Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Date Filed: June 30, 2014
Case #: 13-354
Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined and in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined as to all but Part III–C–1. Breyer and Kagan, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.
Full Text Opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
From what can be seen of the opinion, the US Supremes (SCOTUS) treated Hobby Lobby, Inc, a for profit closely held (read small) corporation as a person for analysis of the relevant statute which requires employers under the act to provide free contraception.
Hobby Lobby balked at that (but I wonder if they provide penile implants, Viagra, and other sex aides for men and possibly women) under the act.
The court said that at least for closely held or smaller corporations they can have personally held religious beliefs and impose them upon their employees. Of course, this has prompted a flurry of the “the bible says” I can stone people, murder them, sell my daughter or son, whatever in the name of religion. The Chicago Trib had one of those columns today.
While SCOTUS didn’t say how far they would take that one for employers, it acknowledged that some chunk of the American populace has a problem with contraception and employers paying for it. Now that can be extended to surgeries, certain drugs, blood transfusions and the like, but for now the high court with a majority of the members being uterus-less, have imposed this decision only on women, and only on women of childbearing age, generally between 12 and 58 or so. A typical suspect category that is never recognized as one of them.
They basically gutted this provision of the AHCA on the concept that 1) this falls under the First Amendment; 2) therefore strict scrutiny must be applied to uphold it as constitutional; and 3) the government must try to adopt less restrictive law to accommodate First Amendment concerns.
Interesting. The ARDC says that reporting upon, and publicly discussing judicial corruption does NOT fall under the first amendment for attorneys. It says that this blog is like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, tho they never identified what dangerous mobs are involved and where do they lurk looking for innocents to trample. They say there is no need for “strict scrutiny” or need for “lesser restrictive laws” where the First Amendment is involved.
In fact, and attorney can steal, neglect his duties, engage in self dealing with his cronies in the probate courts (on husband of a GAL), and the penalties will be far less than speaking out against corruption and noting the ARDC routinely dismisses those complaints.
The ARDC rarely goes after powerful lawyers or maligns them (Seth Gillman–$90 million in fraud), or lawyers at large law firms.
Today’s decision is not unexpected. But it is simply bad law. This means, out of the tens of thousands of religions in the world, or if you advise your particular belief does not provide for a medical procedure, if your corp is closely held, you can ban your employees from that medical procedure or drug, such as penile implants (I think a wife should approve), Viagra, Cialis, blood transfusions, vaccines, chemotherapy (some believe it is only ineffective poison), whatever, now an employer can object, refuse to pay, and they can litigate instead.
Today, and once again, the US Supremes left women in the lurch while they allow men to get whatever reproductive aides they want. None of those are banned and none were part of the decision.
If the US Supreme took away those, there would indeed be an outcry.
If it’s for men, it’s a right and sacrament, if it’s for women, it’s a sin.
MaryGSykes.com 