal regulation says that no state can have a minimum wage below a certain level, but other subdivisions of government can implement a higher one if they choose.
Since federal statute (according to 5 power drunk assholes) apparently sets the minimum set of benes businesses have to offer their employees at a level which does not include BC if the company has a religious problem with sluts and the like, states/counties/cities should still be free to up that minimum to include BC as a requirement for operating within their jurisdiction.
Right, in other words this won't impact coverage in Oregon at all, but I imagine employees in Texas and Florida are fucked.
Reading through Zach's thread on FB, though, I'm realizing there are two separate issues. The employees entitlement to the benes, and the companies entitlement to it's free exercise. The bar could just as easily be set at allowing a state to allow more exemptions for the employer, but not fewer.
May just depend on who makes the first move? Many clusterfuck.
Supreme Court has stated that decision includes all birth control.
Religious groups already asking for exemptions which allow them to discriminate against LGBT people.
Yeah, this is going to go well.
Quote from: Luna on July 03, 2014, 11:40:57 AM
Supreme Court has stated that decision includes all birth control.
Religious groups already asking for exemptions which allow them to discriminate against LGBT people.
Yeah, this is going to go well.
But...but...but...FREEDOMS.
:dream:
Quote from: The Suu on July 03, 2014, 02:22:50 PM
Quote from: Luna on July 03, 2014, 11:40:57 AM
Supreme Court has stated that decision includes all birth control.
Religious groups already asking for exemptions which allow them to discriminate against LGBT people.
Yeah, this is going to go well.
But...but...but...FREEDOMS.
:dream:
You don't get freedoms. On the plus side, you're a Navywife, which gives you status, as soon as you're pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen making a sammich.
Quote from: Luna on July 04, 2014, 01:49:03 AM
Quote from: The Suu on July 03, 2014, 02:22:50 PM
Quote from: Luna on July 03, 2014, 11:40:57 AM
Supreme Court has stated that decision includes all birth control.
Religious groups already asking for exemptions which allow them to discriminate against LGBT people.
Yeah, this is going to go well.
But...but...but...FREEDOMS.
:dream:
You don't get freedoms. On the plus side, you're a Navywife, which gives you status, as soon as you're pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen making a sammich.
Nah, they don't want me procreating. No kidding, they gave me a paper bag full of birth control pills
on the taxpayer's dime with my coverage.
But it's different, because husband fights for Freedom Fries and Freedom Waffles. Everyone else doesn't deserve free* healthcare.
*Tricare actually isn't free. He pays for it.
Quote from: Luna on July 03, 2014, 11:40:57 AM
Supreme Court has stated that decision includes all birth control.
Religious groups already asking for exemptions which allow them to discriminate against LGBT people.
Yeah, this is going to go well.
Eden Foods, Inc, has announced that they will not allow BC/BS to cover ANY form of birth control.
Related:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem
QuoteThat separation is what legal and business scholars call the "corporate veil," and it's fundamental to the entire operation. Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it's in question. By letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.
"If religious shareholders can do it, why can't creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University, asked in an email.
That's a question raised by 44 other law professors, who filed a friends-of-the-court brief that implored the Court to reject Hobby Lobby's argument and hold the veil in place. Here's what they argued:
Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily foreseen.
This could get amusing entirely by accident. Guess it's going to be worth watching the next big corporate failure/closure quite closely to see what happens here.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 04, 2014, 11:50:23 AM
Related:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem
QuoteThat separation is what legal and business scholars call the "corporate veil," and it's fundamental to the entire operation. Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it's in question. By letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.
"If religious shareholders can do it, why can't creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University, asked in an email.
That's a question raised by 44 other law professors, who filed a friends-of-the-court brief that implored the Court to reject Hobby Lobby's argument and hold the veil in place. Here's what they argued:
Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily foreseen.
This could get amusing entirely by accident. Guess it's going to be worth watching the next big corporate failure/closure quite closely to see what happens here.
Churches can demand tithe from corporations as well. They should be forced to pay 10% of their income...watch personhood laws change really fucking fast.
"There isn't going to be a slippery slope!"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/wheaton_college_injunction_the_supreme_court_just_sneakily_reversed_itself.html
Womp. Womp. Womp.