Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

Unknown Lamer posted about a month ago | from the should-have-gone-with-commie-care dept.

Medicine 1330

An anonymous reader writes In a legislative first, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that for-profit companies can, in essence, hold religious views. Given the Supreme Court's earlier decisions granting corporations the right to express political support through monetary donations, this ruling is not all that surprising. Its scope does not extend beyond family-owned companies where "there's no real difference between the business and its owners." It also only applies to the contraception mandate of the health care law. The justices indicated that contraceptive coverage can still be obtained through exceptions to the mandate that have already been introduced to accommodate religious nonprofits. Those exceptions, which authorize insurance companies to provide the coverage instead of the employers, are currently being challenged in lower courts. The "closely held" test is pretty meaningless, since the majority of U.S. corporations are closely held.

cancel ×

1330 comments

A win for freedom (2, Insightful)

NaCh0 (6124) | about a month ago | (#47355211)

Go get all the abortions you want, but private businesses have the option to not pay for it.

Re:A win for freedom (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355269)

Corporations have ONE religion, and that is to make as much money as possible. They are under common law obligations to screw over people to do so. Tto say they have religious convictions is absurdity at its finest.

Watch the abuse begin. It's the latest slip down the slippery slope started in 1800s when the absurd idea of "Corporate Personhood" started.

a few hundred years earlier than that (4, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month ago | (#47355367)

It was a few hundred years before that when corporations were created as legal persons who could purchase ships, undertake voyages, be sued, etc.

The whole idea of a corporation is that me, you, and a hundred other people can pool our resources to do something big, such as buying and outfitting a ship (or ISP), and if something went wrong a creditor could take the ship and its cargo, but you wouldn't be risking your house. As a legal person, the corporation could be sued, rather than filing 100 law suits against each of the individual investors, none of which could pay the judgement.

Re:a few hundred years earlier than that (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a month ago | (#47355421)

Exactly. It is a good idea going completely out of control. I am for corporations having legal rights, but it was intended to be limited.

When you say corporations have the same legal rights as people, you're giving them the cake and letting them eat it, too. Saying they ARE people is a power grab, and all of a sudden there is no trade off for the idea of limited liability.

Again... the idea that corporations can have religion is absurd. The limited liability company makes profit their religion. The door is wide open for all types of abuse. The right wing anti-gay zealots are already lining up to use this decision to try to roll back civil rights gains.

Re:A win for freedom (5, Informative)

Eddi3 (1046882) | about a month ago | (#47355277)

Further, Hobby Lobby still provides coverage for more than a dozen kinds of birth control. Just not the ones that can induce abortion of an already fertilized fetus.

Re:A win for freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355301)

...which is an idea that involves the idea of "when life starts" which is a philosophical, not a scientific problem.

Your philosophy is just as valid as my philosophy... or at least it was. Now one philosophy is paramount in the eyes of the law.

Re:A win for freedom (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a month ago | (#47355321)

Now one philosophy is paramount in the eyes of the law.

The philosophy of liberty has only gotten a small win here. One step forward for every two steps back.

Re:A win for freedom (0)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47355515)

An 'organism' is not a philosophical construct.

Is a baby chicken a chick before it breaks out of its egg? Is it a chick while it depends on its mother to keep it warm and safe until it hatches?

Where does philosophy enter into that argument?

Distinct DNA (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47355603)

the idea of "when life starts" which is a philosophical, not a scientific problem

Pro-life scientists point out that an embryo is a distinct organism because it has distinct DNA. The life associated with that DNA thus begins when sperm meets egg.

Re:A win for freedom (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a month ago | (#47355377)

Hobby Lobby did not want to pay for contraceptive drugs that created a condition they consider to be abortion.

Others may have a different view as to what they consider objectionable.

This really did not establish much of a precedent because the court based the decision on Federal law, not Constitutional law.

Re:A win for freedom (4, Interesting)

worldthinker (536300) | about a month ago | (#47355625)

earned benefits are the property of the employee. There were already mechanisms in the ACA that would have shielded an employer from "paying" for abortion. But an employer has no more right to say how an employee uses a benefit as they do their earned money. This decision will not stand the test of time. It will fall in a like manner that the Bowers v. Hardwick case was revisited and overturned decades later with the majority opinion admitting the SCOTUS had been "wrong".

Re:A win for freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355541)

Too bad they didn't target ones that induce the abortion of an already fertilized fetus then....

Re:A win for freedom (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47355281)

I's insurances, IT goes into a pool. Telling people they can't use it because of someone else's religion is THE single most unConstitutional thing they could have done.
IT's not freedom, it's religious zealotry. This is the same shit that change the mideast from a open democracy in the 40-5 and 50s into the religious cluster fuck it is now.

Re: A win for freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355343)

You don't have to work for someone who got people to work for them.
You can work for yourself.
You can work so that you get other people to work for you.
I'm glad you want to tell them what they should do for the people who chose to work for them.
It's illuminating.
Now tell me what I can and can't watch on tv.

Re:A win for freedom (1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | about a month ago | (#47355361)

Welcome to america where we have the god given right to force our beliefs on people that are poorer than us.

Re:A win for freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355447)

I guess that shortly Islamic owned businesses will be free to deny service to Jews.

Re:A win for freedom (1)

bmo (77928) | about a month ago | (#47355521)

This is a troll, sortof, but it is exactly the slope this is going down.

$CORPORATE_RELIGION can discriminate against $YOUR_RELIGION or lack thereof.

This is a can o' worms that I don't think Hobby Lobby and their directors has completely thought through.

--
BMO

Re:A win for freedom (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month ago | (#47355569)

Hmmm.

Perhaps.

But at a mere 238 years this coming weekend, we've been around nowhere near long enough to have copyrighted it.

Re:A win for freedom (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355545)

Perhaps I misunderstood.

Who said the employee couldn't use contraception? The employee is still free to obtain and use contraception on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair. In addition to the employee purchasing (or using the provisions) for the contraception, then they are also free to work in another with/without religious beliefs who will purchase it.

 

Re:A win for freedom (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355293)

Unfortunately we can extend that to a variety of things. Do your 'sincerely held religious beliefs' outlaw blood transfusions? Looks like your exployees are going to be paying for that themselves. Organ transplants? I'm sure insurance companies would love that. Like many things, the problem isn't the scenario at hand. Its the precedent and how it will be abused.

Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (3, Insightful)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a month ago | (#47355231)

So I hope that a business can refuse to pay for it even without having to pretend to believe in an invisible man in the sky..

If not, I hope one of them sues, because the government is then preferring one religion over another.

(I think this, and many other things, should be paid for by the person themselves...)

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355257)

I think you should be able to do as you please, as long as it harms no one, regardless of your religion. "Religious freedom" seems to be taken to mean "I can do whatever I want in the name of my religion!"

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month ago | (#47355483)

I am much more committed to the basic tenet of the separation of church and state.

Campaign finance for political office is primarily acquired, above board, from corporations. At the very least, lets not kid ourselves about it.

How about we allow the corporations to tell the politicians what to do only as long as they remain religion-neutral.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a month ago | (#47355275)

you should learn to read
SCOTUS specifically said it has to be a closely knit ownership structure with a history of religious beliefs against abortion

just like aereo, this is a narrow ruling

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (2, Interesting)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a month ago | (#47355385)

OK, then why can't I be a "closely knit ownership structure" (I did already hear that part today, btw) in the "Church of Money", and my church believes I shouldn't have to pay for things people can pay for themselves?

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (1, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47355575)

Several reasons.
1. There is no such church
2. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church
3. You are too honest to invent a church just to cheat someone out of health care
4. The decision was limited to this issue of abortion drugs
5. You actually do think businesses have to pay for things people could pay for themselves

Anything else you are unsure of?

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (-1, Troll)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a month ago | (#47355279)

The rights of religious zealots trump the rights of everyone else.

This has been the battle cry this year and SCOTUS seems to agree.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47355307)

5 of the SCOTUS.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a month ago | (#47355323)

The US Constitution says that's enough.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355409)

The rights of religious zealots trump the rights of everyone else.

They sure should trump the right to make somebody else pay for your elective health care.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a month ago | (#47355431)

Healthcare is earned and part of pay. It is NOT paid for by the company. Another absurdity in this whole mess.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (2)

TopChef (1308767) | about a month ago | (#47355507)

Exactly! It is a benefit and the employee chooses how and when to use it. An employer should have no say over that. Otherwise, what's next? You can't receive your paycheck if you are going to spend it on sinful alcohol and gambling? Those go against the strongly held moral beliefs of your employer!

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47355601)

No, healthcare is not earned or part of pay. Health insurance is part of their compensation, and it is the insurance the company is willing to provide. This was perfectly acceptable insurance before Obamacare became law, and as the president promised, you can keep your health insurance.

So why can the company not keep their insurance as the President of the United States of America promised they could?

A Christian Scientist owned company might (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355287)

have a chance there. It would be interesting.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355335)

(I think this, and many other things, should be paid for by the person themselves...)

That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? A month of generic birth control pills costs about $10/mo [reproductiveaccess.org] . Purchased in bulk, condoms are about $0.50/ea [amazon.com] . Both are readily available at no cost from a variety of sources for those who can't afford them. Setting aside the heated political debate, it seems foolish to route these sorts of purchases through your insurance company, with inevitable overhead, rather than simply purchasing them yourself.

Of course, low information voters on both sides eat this shit up. It's red meat for the bases of both political parties.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a month ago | (#47355399)

BTW, I feel the same thing about viagra, which IIRC, insurance companies pay for too.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355429)

I'd concur with you. Viagra is the ultimate elective drug. Unless it's proscribed for cardiac reasons, then I'd be cool with it being covered. Ditto for those occasions when birth control pills are proscribed for hormonal imbalances. As an elective drug though? That's absurd. Particularly when there are so many low cost generics available. Not to mention the safety net of non-profits and government health departments that give birth control out to almost anyone who asks, in many cases without even means testing them.

Not the same. (1)

khasim (1285) | about a month ago | (#47355535)

Getting hormonal birth control from a doctor other than your regular doctor means that those two doctors have to both have access to your medical records or both consult on any issues you might have.

Different pills have different effects (and side effects) on different women.

The only time it makes sense for a woman to get hormonal birth control from a free clinic is when that is her only source of non-emergency medical care.

Re:Not the same. (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355605)

Getting hormonal birth control from a doctor other than your regular doctor means that those two doctors have to both have access to your medical records or both consult on any issues you might have

Isn't that the whole point of the push for EMRs? And what stops her from seeing the regular doc then getting the script filled at a clinic? Or just paying the $10/mo for it? My insurance company isn't giving me free condoms, and I don't have any get out of jail free cards made available to me if my birth control fails.

Condom breaks and the woman doesn't want a kid with the guy? She can take the morning after pill, get an abortion, or give the child up for adoption. Man doesn't want a child with this woman? Too bad asshole, we're going to confiscate 15% to 25% of your post-FICA earnings for the next 18 years, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, even if she broke the condom in the first place or lied about being on pills.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355347)

Atheism is not a recognized religion, rather a philosophy opposed to it. IANAL, but I would imagine they'd have a hard time arguing that as there are no defined tenets of atheism.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (4, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | about a month ago | (#47355585)

Surely an atheist can believe that abortion is a murder and desire to have no part in it.

Atheists aren't psychopaths who wouldn't care either way.

Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355607)

Regardless of your religious, or lack thereof, if your actions harm no one, then I don't see the problem. Similarly, if they do harm others, then I don't give a shit what religion you're part of. We really shouldn't allow the government to decide which religions are true religions and which aren't; that's tyranny. If some guy part of some old religion can get excused from doing something other people have to do, but some guy who makes up a religion in five seconds can't, then that's utterly absurd. One magical sky daddy isn't better than any other. It also violates separation of church and state.

News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.... (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355241)

Let the flame fest begin!

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about a month ago | (#47355485)

Slashdot, take your click bait and shove it up your arse.

I'm done here.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.... (1)

gangien (151940) | about a month ago | (#47355525)

it has been this way for over a decade.

Abortion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355243)

It's actually about abortion, isn't it? You people at Slashdot know how to use APIs, but don't know how to speak English? There's a difference, and I'd hate to think that anyone was, you know, telling lies.

Gee Catholic judges (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47355255)

put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.

Religious fuckers are destroying this country.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (0, Troll)

iggymanz (596061) | about a month ago | (#47355273)

nonsense, contraception is cheap. people can buy their own damn contraception, cheaper than a movie per week.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47355317)

Gosh, if it was about contraception, you might have a point. You clearly have no idea what this conversation is actually about.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355455)

Uh oh! It's Democrat talking point #1, straight from HQ! Seen the exact same post in half a dozen places today.

Lots of people can't afford a movie a week (2)

localroger (258128) | about a month ago | (#47355489)

Particularly a $12 movie, which is what they would have to cost to equal the cost of the Pill. (Not counting the mandatory biannual medical exams, without which you can't get a prescription.) Ginsberg noted in her dissent that the cost of an IUD is comparable to a month's salary for a person making minimum wage. Then again, I'm sure you'll also agree that the cost of your own vaccines and blood transfusions are also reasonable when those folks start claiming their exemption under this stupid ruling.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (1)

swillden (191260) | about a month ago | (#47355491)

nonsense, contraception is cheap. people can buy their own damn contraception, cheaper than a movie per week.

It's actually not about most contraception, just the "morning after" pill, which arguably closer to abortion than to contraception.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355375)

What's Obama's religion? It's not Christian, it's not Islam. His hero Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to... Satan.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355529)

Stop believing everything you hear on Glen Beck. Pick up a copy for yourself.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/20/beck-misreads-alinsky-to-link-teachers-to-satan/170889

The reference was a quote, not a dedication.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355539)

ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
PLAYBOY: Why?
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.
PLAYBOY: Why them?
ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355593)

I don't care what his religion is and you shouldn't either.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (4, Insightful)

stoploss (2842505) | about a month ago | (#47355407)

put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.

Religious fuckers are destroying this country.

Meh. You are complaining about the symptom rather than the cause.

While I am not religious, I do respect the rights of religious people. It is unconscionable for them to be forced to provide benefits that are in opposition to their morals. However, I am in favor of ubiquitously available contraception (for everyone, not just women, I'm egalitarian that way...).

The real issue stems from the retarded decision back in the high income tax bracket era of the early 20th century that led to the IRS allowing health insurance premiums to be tax-deductible from payroll. That fucking brain damaged decision led to our current clusterfuck of employer-provided health care.

Fix the underlying cause, and this problem becomes a non-issue. I prefer the UK's approach, with public & private healthcare systems. Besides, do you really want to undermine the First Amendment simply to try to hack on yet another kludge for the collapsing employer-provided approach to health care in this country?

You can probably go a long way toward convincing the conservatives by pointing out that a large portion of our population is already on socialized healthcare programs that won't ever go away (Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, the VA, all governmental employees, et al) unless we replace them with universal healthcare, and that countries with socialized health care pay *less* in health care costs/taxes than we do for our "free market" (but not really) solution.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355463)

However, I am in favor of ubiquitously available contraception (for everyone, not just women, I'm egalitarian that way...).

We had it before the ACA's mandate. 85% of group health plans provided it. Non-profits in all 50 States and many local governments make it available to those who can't afford it. The cost is not prohibitive even for those without insurance who don't wish to avail themselves of the aforementioned options.

The mandate was a solution looking for a problem, or if I'm more cynical, it was an effort to throw red meat at the base and distract them from the shitty economy. "Sure, we can't get you a job, but don't for the other guy because HE HATES WOMEN!!!"

Re:Gee Catholic judges (3, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a month ago | (#47355627)

The real issue stems from the retarded decision back in the high income tax bracket era of the early 20th century that led to the IRS allowing health insurance premiums to be tax-deductible from payroll. That fucking brain damaged decision led to our current clusterfuck of employer-provided health care.

Note that this was a side-effect of WW2.

During WW2, Wage and Price controls were put into effect for many industries.

Which left companies unable to attract talent by paying them more. So, some bright boy figured that he could offer free health insurance as a perk of the job (instead of higher pay).

By the time the dust of WW2 had settled, the current system of employer-provided health insurance was firmly established. Leading us inevitably to today....

Re:Gee Catholic judges (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47355449)

put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.

I guess you missed that part about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

LK

Re:Gee Catholic judges (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355505)

Right, because running a corporation is a religious practice. Give us this day our daily board meeting.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a month ago | (#47355459)

Actually just the male Catholic judges.

Sotomayor is also Catholic, but joined up on Ginsberg's dissent.

Re:Gee Catholic judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355527)

Obama lied to you and told you that it wasn't a tax. Why should a careful person be forced to pay for a risky person's lifestyle?

News For Nerds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355295)

Not only is this story over 10 hours old, it does not belong on a site ostensibly for news for nerds. This is not a science story whatsover.
This is not your personal blogs and not your platform. I demand this story be removed for being offtopic.

Re:News For Nerds (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a month ago | (#47355397)

... stuff that matters. On a scale of stuff that matters, this ranks pretty high.

Re:News For Nerds (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a month ago | (#47355401)

"stuff that matters"

And if you dont think a ruling like this doesn't matter to everyone in this country that has a job, you need to get out of your mothers basement more often.

( of course /. no longer advertises either.. but i guess you missed that. )

And what the hell is up with this posting time limit, for people logged in?

I'm ok with this (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355327)

Are condoms covered by insurance? Nope!

Equal protection folks; this is more than just women's rights. When male contraception is mandated to be fully covered by insurance with no cost share then I'm ok with female contraception covered too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#ACA_mandatory_coverage_for_contraceptives

Re:I'm ok with this (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355411)

I'll be cool with the ACA mandating equal pricing for the genders when my auto insurance company is held to the same standard [esurance.com] .

Shakrai, male, 32, 790 FICO score, zero moving violations, zero accidents, six month premium for 2012 Honda Civic: $450
Shakrai's ex-gf, female, 31, 710 FICO score, three moving violations, two at fault accidents, six month premium for 2011 Honda Civic: $390

Same liability limits, I had higher physical damage deductibles, and a 10% discount for defensive driver training that she lacked, both through Progressive.

I wonder when the big man at 1600 Pennsylvania is going to fix this gender disparity?

Re:I'm ok with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355467)

2012 Honda Civic, 2011 Honda Civic

Not that the sexist bullshit of the insurance industry isn't sexist bullshit, but was this a typo, or are you really trying to compare what are effectively two completely different cars? (Yes, model year matters.)

Re:I'm ok with this (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355499)

Blah, typo.

We bought the cars together. Same dealer, same color, down to the add on options.

Is that liability or comprehensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355511)

If it's the former you're getting screwed. I'm around your age, have no violations in the past 3-7 years, and at like 10-15k a year mileage with whatever the standard liability coverages are (like 200-300k/incident and like 50-100k per person/vehicle) am only paying 550 per *YEAR* through AAA. And I know for a fact there's a few cheaper alternatives available.

Re:Is that liability or comprehensive? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47355551)

You should bump up those limits. Liability coverage is cheap and will keep you out of bankruptcy court if things go wrong one day. I have the max, $500,000 combined single limit, with another $1,000,000 of umbrella coverage hanging over that.

I'm dinged on a few areas I have little control over. First being the car, apparently it's one of the most popular stolen cars in America. Then our geography, we're in a part of New York with high DWI rates. Progressive was far and away the cheapest for both of us. I periodically check to see if this is still the case (easy to do when you work for an insurance agency) and so far it is. More's the pity.

Re:I'm ok with this (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47355523)

I wonder when the big man at 1600 Pennsylvania is going to fix this gender disparity?

Shut your oppressive mouth. Cock-man! Despoiler!

Everyone knows that it's only discrimination to treat people differently when women aren't happy with the disparity.

LK

Re:I'm ok with this (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a month ago | (#47355475)

I've got a better idea: how about not requiring me to pay for somebody else's elective health care, regardless of whether it's for contraception or not, and regardless of what my religious beliefs (if any) are?

KKKonservatism at its finest. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355331)

Next outrage: They'll use this decision as a precedent from which to argue that corporations have a free speech right to openly discriminate against minorities in hiring.

Then: Since corporations are people, and people have a right to vote...voila, corporate voting! AKA, rich people getting more than one vote per person.

I wish I was exaggerating. I wish these scum weren't planning on remaking this country in the image of Putin's Russia - of, by, and for the money.

Re:KKKonservatism at its finest. (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47355533)

No, you fucking moron.

Corporations are "persons" not "people" and moreover, only "Citizens" can vote. Corporations are not now, have never been and shall never be "citizens".

LK

Thou shalt not kill (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355337)

My religion says that killing is wrong. Can I refuse to pay the percentage of taxes which goes to the military?

Re:Thou shalt not kill (3, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a month ago | (#47355349)

No. That cuts into Dick Cheney's scratch.

Bad media coverage (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about a month ago | (#47355353)

To start with Hobby lobby was NOT against contraceptives, and offered it to their employees. They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".

Avoiding the truth was a plan to harass and go after them using media bias, much like Chick-fil-A was attacked.

Re:Bad media coverage (2, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a month ago | (#47355381)

Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.

Re:Bad media coverage (5, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47355549)

Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.

Were there any documented cases of Chic-Fil-A refusing to serve someone because they were gay? Refusing to hire someone because they were gay? Attacking someone because they were gay?

LK

Re:Bad media coverage (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about a month ago | (#47355587)

Where's my mod points. This.

Re:Bad media coverage (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a month ago | (#47355501)

No point in splitting hairs.
It's as stupid and disgusting as wanting to forbid medical treatment to former smokers on moral grounds.

Re:Bad media coverage (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a month ago | (#47355509)

To start with Hobby lobby was NOT against contraceptives, and offered it to their employees. They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".

HL has stated they're not against contraceptives, just the ones the voices in their head tell them are bad. And yet somehow, they didn't have a problem with them before the PPACA.

We'll see where they go now that they have their nose in the tent.

We are doomed (1, Insightful)

TopChef (1308767) | about a month ago | (#47355363)

Superstition trumps health care for women.

Re:We are doomed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355433)

That is what you get for electing Barack "war on Women" Obama

Re:We are doomed (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47355561)

Superstition trumps health care for women.

Stop with the butthurt.

Pay for your own Plan B. This decision doesn't take that away.

LK

Not a First Admendment decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355383)

1) The court based it's decision on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and not the Constitution.
2) That birth control such as IUDs induce abortion is not a based on scientific. This is just another example of religion faith over facts.

this is being preserved for other religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355389)

Muslim and Jew who both have strong views on what should be acceptible.
Next step, government pays all without any religion preferences. ( except the govt religion)

WTF rich people? (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about a month ago | (#47355391)

You bitch about paying for welfare kids, and you bitch about women not wanting kids to abort them. PICK ONE AND STFU!

Companies don't pay for healthcare, workers do (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355415)

Healthcare is a form of compensation, just like your wages, your employer can not tell you how to spend your wages, why can they tell me what healthcare services I can utilize? Also, companies don't "pay" for healthcare like its some sort of charity they generously give to there subjects, employees pay for it themselves by providing work for the company!

Bad Precedence (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355439)

This is really bad.

Lets see how quick other companies jump on this bandwagon and try to push it further.

I am betting we will actually see a few companies trying to say that modern medicine is against their religion and opt for prayer healing instead. Or maybe a few companies may use this to force their employees to follow their religious dress codes to deter employees and a whole other barrel of monkeys on this one.

Honestly, what CAN'T you do based on a religion? Especially when people can actually make up their own religion if they can get enough support, and I am betting that if enough rich people get behind one, they can make an official one with all kinds of cost effective religious practices.

Hm What is a slut to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355441)

Pay for their own tube tie? Don't do the lie if you can't buy the tie. Don't do it.

Let the floodgates open (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a month ago | (#47355487)

What if I object to funding the health care of people who smoke, drink or don't belong to whatever small sect of a Church I belong to? That's going to create a budget hole plus an expensive tangle of red tape once that sort of "freedom" gets going.

If people want a government run on religious lines instead of for everyone there's one setting up in the middle of Iraq and Syria about now.

Hobby Lobby's Minimum Wage (1, Troll)

jigawatt (1232228) | about a month ago | (#47355519)

Hobby Lobby pays a minimum of $14/hr for full time employees. This is $6.75/hr over the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Plan B costs about $50 out of pocket at Walgreens. In this situation, an otherwise minimum wage employee could afford about one Plan B dose per workday on the EXTRA money that Hobby Lobby voluntarily pays them.

contraceptives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355543)

try abstinence instead. just saying

What about Jehovah's Witnesses? (2, Interesting)

TheDarkDaimon (3022989) | about a month ago | (#47355555)

Does this mean that a Jehovah's Witness run company can deny coverage of blood transfusions because it is against their religion? Something to think about.

"Closely-held" is not meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355573)

What matters is not the number of corporations, but the number of employees. The vast majority of large corporations are *not* closely held, so the proportion of corporate employees this ruling applies to is much smaller than the proportion of corporations that are closely held.

The real problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47355595)

Is that we have this asinine idea in this country that the employer decides employee health coverage. How about my employer just pay me what he would pay for health coverage and let me find the best coverage for me? That way, no employer would have moral qualms about my use of birth control whatever they might be opposed to, since I am the one making the decision for myself. Makes more sense, right? The employer doesn't have to pay for my groceries or my car insurance, why should medical coverage be any different?

Of course, this notion has been completely abolished by state interference in the medical industry for years.

Insurance and Employment (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a month ago | (#47355621)

Coupling the two has always been a cluster fuck. This is just one more reason to abolish this particular linkage.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...