Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Supreme Court Hears Case on Obamacare Contraception Mandate
The Supreme Court will be ruling on wether for-profit corporations still have religious freedom rights given by the 1933 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A company, Hobby Lobby, is claiming that it goes against their religion to provide healthcare which includes all forms of FDA approved contraception to their employers, but this is part of Obamacare's Contraception Mandate. This illustrates what we have been learning in class this week, the case had a good chance of making it to the Supreme Court because three Federal Appeals Courts have struck down the mandate, while two others upheld it. This difference of rulings in cases on the same matter considerably boosts a cases chances of getting to the Supreme Court. The question is, do companies give up their some of their religious freedoms when they become for-profit? Does not supplying employees with contraception lay undue burden in the employee? In which case that too would go against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a really tough issue to make decision on. I can definitely see both sides of the argument, but when it comes down to it I think the companies should still have to provide the health care that includes FDA approved contraceptives. I understand that they wouldn't like it, but it's not like they're the ones that are going to be using it. I don't think by doing this the companies would be losing any of their religious freedoms for the same reason I said before. No matter the outcome it's going to be a very hard fought debate with many people on both sides with strong opinions.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really tough issue to make decision on. I can definitely see both sides of the argument, but when it comes down to it I think the companies should still have to provide the health care that includes FDA approved contraceptives. I understand that they wouldn't like it, but it's not like they're the ones that are going to be using it. I don't think by doing this the companies would be losing any of their religious freedoms for the same reason I said before. No matter the outcome it's going to be a very hard fought debate with many people on both sides with strong opinions.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why these businesses are so stubborn on this. I don't know of all that many businesses who identify with a certain religion or that identify with any religion at all, so why are they claiming that the 1993 law applies to businesses, too? This is another issue that I think really depends on the person and and where you stand is based off of how it's going to affect you, so I think that this really won't affect a company that much if it starts letting some employees get contraceptives. How is that going to affect the person in charge who opposes this? It really doesn't, so I don't know why this specifically stirs so much controversy, though I can see why both sides are unhappy.
ReplyDeleteIt is no surprise that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops were not in favor of this administration. This is a very debatable topic it seems. I've seen many people from many walks of life have very different opinions on this topic. I, personally, do not know what to think at this point. I feel like whoever is next in the articles should post more about this. Late June is a long time to wait for a decision. Hopefully it is still a talked about topic then.
ReplyDeleteI understand that this is a very difficult and controversial issue; with that said, I feel the companies need to provide their employers with the health coverage they deserve, regardless of the company's religion. Obamacare states clearly that contraception is provided, and Hobby Lobby cannot withhold coverage from their many employees because of the owners' personal beliefs. The law is clear, and I believe that denying someone of the health care they deserve legally because of your opinions is wrong and goes against the law. I can see why Hobby Lobby is unhappy, but Obamacare passed and needs to be fully enforced.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin. A lot of times and in other cases businesses have claimed to not be religiously affiliated or that their personal beliefs have nothing to do with how their business is run. It annoys me that people are unable to choose their position and keep it. I think contraception is incredibly important and it becomes a global issue when you think about overpopulation and also negligence issues. I think this is much bigger than Hobby Lobby and they need to realize that.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised at Hobby Lobby's displeasure with the issue at hand. What I am surprised about is that we have not heard of a company that has presented this issue sooner. I presume it is possible that this is one of many cases and that this one is simply the first to gain national attention to their stubbornness. That's what it comes down to, I believe. Hobby Lobby's stubbornness. Most companies would not pursue this case due to the negative impact it could potentially have on sales. I applaud the business for sticking up in what they believe in, even if I disagree.
ReplyDeleteNo one is trying to force Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives themselves, only to provide their employees with the choice to get them. If companies are allowed to deny parts of Obamacare that they do not like due to religion or other reasons that undermines the validity of the law, the law that has already been upheld by the supreme court. Even though the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are not in favor of this there are other religious groups that are. I read recently in another article that the National Coalition of American Nuns recently came out in support of the provision to provide contraceptives. There is no reason that anyone should be denied this right.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Lydia said about these companies having to abide by the healthcare law, even if it is not what they personally believe in. While some employees will have the same beliefs that these companies do about contraception, some will also have opposing ones, but it shouldn't matter because the availability has to be there for them all under the healthcare law. I thought the part about Kennedy finding the $2,000 per employee "penalty" interesting in exchange for a company not offering health insurance was surprising. I don't think this idea will actually go anywhere within the Supreme Court, because of the fact that a couple other justices insisted it was a tax, but it's still interesting to see that many different options and solutions are being discussed with this controversial issue.
ReplyDeleteHobby Lobby should have to abide by the health care law, however I can see why they are fighting against it. Their religious affiliation is against birth control and or abortions. But in the article, their example is not a very good example. Kennedy states that a company would not be allowed to have their employees dress in burkas, with scarves covering their hair and face. Companies require employees to wear specific uniforms all the time. You don't see employees at Chickfila in a sweatshirt and jeans, so how would employees wearing burkas be any different?
ReplyDeleteSince when does religion justify action? I'm really annoyed reading this article, and I'm a little dissappointed that some people are buying into this. If insurers and companies in general can use religion as a justification, what's next? Refusing service to gays? Divorcees? Why should Jews be payed the same as Christians? That kind of thinking is terrible and destructive in any society, and in the 21st century you'd think it would be extinct.
ReplyDeleteI understand this is a very controversial issue, but I really don't see why. Companies don't identify themselves by their religion in most cases. Therefore, this shouldn't pertain to the 1993 law anyway. Also, if the new law doesn't directly affect you, why do people care?? One thing I found a little over the top was Kennedy's comparison to wearing a burka. I felt that was a more extreme issue and didn't directly relate to the topic the way he intended.
ReplyDeleteThese companies should definitely have to abide by the law. If you can site your religion as a reason for not following the law then theoretically you could have a religion where you sacrifice humans. As a member of your religion you could murder people and get away with it. This is an extreme situation, but it demonstrates how religion can not trump law. I understand that the Hobby Lobby doesn't want to give contraceptives to its employs, but this seems backwards to me as well. It is like they are trying to impose their corporate views onto their employees.
ReplyDeleteI really hope the Supreme Court chooses to uphold the necessity for contraception to be provided to all employees. Although Hobby Lobby is entirely entitled to their own opinions based on their religious beliefs, I do not think it would be fair for them to deny their employees the right to healthcare covered contraception.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I really do not see how people are swayed into thinking that companies, who typically don't have religious affiliations, can use this kind of excuse to escape the law. As we've been learning, supreme court decisions are arguably more effective than legislation in changing the course of opinion, politics, and history. So I hope they back the idea that the health care act still stands in this case.
ReplyDeleteI think that, for all companies, the well being of their employees needs to be paramount over the religious beliefs of that company's executives. Denying employees healthcare benefits based on the company's religion is another way for the company to find ways around providing healthcare benefits, thus adding to the profitability of the company. The government should push for the fair and safe treatment of the workers and ensure that they are not deniedthe basic necessities of healthcare.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I am sold on the idea that a company can have a religion. A company's executives definitely can but a company is made up of more than its executives. I am trying to see this issue from the the perspective of Hobby Lobby, but I am finding it difficult. One of the necessities of running a business is providing health care and I think that contraceptives should be covered in that. The company itself is made up of many different people, presumably with varying religious beliefs. The top employees of a company shouldn't get to decide on a "company religion." Generally I think that the business sphere and the religious sphere should be kept separate, and the companies shouldn't view this as going against their religious beliefs, but more like helping their employees stay healthy. The religiously questionable issues should be decided upon by the individual. The company should respect the individual's health and their own moral beliefs about that. The company can do this without promoting something that violates their religion. I think. As someone who is not religious I recognize that I do not have the ability to emphasize with the other point of view.
ReplyDeleteI think it is absolutely absurd that companies believe they can use their religious affiliation as an excuse for not providing employees with basic healthcare. Personally I've never been a supporter of these religious companies who use religion as an excuse for inexcusable actions.
ReplyDelete