Supreme Court lets stand several rulings blocking enforcement of HHS mandate

posted at 8:01 am on July 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The mantra after the announcement of the 5-4 Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, other than the Left’s shrieking over falling skies and theocracies, has been this: It was narrowly decided. That analysis springs from Justice Samuel Alito’s mention of Hobby Lobby’s status as a closely-held corporation, and the narrow number of contraceptive methods that the retailer chose to reject. That gave some hope that other cases involving broader rejection of contraception coverage might be more problematic in later cases.

A series of orders on lower-court rulings on Tuesday suggests to the Associated Press that Hobby Lobby might not be quite as narrow as some may think:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling. …

Tuesday’s orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

The court also sent back two more cases to an appellate court that had ruled in favor of the mandate, with orders to reconsider in light of Hobby Lobby:

The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday’s 5-4 decision.

Two Michigan-based companies, Autocam Corp. and Eden Foods Inc., both lost their cases in the lower courts. The justices ordered the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decisions against the companies.

The ACLJ announced yesterday that the Court has granted a reversal for one of their cases, Gilardi v HHS, after a partial defeat in the DC Circuit:

In the wake of yesterday’s blockbuster Hobby Lobby decision striking down the HHS Mandate, today the Supreme Court granted our petition for review in the case of Gilardi, v. HHS, and denied the government’s petition in our case of Korte v. HHS.  In Gilardi, the Court vacated the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (see report of decision here) and sent the case back to the lower court to apply the Hobby Lobby decision to the facts of the Gilardi case.  In Korte, the Court’s action today leaves in place the resounding victory we achieved at the Seventh Circuit (see report of decision here.)

The district court refused to order an injunction against enforcement of the mandate in Gilardi, which would have cost the business owner $14 million in penalties for refusing to provide abortifacient contraceptives to his employees (all of whom can buy them on their own, of course).

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke. The Supreme Court appears ready to apply the ruling on a broad basis with for-profit businesses, even those who refuse to cover any contraceptive method at all. That would suggest that any attempt to impose the mandate on explicitly religious organizations seems to have a couple of strikes against it at the Court already, even with the so-called “accommodation” offered as a compromise. The Supreme Court clearly takes the RFRA and the First Amendment seriously on this point.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke. The Supreme Court appears ready to apply the ruling on a broad basis with for-profit businesses, even those who refuse to cover any contraceptive method at all.

Stand by for more hysteria from the left. But it’s settled law. You are justified to tell anybody whining about the Hobby Lobby case that they lost so further dissent is un-American and intolerant. Sluts are just going have to pay for their own contraception in Obama’s America.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM

Will this help The Little Sisters of the Poor?

sadatoni on July 2, 2014 at 8:07 AM

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM

“The debate is over”

rhombus on July 2, 2014 at 8:11 AM

The Supreme Court clearly takes the RFRA and the First Amendment seriously on this point.

5/9ths of it, anyway.

We are DANGEROUSLY close to outlawing freedom of religion and replacing it with “freedom to go to some religious place for an hour and shut up about it during all other waking moments.”

BKennedy on July 2, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Will this help The Little Sisters of the Poor?

sadatoni on July 2, 2014 at 8:07 A

Yes.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Doesn’t narrowly decided just mean they weren’t sure which way the conservative judges would rule?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 8:13 AM

Will this help The Little Sisters of the Poor?

sadatoni on July 2, 2014 at 8:07 AM

Not related. If you have a chance take the time to read Kennedy’s disturbing concurrence in Hobby Lobby…..and then pray.

cthemfly on July 2, 2014 at 8:16 AM

O/T Quinnipica:

Obama worst president since WW11. Poll did not consider evah.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Will this help The Little Sisters of the Poor?

sadatoni on July 2, 2014 at 8:07 AM

No! It will deny them access to basic medical care and they’ll all prolly die so rich old white republicans can all buy new yachts, or something.

/trolls

mankai on July 2, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Any chance of this decision being of help to besieged bakers?

OldEnglish on July 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM

Will this help The Little Sisters of the Poor?

sadatoni on July 2, 2014 at 8:07 AM

If you extrapolate from the reasoning it would almost have to agree with the Little Sisters position.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Sluts are just going have to pay for their own contraception in Obama’s America.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM

But tomorrow…

sluts will run for office and change that……

Electrongod on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 AM

While it is a victory, it is really just throwing peanuts to the masses. Almost every aspect of the law breaks the constitution and the actual implementation goes even further in that direction.

astonerii on July 2, 2014 at 8:24 AM

Not quite sure I’m buying this. I’m still stinging from Justice Roberts’ about-face regarding the whole reason Hobby Lobby filed suit to begin with.
So much for Hope and Change.

leftamark on July 2, 2014 at 8:29 AM

If you extrapolate from the reasoning it would almost have to agree with the Little Sisters position.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Maybe. I agree that it should, but I think that there will be a case that ends up before SCOTUS that concerns the so called accommodation that really isn’t an accommodation. When it comes to that farcical attempt to claim the insurer is providing the contraceptive coverage for free because of government mandate I can see Kennedy flipping.

NotCoach on July 2, 2014 at 8:30 AM

sluts will run for office and change that……

Electrongod on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Sluts are already running for office. See: Sandra “Bury-Me-In-A-’Y’-shaped-Coffin” Fluke.

CurtZHP on July 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM

Nice analysis from the guy who represents the family in Conestoga:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381668/conestoga-and-hobby-lobby-aftermath-begins-matt-bowman

Goldberg has a nice column on war-on-women hysteria:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381710/liberals-hobby-lobby-doublethink-jonah-goldberg

Leaving aside the use of contraception for specific medical conditions (not just to avoid pregnancy), if women want their fun, they should keep a kitty on the nightstand and require their partner(s) to pay a toll. That employers or taxpayers should be required to pay for this is absurd.

BuckeyeSam on July 2, 2014 at 8:36 AM

Today will be fun on Twitter.

O/T Quinnipica:

Obama worst president since WW11. Poll did not consider evah.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 8:16 AM

No polling when Buchanan was in.

Any chance of this decision being of help to besieged bakers?

OldEnglish on July 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM

One never knows, do one?

Sandra “Bury-Me-In-A-’Y’-shaped-Coffin” Fluke.

CurtZHP on July 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM

Winner!

formwiz on July 2, 2014 at 8:37 AM

Sluts are just going have to pay for their own contraception in Obama’s America.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM

I think Sandra Fluke’s popularity in the sack is 99.9999999999999% in her own mind. And I bet most of the cost is alcohol to get the john drunk enough, not the cost of rubbers.

ConstantineXI on July 2, 2014 at 8:37 AM

While it is a victory, it is really just throwing peanuts to the masses. Almost every aspect of the law breaks the constitution and the actual implementation goes even further in that direction.

astonerii on July 2, 2014 at 8:24 AM

Yes, let’s hope we get lucky and the upcoming subsidy case sinks Obamacare in its entirety.

AZCoyote on July 2, 2014 at 8:38 AM

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke.

Just dying to use that line, I’ll bet.

BuckeyeSam on July 2, 2014 at 8:40 AM

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke.

Just dying to use that line, I’ll bet.

BuckeyeSam on July 2, 2014 at 8:40 AM

This decision was a Big Fluking Deal.

ConstantineXI on July 2, 2014 at 8:42 AM

Conservatives are going to need to find a way to reach out to stupid female LIV’s to make sure they understand that the ruling doesn’t block their ACCESS to birth control. This is the meme that the left is going to use.

Key West Reader on July 2, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Conservatives are going to need to find a way to reach out to stupid female LIV’s to make sure they understand that the ruling doesn’t block their ACCESS to birth control. This is the meme that the left is going to use.

Key West Reader on July 2, 2014 at 8:46 AM

They’ll figure it out the next time they go to Walmart to restock… Which for most of them is about every other day

.

mankai on July 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Conservatives are going to need to find a way to reach out to stupid female LIV’s to make sure they understand that the ruling doesn’t block their ACCESS to birth control. This is the meme that the left is going to use.

Key West Reader on July 2, 2014 at 8:46 AM

[insert push to make BC available OTC]

airupthere on July 2, 2014 at 9:01 AM

I’m sorry but I’m still stuck on how birth control ever fell under the umbrella of healthcare.

If it does belong there, then the failure of birth control should also be covered. So, I want a healthcare policy that pays for my daughters’ data-plans and other stuff.

Tsar of Earth on July 2, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Yes, let’s hope we get lucky and the upcoming subsidy case sinks Obamacare in its entirety.

AZCoyote on July 2, 2014 at 8:38 AM

I’m really hoping for that one. I’m just worried that Roberts is going to swoop in and save Obama’s bacon again. Still, the language is clear: subsidy for those buying through state exchanges; no subsidy for those buying through federal exchanges. And since these Dem shiteheads drafted this in the middle of the night with no committee hearings, it’s not as if they have legislative history to say that the Dems really meant the subsidy applies to all purchasers. After all, the subsidy/no subsidy difference was included as an incentive so that states would create exchanges.

BuckeyeSam on July 2, 2014 at 9:04 AM

I’m really hoping for that one. I’m just worried that Roberts is going to swoop in and save Obama’s bacon again. Still, the language is clear: subsidy for those buying through state exchanges; no subsidy for those buying through federal exchanges. And since these Dem shiteheads drafted this in the middle of the night with no committee hearings, it’s not as if they have legislative history to say that the Dems really meant the subsidy applies to all purchasers. After all, the subsidy/no subsidy difference was included as an incentive so that states would create exchanges.

BuckeyeSam on July 2, 2014 at 9:04 AM

I am not familiar with the exact language in the law, but here is my prediction:

If the law explicitly states that the subsidy does not apply to insurance purchased through the federal exchanges. 5-4 striking down.

If the law does not explicitly state that the subsidy does not apply to insurance purchased through the federal exchange. (Like if it says the subsidy applies to state exchanges, but doesn’t include language stating that subsidies don’t apply to the federal exchange). 7-2 upholding the subsidies for federal exchanges.

airupthere on July 2, 2014 at 9:09 AM

If you extrapolate from the reasoning it would almost have to agree with the Little Sisters position.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Maybe. I agree that it should, but I think that there will be a case that ends up before SCOTUS that concerns the so called accommodation that really isn’t an accommodation. When it comes to that farcical attempt to claim the insurer is providing the contraceptive coverage for free because of government mandate I can see Kennedy flipping.

NotCoach on July 2, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Kennedy said that the farcical religious accommodation would have been sustained as applied to Hobby Lobby. His “reasoning” does not bode well for religious institutions.

cthemfly on July 2, 2014 at 9:22 AM

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke.

Fluke, like Sandra Fluke. I get it! Good one, Dad.

jbspry on July 2, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Out of my bedroom!

But leave your wallet.

/leftards

gwelf on July 2, 2014 at 9:49 AM

if women want their fun, they should keep a kitty on the nightstand and require their partner(s) to pay a toll. That employers or taxpayers should be required to pay for this is absurd.

BuckeyeSam on July 2, 2014 at 8:36 AM

Well, unless they’re sleeping with their employer. If they’re sleeping with every taxpayer, then I’ll admit I might kick in some $$s just because I’m impressed with their stamina.

GWB on July 2, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Conservatives are going to need to find a way to reach out to stupid female LIV’s to make sure they understand that the ruling doesn’t block their ACCESS to birth control. This is the meme that the left is going to use.

Key West Reader on July 2, 2014 at 8:46 AM

They’re already using that meme. Reaching out to LIVs of whatever gender is about useless. They usually can’t be reached. That’s why they’re low information voters. The facts are out there, they’re not hard to find the LIVs would rather be led around by the nose than actually find out the facts. Like that paper that just offered up an apology for supporting The Won. They’re just now finding out what I knew long before I first voted against The Won. LIVs are not about facts and logic they’re all about feelings.

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Republican campaign slogan for 2016: “Contraception is for sluts!”

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM

The mantra after the announcement of the 5-4 Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, other than the Left’s shrieking over falling skies and theocracies, has been this: It was narrowly decided. That analysis springs from Justice Samuel Alito’s mention of Hobby Lobby’s status as a closely-held corporation, and the narrow number of contraceptive methods that the retailer chose to reject. That gave some hope that other cases involving broader rejection of contraception coverage might be more problematic in later cases.
– Ed

Well being that it was most certainly narrow, it makes perfect sense that the court would be moving towards clarity on similar cases. I can’t see viewing these enforcement blocking as clearly boding well for either side in these cases.
More significant is the content and reasoning in both Alito’s decision and Kennedy’s concurrence – as has been duly noted a’plenty.

verbaluce on July 2, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Scalia’s Scimitar

Resist We Much on July 2, 2014 at 8:45 AM

Thank you for that analysis Sophie. As usual, spot on and priceless!

NOMOBO on July 2, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Tuesday’s orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception.

What else do these Catholics oppose?
I mean, much more than just that…right?

verbaluce on July 2, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Republican campaign slogan for 2016: “Contraception is for sluts!”

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Nope, more like: “If you don’t want your boss involved in your personal medical decisions, then don’t support laws that require your boss to foot the bill for your personal medical decisions.”

Of course, it’s a bit more complicated slogan than yours and requires a few working brain cells to comprehend, so most progs won’t be able to grasp its meaning.

AZCoyote on July 2, 2014 at 10:31 AM

What else do these Catholics oppose?
I mean, much more than just that…right?

verbaluce on July 2, 2014 at 10:22 AM

If you want your chopadickoffamy funded by your employer go to work for Obama, not the Catholic Church.

ConstantineXI on July 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I haven’t looked at all five of the companies involved, but three of those companies were closely held companies owned by family members.

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Republican campaign slogan for 2016: “Contraception is for sluts!”

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Wasn’t that also Rush’s slogan about Sandra Fluke? (Even though Sandra Fluke never mentioned her own sexual activity in her testimony in Congress).

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM

What else do these Catholics oppose?
I mean, much more than just that…right?

verbaluce on July 2, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Who cares? The fact is this mandate for full coverage of contraceptives was NOT in the ACA and most likely would not have been approved by a majority in the House had it been proposed as part of the law. It was a deliberate sleight of hand engineered by progressive feminists who have long sought to have contraceptives as well as abortions covered by all forms of health insurance, but knew they could not get this enacted by Congress in the light of day.

Bill Daley resigned as White House Chief of Staff over this mandate with its narrow exemptions that attempt to have the government, for the first time in history, define what constitutes the free exercise of religion and what is a religious organization. He knew, and so did Joe Biden, that Catholic organizations and other religious business owners would see it as an assault on their beliefs. But they were overrruled by the progressive zealots in the White House.

rockmom on July 2, 2014 at 10:43 AM

BKennedy on July 2, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Unless you’re a muslim or attend black liberal church-they…well carry on.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Fluke mentioned that she was spending 3 grand a year on BC.
3 grand a year?
Yep-she’s a skank

annoyinglittletwerp on July 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

There is a Higher Court that we all will be judged by. If you stand against those things that this Court affirms, you are not in good standing. There is no other Way but Him.

crosshugger on July 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM

This also opens the door to any mandate that will be added to cover same sex marriage fertility treatments and invitro proceedures which don’t meet the “natural family planning” that Catholics and some other believe in, and forcing “reproductive equality” for those who are infertile because they choose the wrong gender spouse. That is what Sandra Fluke actually meant by reproductive discrimination.

And probably you can object to having to cover sex change operations. And perhaps a Catholic business won’t have to pay to insure expensive gay related illness, like HIV, if that is why the person gets themselves infected.

In MA, the liberals here, say Medicaid needs to cover sex change operations as well as government employee health plans. Don’t believe me? http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/20/state-cover-gender-reassignment-surgery-and-hormone-treatment-for-transgender-patients/a9OPrvqdUPmRoiAQugVwEO/story.html

Fleuries on July 2, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Nope, more like: “If you don’t want your boss involved in your personal medical decisions, then don’t support laws that require your boss to foot the bill for your personal medical decisions.”

AZCoyote on July 2, 2014 at 10:31

Health insurance is not a gift bestowed by the employer. It is part of the compensation paid to the worker in in exchange for his labor. What you are supporting is giving the employer, rather than the worker, the right to determine what health care is in his best interests, based on the employer’s religious beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are shared by the worker. It doesn’t take much imagination to envision how this could become problematic in cases other than contraception.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Republican campaign slogan for 2016: “Contraception is for sluts!”
“Women are capable of buying their own BC”

FIFY

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM

lineholder on July 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM

It is part of the compensation paid to the worker in in exchange for his labor.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:56 AM

ACA mandate or not, health insurance benefits are a voluntary contribution to compensation on the part of the employer. The employer does not have to offer those benefits. Even under ACA, they can simply choose to take the penalties.

Are you a female, cam? If not, will you please stop trying to ‘help” females on this one? Y’all are going to cost the rest of us reasonable females from having the privilege of receiving that compensation.

lineholder on July 2, 2014 at 11:06 AM

(Even though Sandra Fluke never mentioned her own sexual activity in her testimony in Congress).

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM

You’re right. It was her “friend” that somehow required $3,000 a year in contraceptives. At $60 a week, that’s … 4 boxes of 36 count Magnums at Wal-Mart. Every week. Yeah, I would say “slut” is a gross under-statement.

(Yes, there’s a math joke in there for those who catch it.)

GWB on July 2, 2014 at 11:06 AM

for this administration a supreme court ruling is not a law, it is a guideline.

warmairfan on July 2, 2014 at 11:09 AM

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Poor argument.

If you don’t like your employer’s health insurance offering, find another job. Or would you be one of those dimbulbs who would stay at a minimum wage job and then complain and protest for a higher minimum wage?

Better yet, institute a health insurance system where the employer is simply not involved in providing insurance, just making HSA contributions.

And yes, it doesn’t take much imagination to see the problems when a liberal progressive viewpoint is employed.

NOMOBO on July 2, 2014 at 11:09 AM

What you are supporting is giving the employer, rather than the worker, the right to determine what health care is in his best interests, based on the employer’s religious beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are shared by the worker.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 10:56 AM

No. You’re wrong. This isn’t about the employer determining in any way what health care is in the best interests of the employee. Only to a statist could that even be envisioned as the outcome of this. No one is preventing the employee from purchasing their own health care, or from purchasing supplemental plans, or even from “opting out” of their employer health benefits. Oh, wait, I take that back – there is one entity forcing people into a one-size-fits-all-with-no-other-options plan: the national government.

GWB on July 2, 2014 at 11:12 AM

This also opens the door to any mandate that will be added to cover same sex marriage fertility treatments and invitro proceedures which don’t meet the “natural family planning” that Catholics and some other believe in, and forcing “reproductive equality” for those who are infertile because they choose the wrong gender spouse.
Fleuries on July 2, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Never mind same-sex couples, the Catholic doctrine forbids in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination for heterosexual couples as well, so don’t expect those to be covered if your employer is Catholic.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Conservatives are going to need to find a way to reach out to stupid female LIV’s to make sure they understand that the ruling doesn’t block their ACCESS to birth control. This is the meme that the left is going to use.

meme? you mean LIE, don’t you?

loveyouall on July 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Better yet, institute a health insurance system where the employer is simply not involved in providing insurance, just making HSA contributions.

NOMOBO on July 2, 2014 at 11:09 AM

And, turn “health insurance” back into actual insurance. If I want to spread the cost of my health care around, I can join a co-op of some kind. (No, no, no, not the kind where your neighbor would offer prostate exams and the old man up the street would check for hernias – I mean that a group of like-minded individuals would get together and negotiate prices for their members.)

GWB on July 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Poll: More Americans Agree With Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision Than Disagree…

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s decision this week that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

“Half of voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that a business owner should be able to opt out of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate if it violates his or her religious beliefs,” the poling firm reports about its new national survey.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient. Slightly more (47%) say companies should not be required to meet this contraceptive mandate included in the new national health care law.

Resist We Much on July 2, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Sluts are just going have to pay for their own contraception in Obama’s America.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM

Except for that li’l statement about how the government can pay for birth control.

HiJack on July 2, 2014 at 11:52 AM

No. I disagree with Ed on why the term “narrow ruling” has been applied. I believe it is response to accusations that faith-owned businesses can refuse to provide insurance at all, or somehow tailor it to exclude any real medical care, as Ginsberg posited. Alito responded to that by pointing out that it was a narrow ruling in that the justices would have to review examples like hers individually and judge their relative merits accordingly.

But Ed may have just been taking a little creative license, too.

Doesn’t narrowly decided just mean they weren’t sure which way the conservative judges would rule?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 8:13 AM

Recon5 on July 2, 2014 at 11:53 AM

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Fluke mentioned that she was spending 3 grand a year on BC.
3 grand a year?
Yep-she’s a skank

annoyinglittletwerp on July 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

You’re wrong. It was her friend and it was (if I remember correctly) because her friend required a specific type of birth control for medical issues.

Rush lied.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke.


Poor Fluke

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2014 at 12:04 PM

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient. Slightly more (47%) say companies should not be required to meet this contraceptive mandate included in the new national health care law.

Resist We Much on July 2, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Something is screwed up with the Rasmussen Reports poll results. The headline reads 49%/39% regarding a religious exemption, but the figures quoted say 47%/43% and don’t talk about the exemption.

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:04 PM

We are DANGEROUSLY close to outlawing freedom of religion and replacing it with “freedom to go to some religious place for an hour and shut up about it during all other waking moments.”

BKennedy on July 2, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Absolutely! It’s amazing how many people these days, especially young people, think the first amendment means the opposite of what it actually means on religion.

Socialist academia is largely to blame for misinforming the public.

netster007x on July 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Nope, more like: “If you don’t want your boss involved in your personal medical decisions, then don’t support laws that require your boss to foot the bill for your personal medical decisions.”

AZCoyote on July 2, 2014 at 10:31

A majority of the US gets health insurance from their employers and almost every state mandates what things are covered by that insurance. If you really believe this, then I guess the GOP platform is to support Obamacare and have everyone buy health insurances through the exchanges.

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:06 PM

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke.

We see what you did there.

Ward Cleaver on July 2, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Wasn’t that also Rush’s slogan about Sandra Fluke? (Even though Sandra Fluke never mentioned her own sexual activity in her testimony in Congress).

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM

She didn’t testify to Congress. It was a glorified press conference made to look like a Congressional hearing.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Never mind same-sex couples, the Catholic doctrine forbids in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination for heterosexual couples as well, so don’t expect those to be covered if your employer is Catholic.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM

I don’t think this is covered in most plans anyway, Catholic or not.

You keep bringing up these bugaboos, and the response is the same in every case: pay for it yourself.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM

She didn’t testify to Congress. It was a glorified press conference made to look like a Congressional hearing.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 12:11 PM

She testified before a House Committee. Ok, not all of Congress:

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Rush lied.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf
 
jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM

 
I remember that. It wasn’t something about liking and keeping your doctor, right?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 12:18 PM

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:06 PM

The exchanges, as a means of providing access to health insurance, aren’t a bad idea.

Obamacare, OTOH, is perhaps the most poorly constructed piece of legislation passed into law that this nation has ever known. Not a chance that access to either health insurance or health care will improve under that beast.

lineholder on July 2, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Sluts are just going have to pay for their own contraception in Obama’s America.
Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Except for that li’l statement about how the government can pay for birth control.o meet this contraceptive mandate included in the new national health care law.

Jul 02, 2014 at 11:52 am HiJack

That’s the part of the decision that’s being overlooked. The employee is paying for health insurance through her labor. By law, that insurance must cover certain preventative care, including contraceptives. The Supreme Court has now held that the employer may prevent the worker from obtaining contraceptive coverage under the insurance policy, but the Court did not hold that the worker must pay for the contraceptives out of her own pocket (after all, she has already paid for the insurance which is supposed to cover them). Rather, the Court suggested that the Government, i.e. the taxpayers, “assume the cost of providing the … contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health insurance policies due to their employer’s religious objections.”

So we are going from a situation in which the worker
pays through her labor to one in which the taxpayers pick up the tab.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

A majority of the US gets health insurance from their employers and almost every state mandates what things are covered by that insurance.

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:06 PM

This is a bug to a conservative, not a feature. The proper freedom-loving answer is to 1) eliminate any ‘federal’ control over health care, except insofar as things like transporting drugs across state lines and 2) to eliminate mandates at all levels.

The exchanges, as a means of providing access to health insurance, aren’t a bad idea.

lineholder on July 2, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Yes, they are, when mandated or executed by government.

GWB on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

She testified before a House Committee. Ok, not all of Congress:

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:15 PM

House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee is not a House Committee. House committees have members from both sides of the aisle.

It was a press conference staged by Pelosi.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 12:38 PM

The exchanges, as a means of providing access to health insurance, aren’t a bad idea.

lineholder on July 2, 2014 at 12:20 PM

You need more coffee.

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2014 at 12:38 PM

By law, that insurance must cover certain preventative care, including contraceptives.
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

And that regulation (not law) ran up against the RFRA. Sorry. Doesn’t apply anymore.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Nancy Pelosi’s introduction:

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):

Our meeting will come to order.

This is a hearing of the Steering and Policy Committee of the House Democrats. It is my honor to be here with our senior — our ranking member on the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives, Congressman Elijah Cummings; a senior member of the committee, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney; and congresswoman from the District of Columbia and long-term member of the committee Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

We’re gathered here today with a very special guest, Ms. Sandra Fluke, whom we’ll hear from in a moment. But first I want to say that the purpose of this meeting is one that I wish didn’t exist.

I wish that in the hearing that was held last week, the Republican majority on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee would have heard from Sandra Fluke instead of just hearing a panel of five men. Seeing that panel before her, our colleague Congresswoman Maloney put it best, asking, where are the women?

Indeed, in this debate nothing could be more critical than hearing the voices of our nation’s women, and Democrats are prepared to hear from a single witness today, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, to testify before the committee. She was invited by the Democrats to be at the panel that was called together last week. But the Republicans did not want to hear from her. And so we do today.

We are proud to bring Sandra before our Steering and Policy Committee to deliver the testimony she was denied last week, to stand firm in the cause of women’s health, to no longer be held silent. Sandra is a bold and passionate leader for young women and all women, at Georgetown and across the country. She understands that this issue that we’re discussing is a matter of women’s health, plain and simple.

She has stood on the front lines in this debate at Georgetown University Law, dedicated her time and energy to the battle against — in other issues, human trafficking and domestic violence, and served as the president and secretary of the Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. Sandra will continue to serve women — (inaudible) — as a leader in the field of public interest law.

I think it’s important, as I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, to inform you, Sandra, that following your rejection by the Republicans from the panel, which the Democrats had suggested you as their witness, that we’ve heard from over 300,000 people saying we want women’s voices to be heard on the subject of women’s health, and urging the Republican leadership to make sure that happens.

Having no reason to believe that they will, we’re having our own hearing today. I know you will persuade them with your testimony.

And with that, I thank you for joining us this morning and yield to distinguished ranking member, Mr. Cummings, and thank him for his leadership and important role he played in last week’s hearing. Mr. Cummings.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM

By law, that insurance must cover certain preventative care, including contraceptives.
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

And that regulation (not law) ran up against the RFRA. Sorry. Doesn’t apply anymore.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Uum, not necessarily. RFRA is a federal law (it applied to state and, I believe, local laws, but the Supreme Court struck that part down a while ago).

Many states also mandate contraceptive coverage. RFRA and the current Supreme Court decision wouldn’t apply to the state mandates.

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:55 PM

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Yes, that nit you just picked is correct. We are talking about the Affordable Care Act in this discussion. But, if the state has its own RFRA, presumably the same result would hold.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 1:12 PM

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM

She’s still a skank.
Most leftist women are.
If they weren’t…they wouldn’t be liberals.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 2, 2014 at 1:13 PM

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Yes, that nit you just picked is correct. We are talking about the Affordable Care Act in this discussion. But, if the state has its own RFRA, presumably the same result would hold.

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 1:12 PM

I don’t think most states do, though, and a US Supreme Court decision interpreting a federal statute wouldn’t bind a state court in its interpretation of a state statute, even assuming identical language in the two which is highly unlikely.

So this is going to be litigated more–and probably much more. A Supreme Court decision on the US Constitution’s free exercise clause would settle some of this. But then companies will try to argue for broader exemptions on the basis of state constitutional law and state statutes.

If you think I’m wrong, please let me know.

jim56 on July 2, 2014 at 1:20 PM

So we are going from a situation in which the worker
pays through her labor to one in which the taxpayers pick up the tab.
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

 
Gosh, I hope that doesn’t happen.

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

I honestly don’t know how state requirements apply to the Affordable Care Act. Is it a case where the state requires 10 things, of which 9 are also required by the AFA, and the feds have an additional 50 things, so at the end of the day, there are 51 requirements for insurance companies? Is it possible for them to conflict? Who wins then?

cptacek on July 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM

So we are going from a situation in which the worker
pays through her labor to one in which the taxpayers pick up the tab.
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

 
Gosh, I hope that doesn’t happen.
 
rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

 
Sorry. Forgot the link:
 

Using the age and tax credit eligibility of enrollees reported by the federal government, along with the marketplace premiums within each state, we estimate that 3.5 million people have qualified for a total of about $10.0 billion in annual premium subsidies, or an average of about $2,890 per person.
 
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/how-much-financial-assistance-are-people-receiving-under-the-affordable-care-act/

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 1:31 PM

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

So you’re fine just adding to the taxpayer’s tab?

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

 
So you’re fine just adding to the taxpayer’s tab?
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM

 
Ha. That’s hilarious. You’re an Obamacare supporter, correct?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 3:17 PM

You do realize that employers shouldn’t be required to provide employee health insurance, right?
 
blink on March 1, 2012 at 5:34 PM

 
I am a somewhat lapsed Catholic, but I agree with the Church that “health care is a basic human right”
(http://old.usccb.org/healthcare/hc_letter_to_house_final_2-24-10.pdf), so I support universal health insurance. The fact that we spend so much more money on health care and end up with poorer outcomes that the rest of the civilized world is also a factor.

 
cam2 on March 1, 2012 at 6:10 PM

 
cam2, do you want to keep trying to argue that the taxpayers are getting screwed in this deal?
 
I’d love to hear it if so. I didn’t think you were like libfreeordie, tlaloc, and all the rest, but I’m certainly willing to be proved wrong.
 
Tell us again of your concern over
 

So we are going from a situation in which the worker
pays through her labor to one in which the taxpayers pick up the tab.
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 3:35 PM

rogerb — It’s not MY concern. I’d be happy with single payer. I just think it’s odd for conservatives to be demanding that women “pay for their own sex lives” on the one hand (though Hobby Lobby pays for vasectomies and Viagara, but let’s not go there), yet celebrating the Court’s decision, which will result in the government, not individual women, paying the tab.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM

rogerb — It’s not MY concern. I’d be happy with single payer. I just think it’s odd for conservatives to be demanding that women “pay for their own sex lives” on the one hand (though Hobby Lobby pays for vasectomies and Viagara, but let’s not go there), yet celebrating the Court’s decision, which will result in the government, not individual women, paying the tab.
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM

 
Which would make sense except for these two teensy little problems:
 

Jul 02, 2014 at 11:52 am HiJack

 
That’s the part of the decision that’s being overlooked. The employee is paying for health insurance through her labor…
 
So we are going from a situation in which the worker
pays through her labor to one in which the taxpayers pick up the tab.

 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

 
So you’re fine just adding to the taxpayer’s tab?
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM

 
Were you
 
1) just saying whatever you thought you needed to because you thought it would help you in that single moment, or
 
2) was that a different cam2?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Funny, before ACA, most employer insurance did not cover Contraceptives or abortions…….

Barred on July 2, 2014 at 4:21 PM

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

 
So you’re fine just adding to the taxpayer’s tab?
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM

 
cam2, while you’re here and since you expressed such concern for taxpayer dollars and well-being, do you have any sort of cost estimates regarding what we taxpayers will be paying for this?
 
We know you’re fine with taxpayers paying $341,000 to cover each previously uninsured person under Obamacare
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/09/newest-innovation-in-campus-progressivism-trigger-warnings/comment-page-2/#comment-8041105
 
Sorry. I forgot Tlaloc updated his 5 million number to the bleeding-edge 5.6 million previously uninsured:
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/26/obama-on-climate-change-how-about-these-anti-science-conspiracy-theorists-in-congress-amirite/comment-page-2/#comment-8241950
 

So we’ll need to do some quick math: $1.76 trillion / 5.6 million = $314,000 per person.
 
There we go.
 
$314,000 per previously uninsured person.
 
Now, where were we? Oh, yeah.
 
So we know you’re fine with the taxpayers picking up a tab of $314,000 per previously uninsured person to get coverage, so I’m just wondering what your personal tipping point is here?
 
What sort “adding to the taxpayer’s tab” are you estimating with this that you find so offensive?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 4:25 PM

rogerb: still not sure what your issue is. I would be fine if we had totally taxpayer funded universal health care. Conservatives generally favor individual responsibility for individual insurance. I was questioning why conservatives seem to be happy with the result in this case, in which the workers used to pay the cost of their contraception (health insurance was part of the compensation for their labor) and it now appears that the government will pay.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Silly me, I just want personal responsibility to return. I’ll purchase the health insurance that I deem necessary for me and my family.

Get the federal government out of the health insurance business altogether.

D-fusit on July 2, 2014 at 4:28 PM

I guess we’ve got two different cam2s here.
 
Maybe the original one will show back up before too long.

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Do either of the cam2s have any sort of cost estimates regarding what we taxpayers will be paying for this, btw?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Jul 02, 2014 at 4:21 pm Barred

Funny, before ACA, most employer insurance did not cover Contraceptives or abortions……

Sorry, not true. Contraception was almost universally covered and abortion was covered in most large plans. It was/is a simple matter of economics — both are significantly cheaper for the insurance company than the cost of maternity care and childbirth.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Jul 02, 2014 at 4:32 pm rogerb
Do either of the cam2s have any sort of cost estimates regarding what we taxpayers will be paying for this, btw

I guess that will depend on how many employers want to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. ;-)

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Here’s a reasonably balanced report from a usually Left-ish site:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/hobby-lobby-isnt-waging-a-war-on-women/373717/

Sorry, not true. Contraception was almost universally covered and abortion was covered in most large plans. It was/is a simple matter of economics — both are significantly cheaper for the insurance company than the cost of maternity care and childbirth.

cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM

So far as I can tell, the plans that covered these before can keep covering them.
ACA imposed a new mandate, not previously in the HL insurance, to cover abortifacients, which is what the company objected to (NOT to contraceptives in general; do your research).

And this:

Get the federal government out of the health insurance business altogether.

D-fusit on July 2, 2014 at 4:28 PM

AesopFan on July 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Do either of the cam2s have any sort of cost estimates regarding what we taxpayers will be paying for this, btw?
 
rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM

 
I guess that will depend on how many employers want to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. ;-)
 
cam2 on July 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM

 
Great point.
 
So you’re fine with $314,000 to cover each previously uninsured person, but your tipping point is what, less than $25K nationwide over the next ten years?

rogerb on July 2, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2