If I have employees that get their children circumcised at hospital(which I have a big problem with)

[shaayecanaan]

can I now object to that?

This is purely hypothetical, I'm not even American. Still, I have very serious objections to neonatal circumcision (both male and female) and if I were an employer I would resent getting a bill from a hospital and being asked to pay for it.

I went and had a read of the Supreme Court decision and particularly the passages where the justices in the majority emphasised how limited the application of this new principle was going to be. But I can't help imagining that there are quite a few instances that I can think of where people would have serious moral or religious objections to certain medical procedures.

[bravenak]

1. I would think you could object to covering it if it is a deeply held religious belief.

Sounds plausible. It makes me wonder if employers can object to covering other things their religion is deeply against, like blood transfusions, and organ transplants.

[shaayecanaan]

2. Possibly also treatment based on stem cell cultures

I am not sure about blood transfusions, I know that Jehovahs Witnesses object to them for themselves, I don't think that they object to them for everyone else.

Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses organisations could object to having to provide those treatments to employees of theirs that are also Jehovahs Witnesses.

To be honest, I think the best chance of having this rather stupid decision reconsidered is for the Supreme Court to be buried with as many actions of this type as possible.

[littlewolf]

4. IMHO I think that if the employee was Jewish or Islamic

the SC would not touch it. also if you try and bury the SC
they will just refuse to hear the case.

[shaayecanaan]

8. i suspect a lot of decisions will make there way there on appeal

If I was a judge I'd find it difficult to know where to draw the line.

Islamic or Jewish people only very rarely have their children circumcised medically, generally only Christians have it done in hospitals.

[bravenak]

5. There will be a flood of cases making there way there.

I agree that it is the best hope to change this. Besides Thomas and Alito retiring. I find this last gasp of conservatism frightening.

[PoliticAverse]

3. As far as I know the ACA doesn't require plans to cover circumcision. n/t

[WillowTree]

7. There's nothing in ACA that prohibits covering it.

And insurance plans have never excluded coverage for circumcision (for males only, of course) that I know of.

[wandy]

6. I'm not sure, At least for now I think you would need it to be a religious belief.....

I should mention it would be better if that religion were christan.
Being a corporation is important, even a multinational with no particular interest in American social structure.
I should add a successful corporation being able to afford a team of lawyers to pretty up the case.
If you are not one of the more popular sects you will need to set aside funds for a public relations team.
By all means you will need to be on good terms with a lobbyist or three.

Ya know what. If your sincere beliefs don't have an urgent need....
You can just sit back and wait for Charles and David Koch to have a sincere belief that some law or regulation offends their constitutional rights.
Let them spend the big bucks to plow the road.
The more wins like Hobby Lobby the more cases there will be.
The more cases, the more wins, the cheaper it will be for you.

Right now its still pretty much a sellers market. Why not wait until its a commodities market.
You can alleys pick up a few spare change elected officials while you wait.