# Remedy for Hobby Lobby decision? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060 "2014-07-01T02:26:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/121 "2014-07-02T16:26:58Z")
You expect your spouse, your mom, your best friend, to have a say about the medical choices you make. But even within those close personal relationships you don’t expect them to do any more than express an opinion. But for SCOTUS to give your boss the right to interfere explicitly in your relationship with your doctor, and to dictate absolutely what personal choices you can or cannot make about your own insides, is completely unacceptable. And to cloak this in the first amendment by calling it a protection of your boss’s religious freedom is head-exploding. How are an employee’s individual medical choices, made in consultation with her doctor, in any conceivable way an infringement on the boss’s religious freedom? Why would it be ludicrous for an employer to micromanage how your paycheck is spent–“You can’t spend any of the money I pay you on pork or alcohol!”–but it’s OK for the same employer to micromanage the part of your salary that’s represented by insurance dollars? How does allowing this mindboggling degree of religious intrusion into another person’s personal life fall under first amendment protection? Why is the boss’s actively interfering religious intrusion protected by the first amendment, but the employee’s passive, non-intrusive, personal religious choice not covered? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/122 "2014-07-02T16:30:03Z")
I’m curious to know what the overlap is between people who applaud this intrusion into an individual medical choices, and those who condemn Obamacare as a limiting of choice. ---
**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 2, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/123 "2014-07-02T16:32:40Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Sort of like Lawrence, huh? The majority says that this ruling is only for private consensual sexual behavior and has nothing, nothing at all, I tells ya, to do with whether or not the government must recognize same sex marriage. Nothing, you silly Justice Scalia, you! > > Scalia says that’s absurd because the logic almost mandates it. > > Fast forward ten years and the SAME JUSTICE cites Lawrence as a rationale for same sex marriage. > > I agree with you. The Court tries to make a narrow ruling, but its logic almost compels the same treatment for publicly traded corporations and for employers who would choose not to cover blood transfusions or vaccinations. Lawrence was pretty much what I had in mind. I think I’m on record as a non-fan of Kennedy’s fence sitting (though obviously I prefer his conclusions to Scalia’s.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/124 "2014-07-02T16:43:33Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > You expect your spouse, your mom, your best friend, to have a say about the medical choices you make. But even within those close personal relationships you don’t expect them to do any more than express an opinion. But for SCOTUS to give your boss the right to interfere explicitly in your relationship with your doctor, and to dictate absolutely what personal choices you can or cannot make about your own insides, is completely unacceptable. And to cloak this in the first amendment by calling it a protection of your boss’s religious freedom is head-exploding. How are an employee’s individual medical choices, made in consultation with her doctor, in any conceivable way an infringement on the boss’s religious freedom? Why would it be ludicrous for an employer to micromanage how your paycheck is spent–“You can’t spend any of the money I pay you on pork or alcohol!”–but it’s OK for the same employer to micromanage the part of your salary that’s represented by insurance dollars? How does allowing this mindboggling degree of religious intrusion into another person’s personal life fall under first amendment protection? Why is the boss’s actively interfering religious intrusion protected by the first amendment, but the employee’s passive, non-intrusive, personal religious choice not covered? Have you read the opinion? Can you please explain where in the opinion they ever mention the First Amendment controls their decision, much less “cloak” it? I’ve read the entire thing. They reach their decision because of the RFRA, not the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/125 "2014-07-02T16:45:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Have you read the opinion? > > Can you please explain where in the opinion they ever mention the First Amendment controls their decision, much less “cloak” it? > > I’ve read the entire thing. They reach their decision because of the RFRA, not the First Amendment. Sorry, mostly a reaction to local apologists. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/126 "2014-07-02T16:55:49Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Sorry, mostly a reaction to local apologists. No problem. There are two basic lines of discussion here: how wise a matter of social policy this is, and what the text of the RFRA / Dictionary Act laws actually say. It seems pretty clear to me that the floor is wide open to argue that we should not, as a matter of wise policy, let companies do this. it also seems to me pretty clear that the floor is pretty tightly shut on the issue of what the RFRA and the Dictionary Act actually say. The Dictionary Act says that when federal law includes the word “person,” it means a natural person or a corporation. The RFRA says that when Congress passes any law that burdens a person’s religious exercise, that law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. So Hobby Lobby was able to prove that the government passed a law that burdened their religious exercise, and that the law wasn’t narrowly tailored. To avoid this outcome, Congress can pass a law changing the ACA that says, “This legislation isn’t bound by the RFRA.” Or they can pass legislation that says, “The RFRA shouldn’t use the Dictionary Act: when we say [i[persons\* in the RFRA, we mean only natural persons. Or only natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.” But taking the current RFRA and the current Dictionary Act, the answer really is pretty straightforward. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/127 "2014-07-02T17:35:41Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > You expect your spouse, your mom, your best friend, to have a say about the medical choices you make. But even within those close personal relationships you don’t expect them to do any more than express an opinion. But for SCOTUS to give your boss the right to interfere explicitly in your relationship with your doctor, and to dictate absolutely what personal choices you can or cannot make about your own insides, is completely unacceptable. And to cloak this in the first amendment by calling it a protection of your boss’s religious freedom is head-exploding. How are an employee’s individual medical choices, made in consultation with her doctor, in any conceivable way an infringement on the boss’s religious freedom? Why would it be ludicrous for an employer to micromanage how your paycheck is spent–“You can’t spend any of the money I pay you on pork or alcohol!”–but it’s OK for the same employer to micromanage the part of your salary that’s represented by insurance dollars? How does allowing this mindboggling degree of religious intrusion into another person’s personal life fall under first amendment protection? Why is the boss’s actively interfering religious intrusion protected by the first amendment, but the employee’s passive, non-intrusive, personal religious choice not covered? If you take this view, then a company could not provide any form of non-monetary compensation unless it provided them all. For example, if my employer gives everyone a gift certificate for a Thanksgiving turkey, then I could say the same thing: This turkey costs the employer $20. He is telling me that I can’t use MY compensation for what I want! I can’t buy $20 worth of booze, cigarettes, contraception, or make a part payment on my abortion. I have to bow down and get the only thing he will graciously give me in exchange for my work: a turkey! How dare he deny me something as basic as a choice in food! ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/128 "2014-07-02T17:40:41Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I have to bow down and get the only thing he will graciously give me in exchange for my work: a turkey! How dare he deny me something as basic as a choice in food! It’s OK now to be paid in poultry? Did I time travel back to 1314? The compensation I get for my labor isn’t a gift, and my employer isn’t “gracious” for allowing me to have it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/129 "2014-07-02T17:52:06Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If you take this view, then a company could not provide any form of non-monetary compensation unless it provided them all. For example, if my employer gives everyone a gift certificate for a Thanksgiving turkey, then I could say the same thing: > > This turkey costs the employer $20. He is telling me that I can’t use MY compensation for what I want! I can’t buy $20 worth of booze, cigarettes, contraception, or make a part payment on my abortion. I have to bow down and get the only thing he will graciously give me in exchange for my work: a turkey! How dare he deny me something as basic as a choice in food! If a company is giving out gift certificates as compensation, I’m pretty sure they’re breaking the law. If they’re giving them out as _bonuses_, that’s fine, but we’re not talking about bonuses in this thread, we’re talking about compensation for labor. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/130 "2014-07-02T18:05:13Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If a company is giving out gift certificates as compensation, I’m pretty sure they’re breaking the law. If they’re giving them out as _bonuses_, that’s fine, but we’re not talking about bonuses in this thread, we’re talking about compensation for labor. Gift certificates as compensation is legal, and if they are given in exchange for labor then compensation is the required treatment. Any gift certificate given to an employee for any reason should be included as compensation and taxed accordingly. Bonuses are also considered compensation. The tax treatment for those varies, but there is a safe harbor election for the withholding of payroll taxes and that is why they are considered “bonuses”. For all other purposes, they are treated as compensation. > [@lissener](#): > > But for SCOTUS to give your boss the right to interfere explicitly in your relationship with your doctor, and to dictate absolutely what personal choices you can or cannot make about your own insides, is completely unacceptable. That would be unacceptable if that is what happened. It is not in fact what happened. Your hypothetical boss (HL in this case) does not have the right to interfere in your relationship with your doctor, nor does it have the ability to dictate what personal choices you can or cannot make about your insides. SCOTUS has said that in this case your hypothetical boss (HL) can choose to not include certain things in their sponsored health plan. You can still do whatever you want and that is between you and your doctor. Employers set the parameters of their health plans all the time. Some employers are more generous than others in the amount they subsidize, or the coverages they offer. Differences in these aspects are not consistent with the description you made. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/131 "2014-07-02T18:38:17Z")
So … remedies for the Hobby Lobby decision. Clearly, we can change or throw out the RFRA. I wonder what the Republicans in the House would do about that? Hmmmm? Does not seem likely that that is in the cards barring a change in the balance in the House, and that seems unlikely in the next electoral cycle, though things might change if corporations batten and feed on the huge “religious objections” loophole the Supreme Court has created for regulation of any sort. Seems unlikely on a grand scale by 2016, but weirder things have happened, and will continue to happen with the whack jobs we now have on the Supreme Court. In fact, ANY action from Congress in a positive direction seems unlikely. Is there any possibility of an executive action by Obama or one of his regulatory agencies countering the Hobby Lobby decision? Otherwise, all I can think of that will do the trick is massive boycotting of companies that use the religious exemption to regulation, and that seems unlikely as well. Then again, I thought gays were going to have to wait a LOT longer before their civil rights gained broad acceptance in American society. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/132 "2014-07-02T19:29:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > … > > In fact, ANY action from Congress in a positive direction seems unlikely. Is there any possibility of an executive action by Obama or one of his regulatory agencies countering the Hobby Lobby decision? Otherwise, all I can think of that will do the trick is massive boycotting of companies that use the religious exemption to regulation, and that seems unlikely as well. > … Sure, there are several options one of the regulatory agencies, specifically the HHS, could intact without the input of Congress. - HHS could remove the requirement mandating contraception coverage thus putting religious and non-religious on a level playing field. - HHS could allow religious exemptions without fighting tooth and nail and incurring huge legal expenses. Put the savings in legal costs towards providing contraceptives. :rolleyes: - HHS could, as the SCOTUS advised, implement the pass-the-buck method of making the insurer pay in line with the treatment that religious non-profits already are entitled to. The PPACA left a LOT in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide what exactly must be covered and for whom. That power has been reigned in slightly by this decision, but only marginally so. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/133 "2014-07-02T20:14:26Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Sure, there are several options one of the regulatory agencies, specifically the HHS, could intact without the input of Congress. > > - HHS could remove the requirement mandating contraception coverage thus putting religious and non-religious on a level playing field. > > - HHS could allow religious exemptions without fighting tooth and nail and incurring huge legal expenses. Put the savings in legal costs towards providing contraceptives. :rolleyes: > > - HHS could, as the SCOTUS advised, implement the pass-the-buck method of making the insurer pay in line with the treatment that religious non-profits already are entitled to. > The PPACA left a LOT in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide what exactly must be covered and for whom. That power has been reigned in slightly by this decision, but only marginally so. None of those constitute a solution. They all make it more difficult for women to obtain access to abortions when they need them. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/134 "2014-07-02T20:48:47Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > None of those constitute a solution. They all make it more difficult for women to obtain access to abortions when they need them. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case revolved around contraceptives mandated under PPACA - not abortions. Plans were never required to provide abortions before the Hobby Lobby decision. That hasn’t changed. Another agency that could take action is the FDA. They could make contraceptives Over The Counter as suggested in [this article](http://www.cnbc.com/id/101807865?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=101807865%7CHobby%20Lobby%20outrage?%20Here#.). That would improve access and drive down costs for many, albeit not all, forms of contraception. It likely wouldn’t address IUDs (which Hobby Lobby did object to) or the need for a doctor to implant something like Norplant, but its a start. And no Congressional action required. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/135 "2014-07-02T22:42:23Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The issue in the Hobby Lobby case revolved around contraceptives mandated under PPACA - not abortions. . Except that Hobby Lobby believes that these four forms of contraception do, in fact, cause abortions. I personally don’t agree but it’s it’s sincerely held religious belief so what are you going to do? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/136 "2014-07-02T22:53:18Z")
> [@standingwave](#): > > Except that Hobby Lobby believes that these four forms of contraception do, in fact, cause abortions. I personally don’t agree but it’s it’s sincerely held religious belief so what are you going to do? Well, the question is what can the Obama administration do unilaterally to address the issue. They cannot overrule the Supreme Court. The administration cannot make Hobby Lobby change their beliefs. But there are things the various departments under the executive branch could do without Congressional input that would eliminate or limit any difference of how the law impacts Hobby Lobby and companies similarly situated. Of course some of my suggestions don’t end up with the employer footing the bill for contraception. And therein is perhaps the issue of this thread. What precisely is the problem to be fixed? Is the problem the fact the HL is afforded an exemption under the law? Is the problem the need to provide access to contraception to HL employees and those similarly situated? Regardless of how the problem is defined, I completely fail to see how having the government or the insurer pay for the contraception in any way compromises a woman’s ability to access abortion as postulated by **Evil Captor**. The government already pays for such benefits for those on expanded Medicaid and the administration crafted the insurer pays solution for religious non-profits that is already in place. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/137 "2014-07-03T01:44:53Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Since SCOTUS screwed this pooch on this one, and since they’re pretty much where the buck stops, what has to happen to correct their error? Do we just have to wait for the conservative activist cabal to die out, and for the issue to come up again? Or will it be possible to legislate our way out of it? If so, what would that legislation be? Would it require a constitutional amendment specifically stating that a corporation cannot pray? Or that a person has more personhood than a corporation? Would finally passing the ERA have any effect on such institutionalized misogyny? > > I mean seriously, the fight against such medieval ignorance can’t simply be over. Right? Repealing the RFRA would probably do it. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/138 "2014-07-03T02:53:58Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Go back and ask James Madison what a corporation is. He’d look at you like you were insane. > > Corporate personhood is a necessity because of the way the common law works. You like the idea that you can sue a corporation, right? Without corporate personhood, you can’t do that, because only a person is capable of being party to most forms of legal action. Nonsense, corporations existed in his time. It was an effective way to collect resources for endeavors to share risks and the rewards. And the idea you cannot sue a group because it is not legally a person is just too god damn funny. Is the government a ‘person’, cause citizens have been suing it since jump street. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/139 "2014-07-03T02:56:21Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Nonsense, corporations existed in his time. It was an effective way to collect resources for endeavors to share risks and the rewards. > > And the idea you cannot sue a group because it is not legally a person is just too god damn funny. Is the government a ‘person’, cause citizens have been suing it since jump street. You can sue the government because it is also a type of corporation and thus has personhood. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/140 "2014-07-03T02:57:48Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You can sue the government because it is also a type of corporation and thus has personhood. No, you can sue a government because, like a corporation, it doesn’t need personhood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=8)