Can you imagine the ramifications if the Supreme court says yeah, your employer gets to decide what health-care is covered under your plan based on THEIR religion?
Let’s say they are religiously opposed to being gay, and decide to not-cover HIV treatment.
What if they are Jehovah’s witnesses and are opposed to blood transfusions? Too bad you just got in a car crash and are about to bleed out. Can’t go around offending your employer’s religious sensibilities.
Of course you can always say employees can vote with their feet and refuse to work for these companies, but many people actually have to do things like pay the rent and eat so that might not work out to well.
Perhaps the like-minded people will go work for those employers, switching places with those who don’t agree.
Employers already make decisions about what will be covered, for all kinds of reasons. You can buy your birth control with the money they pay you, they just won’t be the ones directly supplying it.
We’ve pretty well covered this issue on multiple threads going back to the Hobby Lobby case. And were it not for the passing of Scalia the current case would seem to be likely to follow the same path.
In short, the employer can *claim *an exemption for anything much in the same way it is said you can sue anyone for anything. Whether the employer can win is highly dependent upon the facts of the individual case.
For a court to uphold the government in compelling a person (or in some cases a company) to act against his/its religious beliefs several factors have to be addressed.
[ul][li]Is the religious belief of the objecting party sincere?[/li][li]Does government have a compelling interest in compelling the action?[/li][li]Is government’s action the least restrictive way to achieve its goal?[/li][/ul]
When the government sets up a system whereby the government is willing to pay for certain types of insurance for some people, but not all, it is hard for the government to argue that compelling persons or companies to provide that coverage against their will is the least restrictive means of doing so. The government *could *set up a system where such coverage would be provided by the government.
people who are offered insurance through their employer don’t buy insurance on the marketplace because they are automatically disqualified for discounts and therefore it is ridiculously expensive.
Well, it would be more correct to say that employers had that freedom for a long time, up until the point when the Obama Administration decided to take that freedom away.
As Iggy has already pointed, your description of the Supreme Court case and the supposed ramifications if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor is flat incorrect. But in any case, can you name any employers which has ever sold insurance that singled out HIV coverage or blood transfusions as not being covered?
Which is generally how things work in a free society, is it not? Employers offer terms of employment, workers choose whether or not to accept those terms. If any employee does not like a decision that their employer makes, they are free to leave.
In the current case the government is not asking or telling the employer to buy anything. All the employer has to do is to certify that they are religiously opposed to providing birth control coverage. Then the insurance company pays. This is described in the article linked in the OP.
There are plenty of good financial and medical reasons to make birth control available for everyone, not the least of which is reducing the number of relatively expensive abortions.
A religious objection is not solely limited to purchasing things. The same analysis applies.
The government is attempting to force the parties to purchase insurance that covers contraceptives for their employees or facing crushing fines. If they weren’t doing that then there would be no case whatsoever.
The government is dictating the procedure to use when raising an objection. If they weren’t doing that then there would be no case whatsoever.
The government is ignoring an obvious less restrictive means of dealing with a religious objection by the employer. If they weren’t doing that then there would be no case whatsoever.
The rather easy solution to the objection dilemma is to recognize that the employee who desires contraceptives be covered can notify the insurer. The employer need not be involved. And if the employer is not involved, no religious objection is raised.
But that’s in the same category as the insurer providing BC for free – it is still the result of the employer picking that insurer and that plan, and the employee is implicitly involved.
By law all insurance covers contraceptives. A bunch of religious fanatics shouldn’t be able to dictate laws for the majority of the country.
What procedure would you propose then? Companies have an obligation to provbide this coverage, except in certain cases, and it is not unreasonable for a company wishing to make use of the exception to declare it. It does not appear that the method is excessively onerous. If it was, that would perhaps be a case. I suspect many people supporting them also support more onerous restrictions on voting as not onerous at all.
How ould employees be informed of their rights? Obviously the employers are not going to do it. And surely most employees are not going to be dumb enough to ask their fanatic bosses about how to get contraception. And sorry, I don’t want millions of tac dollars going for a gigantic advertising campaign aimed at a handful of people. And we can’t make the church pay for it, can we?
Stating one’s religious conviction, which is basically what this form does, is not an abridgement of religious freedom.
