Supremes to decide on contraceptive coverage

Post Reply New Topic

And, for the sake of those who felt misled by the topic title:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAWSiWtUK2s[/youtube]

This is pretty damn tough. On the one hand, the Court has already ruled in Citizens United that a corporation has personhood. On the other hand, the personhood is fundamentally limited. A corporation can exercise free speech by deciding on whom to support monetarily, and that speech is a very real action. A corporation, as I see it, has no way of exercising a religion. A corporation cannot pray, attend worship services, or give part in any other form of religious expression. The complaint would be perfectly valid if this were a sole proprietorship, where the owner and the business were the same entity. As it stands, though, I have trouble believing anyone's rights are being violated here. Remember, if the owners really objected, they could always sell the corporation.

I wouldnt think of it as an part of automatic health care, but if you cant afford it (students, without work, too low income) I think you should be supported to receive them. If condoms are already to expensive, then the situation wont be enhanced by raising a kid.

There is also the problem of precedence.

If an employer can deny coverage for one particular aspect of health care (contraception) on religious grounds, why should this not apply to religious objections against other aspects of health care as well?

- Can a company owned by a Jehova's Witness deny coverage for employees of any health care that involves the use of blood transfusions?
- Can a company owned by a Scientologist deny coverage for employees of any health care that involves psychiatric treatment?
- Can a company owned by someone who believes in faith healing deny coverage for employees of any and all health care?

Or to quote the dissenting opinion in Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius (the case currently before SCOTUS)

And its ultimate holding, which is unprecedented, is sufficiently ambiguous that neither the majority nor anyone else can confidently predict where it may lead, particularly when one considers how easily an "exercise of religion” could now be asserted by a corporation to avoid or take advantage of any governmental rule or requirement.

Source: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6294.pdf (page 109)

Those who want contraception exempted from coverage might also face a slight challenge in SCOTUS... From none other than Antonin Scalia.

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws and traffic laws, to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this." (references omitted by me)

- Employment Division v. Smith (1990), opinion delivered by justice Scalia

Sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 72_ZO.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment ... n_v._Smith
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-sca ... ntrol-rule

So...

If you can't afford the price of contraception, you shouldn't be having sex.

For Pete's sake, condoms aren't that expensive. You have no right to force someone to pay for the most expensive contraceptive option on the market.

I don't think that any health insurance plan covers condoms, because they can be purchased without a prescription.

UID dont need prescription as well. At least mine did not.