HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hobby Lobby Update..... F...

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:14 PM

Hobby Lobby Update..... Federal court says Obamacare birth control mandate likely to be struck down



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19174974-federal-court-says-obamacare-birth-control-mandate-likely-to-be-struck-down


By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News

A federal appeals court sided Thursday with a company challenging President Barack Obama's health care reform law, saying its requirement that for-profit companies pay for birth control is likely to be overturned as a violation of religious protections.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver waived millions of dollars of fines against Hobby Lobby Inc. and a subsidiary company, Mardel Christian Stores, which have refused to comply with the mandate while they seek an exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

The companies, which close all their stores on Sundays, say they are founded on "honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles."

"We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA, have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm," the court said in a 165-page ruling, which sent the companies' case back to the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, which had previously turned down the companies' request.

13 replies, 1388 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hobby Lobby Update..... Federal court says Obamacare birth control mandate likely to be struck down (Original post)
rsmith6621 Jun 2013 OP
PDJane Jun 2013 #1
alarimer Jun 2013 #11
aquart Jun 2013 #2
russspeakeasy Jun 2013 #10
The Blue Flower Jun 2013 #3
HockeyMom Jun 2013 #4
geek tragedy Jun 2013 #5
Myrina Jun 2013 #6
Bandit Jun 2013 #7
idwiyo Jun 2013 #8
Freddie Jun 2013 #9
DreamGypsy Jun 2013 #12
GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #13

Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:17 PM

1. Your religion says that my birth control shouldn't be free, again, I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:51 PM

11. But it isn't free.

Presumably the employees pay at least a portion of the premiums, so it isn't "free" no matter how the right-wing likes to lie about it. To me, the big deal is making sure that insurance covers some basic things and birth control is one of them. For one thing, it's a whole lot cheaper than a kid would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:18 PM

2. Show me where Jesus spoke about birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:50 PM

10. And where did He mention Hobby Lobby ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:21 PM

3. Mandating compassion is unChristian, isn't it?

I really have a problem with "Christians" who don't read their own book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:22 PM

4. How long would a female Hobby Lobby Employee last

if she kept popping out a baby every two years according to THEIR religion? She would cost them a whole lot more $$$ with medical costs for Labor and Delivery, not to mention time off.

This is why in the past they hired MALES over FEMALES in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:23 PM

5. Lovely group of wingnut judges.

 

What's to stop a company from objecting to paying for interracial blood transfusions then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:25 PM

6. A for-profit that wants to "honor the Lord" ...

I assume that means their CEO doesnt take home a shit ton of money & they instead give it to charity and/or their communities?

Cough, cough ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:34 PM

7. Companies are not required to provide birth control, they are required to provide insurance

Insurance companies are required to provide birth control in their coverage....There is a difference....These companies want to force their religion on their employees by denying them a product that every other American enjoys.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:41 PM

8. But paying for Viagra is Gawd Given Right and will be covered. No doubt about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:45 PM

9. I'm glad Hobby Lobby stands on favor of maternal/child complications and death

Because that is what the ACA mandate is really about. Doctors now routinely recommend that a woman wait 2 full years between pregnancies for the best outcome for herself and baby. Since most married couples find celibacy objectionable, contraception is preventive care that allows a woman to space pregnancies in a healthy way.
Heartless, despicable bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:55 PM

12. I'm not a lawyer, but this decision seems like BS to me...

...based on my recent (just now), and limited (just Wikipedia) understanding of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993. It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized.

This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion; therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, if the burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.” Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues. The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.

<snip>

In the case of Adams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court rejected the argument of Priscilla M. Lippincott Adams, who was a devout Quaker. She tried to argue that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, she was exempt from federal income taxes. The U.S. Tax Court rejected her argument and ruled that she was not exempt. The Court stated: "...while petitioner's religious beliefs are substantially burdened by payment of taxes that fund military expenditures, the Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest."[15] In the case of Miller v. Commissioner, the taxpayers objected to the use of social security numbers, arguing that such numbers related to the "mark of the beast" from the Bible. In its decision, the U.S. Court discussed the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but ruled against the taxpayers.


Clearly, providing for the health care needs of over half the population is "a compelling governmental interest". Including contraceptive coverage in required health insurance is hardly intrusive to the employer.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsmith6621 (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:08 PM

13. Shouldn't the employee have a say?

Afterall health insurance is a form of compensation. No one is forcing employees to use birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread