Yes, your interpretation is correct. Basically, someone still has to pay, since it is written into law that insurance has to cover contraception. Essentially, the gov't has made the case to insurers (and apparently the actuaries agree) that just because the employer is refusing to pay this small amount, it's still a whole lot cheaper for the insurer to just take a hit on it, given that an abortion costs a lot, and a child costs a whole lot for a long time. This entire saga is nonsense, mere proof that anyone can find any legal justification for any ideological position, so long as suspension of disbelief is maintained. If you want a real headscratcher, compare and contrast Hobby Lobby with the recent Wheaton College injunction. Apparently Roberts' avowed "respect for precedent" lasted a mere four days in this case. We live in the judicial version of Bizzarro World.
That's a good question. I think that the issue isn't women being denied contraception. The issue is that of specific religious ideologies being imposed on society as a whole in the name of religious freedom. Here's what I had to say in a comment the other day: 2) Money is speech (according to the Roberts Court) 3) Religious exceptions trump the paying of a tax (according to the Roberts Court) So it doesn't take a genius to make the next leap. That is, how can anybody be forced to pay any taxes now, given that almost everything the Federal Government does is offensive to someone's religious beliefs? If I'm a Christian Scientist entrepreneur, can I simply not pay for any health coverage? If I'm a Quaker, can I refuse to pay the portion of my tax that goes to DoD? And so on. Ah, but I suspect not. I think a far simpler explanation is that these extreme right wing Catholics who make up the 5 member majority on the Court are letting their ideology control national policy just a tad too much, eh? Remember back in 1960 when JFK had to give a big national speech assuring mostly conservative voters that he wouldn't let his Catholic faith or his allegiance to the Pope trump national interests? Well that got flipped on its head sometime in the last half century. It's a joke (unfortunately, a joke of which we're all the butt) that this is all done in the name of originalism. Separation of church and state is dead, flat out dead. This decision is less about women's rights than it is about the further degradation of the separation of church and state. Scalia and Thomas especially seem hell bent on merging a specific version of Christianity into the fabric of the Constitution, and all in the name of 'originalism'.1) The ACA is a tax (according to the Roberts Court)
Personally, I thought the crux of the issue was that corporations are allowed to express "religious affiliations" and impose them on their employees. I saw it more as the broadening of corporations' rights, and the very phrase "corporations' rights" feels wrong to me. I do not believe a corporation should have the same rights as a person. To me in a way that then allows a corporation to become a personhood monopoly especially when they are then allowed to impose their views on their employees. "We have the rights of a person but we employ thousands of people and we can now refuse to grant certain services to those people." Despite what the rights of those individual people are supposed to be. It's like, due to employment by a corporation, the corporation's rights can then supercede the rights of their employees.
To be truthful I think my comment essentially takes a line out of yours and expounds on why that's problematic in my mind. It's this part I find interesting and would like to hear more about your opinions on if you want - I feel like I don't have the knowledge or context to provide commentary on this issue: This decision is less about women's rights than it is about the further degradation of the separation of church and state. Scalia and Thomas especially seem hell bent on merging a specific version of Christianity into the fabric of the Constitution, and all in the name of 'originalism'.
I can't articulate nearly as well as this, so why try? Edit: I should really temper some of my language. Although 'originalism' is the rallying cry of the extreme Right, this isn't a constitutional case. It's actually a statutory case, which interpreted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to get the result. An act of Congress could, therefore, overrule this decision.
Thanks for the awesome reply. There's no doubt that this decision is problematic. I am however concerned by the way this is ultimately being presented. An employee of an organisation that claims the religious exception would be quite likely to believe that their plan did not cover the stated methods of contraception, when in fact it does, it's just paid for by a different entity. I feel that left-leaning elements in the media are therefore doing women a great disservice by reporting on this decision the way they are.
Depends if you're listening to sound bite media, or if you're reading more in depth reporting. If it;s sound bite media (e.g. cable news), then you're probably going to be misinformed on many more issues than just Hobby Lobby, I'm afraid. Left and Right leaning media have been doing all of us a disservice for a long time. When yellow journalism reigns, all we get are ad sales packaged as newsworthy information.
While I have to agree with you in general, it seems to me that reporters have really dropped the ball on this. I think I read and listen pretty widely but I haven't heard this point mentioned anywhere. (This is really the reason why I decided to post.. ) I hate to admit it but it appears that the goal of raising outrage seems to have overtaken good reporting even on what I would consider more enlightened and non-partisan outlets.