From the Office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Congressman Andy Harris, M.D., released on the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision that upholds the freedom of religion in the United States:
“While in Ukraine during WWII, my mother saw churches burned by government agents because there was no freedom of religion. The Supreme Court’s decision today upholds that fundamental freedom. By upholding the freedom of religion of business owners, the Supreme Court once again highlights that the United States is a beacon of freedom for the world.”
Congressman Harris is the son of immigrants who came to the United States after WWII. His mother came from Ukraine and his father from Hungary.
In response to Congressman Harris’s press release, I wonder if he now supports the religious freedom of all business owners? I can only quote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent, “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)?”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on the Court. She should know the answer to the question she posed. If the exemption extends to those instances you speak about, then she would have said that it does. Since she didn’t, the answer is that it does not.
You misunderstood. She wrote the dissenting opinion. The majority is the one with the answer.
I didn’t misunderstand anything Keith. If the opinion had included those instances Ginsburg spoke of then it would have been answered in the opinion. Since it was not, it does not. That’ why the opinion of the majority was a very narrow opinion, and she knows it.
True, the opinion was a narrow one written only to address the specific issue that was before the Court. The point about Justice Ginsburg’s dissent is that this will now be a slippery slope. Where will is stop? What happens when a closely held private corporation that is owned by a Jehovah’s witness wants to exclude transfusions? A closely held private corporation owned by a Jewish family wants to exclude a procedure/medication? THAT is the slippery slope. You can’t legitimize/validate one religion’s beliefs over another.
All of the “what ifs” may or may not be decided by courts in the future. To suggest that blood transfusions will or could be stopped by a particular religious group based on the opinion issued in the Hobby Lobby case does not apply. It’s nothing but more rhetoric without substance. Just like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi saying that the court decision has denied women access to birth control. The only thing the court has held is under certain circumstances a woman can not force someone other than her to pay for her birth control choice. Any woman who is employed by Hobby Lobby will still be able to walk into a pharmacy and get the morning after pill…. she just wont be able to make Hobby Lobby pay for it.
Until the JW’s get a court order to exempt them from “paying” for blood transfusions on religious grounds they will have to pay for the transfusion.
If others want to challenge the law in court it is their right to do so. You want to know where the slippery slope ends? It ends when the court rules. This recent decision certainly does not authorize anything other than what was included in the very narrow opinion. Speculate all you want, in the end the court will decide, just like they did in this instance.
Before this spirals out of control, let me say that I don’t take issue with the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter.
What I do believe is that in today’s litigious society, when people with more money than sense are mad that they can’t get their way through legislation, they take it to the courts, hoping for a favorable Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decision, even if it means turning sense on its head. (For an example, look at the Citizens United decision.) Can I see someone with an axe to grind using this decision for something beyond its contraception focus? Yes, I can. Should such a case make its way through the courts? Probably not. Will it? Could be.
Fortunately, the problem created by this decision probably can be handled legislatively, in a bipartisan fashion and without much controversy.
When 16 of 20 forms of birth control are still available and made part of the benefits provided by Hobby Lobby claiming this is about “contraception” is misleading at best. Handling this “problem” legislatively is the reason it ended up in court in the first place. The constitution is designed to keep our basic rights, including religious rights away from politics. As far as Citizens United, when you can explain to me how a union is a person and always has been, providing money, legwork and political support to largely liberal democrats and a corporation is not, even though the corporation has people that support it and benefit by it in much the same way, then we’ll talk. All the court did was level the playing field which democrats hate. I don’t care to have unions legally entitled to interfere in elections but by law have those more in tune with my interests forced to remain silent with limited participatory rights.
Both unions and corporations were treated the same under the McCain–Feingold Act, the restrictions of that bound both of them were lifted under the decision. I’m not really sure how you derive a leveling of the playing field when the field was already level.
What the decision did do, however, was lift most of the reasonable limits in place on campaign spending done by entities. The twisted logic is evidenced in the court’s attempt to somehow equate unrestricted political speech provided by and for the benefit of entities with that of citizens.
If you are suggesting the liberal Democrats are more dedicated to protecting the political speech of individuals over entities than Republicans, then I shall consider switching parties.
Citizens United both encourages and allows for pooling of funds by like minded individuals. That means entrenched career politicians are more at risk…money follows influence which ultimately makes it difficult if not impossible for an outsider to challenge and win. It’s not just about corporations or unions for that matter although it’s been long acknowledged that unions have used money and influence in elections in ways corporations have always been locked out. If that weren’t true Ms. Lerner and many others wouldn’t have spent so much time trying to break up groups which whom they disapproved.
The power of like minded individuals to pool their money for the purposes of influencing politicians and elections already existed through the PAC system.
Corporations, unions, and special interest groups were not “locked out of the system” under the McCain-Feingold Act. They were treated the same way as any other entity.
I do, however, accept that many have great sympathy for any restriction put on an entity’s ability to influence elections and legislation. I am just not one of them.
Hobby lobby discovered Religion after the ACA. Prior to the ACA they covered those forms of Birth Control!!!!
Secondly 2 of them prevent ovulation and are in fact not causing an Abortion. On this Basis Hobby Lobby won the case but will probably have their exemption request denied!
“We have never held that an individual’s beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate.” He said it would be “courting anarchy” to create exceptions every time a relgious group claims that a law infringes on its practices.
Guess who said it and when…..
Scalia. RE: Peyote, neutral criminal laws being applicable to all persons regardless of religious beliefs/exercise
Neanderthal decision by the USSC! Truly to allow an exception from the law according to religious belief– don’t have to follow the law is abysmal. While it is being referred as a “narrow” victory and a specific case decision, the fact is that once elevated to a Constitutional level then other cases can refer to it as precedent. As a form of logic it doesn’t follow. Just because you pay for insurance package doesn’t mean that you the employer should have a choice in the matter. If you don’t want to provide the health care then you employees should be able to apply for ACA and get that procedure covered. What is next, no blood transfusions, no artificial respirator, no pain medication, no mental health???? Where does it end? Easy for some to celebrate this decision just be careful of the unintended consequences it may bring to you in the future. What if your employer’s beliefs against alcohol or tobacco or organ transplants become something their “moral” beliefs do not support? What about in-vitro fertilization or other new procedure that may come about in the future? So the USSC found that the govt can indeed tax you for a health insurance plan that you are now going to be ordered to have or pay a fine (tax) and now your employer gets to decide what medical procedure you can or can’t have according to their beliefs. What The FFFFF!!!
You ask where does it end? Answer: It ends where the court says it ends. Always has and always will. Just think, all of this could have ended two years ago if John Roberts had sided with those who he normally sides. Instead, he ruled the mandate a tax, sided with the minority to create a majority, and shoved ACA right up your ass.
“Just because you pay for insurance doesn’t mean you as an employer have a choice in the matter”.
Damn right! Your employer should have to pay for whatever you want.
Of course they have a choice in the matter. They could choose not to provide any health coverage, and eventually many who currently provide coverage will opt out of doing so and pay the fine. The first to start opting out will be the local governments who will come to realize that it is cheaper to opt out and pay a fine than to provide coverage. Since local governments essentially have no business competition they have less to lose than the larger businesses who are competing for customers and need to compete for the best employees. .
The upside of all this is you live in a wonderful state that has the most up do date streamlined health care system and exchange possible. Just listen and view the ads on TV about Anthony Brown who wants to continue as your state leader. Sarcasm intended!
That’s why there should be a single payer option and get these private insurance middle-men out of the business. Health care should NOT be a for profit operation in the insurance portion of it. Surely, all the do is collect money, pay back some money in claims and pocket a profit with no risk or innovation in their part. Public health care would actually cost less than this option we have now. America spends more per capital in health care and the results are less than impressive. our birth deaths are higher than many other industrialized countries. Diabetes, heart disease and respiratory illnesses go unchecked and only emergency care can’t provide healthy outcomes in the end. Get these employers (worse than death panels) out of my health care decisions since they are driven by their moral beliefs which isn’t even relevant to my health care choices…
If you believe a single payer system is the way to go and that there will not be people who are deciding your health care options you are sadly mistaken. There will be more involvement than there is now. Under the current system you can change employers if you want different health care options……. under single payer – no way.
Funny that with a name like Union Member you are going about market forces being better??? Hello, you are a union member!!! I was comparing the system now in which an employer decides what goes into my health care plan and what is covered.. I reality both the government and the employer need to stay out of my health care. none of their business.. I want my government to protect me from idiots like these that get to have a say on my health care, none of them should have a say in it.
Then a single payer system is not for you. You need to purchase private insurance or just pay whatever the going rate is for the health service you receive at the time you receive it. Hope you have deep pockets.
Have at it!