Corporate Religion

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A few cases involving the mandates on employers have come down in the last week, which raise some interesting issues:

* In Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the Washington, DC district court granted an injunction on penalties stemming from the publishing house's refusal to offer contraceptive coverage, citing religious freedom. Of the key findings from the ruling, it was held that even the indirect burden is enough to cause a religious liberty issue, and that the government lacked a compelling interest in handing down the mandate.

* In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, an Oklahoma district court ruled in favor of the federal government in part because the ruling differentiated between for-profit and religious corporations, making a distinction between organizations involved in worship and organizations that, at least according to this judge, are for-profit or simply religiously-associated.

We now have 4 lower court rulings in play right now regarding the contraception mandate. All four involved for-profit institutions, only Hobby Lobby ruling in favor of the government on the issue, and none of this has anything to do with the Liberty University case that just made it back to the 4th Circuit.

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights? Especially in the case of places like Hobby Lobby, who outright state that '[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." Given the first amendment, hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

Comments

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

and if you really care about access to birth control, your time and effort is better spent getting it OTC, as opposed to wasting time and effort in a constitutional debate over religious freedom.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That's not an argument. "Why talk about Topic A when you can talk about Topic B?" I can talk about companies using religious exceptions as a way to deny coverage and also talk about the lack of OTC birth control or how offering IUDs and the pill for free would reduce costs over time.

To recap though: Your claim about 'you can get birth control for $10 a month' is not correct for the kinds we're talking about allegedly being denied in the corporate health coverage. It also represents a fundamental lack of understanding (or maybe you just don't care, whatever) about the matter at hand and what's at stake.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

offering IUDs and the pill for free would reduce costs over time.

its already very affordable (about $.30 a day). the bigger issue is access, which doesn't involve the supreme court or religious liberty.

Your claim about 'you can get birth control for $10 a month' is not correct for the kinds we're talking about allegedly being denied in the corporate health coverage

actually, were talking about religious organizations not providing birth control services. that would include the $10 / month variety. your claim is false.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

its already very affordable (about $.30 a day).

I love the many ways you can spin around the up-front cost.

actually, were talking about religious organizations not providing birth control services. that would include the $10 / month variety. your claim is false.

Which specific birth control are you talking about? You mean the kind you can't get over the counter, so the cost is irrelevant?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

I love the many ways you can spin around the up-front cost.

its not spin, its math.

so the cost is irrelevant

the cost isn't irrelevant.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

its not spin, its math.

Math that I assume impoverished at-risk teens do, like amortization.

the cost isn't irrelevant.

I'm glad we agree on something!

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

impoverished teens can get free birth control at planned parenthood.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I didn't know you could get free IUDs at PP.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

we can't get everything we want in life. if for some reason there is an impoverished teen out there who can't use regular birth control pills, i guess they'll have to use the free condoms.

life is just so hard aint it?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we shouldn't do things statistically proven to mitigate externalities, that would be silly.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

should the government force people to go to the gym 3 times a week? should the government outlaw fast food, alcohol, tobacco, sunbathing? we know that all of these things lead to higher healthcare costs.

these are the costs of living in society where people are free. people don't always do things that mitigate externalities. you'll have to learn to deal with it, or you could move to China.

but the real irony here, is that in your beloved canada, the government insurance plan doesn't cover birth control. now that is some comedy!