Oh,and Ravenman, to further expound on your question, Congress passing laws to make it harder for itself to pass laws isn’t really something the courts are going to mind. RFRA predates ACA, and ACA does not specifically exempt itself from RFRA. So Congress’ intent here is pretty clear: they intended future laws to be harder to pass and have stand if they violated religious practice. This is something the courts will almost certainly oblige.
Of course, if Congress decided to pass a law trying to undo previous acts of Congress in a sneaky way, I’m sure the court would want no part of that. But future laws? Congress can require a unanimous vote to pass laws if they want to simply by requiring unanimous consent to end all filibusters.
You can think all that, but what we’re concerned about is the law. Courts, properly to my mind, are loathe to decide which religious beliefs are real, which are firmly held enough, and deciding which religion deserves to be covered and which aren’t. I think it would be a massive mistake, one the courts have long tried to avoid doing in almost all of their Establishment/Free Exercise jurisprudence, to have the legislature or judiciary deciding which companies are religious enough to avoid certain laws and which aren’t.
Let’s say a pregnant customer has a slip and fall accident in a Hobby Lobby, somehow causing an injury where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life. Could Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for that abortion as part of a successful law suit against them, or could they try hiding behind their religious beliefs.
If it’s just about the law, and the courts don’t want to decide sincerity, then it’s a slam dunk. A corporation cannot be required to violate their religious beliefs unless the law withstands the strict scrutiny standard.
No way do you get to a trial in nine months. So the real question would be, “Can the damages claimed include the cost of an abortion undertaken with the medical intent of saving the mother’s life?”
True, but I can’t see how it’s interesting. Birth control that consists, in whole or part, of an abortifacient is considered sinful; there’s a wealth of precedent for the Christian view that abortion is sinful. That’s what Hobby Lobby claims here.
Viagra has nothing to do with causing abortion. So why is it “interesting?”
There is no infringement on the religious freedom of business owners. IIRC this case has nothing to do with the business owners’ religious freedom; it has to do with the supposed religious freedom of the business.
You don’t think preventing pregnancy and regulating menstration involves “health care”? I’m going out on a limb and guess you’re not a woman. One of the Amicus Briefs
“Contraception is highly effective at reducing unintended pregnancy, which, as countless studies have shown and experts agree, can have severe negative health consequences for both women and children.”
Can you tell me what the “severe negative health consequence” is from pregnancy? Especially “for children”? I mean, wow, millions of women are inflicting those “severe negative health consequences” on themselves and, apparently, on their children every year in the US! They should be stopped. Forced sterilizations for everyone.
So you’ve never heard of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, I take it? Or do you just not think that is a “severe negative health consequence” for an infant or child?
I’ve read the whole thread - and while I appreciate the legal nuance and interpretation going on - my prediction is Hobby Lobby will lose. It’s not in the court’s interest for them to win, so there will be a reason found to make them lose.
It could be that the insurance requirement is treated like a regulation and that if Hobby Lobby provides coverage, that birth control is one of the minimum standards they must provide. They are not getting infringed because they can choose not to provide it.
Throw in some analogy of also being required to provide safe products and a safe work environment.
*that’s my take on it. I think Hamlet is going to win some adult beverages.
They specifically list some of them in the brief, taking pages to discuss them. They also discuss the different kinds of contraception, the benefits and costs of each, as well as the effect of contraception coverage can have for women. All you had to do was read it.
They are mostly declarative. Where they do go into detail, it is a bit ridiculous:
“Studies document negative health consequences of unintended pregnancy. For example, during an unintended pregnancy, a woman is more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care, to be depressed during pregnancy, and to suffer from domestic violence during pregnancy.”
Seriously? A woman being negligent (“receiving delayed or no prenatal care”) is a healthcare issue? How about other negligence issues? If I drive carelessly, that can cause serious injury, both to me and to others. Should driving lessons be included in “health care”? People who are socially awkward are often friendless and depressed. Should social grace lessons be included in “health care”? Being beaten, both in domestic environment and outside, is certainly bad for your health. Should self-defense classes be included in “health care”?
They do list cases where some medical conditions require women to avoid pregnancy. Cool. Then prescribing contraceptives for those conditions is, definitely, part of “health care”. But otherwise - I don’t think so.
