PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Women Raise Questions on Contraception Coverage




tod evans
03-26-2014, 06:04 AM
I look for businesses to stop hiring women who haven't gone through menopause as a simple solution to this dilemma...

From Drudge;

Supreme Court Women Raise Questions on Contraception Coverage

http://time.com/37055/supreme-court-women-dominate-arguments-on-contraception-coverage/


Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg aggressively questioned the corporate challengers who want exemptions from providing contraception under Obamacare at Tuesday's oral arguments. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties say the measure violates their religious freedoms

The three women of the Supreme Court dominated questioning at the beginning of Tuesday’s oral arguments in a case pitting religious business owners against the new health care reform law’s mandate that employer-provided insurance cover contraceptive care.

The court case will determine whether Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft store chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet company, can be exempted from providing contraception coverage to female employees through federally mandated health insurance policies.

Supreme Court proceedings make for notoriously difficult and unreliable predictors of how justices might rule on a case. That said, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasted no time in pressing the corporate challengers, according to the Wall Street Journal‘s live blog of the oral arguments.

Justice Sotomayor started by asking, if corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions? Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the challengers, said that contraception is different, because the government has already given an exemption to religious nonprofits. Justice Kagan then said that there are several medical treatments to which some religious groups object, and if corporations could object to providing coverage for those treatments, “everything would be piecemeal. Nothing would be uniform.”

Much of the challengers’ argument is centered on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which is aimed at preventing laws that substantially limit a person’s religious freedom. The law grew out of a conflict over whether two Native Americans could be dismissed from their jobs as drug counselors for using drugs in a religious ritual. The architects of the law said they intended it to be a protection of religious rights, not an excuse to foist religious principles on others.

Justice Ginsberg said it “seems strange” that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed by both parties, could have generated such support if lawmakers thought corporations would use it to enforce their own religious beliefs.

Justice Kagan added that the corporate challengers are taking an “uncontroversial law” like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and making it into something that would upend “the entire U.S. code,” since companies would be able to object on religious grounds to laws on sex discrimination, minimum wage, family leave and child labor.

Other points made by the female justices:

Justice Sotomayor: how can courts know whether a corporation holds a religious belief? And what if it’s just the beliefs of the leadership, not the entire company? What happens to a non-religious minority in a corporation?
Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan asked: Because nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby or Conestoga to provide health insurance, they can simply pay the tax penalty instead.
Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage.

Paulbot99
03-26-2014, 01:38 PM
Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage

:confused:

How?

phill4paul
03-26-2014, 01:42 PM
:confused:

How?

I'd like to know the answer to this myself.

Vanguard101
03-26-2014, 01:55 PM
Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan asked: Because nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby or Conestoga to provide health insurance, they can simply pay the tax penalty instead.

WHAT???

LibForestPaul
03-26-2014, 02:37 PM
Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan asked: Because nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby or Conestoga to provide health insurance, they can simply pay the tax penalty instead.WHAT???

What; Is that quote is honest and beautiful.

jkr
03-26-2014, 02:44 PM
and the ACA is RICO...


your move cunt

Vanguard101
03-26-2014, 02:45 PM
What; Is that quote is honest and beautiful.

The statement is clearly false.

Vanguard101
03-26-2014, 02:46 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/elena-kagan-antonin-scalia-birth-control-mandate

I was going to make a seperate thread but decided not to.

During oral arguments Tuesday about the validity of Obamacare's birth control mandate, Justice Elena Kagan cleverly echoed Justice Antonin Scalia's past warning that religious-based exceptions to neutral laws could lead to "anarchy."

"Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," she told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative."

Kagan's remarks might sound familiar to the legally-trained ear. In a 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia alluded to the same examples of what might happen if religious entities are permitted to claim exemptions from generally applicable laws. He warned that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 opinion, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."
Indeed, Clement picked up on the reference.

"If you look at that parade of horribles -- Social Security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination -- every item on that list was included in Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in Smith," he said.

Kagan also echoed Scalia's argument in Smith that judges are not qualified to evaluate the "centrality" of beliefs to a faith, or the "validity" of interpretations brought forth by individuals seeking exemptions from the law.

"You cannot test the centrality of a belief to a religion, you cannot test the sincerity of religion," she said. "I think a court would be, you know -- their hands would be bound when faced with all these challenges if your standard applies."

The case in Smith brought by two men who lost their jobs for using peyote, which they said was part of a Native American ritual, and were subsequently denied unemployment benefits by Oregon.

If Scalia had the final word, the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood probably wouldn't have had much of a case against the birth control rule. But Congress responded to Scalia's opinion by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which sets strict scrutiny standards for any law that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion. That's the law that endangers the contraceptive mandate -- and it's the basis under which Scalia appeared to lean against the government's position during Tuesday's oral arguments.

tod evans
03-26-2014, 02:51 PM
Look for young fertile women to be jobless in the future.....

eduardo89
03-26-2014, 02:57 PM
Yeah, I bet those three need tons of birth control...

http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2010/04/20100412_ekagan_250x375.jpghttp://images.politico.com/global/2012/04/120402_sonia_sotomayor_ap_328.jpghttp://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.403508.1314506289!/img/httpImage/alg-ruth-bader-ginsburg-jpg.jpg

angelatc
03-26-2014, 03:00 PM
Justice Kagan then said that there are several medical treatments to which some religious groups object, and if corporations could object to providing coverage for those treatments, “everything would be piecemeal. Nothing would be uniform.”

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat????????

GunnyFreedom
03-26-2014, 03:13 PM
"You cannot test the centrality of a belief to a religion, you cannot test the sincerity of religion," she said. "I think a court would be, you know -- their hands would be bound when faced with all these challenges if your standard applies."

Um. Isn't that the point?