A Bill to Undo Hobby Lobby

[Wisconsin Beth]

from www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/a-bill-to-undo-hobby-lobby/

A bill to undo Hobby Lobby

With fewer than a dozen crucial words, a group of U.S. senators and representatives this week proposed what they have called a “legislative fix” to undo the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Here is the key language in the Senate version, bill number S. 2578: ”Application: Subsection (a) shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of federal law, including Public Law 103-141.”

The bill would modify — but without directly amending — the federal law that was the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling — that is, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (officially enacted as Public Law 103-141). The new measure would have the effect of simply overruling the Hobby Lobby decision. Identical versions were introduced in the Senate and House on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court’s decision gave a judicial interpretation of the scope of a federal law; it was not based on the Constitution. Thus, Congress is within its constitutional power to change that interpretation. While the bill may well have a political impact, especially in an attempt to take advantage of the resentment among women’s groups regarding the Hobby Lobby decision, it does not appear to have much chance of actually being passed by Congress. House Republican leaders have praised the Hobby Lobby decision as reinforcement of religious freedom.

There's more but I wasn't sure how much I could copy over without hitting CoC rules. 

[Tennesseer]

Well it at least puts SCOTUS on notice it was a very bad decision.

[sesfw]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hobby Lobby is a private company.

The birth control they don't want to fund is the 'morning after pill' as that is a form of abortion.

Regular birth control is very cheap.

Unmarried abstinence has no cost at all.

Permanent birth control is getting tubes cut, both male and female.

[Deleted]

The Morning After Pill is NOT a form of abortion. It works EXACTLY the same way as the rest of the birth control pills they cover. 

But that isn't even the freaking point. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. A corporation should not be exempt from federal regulation because of personal beliefs. It can't have personal beliefs. Its not a person. 

Even persons shouldn't have carte blanch to disregard federal regulation due to personal beliefs. 

[Angel!]

Jul 11, 2014 11:00:16 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hobby Lobby is a private company.

The birth control they don't want to fund is the 'morning after pill' as that is a form of abortion.

Regular birth control is very cheap.

Unmarried abstinence has no cost at all.

Permanent birth control is getting tubes cut, both male and female.

They are also refusing to cover IUDs which are a standard form of birth control & statistally better than a vasectomy.

I don't know the technical definition of an abortion, but the morning after pill has no effect if implantation has already occurred.

ETA - and the morning after pill works using the exact same mechanism as regular birth control pills.  So I honestly don't understand how they can go after one and not the other.

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2014 11:00:16 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hobby Lobby is a private company. ...

Okay will do: Hobby Lobby is a corporation.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2014 11:03:45 GMT -5 oped said:

The Morning After Pill is NOT a form of abortion. It works EXACTLY the same way as the rest of the birth control pills they cover. 

But that isn't even the freaking point. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. A corporation should not be exempt from federal regulation because of personal beliefs. It can't have personal beliefs. Its not a person. 

Even persons shouldn't have carte blanch to disregard federal regulation due to personal beliefs. 

corporations are not people.  they are Gods. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

It can't have personal beliefs. Its not a person.

Clearly not a business person.  My corporation is super opinionated and never shuts up.  His latest thing is that he's an Amish Scientologist.  He doesn't believe in women working, going out with their heads uncovered, or speaking in public if they can avoid it, and that all mental health issues are caused by aliens infecting our minds.  Or some hogwash like that.  I tune him out a lot.  Like I said he never shuts up.  However, we refuse to hire women, and are asking for an exemption on all mental health requirements in the ACA.  He's got constitutional rights, and all that shit, so I have to do what he says.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2014 14:03:05 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

It can't have personal beliefs. Its not a person.

Clearly not a business person.  My corporation is super opinionated and never shuts up.  His latest thing is that he's an Amish Scientologist.  He doesn't believe in women working, going out with their heads uncovered, or speaking in public if they can avoid it, and that all mental health issues are caused by aliens infecting our minds.  Or some hogwash like that.  I tune him out a lot.  Like I said he never shuts up.  However, we refuse to hire women, and are asking for an exemption on all mental health requirements in the ACA.  He's got constitutional rights, and all that shit, so I have to do what he says.

he sounds like Crazy Pete!

[gooddecisions]

I'm seriously going to lose it if I have to keep reading ignorant Republican people parrot that Plan B is a form of abortion. It DOES NOT work if you are already pregnant or have ovulated or have conceived or have fertilized an egg or any other definition of pregnancy. If you have not ovulated already, plan b prevents it same as the pill and that's why you don't get pregnant. This is also why women sometimes get pregnant on the pill. The pill is designed to work on a 24 hour clock and if you take it late and have sex, you could ovulate and get pregnant or are on antibiotics or something that prevents the pill from doing its job.

It just so happens that you can take plan b after sex because if you were going to ovulate in that 3 day time period where semen can live, it will prevent ovulation from occurring. Just because you take it after sex does not mean you aborted a baby!

[Deleted]

Jul 11, 2014 11:00:16 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hobby Lobby is a private company.

The birth control they don't want to fund is the 'morning after pill' as that is a form of abortion.

Regular birth control is very cheap.

Unmarried abstinence has no cost at all.

Permanent birth control is getting tubes cut, both male and female.

The only one you got right was the last one.

Hobby Lobby is a private company. No. Hobby Lobby is an incorporated company. When someone incorporates, they create a legal entity as separate from themselves as some guy living across town.

The birth control they don't want to fund is the 'morning after pill' as that is a form of abortion. No. They wanted to block 4 forms of BC including two forms of IUD. In all cases, none of them were forms of abortion.

Regular birth control is very cheap. Doesn't apply, because not all women can use the "cheap" kind. Some require the $1500 IUD's because of drug interaction or allergy issues.

Unmarried abstinence has no cost at all. I take issue with this one because of your use of "at all". Yes, abstinence has no financial cost, but, it can carry tremendous cost on the emotional state of the relationship. What if the couple is only unmarried because getting married would put a financial hardship on them (Google recent case of Tennessee couple that separated due to his retiring so she wouldn't lose her TennCare)... or because they are older and DON'T want to mix family money... or some other reason? 

[EVT1]

Y- enough with the 'private company' designation.   

As sesfw stated "Hobby Lobby is a private company. The birth control they don't want to fund is the 'morning after pill' as that is a form of abortion."

Who is they?  The private owners correct?  So if Hobby Lobby, aka "they" gets sued into oblivion and shuts down one day- who is responsible for its debts?  Is it 'they'?  See the problem here? 

Simple- I guess from here out, whenever 'they' make decisions- then 'they' get to be personally responsible for them- right? Sounds fair to me. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 11, 2014 10:23:04 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

from www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/a-bill-to-undo-hobby-lobby/

A bill to undo Hobby Lobby

With fewer than a dozen crucial words, a group of U.S. senators and representatives this week proposed what they have called a “legislative fix” to undo the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Here is the key language in the Senate version, bill number S. 2578: ”Application: Subsection (a) shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of federal law, including Public Law 103-141.”

The bill would modify — but without directly amending — the federal law that was the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling — that is, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (officially enacted as Public Law 103-141). The new measure would have the effect of simply overruling the Hobby Lobby decision. Identical versions were introduced in the Senate and House on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court’s decision gave a judicial interpretation of the scope of a federal law; it was not based on the Constitution. Thus, Congress is within its constitutional power to change that interpretation. While the bill may well have a political impact, especially in an attempt to take advantage of the resentment among women’s groups regarding the Hobby Lobby decision, it does not appear to have much chance of actually being passed by Congress. House Republican leaders have praised the Hobby Lobby decision as reinforcement of religious freedom.

There's more but I wasn't sure how much I could copy over without hitting CoC rules. 

Cool, so when conservatives control Congress we can just pass a bill to undo Roe V. Wade. 

[billisonboard]

...

The Supreme Court’s decision gave a judicial interpretation of the scope of a federal law; it was not based on the Constitution. Thus, Congress is within its constitutional power to change that interpretation. ...

Jul 12, 2014 7:30:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...Cool, so when conservatives control Congress we can just pass a bill to undo Roe V. Wade. 

Sorry,  Roe V.  Wade was based on the Constitution. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 12, 2014 7:39:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

...

The Supreme Court’s decision gave a judicial interpretation of the scope of a federal law; it was not based on the Constitution. Thus, Congress is within its constitutional power to change that interpretation. ...

Jul 12, 2014 7:30:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...Cool, so when conservatives control Congress we can just pass a bill to undo Roe V. Wade. 

Sorry,  Roe V.  Wade was based on the Constitution. 

Sorry, that is an opinion.  Every SCOTUS decision is based on the interpretation of the Constitution.  Right.  Or wrong.  As Ruth Bader Ginsberg's 3,791 page dissent clearly explains.

[billisonboard]

Jul 12, 2014 7:41:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 12, 2014 7:39:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sorry,  Roe V.  Wade was based on the Constitution. 

Sorry, that is an opinion.  Every SCOTUS decision is based on the interpretation of the Constitution.  Right.  Or wrong.  As Ruth Bader Ginsberg's 3,791 page dissent clearly explains.

Did the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion apply in the Hobby Lobby case?

No. Instead of analyzing the case from a constitutional perspective, the high court examined whether the ACA’s contraception mandate complied with the requirements of a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0710/Hobby-Lobby-101-explaining-the-Supreme-Court-s-birth-control-ruling

[Deleted]

Jul 12, 2014 7:41:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 12, 2014 7:39:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sorry,  Roe V.  Wade was based on the Constitution. 

Sorry, that is an opinion.  Every SCOTUS decision is based on the interpretation of the Constitution.  Right.  Or wrong.  As Ruth Bader Ginsberg's 3,791 page dissent clearly explains.

That's actually incorrect. Several recent ones have had nothing to do with the Constitution. The "Hobby Lobby" case is only the most recent.

The Constitution (via the Bill of Rights) requires that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." By extension, as Guardians of the Constitution, they are bound by that stipulation as well. They ignored it. They ruled that his religion trumps the rights of others, and a law that excludes religious bias (even if I otherwise think the law sucks... at least it was supposed to apply to everyone).

ETA: Well... I meant the DECISION they came to had nothing to do with the Constitution... not that the CASES didn't.

[DVM gone riding]

Most people/companies use the term "private company" to clarify that it is not a publically traded company but rather a closely held entity. Since that was an important part of the SCOTUS decision it IS an important definition, whether you like it or not.

[happyhoix]

Jul 11, 2014 15:45:10 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

I'm seriously going to lose it if I have to keep reading ignorant Republican people parrot that Plan B is a form of abortion. It DOES NOT work if you are already pregnant or have ovulated or have conceived or have fertilized an egg or any other definition of pregnancy. If you have not ovulated already, plan b prevents it same as the pill and that's why you don't get pregnant. This is also why women sometimes get pregnant on the pill. The pill is designed to work on a 24 hour clock and if you take it late and have sex, you could ovulate and get pregnant or are on antibiotics or something that prevents the pill from doing its job.

It just so happens that you can take plan b after sex because if you were going to ovulate in that 3 day time period where semen can live, it will prevent ovulation from occurring. Just because you take it after sex does not mean you aborted a baby!

Now now, don't muddy the waters of religious fevor with actual truth.

[happyhoix]

Jul 11, 2014 11:00:16 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hobby Lobby is a private company.

The birth control they don't want to fund is the 'morning after pill' as that is a form of abortion.

Regular birth control is very cheap.

Unmarried abstinence has no cost at all.

Permanent birth control is getting tubes cut, both male and female.

So if my corporation belives blood transfusions are sinful in the eyes of God, it's ok if I refuse to allow my employees to have a blood transfusion?

Where do you draw the line?

[sesfw]

Okay will do: Hobby Lobby is a corporation.

Company or corporation ........... it isn't publically owned ...... it's private.

I just got home from a buying spree at Hobby Lobby.  This happens every time I go into a store.  <sigh>

[Sum Dum Gai]

So if my corporation belives blood transfusions are sinful in the eyes of God, it's ok if I refuse to allow my employees to have a blood transfusion?

Where do you draw the line?

Blood transfusions.. child's play.  My company sincerely believes that taxes are evil.  I'm refusing to pay those.  We'll see what the SCOTUS says about that one.