# Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201 "2014-03-21T01:54:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/781 "2014-07-07T00:20:39Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > Quote: > This is one of the reasons I’ve pressed you on what you think of Wheaton’s conclusion that signing the form is a burden on their religious beliefs. I’ll ask again: "And, using their logic, wouldn’t providing any notice whatsoever be considered a substantial burden? > > That’s nuts. Not all religious entities object to participating in contraceptive coverage. How is the government to know which religious entities object? Divine revelation? Presumably the religious entity that does not object is providing the coverage, so the government has no problem with them. Can you be more specific? I don’t see the problem that arises with a religious entity that does not object. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/782 "2014-07-07T00:33:41Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > More to the point, how is it possible to come up with some way for Wheaton to let it be known that they wish to opt out on religious grounds when their position is that informing others of their situation is problematic for them? If the obvious purpose is to take advantage of that out, which it must be, in what regard from Wheaton’s perspective is it acceptable where signing the form or other options are not? I see you’ve provided an explanation of how that might be so, but what if Wheaton disagree with your logic re: steel and tank turrets? I know I, personally, would not agree with that logic were I a pacifist steelworker. The pacifist steelworker in Thomas v. Board was a real guy, and the Supreme Court endorsed his distinction. Wheaton has already notified the government that they are a religious entity and that they object. They just don’t want to fill out the form and send the form to the carrier. In other words, Wheaton does not disagree with the steel vs. tank turret logic. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/783 "2014-07-07T02:40:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Presumably the religious entity that does not object is providing the coverage, so the government has no problem with them. > > Can you be more specific? I don’t see the problem that arises with a religious entity that does not object. OK, forget the entities [del]that[/del] who don’t object, just explain this in a little more (simple) detail - “A notice that simply stated they were a religious entity within the meaning of the law would suffice.” I understand quantum mechanics better than I understand all this insurance business, so let me try an example. Company A has a sincere religious objection to some or all contraceptives. Company B has a sincere religious objection to childhood vaccinations. Company C has a sincere religious objection to contraceptives and vaccinations. Each of these companies obtains health insurance for their employees that does not cover anything contrary to their religious beliefs. Somehow (?), the government finds out that these policies do not meet the minimum requirements of the ACA and sends letters explaining why their policies are non-compliant and spelling out the potential penalty if not rectified. Since signing a form explaining what coverage is against their beliefs is a burden, they send back “a notice that simply state[s] they [are] a religious entity within the meaning of the [RFRA].” All three companies have purchased the “Holier Than Thou” policy from Celestial Insurance which does not include coverage for contraceptives or vaccinations. Company C is in the clear because they have a belief against both types of coverage. Companies A & B who only have religious objection to one of the two coverages can skate by on the cheap with no repercussions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/784 "2014-07-07T04:05:56Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > OK, forget the entities [del]that[/del] who don’t object, just explain this in a little more (simple) detail - “A notice that simply stated they were a religious entity within the meaning of the law would suffice.” > > I understand quantum mechanics better than I understand all this insurance business, so let me try an example. > > Company A has a sincere religious objection to some or all contraceptives. > Company B has a sincere religious objection to childhood vaccinations. > Company C has a sincere religious objection to contraceptives and vaccinations. > > Each of these companies obtains health insurance for their employees that does not cover anything contrary to their religious beliefs. > > Somehow (?), the government finds out that these policies do not meet the minimum requirements of the ACA and sends letters explaining why their policies are non-compliant and spelling out the potential penalty if not rectified. > > Since signing a form explaining what coverage is against their beliefs is a burden, they send back “a notice that simply state[s] they [are] a religious entity within the meaning of the [RFRA].” > > All three companies have purchased the “Holier Than Thou” policy from Celestial Insurance which does not include coverage for contraceptives or vaccinations. Company C is in the clear because they have a belief against both types of coverage. Companies A & B who only have religious objection to one of the two coverages can skate by on the cheap with no repercussions. Unfortunately, you are again conflating the Hobby Lobby situation with the Wheaton College situation. The exemption at issue in Wheaton’s case arises from a form, “ESBA Form 700,” that is used when an entity is a “religious employer.” A religious employer is an employer organized and operated as a non-profit organization under IRS Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which refers to churches, other houses of worship, their integrated auxiliaries and conventions or association of churches, or the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. A religious employer is exempt from the requirement to provide contraception coverage in its group health plan. To gain this exemption, it must submit the EBSA Form 700 to its insurer. So I can’t really answer your question, because it’s necessary to make clear if any of your lettered “Company” entities are for-profit like Hobby Lobby, and thus not eligible for the exemption, or religious employers like Wheaton College, who is presumptively eligible for the exemption. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/785 "2014-07-07T04:25:45Z")
Replace “company” with “religious employer” to make my example conform to the Wheaton situation. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/786 "2014-07-07T04:57:27Z")
Out of several outside articles, I found [this one](http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/07/04/implementing-health-reform-a-follow-up-supreme-court-contraceptives-decision-at-odds-with-hobby-lobby/) particularly informative and comprehensible. It may be of interest to other non-experts out there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/787 "2014-07-07T13:47:34Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > Replace “company” with “religious employer” to make my example conform to the Wheaton situation. Ok: Religious Employer A has a sincere religious objection to some or all contraceptives. RE B has a sincere religious objection to childhood vaccinations. RE C has a sincere religious objection to contraceptives and vaccinations. What happens? > [@](#): > > Somehow (?), the government finds out that these policies do not meet the minimum requirements of the ACA and sends letters explaining why their policies are non-compliant and spelling out the potential penalty if not rectified. > > Since signing a form explaining what coverage is against their beliefs is a burden, they send back “a notice that simply state[s] they [are] a religious entity within the meaning of the [RFRA].” > > All three companies have purchased the “Holier Than Thou” policy from Celestial Insurance which does not include coverage for contraceptives or vaccinations. Company C is in the clear because they have a belief against both types of coverage. Companies A & B who only have religious objection to one of the two coverages can skate by on the cheap with no repercussions. The automatic exemption applies only to contraception insurance. I assume “Holier Than Thou,” is also a religious insurer? (That’s not the case in Wheaton – they are a religious employer but their insurer is not; in the similar Little Sisters of the Poor case, their insurer is also religious) So assuming Holier Than Thou is also religious, RE A’s case is straightforward. They object only to contraception coverage; their insurer also objects. Both are entitled to the exemption by regulation. They simply have to inform HHS in writing that they are religious organizations exempt from providing contraception services. RE C can do the same thing with regard to their contraception coverage. But with respect to vaccination coverage, there is no automatic exemption. So they would have to make the explicit claim that their religious belief forbids vaccination. The HHS would assess that claim, and decide if they believe it and if they can offer some accommodation. If they do, then they’ll offer that accommodation, crafted to the situation. If not, then HHS will tell them, “Sorry, but we have assessed your claim and we don’t accept your sincerity, or we believe that our current approach is already the most narrow method of meeting our compelling interest.” And if they disagree, then they’ll ask a court to settle the issue. They will have to show that they have a religious belief that forbids vaccinations, that the belief is sincere, and then the government would have to show that their requirement to provide insurance for vaccinations was in furtherance of a compelling government interest and that the method here was the narrowest one possible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/788 "2014-07-07T13:49:07Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > Out of several outside articles, I found [this one](http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/07/04/implementing-health-reform-a-follow-up-supreme-court-contraceptives-decision-at-odds-with-hobby-lobby/) particularly informative and comprehensible. It may be of interest to other non-experts out there. It’s interesting that even that author concedes in a July 6th update that he was mistaken in his earlier claim that the Court contradicted it’s earlier order. Good for him. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/789 "2014-07-07T14:18:36Z")
Of course, if the Court does ultimately side with Wheaton and the Little Sisters of the Poor then it will be rejecting its own reasoning in Hobby Lobby. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/790 "2014-07-07T14:20:31Z")
They already used the “This is not a precedent” joke right in the ruling, and not for the first time, so no. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/791 "2014-07-07T16:36:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Of course, if the Court does ultimately side with Wheaton and the Little Sisters of the Poor then it will be rejecting its own reasoning in Hobby Lobby. Not true at all. Why, specifically? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/792 "2014-07-07T16:40:14Z")
Because Alito said that the law was not the least restrictive means because HHS had an alternative. If the alternative turns out to have been illusory, then it is no longer relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/793 "2014-07-07T16:45:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Because Alito said that the law was not the least restrictive means because HHS had an alternative. If the alternative turns out to have been illusory, then it is no longer relevant. Not at all. HHS’s alternative has been accepted by many other religious employers. The mere fact that it’s not acceptable to Wheaton or Little Sisters does not destroy its use for other religious employers, or for Hobby Lobby. Indeed, Hobby Lobby has no problem with any form – the relief they sought was to be exempted from covering four of the twenty contraceptive methods. The alternative is not illusory – it is simply not a panacea to cover every possible objection. Hobby Lobby doesn’t object to that form. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/794 "2014-07-07T18:58:36Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > So, to your mind, since the contraception mandate is struck down, now Congress will enact legislation that will have the government pay for the contraception of those employed by the religious organizations who opt out? Is that right? > > I wait with bated breath for that to happen. I think, given the climate, there isn’t even close to a “decent chance” that will happen. I’ve pointed this out several times, but apparently people don’t want to deal in reality: MEDICAID COVERS CONTRACEPTION. It has for years. That thing you insist cannot happen, has been happening for years, for orders of magnitude more women than are affected by the HL decision. And given the way the administration has been quite eager to make all sorts of edits and interpretations and waivers to the law without congressional approval – including waivers that meant women employed at specific, politically-connected corporations did not get contraception coverage – it’s hard to think they couldn’t just do the same here. Congress hasn’t been able to stop the last umpteen changes to the law, (including this one – the list of 20 kinds of approved contraception was not on the bill passed by congress; the admin added it), it’s unlikely they’d be able to stop this one. Why, it’s almost enough to make you think the administration was less interested in finding the quickest, easiest way to provide contraception for the relatively small number of women affected by these cases, and more interested in picking a fight that would let them smack down their enemies if they won and energize their political base if they lost. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/795 "2014-07-07T20:02:47Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Why, it’s almost enough to make you think the administration was less interested in finding the quickest, easiest way to provide contraception for the relatively small number of women affected by these cases, and more interested in picking a fight that would let them smack down their enemies if they won and energize their political base if they lost. This idea isn’t sane. It ascribes so many ulterior motives and unspoken agendas that I cannot believe anyone thought to type it out, let alone could possibly think it was accurate. Is it your own or did you read it elsewhere? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/796 "2014-07-07T20:21:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This idea isn’t sane. It ascribes so many ulterior motives and unspoken agendas that I cannot believe anyone thought to type it out, let alone could possibly think it was accurate. Is it your own or did you read it elsewhere? If you don’t think politicians of all stripes routinely make these kinds of “Let’s pick a fight, in order to energize the base and goose fundraising” and “I’d rather leave the problem in place so I can run on it rather than actually fix it” calculations, you’re terribly, terribly naive. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/797 "2014-07-07T20:28:30Z")
To clarify: The point isn’t that they were insincere; they very much wanted to win. But they also knew that even if they lost, the politics of the case were good for them. Single women are the Democrats’ core demographic, and it is good politics for them to be seen publicly and metaphorically fighting on their behalf – even if the actual number of contraception-seeking women employed by contraception-opposing religious groups is very, very small, and could have been taken care of much more easily. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/798 "2014-07-07T23:35:46Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’ve pointed this out several times, but apparently people don’t want to deal in reality: MEDICAID COVERS CONTRACEPTION. It has for years. NOT EVERYONE QUALIFIES FOR MEDICAID. Around 5 million Americans are without any medicaid coverage because governors in 24 states did not expand Medicaid despite most of the expansion being paid for by the feds. The governors didn’t want anything to do with an Obama healthcare initiative even if it meant people dying unnecessarily in their state. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/799 "2014-07-07T23:54:25Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > NOT EVERYONE QUALIFIES FOR MEDICAID. Around 5 million Americans are without any medicaid coverage because governors in 24 states did not expand Medicaid despite most of the expansion being paid for by the feds. The governors didn’t want anything to do with an Obama healthcare initiative even if it meant people dying unnecessarily in their state. But even in those states, previously established levels of Medicaid funding continue, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/800 "2014-07-08T00:30:43Z")
I understand that anecdote \<\> data but my governor did not expand Medicaid and my daughter, who is currently unemployed, gets her BC through it for free. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=41)