We talked around this issue, as you insisted (rightfully) that it needs to exist for anyone to invest in a company, and my point was that imposing religious beliefs on a corporate entity would be an unfair one-way street though it.
My girlfriend (who is both an attorney and a huge NPR junkie) texted me about this the other day. I was considering posting about it here, so I'm glad you did. Let me preface this by saying I don't deal with a lot of business law in my practice, but I am familiar with the concept of piercing the veil. This is all speculation, none of this should be construed as legal advice.
My understanding is that veil piercing is very rare and considered to be an extreme remedy. Courts use words like "sham" or "fraud" to describe corporations whose veils are pierced. The underlying reason for this rule is to prevent people from using a corporation to "cheat" and do things they wouldn't normally be allowed to do if they were acting in their personal capacity. Wikipedia has a huge list of factors that are considered. You can see that these factors are zeroing on the question: Is this a "real" corporation, or is it just a mask that you're wearing when it's convenient for you?
Bottom line - Hobby Lobby is a real corporation that does real business. It's not a sham. However, the owner's insistence that his business is entitled to RFRA protection based on his religious beliefs is definitely one factor that would weigh in favor of piercing if the issue was litigated down the line. Would it be enough by itself? I would be shocked. But it would definitely be a contributing factor that would tip the scales toward piercing if other factors weighed in favor as well.
Bottom line - Hobby Lobby is a real corporation that does real business. It's not a sham. However, the owner's insistence that his business is entitled to RFRA protection based on his religious beliefs is definitely one factor that would weigh in favor of piercing if the issue was litigated down the line. Would it be enough by itself? I would be shocked. But it would definitely be a contributing factor that would tip the scales toward piercing if other factors weighed in favor as well.
This was generally my feeling as well, the people they had speaking about it seemed to think it was a lot stronger than it sounded. My thoughts of the fairness of this ruling aside, it didn't sound like sufficient legal ground for a creditor alone.
Bottom line - Hobby Lobby is a real corporation that does real business. It's not a sham. However, the owner's insistence that his business is entitled to RFRA protection based on his religious beliefs is definitely one factor that would weigh in favor of piercing if the issue was litigated down the line. Would it be enough by itself? I would be shocked. But it would definitely be a contributing factor that would tip the scales toward piercing if other factors weighed in favor as well.
This was generally my feeling as well, the people they had speaking about it seemed to think it was a lot stronger than it sounded. My thoughts of the fairness of this ruling aside, it didn't sound like sufficient legal ground for a creditor alone.
NPR tends to get legal issues just slightly wrong if it will make the story more compelling to a left-leaning audience.
But I actually think this makes sense from a fairness standpoint for the same reasons I outlined earlier in the thread. Automatic Hobby Lobby veil piercing would basically make the Supreme Court's ruling meaningless. SCOTUS says a corporation has certain rights, but as soon as the corporation avails itself of those rights, it immediately crumbles to a veil piercing challenge.
Incidentally "Pierce the Veil" needs to be a Magic card name. Destroy target legendary artifact?
Yeah, I work in Public Health, and and there are a ton of people with their JDs floating around. Including contractors we hire who preface the legal handbook we commissioned with 'this is not legal advice', lol.
NPR tends to get legal issues just slightly wrong if it will make the story more compelling to a left-leaning audience.
I like them because they're the best source of unbiased local news, my state's republicans are frequently interviewed for topics and are portrayed as intelligent people (and there are a surprising amount of conservative listeners in my state, too, because of that). With the national news segments you're probably right, but as someone has quoted around here, I prefer my news as bland as possible (with as little 'narrative' as possible) and they're the closest I can get to that
But I actually think this makes sense from a fairness standpoint for the same reasons I outlined earlier in the thread. Automatic Hobby Lobby veil piercing would basically make the Supreme Court's ruling meaningless. SCOTUS says a corporation has certain rights, but as soon as the corporation avails itself of those rights, it immediately crumbles to a veil piercing challenge.
I think that's fair, and I think that is what I was trying to get at without having the appropriate words. If a corporation availing itself of these rights would have a weakened defense against a veil piercing challenge, I'm much more comfortable with the ruling.
Yeah, I work in Public Health, and and there are a ton of people with their JDs floating around. Including contractors we hire who preface the legal handbook we commissioned with 'this is not legal advice', lol.
NPR tends to get legal issues just slightly wrong if it will make the story more compelling to a left-leaning audience.
I like them because they're the best source of unbiased local news, my state's republicans are frequently interviewed for topics and are portrayed as intelligent people (and there are a surprising amount of conservative listeners in my state, too, because of that). With the national news segments you're probably right, but as someone has quoted around here, I prefer my news as bland as possible (with as little 'narrative' as possible) and they're the closest I can get to that
I agree on the "bland as possible" point. That's what sometimes frustrates me about NPR. They are generally well-researched and unbiased enough that it lulls people into an uncritical mindset. If I listen to Fox News or MSNBC, I know I'm getting horribly biased crap, so it's easy to keep my critical thinking filter on high alert. On the other hand, someone without a legal education might read that NPR article, see big names expressing reasonable-sounding opinions, and come away with the idea that they now have a good, unbiased understanding of the issue. I think that can be problematic sometimes.
But I actually think this makes sense from a fairness standpoint for the same reasons I outlined earlier in the thread. Automatic Hobby Lobby veil piercing would basically make the Supreme Court's ruling meaningless. SCOTUS says a corporation has certain rights, but as soon as the corporation avails itself of those rights, it immediately crumbles to a veil piercing challenge.
I think that's fair, and I think that is what I was trying to get at without having the appropriate words. If a corporation availing itself of these rights would have a weakened defense against a veil piercing challenge, I'm much more comfortable with the ruling.
Too be clear, I don't think it's the fact that Hobby Lobby availed itself of its rights that makes it weaker to veil piercing. It's probably more correct to say the rights and the weakness spring from the same place, namely the fact that Hobby Lobby is closely-held. A company with the same structure as Hobby Lobby, but with a non-religious owner who doesn't care about birth control, should in theory be equally susceptible to veil piercing.
Bitterroot - I'm okay with that as well. My issue was always that the greater right for corporations in this case always seemed to come without greater liability/responsibility. If the reason for the greater right is also a reason for greater potential liability, I'm happy. Phrased this way, I have a different opinion than what I was expressing before.
The "war on women" had validity in that it did attack somethings that were generally female in particular, and I do feel that considering the actual make up of some of these legislature groups being mostly men of a certain age and race. That we need to take a step back and perhaps look at different ways to sort out some of these social problems rather than through directly the law. Women, much like men, don't like being told what to do by a large segment of the other sex. The fear is that once you get rid of abortion then the next step is contraceptives in general, which is a valid fear since the Catholic Church does not support it's use and its only a hop, skip, and a jump for other social conservatives to acquire as a tag line.
For the most part, I feel that the real nuts and bolts for problems with conservatives is that there's too much of a take from welfare while taking the attitude "we can tell you what to do socially" as a means to preserve some vapid tradition that has been in decline for centuries. As a conservative, I must say that the lack of policy inventiveness in recent years and the total neglect for options such as adoption have caused me to really look at the modern conservative groups as lacking a core focus and nuance to fix problems. Libertarianism has been gaining a foothold and is a larger part of the conservative movement, but lacks a central message. I just feel that it maybe time to create a different set of ideologies and let conservative/liberal die off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Did you read the paycheck fairness act? It was a waste of time that did nothing but give trial lawyers a new avenue to make bank.
Equality under the law is a waste of time?
The domestic violence bill should have been passed, but what do you say to 40% of domestic abuse victims being male but only 15% of domestic violence cases have a male victim? You don't think that is a huge problem?
It should have been passed, eh? Remind us who opposed it.
As to it being a problem, you'll have to show where I said it wasn't.
Women can still use whatever birth control they want. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby isn't drug testing these women and firing them if they have said birth control in their systems.
Only it costs dollars and omitting avenues of a woman's health in the insurance they get is evidence for the war on women narrative.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Women can still use whatever birth control they want. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby isn't drug testing these women and firing them if they have said birth control in their systems.
Only it costs dollars and omitting avenues of a woman's health in the insurance they get is evidence for the war on women narrative.
And now we're back to the root problem. There isn't such a thing as birth-control insurance. It isn't a concept. The adjective "Birth-control" and the noun "insurance" aren't compatible, similar to "fuzzy number five," "voluminous circle," or "alcoholic water." The phrase "birth-control insurance" doesn't convey meaning.
Sexual health is covered under the umbrella of "health".
Or, if you'd prefer, the fact that birth control has medical uses outside preventing pregnancies. Cysts, for example. It puts birth control in preventative care which, again, is covered under health insurance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Women can still use whatever birth control they want. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby isn't drug testing these women and firing them if they have said birth control in their systems.
Only it costs dollars and omitting avenues of a woman's health in the insurance they get is evidence for the war on women narrative.
And now we're back to the root problem. There isn't such a thing as birth-control insurance. It isn't a concept. The adjective "Birth-control" and the noun "insurance" aren't compatible, similar to "fuzzy number five," "voluminous circle," or "alcoholic water." The phrase "birth-control insurance" doesn't convey meaning.
You're really only playing word games here, intentionally or not. Birth control is a colloquialism for a category of medications and prophylaxis that prevent pregnancy.
To put it clearly, pregnancy is a medical condition. Birth control is medicine or prophylaxis that prevents that condition. It's basic preventive health. Preventive health is good for insurance and overall health because it prevents or delays more expensive costs later. It's no different than giving vaccines to otherwise healthy people.
Sexual health is covered under the umbrella of "health".
Or, if you'd prefer, the fact that birth control has medical uses outside preventing pregnancies. Cysts, for example. It puts birth control in preventative care which, again, is covered under health insurance.
Birth Control for a use other than Birth Control is no longer Birth Control. I'm afraid I was partly responsible for spreading this idea on here, but after talking about it with my wife (who is a doctor), it wouldn't be considered 'Birth Control' for billing purposes, which means it would still be covered under insurance.
Did you read the paycheck fairness act? It was a waste of time that did nothing but give trial lawyers a new avenue to make bank.
Equality under the law is a waste of time?
The domestic violence bill should have been passed, but what do you say to 40% of domestic abuse victims being male but only 15% of domestic violence cases have a male victim? You don't think that is a huge problem?
It should have been passed, eh? Remind us who opposed it.
As to it being a problem, you'll have to show where I said it wasn't.
Women can still use whatever birth control they want. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby isn't drug testing these women and firing them if they have said birth control in their systems.
Only it costs dollars and omitting avenues of a woman's health in the insurance they get is evidence for the war on women narrative.
Please show me where Hobby Lobby has stopped coverage for all female birth control.
Please show me where they get to to play doctor and decide which ones are ok.
We've been over this a few times already, but Hobby Lobby is not "playing doctor," nor is it deciding which birth control its employees are allowed to take. Its employees are permitted to take any birth control they desire. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for certain birth control.
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
CNN: We heard the demonstrators today saying, “Look, the employers should stay out of our business,” that this decision will now essentially bring the employer into what should be a very private decision-making process between a woman and her doctor, now that the justices ruled that Hobby Lobby no longer has to cover four types of contraception. What do you have to say to the other side?
WINDHAM: Hobby Lobby would love to stay out of this, and leave this decision to a woman and her doctor. It’s the federal government that told them that they had to be involved and cover these things, even though they violated the Green family’s faith.
Bitteroot, through reading this thread I have gathered that you are an attorney. I am as well. This constitutional law stuff is a little outside my wheel house (I am a public defender). I was curious what your thoughts were on that 9th circuit case that held laws of general applicability, ones that do not target a religion or a religious practice, should only be held to the rational basis standard of review. The case was about a Native American tribe claiming a right to use marijuana for religious purposes. The feds held that laws prohibiting marijuana use are not targeted at a religion or a religious practice and as such the proper standard of review is rational basis. The goal of the AFA is not to target a particular religion or religious practice. They used strict scrutiny. I am too lazy to look up the name of the case right now but I was talking to the people in my office (again, a public defenders office) and we were kind of at an impasse. The best argument we could come up with was that the law at hand in Hobby Lobby is not criminal but thats a kind of weak argument. I just can't for the life of me reconcile this 9th circuit case with Hobby Lobby. Thoughts?
For the sake of full disclosure, I have not read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but I do understand that it requires strict scrutiny when there is a substantial burden on free exercise. Combine my general lack of knowledge in this area with the fact that and I find Alito's logic hard to follow (man I wish Scalia or Roberts wrote this one) and Im at a loss.
PS: I am a politically liberal person but I want to leave politics out of this, just a good old fashion legal conversation. Also, what kind of law do you practice
Sexual health is covered under the umbrella of "health".
Or, if you'd prefer, the fact that birth control has medical uses outside preventing pregnancies. Cysts, for example. It puts birth control in preventative care which, again, is covered under health insurance.
Women can still use whatever birth control they want. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby isn't drug testing these women and firing them if they have said birth control in their systems.
Only it costs dollars and omitting avenues of a woman's health in the insurance they get is evidence for the war on women narrative.
And now we're back to the root problem. There isn't such a thing as birth-control insurance. It isn't a concept. The adjective "Birth-control" and the noun "insurance" aren't compatible, similar to "fuzzy number five," "voluminous circle," or "alcoholic water." The phrase "birth-control insurance" doesn't convey meaning.
You're really only playing word games here, intentionally or not. Birth control is a colloquialism for a category of medications and prophylaxis that prevent pregnancy.
To put it clearly, pregnancy is a medical condition. Birth control is medicine or prophylaxis that prevents that condition. It's basic preventive health. Preventive health is good for insurance and overall health because it prevents or delays more expensive costs later. It's no different than giving vaccines to otherwise healthy people.
There is such a thing as Birth control insurance? Don't you think it's kind of wierd that you're arguing that something exists, but you're incapable of providing a brief description of it?
Example of car crash insurance:
"The odds of me getting in a car crash are 10%; if I get in one, I would like you to give me $10,000. I will give you a little more than $100 for this."
Example of life insurance:
"The odds of me dying in the next ten years are 2%; if that happens, I would like you to give my family $50,000. I will give you a little more than $1,000 for this."
Example of fire insurance:
"The odds of my stuff catching fire are 1%; if that happens, I would like you to give me $600,000. I will give you a little more than $6,000 for this."
Bitteroot, through reading this thread I have gathered that you are an attorney. I am as well. This constitutional law stuff is a little outside my wheel house (I am a public defender). I was curious what your thoughts were on that 9th circuit case that held laws of general applicability, ones that do not target a religion or a religious practice, should only be held to the rational basis standard of review. The case was about a Native American tribe claiming a right to use marijuana for religious purposes. The feds held that laws prohibiting marijuana use are not targeted at a religion or a religious practice and as such the proper standard of review is rational basis. The goal of the AFA is not to target a particular religion or religious practice. They used strict scrutiny. I am too lazy to look up the name of the case right now but I was talking to the people in my office (again, a public defenders office) and we were kind of at an impasse. The best argument we could come up with was that the law at hand in Hobby Lobby is not criminal but thats a kind of weak argument. I just can't for the life of me reconcile this 9th circuit case with Hobby Lobby. Thoughts?
For the sake of full disclosure, I have not read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but I do understand that it requires strict scrutiny when there is a substantial burden on free exercise. Combine my general lack of knowledge in this area with the fact that and I find Alito's logic hard to follow (man I wish Scalia or Roberts wrote this one) and Im at a loss.
PS: I am a politically liberal person but I want to leave politics out of this, just a good old fashion legal conversation. Also, what kind of law do you practice
My practice is almost exclusively patent litigation. I have serious respect for public defenders. You folks are the duct tape holding a broken system together.
I believe the case you're thinking of is Employment Division v. Smith, which involved religious use of peyote. You (like me) probably read this case in law school. The Supreme Court (written by Justice Scalia of all people) held that ordinary rational basis scrutiny applied to laws of general applicability that burden religion.
So why does Smith not control here? Very simple. Congress passed the RFRA as a response to outcry over Smith. There's nothing unconstitutional about Congress holding its own laws to a higher standard of scrutiny via statute. Congress effectively "overruled" Smith with the RFRA, so the RFRA controlled the Hobby Lobby case.
I was actually referring to this case http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/04/09/10-17687.pdf. It looks like it was largely decided on ripeness grounds and the substantive issue was brushed aside. It was a 2009 case and discusses the RFRA. Again this kind of law, while interesting, was never a strength of mine even in law school. Patent attorney eh? IP has always been a subject that I've had a lot of interest in, albeit an area I have no plans to ever practice in. With the current patent troll controversies, I imagine it is an interesting time to practice.
There is such a thing as Birth control insurance? Don't you think it's kind of wierd that you're arguing that something exists, but you're incapable of providing a brief description of it?
You mean health insurance? I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.
There is such a thing as Birth control insurance? Don't you think it's kind of wierd that you're arguing that something exists, but you're incapable of providing a brief description of it?
You mean health insurance? I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.
I'm saying that due to the fact that there is no such thing as birth control insurance, it's weird that there's a law making it illegal for certail places to not offer birth control insurance.
I'm making a reference to the fact that there is no such thing as birth control insurance, therefore it's weird that there's a law making it illegal for certail places to not offer birth control insurance.
Is something getting lost in translation here?
No one is talking about 'Birth Control Insurance', we're talking about Health Insurance that covers Birth Control. Birth Control is a group of medications and/or medical devices that are required to be covered by Health Insurance companies under the ACA.
I'm making a reference to the fact that there is no such thing as birth control insurance, therefore it's weird that there's a law making it illegal for certail places to not offer birth control insurance.
Is something getting lost in translation here?
No one is talking about 'Birth Control Insurance', we're talking about Health Insurance that covers Birth Control. Birth Control is a group of medications and/or medical devices that are required to be covered by Health Insurance companies under the ACA.
Same concept. What is birth control coverage, then?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My girlfriend (who is both an attorney and a huge NPR junkie) texted me about this the other day. I was considering posting about it here, so I'm glad you did. Let me preface this by saying I don't deal with a lot of business law in my practice, but I am familiar with the concept of piercing the veil. This is all speculation, none of this should be construed as legal advice.
My understanding is that veil piercing is very rare and considered to be an extreme remedy. Courts use words like "sham" or "fraud" to describe corporations whose veils are pierced. The underlying reason for this rule is to prevent people from using a corporation to "cheat" and do things they wouldn't normally be allowed to do if they were acting in their personal capacity. Wikipedia has a huge list of factors that are considered. You can see that these factors are zeroing on the question: Is this a "real" corporation, or is it just a mask that you're wearing when it's convenient for you?
Bottom line - Hobby Lobby is a real corporation that does real business. It's not a sham. However, the owner's insistence that his business is entitled to RFRA protection based on his religious beliefs is definitely one factor that would weigh in favor of piercing if the issue was litigated down the line. Would it be enough by itself? I would be shocked. But it would definitely be a contributing factor that would tip the scales toward piercing if other factors weighed in favor as well.
You've no idea how often I hear this in my line of work.
This was generally my feeling as well, the people they had speaking about it seemed to think it was a lot stronger than it sounded. My thoughts of the fairness of this ruling aside, it didn't sound like sufficient legal ground for a creditor alone.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Ha. You're in a medical field, right? No one wants to give legal advice when lives hang in the balance; waaaay too much liability.
NPR tends to get legal issues just slightly wrong if it will make the story more compelling to a left-leaning audience.
But I actually think this makes sense from a fairness standpoint for the same reasons I outlined earlier in the thread. Automatic Hobby Lobby veil piercing would basically make the Supreme Court's ruling meaningless. SCOTUS says a corporation has certain rights, but as soon as the corporation avails itself of those rights, it immediately crumbles to a veil piercing challenge.
Incidentally "Pierce the Veil" needs to be a Magic card name. Destroy target legendary artifact?
Custom Cards is a little far afield of the topic. Warning for Spam - bLatch
I like them because they're the best source of unbiased local news, my state's republicans are frequently interviewed for topics and are portrayed as intelligent people (and there are a surprising amount of conservative listeners in my state, too, because of that). With the national news segments you're probably right, but as someone has quoted around here, I prefer my news as bland as possible (with as little 'narrative' as possible) and they're the closest I can get to that
Haha, definitely, although I would make it some sort of spell that ignores hexproof.
I think that's fair, and I think that is what I was trying to get at without having the appropriate words. If a corporation availing itself of these rights would have a weakened defense against a veil piercing challenge, I'm much more comfortable with the ruling.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I agree on the "bland as possible" point. That's what sometimes frustrates me about NPR. They are generally well-researched and unbiased enough that it lulls people into an uncritical mindset. If I listen to Fox News or MSNBC, I know I'm getting horribly biased crap, so it's easy to keep my critical thinking filter on high alert. On the other hand, someone without a legal education might read that NPR article, see big names expressing reasonable-sounding opinions, and come away with the idea that they now have a good, unbiased understanding of the issue. I think that can be problematic sometimes.
Too be clear, I don't think it's the fact that Hobby Lobby availed itself of its rights that makes it weaker to veil piercing. It's probably more correct to say the rights and the weakness spring from the same place, namely the fact that Hobby Lobby is closely-held. A company with the same structure as Hobby Lobby, but with a non-religious owner who doesn't care about birth control, should in theory be equally susceptible to veil piercing.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
For the most part, I feel that the real nuts and bolts for problems with conservatives is that there's too much of a take from welfare while taking the attitude "we can tell you what to do socially" as a means to preserve some vapid tradition that has been in decline for centuries. As a conservative, I must say that the lack of policy inventiveness in recent years and the total neglect for options such as adoption have caused me to really look at the modern conservative groups as lacking a core focus and nuance to fix problems. Libertarianism has been gaining a foothold and is a larger part of the conservative movement, but lacks a central message. I just feel that it maybe time to create a different set of ideologies and let conservative/liberal die off.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It should have been passed, eh? Remind us who opposed it.
As to it being a problem, you'll have to show where I said it wasn't.
Only it costs dollars and omitting avenues of a woman's health in the insurance they get is evidence for the war on women narrative.
And now we're back to the root problem. There isn't such a thing as birth-control insurance. It isn't a concept. The adjective "Birth-control" and the noun "insurance" aren't compatible, similar to "fuzzy number five," "voluminous circle," or "alcoholic water." The phrase "birth-control insurance" doesn't convey meaning.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Or, if you'd prefer, the fact that birth control has medical uses outside preventing pregnancies. Cysts, for example. It puts birth control in preventative care which, again, is covered under health insurance.
You're really only playing word games here, intentionally or not. Birth control is a colloquialism for a category of medications and prophylaxis that prevent pregnancy.
To put it clearly, pregnancy is a medical condition. Birth control is medicine or prophylaxis that prevents that condition. It's basic preventive health. Preventive health is good for insurance and overall health because it prevents or delays more expensive costs later. It's no different than giving vaccines to otherwise healthy people.
Birth Control for a use other than Birth Control is no longer Birth Control. I'm afraid I was partly responsible for spreading this idea on here, but after talking about it with my wife (who is a doctor), it wouldn't be considered 'Birth Control' for billing purposes, which means it would still be covered under insurance.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Please show me where Hobby Lobby has stopped coverage for all female birth control.
We've been over this a few times already, but Hobby Lobby is not "playing doctor," nor is it deciding which birth control its employees are allowed to take. Its employees are permitted to take any birth control they desire. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for certain birth control.
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSxxvfDt-UQ
Care to explain? They seem to be very different things to me, and we've already had a long discussion ITT about the differences.
For the sake of full disclosure, I have not read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but I do understand that it requires strict scrutiny when there is a substantial burden on free exercise. Combine my general lack of knowledge in this area with the fact that and I find Alito's logic hard to follow (man I wish Scalia or Roberts wrote this one) and Im at a loss.
PS: I am a politically liberal person but I want to leave politics out of this, just a good old fashion legal conversation. Also, what kind of law do you practice
There is such a thing as Birth control insurance? Don't you think it's kind of wierd that you're arguing that something exists, but you're incapable of providing a brief description of it?
Example of car crash insurance:
"The odds of me getting in a car crash are 10%; if I get in one, I would like you to give me $10,000. I will give you a little more than $100 for this."
Example of life insurance:
"The odds of me dying in the next ten years are 2%; if that happens, I would like you to give my family $50,000. I will give you a little more than $1,000 for this."
Example of fire insurance:
"The odds of my stuff catching fire are 1%; if that happens, I would like you to give me $600,000. I will give you a little more than $6,000 for this."
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
My practice is almost exclusively patent litigation. I have serious respect for public defenders. You folks are the duct tape holding a broken system together.
I believe the case you're thinking of is Employment Division v. Smith, which involved religious use of peyote. You (like me) probably read this case in law school. The Supreme Court (written by Justice Scalia of all people) held that ordinary rational basis scrutiny applied to laws of general applicability that burden religion.
So why does Smith not control here? Very simple. Congress passed the RFRA as a response to outcry over Smith. There's nothing unconstitutional about Congress holding its own laws to a higher standard of scrutiny via statute. Congress effectively "overruled" Smith with the RFRA, so the RFRA controlled the Hobby Lobby case.
You mean health insurance? I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm saying that due to the fact that there is no such thing as birth control insurance, it's weird that there's a law making it illegal for certail places to not offer birth control insurance.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Is something getting lost in translation here?
No one is talking about 'Birth Control Insurance', we're talking about Health Insurance that covers Birth Control. Birth Control is a group of medications and/or medical devices that are required to be covered by Health Insurance companies under the ACA.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Same concept. What is birth control coverage, then?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff