June 30, 201412 yr Just started reading this. There goes an hour. It looks like they didn't even bother with looking to the First Amendment here, it's solely based on looking at the HHS regulations in the context of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
June 30, 201412 yr No one focusing on the fact that Obama again has gone against the constitution for some of his mandate.
June 30, 201412 yr No one focusing on the fact that Obama again has gone against the constitution for some of his mandate. No constitutional issues at play here in the decision (insomuch as the act is designed to supplement first amendment protections). The HHS regulations were found to be in violation of the RFR Act of 1993.
June 30, 201412 yr So I'm assuming this will apply to the various hospitals run by the Catholic Church?
June 30, 201412 yr I have no problem with the decision. I think it was the right decision. I don't have a problem either.
June 30, 201412 yr I quick read. Here seems to be the heart of the ruling: "In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organizetheir businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish torun their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs. Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections toabortion, and according to their religious beliefs the fourcontraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe theywill be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply,they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount toa substantial burden, it is hard to see what would." And further: "In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage. Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why thesame system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes analternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objectingparties in these cases is unlawful." Basically corporations (profit or non-profit) are legally 'people' in the eyes of the law. People (and corporations) have the right to hold religious beliefs and is affirmed by RFRA law. HHS made accommodations for 'non-profit corporations' that had religious concerns. Hence they come up with a 'less intrusive' measure - reflecting they knew the RFRA law. They were trying to avoid applying it to 'for-profit' corporations, thus forcing them to accept rules. HHS basically was parsing the definition of corporation or business. My opinion: It is important that it is understood that small businesses - the vast majority of which are 'incorporated' are largely owned by a single person or a single family. Forcing regulations that violate their beliefs would probably have a very, very chilling effect on our economy. Small business owners have had enormous burdens placed on them. These arbitrary and onerous HHS rules that come with ACA would have a negative impact on small, personal or family-owned businesses and would have worsened an already bad economy by raising further reasons for people not venture into starting a 'for-profit' business.
June 30, 201412 yr No one focusing on the fact that Obama again has gone against the constitution for some of his mandate. As Getslow indicated they did not go the Constitutional issue. They relied on RFRA and that HHS had already accommodated 'non-profits' to meet RFRA. Expect RFRA to come under attack after this.
June 30, 201412 yr Thought not connected to the Constitutional issues raised by this proceeding, here is an interesting read on the "Faith Expression" views of Hobby Lobby as a "Christian Business." Stop calling Hobby Lobby a Christian business
June 30, 201412 yr God came to me in a dream last night and said my business should deny health insurance coverage to people with cancer.
June 30, 201412 yr God came to me in a dream last night and said my business should deny health insurance coverage to people with cancer. ....I didn't realize pregnancy was a disease.
June 30, 201412 yr ....I didn't realize pregnancy was a disease. God came to me in a dream last night and said it was his will that I should expel all non-whites, homosexuals and heathens from my workforce.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.