Sunday, July 13, 2014

Equal Justice Under Law for Women Except: Boss Cites Mea Religione

Who in America Cannot Rationalize With This
(Excluding the five men shown next)

From Marble Mountain Re: Birth Control
(Women: Your Employer's Prayers are Answered)


The 5-4 Who Back Your Employer's Desires
(But, Won't Back a Woman's Health Care Needs)

Wheaton College Order: Exemption on the ACA Birth Control Mandate
(Part of Full Case, but Not Resolved to Date)

First Major Update which is actually two updates from Scotus blog here, in part:

UPDATED 9:22 p.m.  Over the dissents of two Justices, the Supreme Court on Monday evening (June 30, 2014) temporarily barred enforcement of the birth-control mandate against Wheaton College, a non-profit religious institution in Illinois.  The college faced a midnight deadline to comply with the mandate or face heavy financial penalties.  The Court’s order will remain in place at least through Wednesday afternoon.  The federal government is to file a response by 10 a.m. Wednesday, with the college’s reply due at 5 p.m. that day.   Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor would have denied that postponement; neither they nor the Court gave reasons.

UPDATED 2:14 p.m.  Acting swiftly in the wake of the Court’s ruling on Monday, and relying directly upon that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Monday blocked all enforcement of the mandate against an Alabama Catholic TV network, a non-profit entity.   The concurring opinion of the court of appeals, written by Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., argued that the accommodation, discussed in the following post, is itself likely to be struck down.

Second Major Update (July 13, 2014), which also related to the above and the segment posted below, and yes, this is a fast-moving topic - Hobby-Lobby - as many of us predicted and that the 5-4 said would not happen that the original cases was "narrow" — well, it is happening and now at a very fast clip.

We all know the old tried and worn out political clichés such as this (whatever) will “… be the camel's nose under the tent, or it’s the first shoe to drop, or only the first step, a drip, drip, drip before the floodgates open,” etc.

Well in the Hobby-Lobby case the 5-4 said in essence that “this ruling is narrow and for the specific birth controls methods in question (4 of them) and only in this case and no other” (paraphrased). The further implied strongly that it does not affect or will not have an effect on anything or anyone else regarding the issue of birth control. My short retort to that is simple: büllshït ...

And, this very good explanation which follows says it better than I can. Listen closely to the facts that have followed since that 5-4 lousy decision, and yes, it was a lousy ruling. This segment is very short (about 8 minutes), but it hits the points. Enjoy:


Originally posted are the specifics of this case, Hobby-Lobby ruling that I see:

1.  The court ruled in part that: “…certain closely held for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in Obama-care that says their health care plans must offer free contraceptive coverage for their female employees.” 

(Hence, I guess if your boss says it's against his or her religion, then no dice, get birth control on your own – how about stuff, I wonder)?

2.  Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the case, finding “… the contraceptive mandate in its current form was unlawful.”

(But, I wonder, is there another form, not current form, might be acceptable, so that door left open)?

3.  The Obama administration says it will try to find a way accommodate for-profit businesses like Hobby-Lobby, et al that claim religious objections while also extending contraceptive coverage to female workers to continue.

(I note that the ACA-Obama-care has always been about lowering costs and getting equal coverage in plans for everyone – this shoots a hole in the basic concept).

4.  Most employers already view health insurance as a tool to attract and retain employees (both men and women). Women employees want access to contraceptive coverage and most employers don't have a problem providing that coverage, and besides all data show it is typically not a high-cost item.

(Praise the Lord (My weak attempt) at humor based on this case and my freedom of religion).

5.  The high court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners. 

(This is the part that I find exceptionally troublesome, for example: Say you don't agree with or pray or worship with your boss or when say so, can they fire you if you don't. Say pray during your coffee break that they start require? Sounds far fetched, but not really if you think about other possibilities down the road).

Finally:

6. The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argued that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses. 

(I wonder: how can a business exercise its religious freedom, its religious views, and its religious mandates for worship that it strictly follow)?

7.  The Obama administration had argued that a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it.

(I totally agree with that valid assumption and conclusion).

As I said, “Equal Justice Under Law” except when your boss says otherwise.

I have a novel idea: Why won’t Hobby-Lobby or others who think and want to act and operate that very same way, just hire only women (like in this case) who follow the letter of their religious beliefs? Then it follows quite literally that employers and their employees would all be signing the same hymn from the same scripture. Hallelujah.

These are a few things I considered about this ruling. Things I think are rational thoughts about this lousy deal for women in similar cases … [and] be assured, more is coming. Conservatives are now like a dog with a bone looking for a place to bury it, and along the way, bury you and your rights, too. They want their rights, but don't give a damn about yours. 

Phew … I'm done now.

No comments: