Update: Highlights from dissenting judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg [page 60 of the Document].
1. “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”
2. “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”
3. “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”
4. “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”
5. “Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”
6. “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”
7. “Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well being. Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.”
8. “The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.”
9. “Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?”
10. “The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public. No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.’”
[Source]
—–
Update 2: Dr. Jen Gunter an OB/GYN’s take on the ruling:
As an OB/GYN I see six disastrous consequences of this decision:
1) The idea that religious beliefs of some are more important that the religious beliefs of others. Any woman wanting to use one of the 4 methods of contraception listed obviously doesn’t share the same beliefs as the closely held corporation who employs her. Why are her beliefs less important? Why can her place of employment push their religious beliefs (because a place of employment now has the rights of an individual) into the exam room? The First Amendment rights of women seeking health care are less important that the First Amendment rights of a corporation. Thank you Justice Alito for putting us in our place.
2) Legislating a belief over science. The 4 methods of contraception that Hobby Lobby takes issue with are Plan B, Ella, and the two IUDs, ParaGard and Mirena. We call these methods contraceptives not abortifacients because in science, unlike the Supreme Court, we like facts and facts tell us that these methods do not cause abortion (which is by definition the disruption of a pregnancy that is already implanted, no matter how early). But even if we take the evangelical definition of pregnancy (the wandering fertilized egg) we know for sure Plan B has no effect because it biochemically impossible for a progestin in that dose (or probably any dose) to prevent pregnancy by any definition, scientific or otherwise. The bulk of the medical evidence suggests that the two IUDs in the United States do not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and the same goes for Ella. We can’t say with 100% accuracy because there is no easily accessible test to tell us that a fertilized egg is wandering aimlessly around the upper reproductive tract and so the information comes from indirect methods like studying the mechanisms of action in lab and animal models and studies that have looked at the time of the cycle that the method is used. Science is fact and apparently facts don’t matter to the Supreme Court. Good to know.
3) A slippery slope for other contraceptives. If you believe the untruth that Plan B (a progestin) causes abortion (by any definition, evangelical or scientific) then all hormonal contraceptives should be excluded for sexually active women as they all contain progestins. Quick start pill taking (starting the birth control pill the day you get them versus waiting for your period) is very common and improves compliance, however, if you share the magical belief that progestins could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting then all oral contraceptives have to go, otherwise every time a woman starts her pills mid cycle a baby might die (never mind the possibility of escape ovulation). Hey, if you want to pervert science you can go down any rabbit hole.
4) A slippery slope for other medical practices that infringe on religious beliefs. Vaccinations, psychiatric care, blood transfusions, and infertility care are all opposed by some religions. While Alito wrote that this decision is “very specific” meaning that it only applies to these four contraceptives in this specific situation, it is somewhat naive (or obtuse or insulting, depending on your perspective) to think that other groups might also have”sincerely held religious beliefs.” Justice Ginsberg voiced concerns about these broader implications in her dissent, after all there is real money to be saved in carving out health care based on what a religion allows. Since case-law is integral to the US legal system what is to stop a closely held corporation owned by a Jehovah’s Witness from suing to exclude transfusions and organ transplants? If the court were to say “no” to a Jehovah’s Witness corporation (as Alito’s statement implies) they would be saying that only evangelical Christian beliefs are important and only a woman’s reproduction deserves to be controlled.
5) That contraception isn’t really health care. This legislation fuels the belief that contraceptives are, to paraphrase that wordsmith Rush Limbaugh, “slut pills.” It perpetuates the idea that sex is wrong or only for procreation, when sex is a normal part of life and people who have active sex lives tend to be healthier and live longer. In addition, the benefits of contraception in the health and longevity for women is undisputed. According to the World Health Organization “Women’s and adolescents’ right to contraceptive information and services is grounded in basic human rights. Paying for contraception is no different from paying for vaccinations, diabetes care, or an appendectomy.
6) Restricting access to IUDs increases the risk of unplanned pregnancies and thus paradoxically the rate of abortion. As an IUD costs about $900 (or as Ginsberg pointed out, about a month’s salary for a minimum wage worker). IUDs are by far the most effective method of contraception and they have been shown to reduce the rate of abortions. Fewer IUDs means more methods with higher failure rates.
The message from the five male justices of the Supreme Court who felt it was within their purview to opine on women’s health care yet ignore medical facts (which I hope was presented as evidence) is chilling. The religious beliefs of privately held corporations are definitely not insubstantial, but the rights of women most certainly are.
23 comments
July 1, 2014 at 12:28 pm
roughseasinthemed
So why doesn’t America introduce a national health service? Works all right for the rest of us.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:31 pm
The Arbourist
@RSITM
Universal health care is akin to the very darkest ring of communism. You must be a radical pinko commie for even having the thought.
Why should I have to pay for other people’s heath? In ‘merkica we have the freedom to make choices and find our destiny putting big government on our necks is *never* the solution to the problem!!!!!
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:42 pm
The Arbourist
@RSITM
As a Canadian, I’m amazed that the US has not adopted a single-payer system. The idea that people should be denied access to doctors and the medical system because they are poor is one of the fundamental injustices that is poisoning the roots of American society.
Front loading services versus playing cleanup is so difficult for people to understand. Social housing, welfare, access to healthcare, all allow people to live in society peacefully and not have to resort to criminal activity to get by. The Justice System, Police, and Jails are always more expensive that the social programs designed to keep people on the right track.
My apologies if the first reply was curt, as I have had this convo with many Americans and sadly, that is how too many of our discussions end. :/
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:44 pm
roughseasinthemed
The UK gets things wrong. But in the 40s they managed to sort health care and education in one fell swoop.
We have a wicked European health card. Present card, get treatment. Evil eh? Have an accident? Yup, immediate treatment. Have no health card, actually still get treated. It’s called ethics, compassion, morals etc, rather than greedy grasping bastards.
I would never deny anyone health care. Sure there is a difference between a sniffle and a heart attack. I’m not a proponent of cancer screening – and I worked in it for years.
But what’s wrong with a state-funded health care system based on secular principles?
Well?
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
The Abrahamic religions, i.e., Christianity, teaches that women were created for men. Her origin is from a man’s rib. People actually believe this. Fucking idiots.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm
The Arbourist
@RSITM
Nothing. I agree with the totality of your statement.
The US health problem is multifaceted, but a key aspect of the resistance to effective healthcare is the amount of profit generated by the current private system. The benefactors of the current system have the means to influence government policy and exercise it with impunity when their kingdom is threatened.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:53 pm
roughseasinthemed
It wasn’t curt, and we were writing at the same time. And I have had the American health care discussions too. You can guess how they ended. Especially with the wicked contraception word, because, contraception equals abortion right?
And, when I’ve had these debates, who has stormed off in a huff? Not me. Those really nice tolerant people who want to impose THEIR view on another person’s life.
****heads.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:53 pm
The Arbourist
@NN
Agreed.
I’m currently reading Misogyny – The World’s Oldest Prejudice – and just got to the chapter on Christianity.
Not even halfway through said chapter and the white-hot rage has me. :/
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm
roughseasinthemed
Oh well, I could have said what Victoria did. I was trying to be – er – subtle?
Anyway, I’ll chuck the subtlety. Private health care based on insurance is crap and always will be.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 12:59 pm
The Arbourist
@RSITM
The influence of religious ‘morality’ is poison for women. There isn’t a rigorous study out other there that says women being able to control their reproductive choices is a bad thing.
Yet note how quickly discussions divert away from the factual reality of the matter….
Facts matter, evidence based medicine matters.
The SCOTUS flipped the women, fact, and Medicine the bird with this ruling.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm
The Arbourist
@RSITM
Woo! :) Always and forever.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
@Arb — thanks for the link. This will be a must read for me, though I doubt I will be the least bit surprised by what I find between its covers.
I watched an interview with Christopher Hitches a while back — not sure if I posted the video here before or if you’ve seen it. He said that men hate the fact that they need women. WTF?
He also said that men have the propensity to want to own women, so they created god because if females were told that males wanted to own them they wouldn’t be surprised but if they thought that G-d wanted this they might be more inclined (indoctrinated — brainwashed) to go along with it.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:09 pm
roughseasinthemed
It’s not difficult. It’s about charging people for their life. It’s disgusting.
I’m nine weeks into a broken ankle. What would that cost in insurance premiums, pay-outs, and goodness knows what else.
I’m now into physio. More appointments. More patient transport picking me up. There’s no limit on the service. It’s free until I’m better. That is the measure of a civilised society.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:13 pm
roughseasinthemed
It’s a bad thing for men though …
Women? Controlling reproductive rights? Working? Economic independence?
Science fiction.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm
The Arbourist
@RSITM
I watched with disinterest as the Republicans went to war over Obamacare, the outcome was preordained given the political climate in the US. How they (GOP) sleep at night is really quite beyond me.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:29 pm
The Arbourist
@NN
Good video. Hitchens in one of his less misogynistic moments. :>
Reason #132139 of why history is so darn important. One cannot help but see (if honest historical review is important) the historical precedence(s) of misogyny and how it has shaped and still shapes our society.
It requires active neglect of historical events and trends not to see how relevant misogyny is to the state of affairs today.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:39 pm
john zande
Sad but true. Meet Exxon, he enjoys long walks on the beach, digging holes…
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:55 pm
The Arbourist
@JZ
I’m not sure how you could work pillaging the environment and destroying our future into a positive online dating profile… :>
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 1:56 pm
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
@Arb
I agree. And I think it is of interest to share an excerpt from Ian Robertson wrote in his book “The Winner Affect: How Power Affects Your Brain”:
“Power changes the brain triggering increased testosterone in both men and women. Testosterone and one of its by-products called 3-androstanediol, are addictive, largely because they increase dopamine in a part of the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens. Cocaine has its effects through this system also, and by hijacking our brain’s reward system,…]
But too much power – and hence too much dopamine – can disrupt normal cognition and emotion, leading to gross errors of judgment and imperviousness to risk, not to mention huge egocentricity and lack of empathy for others.”
—————–
So you see that in most religions men are given the power (by their invented god) to rule over women, as noted in Genesis 3:16 as well as in the NT. So is it any wonder that they had/have a lack of empathy for the inhumanity towards women and girls?
Arb, I will be honest with you — I has shed many tears over this — that so many men have not seen and still continue to not see the inhumanity and prejudices of their actions, words and thought life. That they highly esteem famous men in history — men who played a huge role in the oppression and brutal treatment of women. They lack respect for women because they believe they build civilization all the while holding women down from following their bliss and/or achieving equally if not more.
Have you ever read the paper “Female Objects of Semantic Dehumanization and Violence” by William Brennan, Phd? Here’s the link, but it has a horrific background which is hard on the eyes. If its too hard on your eyes, I posted a good bit of it on my first blog (Neuro Research Project), under the title “Semantic Dehumanization and Violence”. It’s much easier on the eyes.
Original paper:
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n3/brennan1.html
It seems to me that most men simply don’t care to know the history. I understand that many feel they are taking the blame or the brunt of very bad actions of the past, but I see very little action today from many if not most men to really support the emancipation of women. It’s simply vital if we are to survive and thrive as a species.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 2:02 pm
syrbal-labrys
White hot — yes, that adequately describes my mood for the last 48 hours or so.
LikeLike
July 1, 2014 at 2:02 pm
john zande
Lot’s of fruit in Brazil, good for the imagination ;)
LikeLike
July 2, 2014 at 2:43 am
roughseasinthemed
Thanks for the updates Arb. They are very well articulated and totally sum up the situation. Well, only from the perception of a non-evangelical second-rate citizen of society I suppose.
LikeLike
July 2, 2014 at 12:36 pm
Equality – for women? – of course, so long as it suits the men | Clouds moving in
[…] https://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/quick-take-on-scotus-ruling/#comments […]
LikeLike