This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
"The ruling could have widespread impact on the issue of whether companies can be religiously exempt from any federal law that protects the interests of other individuals."
Whether or not the HHS' contraceptive mandate "protects the interests of other individuals" is a matter of opinion that does not belong in this neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.161.151 ( talk) 12:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
To be absolutely correct, it should say, "...can be exempt for religious reasons from funding federal laws and programs that create legal entitlements for other individuals." Also, ..."the issue of"... is redundant (fire all words which do no work!).
My distinction is important: The ACA does not "protect" contraceptives (those were granted general availability by another Supreme Court case several decades ago); and, the Greens were not trying to ban them or even avoid providing some of them in their own employee health-care plan. The complaint makes absolutely clear that the Greens, Hobby Lobby, and their co-plaintiff, Marsdel, Inc., (a Christian bookstore) opposed providing ONLY those contraceptives which, per the FDA's own determination, may cause "abortion" by blocking implantation of a fertilized human ovum. This is a relatively small list of drugs plus such devices as IUDs.
Finally, "could" should be in italics -- Hobby Lobby's complaint not only distinguishes Hobby Lobby from commonly held corporations, e.g., Union Pacific, but also from most closely held, for-profit enterprises. In some ways, because of the religious orientations of members of the Green family, Hobby Lobby possesses elements more in common with eleemosynary organizations. For example, as the complaint makes clear (see below for where to get a copy), many of Hobby Lobby's profits go to charitable causes, and Hobby Lobby refuses to maximize its profits by doing things like backhauling alcoholic beverages in its empty trucks, selling shot glasses, or keeping its stores open late at night or on Sundays (when, the Greens argue, people should be home with their families). These distinctions clearly are specified in the complaint (which also clearly states that Hobby Lobby's corporate organization is to serve God -- hardly a requirement common in the bylaws of most companies); hence, how much of a "landmark" ruling Hobby Lobby is remains to be seen -- the Court may extend it to closely held companies generally, or it may cut it off at the knees.
We'll need a couple more cases to find that out.
Robert Brian Crim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the name of this article be Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (with a comma after the word "Stores" and a period after the abbreviation "Inc")? I tried to make the change, but I received a warning that the title was invalid. Can anyone address this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I added a link to closely held corporation in the article, but I think it needs to explicitly address the definition of the term and its implications. See for example [1] and its statistics that 90% of American businesses fall into that definition, and [2] which claims there are several possible definitions and it wasn't clear which one the decision referred to. -- Waldir talk 21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I personally have two questions about this case that I don't think are currently answered by the article. If an editor who's more of an expert on the subject matter agrees that these questions ought to be covered, I'd be glad to see the information included, and then I'd be a little less ignorant. The first is whether Hobby Lobby made an explicit First Amendment claim or not. The article is clear that the decision was based on a statute rather than the First Amendment; I'm only asking whether such an argument was offered or not. My second question, is: Does the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" grant an unlimited freedom to interpret matters of fact as part of one's religion? I'm asking this here rather than in the article about that law, because my impression from news reports is that this case hinged on a claim that certain forms of birth control, generally accepted as such by the medical profession, actually cause abortions. Do such "non-faithy" beliefs, and practices based on them that affect other people, have the same legal protection as, say, the right of a person to pray peaceably X number of times per day if their religion commands it? Thanks! DSatz ( talk) 10:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for these replies and the article updates, and for any others that may still follow. I'm still taking this decision in. It's obviously a huge one, but it's bounded by technicalities that (as a non-lawyer) I don't have a good "feel" for yet, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. DSatz ( talk) 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The second question is also an unequivocal yes. Both the majority opinion and the dissent agree that "(“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warnedthat courts must not presume to determinethe plausibility of a religious claim" and "This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents(whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct businessin accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable)." - however, the "test" imposed by the law and the court is multi-prong. Only one of those prongs is a sincere religious belief. As both the majority and dissent also said, the calculus for other religious beliefs may come out differently, because the "least restrictive" method in other instances may legitimately involve disruption of the religious belief. @KiunkyLipids - The ruling protects owners, only because owners were being forced to take action against their belief. If employees were being forced to take action by law, they would certainly have equal protection. The case that initiated the RFRA was about two native americans fired from their job after smoking peyote in a religious ceremony. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I submit that this is a non-issue. The complaint in the case filed by Hobby Lobby et al. clearly sought to distinguish Hobby Lobby not only from common corporations, e.g., General Motors, but also from MOST small, tightly held companies. The complaint (see below for where to get a copy) makes clear that Hobby Lobby was organized, in its bylaws, to the glory of God (whatever that means), and all employees sign onto that when they take employment with the company.
Furthermore, the "et al." which should be in the title is not trivial. Hobby Lobby's co-plaintiffs, in addition to the Greens, included Marsdel, Inc., a Christian bookstore. I think it rather difficult to contest the values held (or expressed) by a Christian bookstore.
The fundamental flaw in the thinking here is that, somehow, the employees are being "picked on" by the Greens (instead of the Greens being picked on by the Government). Obviously, there may be one or two (among more than 13,000) who feel that way; but, they are not parties to the suit and (if they can establish standing) have the right to file their own suit. But, this won't happen because what the Greens asked for, in their complaint, was basically to be treated the same as similarly situated, not-for-profit organizations which the law specifically exempts -- no employee is excluded from coverage by the Greens' objections (the Greens just don't want to have to pay for it -- IF the coverage includes abortion-inducing drugs or devices).
Robert Brian Crim
User:ArnoldReinhold, the concurring opinion is not binding. It's only Kennedy's opinion. It's not the court's opinion, nor does it restrict the court's opinion. The majority opinion says that "[t]he most straightforward way of of doing this [(using the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling interest)] would be for the Government to assume the cost..." This is the main reasoning for why the mandate is not the least restrictive means. The court then responds to the government's argument:
HHS contends that RFRA does not permit us to take this option into account because “RFRA cannot be used to require creation of entirely new programs.”...But we see nothing in RFRA that supports this argument, and drawing the line between the “creation of an entirely new program” and the modification of an existing program (which RFRA surely allows) would be fraught with problems.
In other words, the court supports the argument that creation of entirely new programs can be required. The court then points to the existing accommodation for nonprofits, but only as an extra reason, specific to this case, that the mandate is not the least restrictive means. KinkyLipids ( talk) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The lede is incorrect currently. The mandate was not the least restrictive method- but not because the government can assume the cost (although that would also be true) - the majority opinion is quite clear - its not the least restrictive method, because there is already the certification process used by non-profits which causes the insurer to cover the contraceptives directly, rather than the employer. (page 49)
In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.
"We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims. At a minimum, however, it does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well."
The article makes one mention of the matter of life-saving medical treatments like transfusions regarding this ruling and it is only in the negative sense of companies supposedly now being able to deny such treatments. However, the ruling specifically addressed this matter at the very bottom of page 5 and into the top of page 6, stating that it was concerned only with the contraception mandate. I know the far-left sources cited are completely ignoring this fact, but it needs to be clearly stated in the article. 71.51.129.193 ( talk) 03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Right from the get-go, the section smacks of bias. It starts off claiming: "The case's potential consequences could extend far beyond contraception." This seems like an attempt to predict the future, which is verboten on Wikipedia the last time I checked. Neutrality would dictate that the claim is the view of some with specific examples of it. 71.51.129.193 ( talk) 03:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping to learn how these plaintiffs had Article III standing. Did they demonstrate an injury in fact, e.g. paying for the insurance, which was used by a particular employee to purchase one of the 4 contraceptives, which indeed caused a fertilized egg not to implant and/or grow? Wouldn't this be a violation of privacy rights? What other way is there to establish standing? I looked up the Hobby Lobby v Sebelius case from the Western District of Oklahoma, and while it briefly mentioned standing under RFRA (same as Article III) I didn't see how the decision was arrived at. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A key aspect of this case is the requirement that employees have made available to them an insurance plan that covers the 20 methods of contraception, even though the employer or organization need not pay to cover all 20 (and later cases demonstrate that they need not pay to cover any). However, I am unable to locate the list of these 20 methods. I am able to locate a list from the FDA which might have been the list used by IOM and referenced in this case. However, what causes me doubt is that the list I found includes "Sterilization Surgery for Men", and yet the ACA website says that vasectomy is specifically excluded from coverage. So are there typically 20 covered methods? Or just 19? Or does it mean that the only covered male surgery is castration? Do I have the correct list? I've tried tracking it down on other related pages, but it's either not there, or I don't know where to look. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 04:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The Greens answered (or anticipated) this in their complaint (see below for where to get a copy). Essentially, the complaint says that Sibelius abused her discretion under the ACA to foist a requirement for certain contraceptive coverages -- coverages which (per the FDA) may induce an abortion -- onto objecting, for-profit businesses.
What happened (or at least what the Greens alleged in a verified complaint) was that HHS adopted an interim rule, which was subject under the APA to a commentary period. In the wake of significant adverse commentary, Sebelius turned the matter over to IOM, which then excluded the objectors from participation in the process. Only pro-abortion proponents (according to the Greens) were heard by IOM, which then recommended to HHS that all methods approved by the FDA be included. This was done (per another interim rule -- requiring more comment). According to the complaint, some 100,000 adverse comments were received by HHS during this second comment period, and five days after comments were closed, Sebelius appeared before NARAL and told its members, "We are in a war!"
But, it's quite possible that HHS did not adopt, in its final rule, coverage for vasectomies, even though that's on the FDA's list.
Robert Brian Crim
After reading the introduction, I have very little idea what this case is about - I think it needs to be expanded, clarified or rewritten. Before I am flamed for being an idiot, I understand most introductions on wikipedia across most fields - and although I'm not a lawyer, I'm well read and well qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.86.130 ( talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with 188.31.7.5's removal of pix not tied directly to the case. The image of the doctor advising a women, maybe. The photo of Obama meeting congressional leaders, I think not as it implies they are arguing about this issue, when there is no reason to believe that. The shot of the Supreme Court building adds nothing, in my opinion. So I'd get ride of two of the three pix 188.31.7.5 deleted. -- agr ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Too many to address in one sitting, but here are two.
Next to last sentance in the lead: "The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, leaving no alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations who do not wish to provide birth control. " The bolded phrase ostensibly references a BusinessInsider post, which says no such thing. It says that "for now, the school's employee's and students (and their dependents) who use the school's sponsored insurance plans to pay for contraceptives won't be able to do so." So saying it leaves "no alternative for any female employee" is false, misleading, and frankly smacks of biased sensationalism. Further, in the "Wheaton College order" section of the Wikipedia article, it is explicitly noted that "The court said 'Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.'" Not sure exactly what the court was thinking here, but presumably they recognized an alternative mechanism.
The "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" section extensively cites liberal commentators but gives short shrift to conservative opinions, for example from Goldberg and Ponnuru. In fact, a cursory examination of the complete reference list indicates a majority of liberal biased sources (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.) and cherry picking of liberal commentaries from more usually conservative sources (Fox, Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News). RedBeard48 ( talk) 07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:SOAPBOX. Robert, please read
User talk:208.83.74.242 before adding more comments. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk) 04:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
I must agree with RedBeard: My efforts to change the balance somewhat promptly were deleted by whoever next read the passage.... Robert Brian Crim....
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 20:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Except that the article already is full of stuff that does not constitute "research" (original or otherwise). Consider the following extract: "The dean of the UC Irvine School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky said, 'The liabilities of the corporation are not attributed to the owners, so why should the owners be able to attribute their beliefs to the company?'" Now, I would not deny that the dean of a law school well can be an attributable source for an article about a Supreme Court opinion, so we start on solid ground here. But, the dean's statement constitutes no LEGAL opinion or analysis, nor does it even indicate that the dean ever read the Hobby Lobby complaint (see below for where to get a copy). All corporations are creatures of the State, so the legal rules to be imposed upon them are the rules created by the authority which created (or regulated) the corporation in the first place (the legislature). Asking rhetorically why the legislature didn't do things differently constitutes no expertise -- this is simply the opinion of one man who happens, concurrently, to be the dean of a law school and (apparently) personally prefers a different rule. Such an opinion is no better than mine (and no more worthy of mention).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC) But, let me, instead, address specifically RedBeard's boldprint objection because such demonstrates precisely what I've said previously. The Business Insider citation -- Business Insider's personal interpretation of the opinion in Wheaton -- simply does not belong in the article. That is because the BEST EVIDENCE is not what Business Insider thinks but what the Court actually said. All may read the Court's order (and Justice Sotomayor's sharp dissent) here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf -- which of course is the proper citation for any article in an encyclopedia, NOT a reference to editorial cherry-picking by a non-legal publication like Business Insider. What then DID the Court actually say? It granted TEMPORARY relief to Wheaton PENDING REVIEW. Which is not depriving anybody of anything. Furthermore, what the order specifically says is, "[T]he applicant has already notified the government -- without using EBSA Form 700 -- that it meets the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. NOTHING IN THIS ORDER PRECLUDES THE GOVERNMENT FROM RELYING ON THIS NOTICE, TO THE EXTENT IT CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY, TO FACILITATE THE PROVISION FOR FULL CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE UNDER THE ACT." [Emph.added.] This order comes from 6 members of the Court, including one who joined the dissent in Hobby Lobby. It separates the girls from the boys (Sotomayor was joined by Ginzburg and Kagan) -- what was said under the table to the LAWYERS who read it. What then was Justice Sotomayor's objection? It was solely that Wheaton had not made the requisite showing for INTERLOCUTORY relief UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT, given the uncertainty of rights CLAIMED UNDER RFRA. Her opinion says NOTHING about ANY OTHER potential kind of reviewable claim. I think everyone here should take the good Justice at her word! Especially when one reads the kinds of complaints actually being filed. [You can get a copy of the Hobby Lobby complaint here: www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hobby-Lobby-Complaint-stamped.pdf .] And, if anyone will just read the complaint (remember "read the bill"?), they quickly will realize that these complaints have (in addition to the RFRA claims) freedom-of-religion and FREE SPEECH counts, as well as objections under the APA. THAT'S what Justice Sotomayor QUIETLY accented with her dissent. Wheaton's rights are NOT CLEAR under RFRA -- they CANNOT be because, as Sotomayor points out, the Circuits are in conflict over what RFRA means --; but, the FIRST AMENDMENT claim is VERY MUCH alive -- and THAT'S what the Court wants to hear (and why it granted such relief). The Government has NO POWER to order anyone to utter any form of religious "speech." Why? Because the First Amendment allows for "no law." THAT'S clear! For, as Justice Sotomayor points out, the relief 6 members of the Court granted is relief available ONLY in the rarest of circumstances -- readers conceivably could witness the resurrection of Christ before they see this kind of relief granted again by the Supreme Court of the United States (it's that rare). This, of course, is why the Business Insider citation is improper: Yes, it's a "source" (in the sense it's in print); but, like so much of what is reported in the popular press about the federal courts, the representation makes no sense to one with even the most basic training in the law. This absolutely extraordinary order TEMPORARILY protects Wheaton from having to fill out a form bearing objectionable speech on the back, then having to send the form not to the government but to the insurance company. The relief applies ONLY to Wheaton -- which already has given the Government, by other means, all the notice the Government legally can command (The Government remains free to tell the insurance company anything it wants). How does THAT block ANYONE from obtaining contraceptives that may produce abortions? So, RedBeard is right that the Business Insider citation, and its writer's interpretation of it, should be stricken from the article. Not only is Business Insider wrong in its own conclusions, the Wiki writer's interpretation of said conclusions is outright false. This explains why one uses the original sources to learn what actually was said. Supreme Court opinions we would hope are written by masters. It is not scholarship to prefer instead the secondary interpretations or criticisms of some school-boy artist, just because he or she can get it into a popular magazine. Robert Brian Crim
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 00:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Portions of the above removed by me this 19th day of August 2014 (in light of the Doctor's judicious criticism). The remainder was edited to fit the original objection from RedBeard. RBC * * * |
The Implications section does not include any positive implications of the ruling. There are many positive implications (which is why we have this ruling) just as there are many positive implications in all court rulings. It only focuses on the negatives of religious protection for for-profit corporations, not the positives. Therefore, it is propaganda. It violates Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. Specifically: Due weight is not given to positive implications and a negative tone pervades the section. Sure, two views are given in "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others", but it is included as an afterthought, and not at all in the other two sections. Even the title "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" has a negative tone. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View 68.234.135.52 ( talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The description of the majority as conservative has been deleted twice now. Why don't we establish consensus here so we don't have to keep explaining ourselves in edit summaries. It's been argued that the word conservative is subjective, that Kennedy is centrist, and that Wikipedia's U.S. v. Windsor article doesn't mention a ruling by a liberal majority. On the other hand, it's argued that conservative is reliably sourced, well-established, uncontroversial, and neutral.
There are two arguments here, so there's clearly a controversy. One says the justices have politically ideological leanings, and the other says they do not. When it comes to neutrality or POV, describing someone as conservative is not the same thing as taking sides between conservatism and liberalism. The Wikipedia article Politics of the United States is not POV and does not break neutrality when it describes which parties are conservative or liberal.
While the justices don't explicitly call themselves conservative or liberal, their voting patterns can be objectively measured as being somewhere on a spectrum and consistent from year to year. Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms. The Windsor article doesn't talk about a liberal majority because, using the objective measures, the Windsor ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.
Wikipedia should not shy away from giving an accurate report of the political reality. While I would agree with an argument that the justices generally aren't partisan in favor of any political party, president, or senator, the idea that justices don't have an ideology at all is not a very useful fiction. They wouldn't be justices if they weren't intellectually passionate, right? The article should describe the conservative majority and (relatively) liberal minority as exactly what they are. KinkyLipids ( talk) 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A Google search on "hobby lobby all male majority" yields numerous sources, e.g. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-21/how-civil-rights-law-could-overturn-hobby-lobby. -- agr ( talk) 11:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
“Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms.”
I think it’s far better in reading the Martin-Quinn graph link above to see Kennedy more recently somewhat conservative, but a centrist in historical terms. Calling Kennedy a “conservative” – one who affirmed Roe in his decision in Casey and who has with three decisions (Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor) done more for gay rights than arguably any other American in history – is deeply questionable.
“the Windsor ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.”
I think Ginsburg and Breyer would find it amusing if you called them centrist, especially in light of Ginsburg's dissent in Hobby Lobby (joined by Breyer and Kagan except for one minor issue). The graph shows them liberal in historical terms, although recently leaning more centrist.
Although Kennedy joins his conservative colleagues in Hobby Lobby, in a concurrence he says about Ginsburg's liberal dissent: "the Court's opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent." That's about as close as you can get without agreeing. The justices tend to be nuanced, and simplistic characterizations of Kennedy's opinions as "conservative" miss the mark.
The graph should be used judiciously. One has to be careful with a graph that shows Black, a former member of the KKK, as historically one of the most liberal justices ever. Of course he wrote a number of liberal decisions as reflected by his belief in the total incorporation doctrine (Adamson v. CA), but his conservative opinions as in Korematsu (written relatively early in the midst of his most "liberal" time on the court) also had lasting repercussions.
[moved from user talk page]:
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. I had removed that content for two reasons:
I'd like to get your thoughts on the matter! Thanks, wia ( talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs
The Green and Hahn families believe that life begins at conception which they equate to fertilization, and object to their closely held for-profit corporations providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA-approved contraceptives that the Green and Hahn families believe may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (many doctors and scientists disagree), which the Green and Hahn families believe constitutes an abortion.17, 18, 19, 20
• Emergency contraceptive pills (sometimes inaccurately called "morning after" pills)
◦ Plan B ( levonorgestrel) and its generic equivalents
◦ ella ( ulipristal acetate)
• Intrauterine devices (IUDs)
◦ ParaGard ( copper IUD)
◦ Mirena and Skyla ( levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs)
17. Liptak, Adam (June 30, 2014). " Supreme Court rejects contraceptives mandate for some corporations. Justices rule in favor of Hobby Lobby". The New York Times:
The companies objected to covering intrauterine devices and so-called morning-after pills, saying they were akin to abortion. Many scientists disagree.
18. Carroll, Aaron E. (June 30, 2014). How Hobby Lobby ruling could limit access to birth control." The New York Times:
The owners of Hobby Lobby told the Court that they were willing to cover some forms of contraception but believed that the so-called morning-after pills and two kinds of IUDs can cause what they believe to be a type of abortion, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall or causing an already implanted egg to fail to thrive. As colleagues have noted, the scientific consensus is against this idea
19. Barnes, Robert (June 30, 2014). " Supreme Court sides with employers over birth control mandate." The Washington Post:
In this case, the companies' owners say that four of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA work after an egg has been fertilized and thus are abortifacients. While many, if not most, doctors and scientists disagree, Alito said the point is that the owners believe offering such services — such as the morning-after pill and IUDs — violates their religious faiths.
20. Richey, Warren (June 30, 2014). " Supreme Court rules against contraceptive mandate in Hobby Lobby case." The Christian Science Monitor
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
BC07, let's discuss before any further reversions. I'm suspect we're more on the same page than you think. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Religious exemption (U.S.) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#Religious exemption (U.S.) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 03:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
"The ruling could have widespread impact on the issue of whether companies can be religiously exempt from any federal law that protects the interests of other individuals."
Whether or not the HHS' contraceptive mandate "protects the interests of other individuals" is a matter of opinion that does not belong in this neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.161.151 ( talk) 12:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
To be absolutely correct, it should say, "...can be exempt for religious reasons from funding federal laws and programs that create legal entitlements for other individuals." Also, ..."the issue of"... is redundant (fire all words which do no work!).
My distinction is important: The ACA does not "protect" contraceptives (those were granted general availability by another Supreme Court case several decades ago); and, the Greens were not trying to ban them or even avoid providing some of them in their own employee health-care plan. The complaint makes absolutely clear that the Greens, Hobby Lobby, and their co-plaintiff, Marsdel, Inc., (a Christian bookstore) opposed providing ONLY those contraceptives which, per the FDA's own determination, may cause "abortion" by blocking implantation of a fertilized human ovum. This is a relatively small list of drugs plus such devices as IUDs.
Finally, "could" should be in italics -- Hobby Lobby's complaint not only distinguishes Hobby Lobby from commonly held corporations, e.g., Union Pacific, but also from most closely held, for-profit enterprises. In some ways, because of the religious orientations of members of the Green family, Hobby Lobby possesses elements more in common with eleemosynary organizations. For example, as the complaint makes clear (see below for where to get a copy), many of Hobby Lobby's profits go to charitable causes, and Hobby Lobby refuses to maximize its profits by doing things like backhauling alcoholic beverages in its empty trucks, selling shot glasses, or keeping its stores open late at night or on Sundays (when, the Greens argue, people should be home with their families). These distinctions clearly are specified in the complaint (which also clearly states that Hobby Lobby's corporate organization is to serve God -- hardly a requirement common in the bylaws of most companies); hence, how much of a "landmark" ruling Hobby Lobby is remains to be seen -- the Court may extend it to closely held companies generally, or it may cut it off at the knees.
We'll need a couple more cases to find that out.
Robert Brian Crim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the name of this article be Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (with a comma after the word "Stores" and a period after the abbreviation "Inc")? I tried to make the change, but I received a warning that the title was invalid. Can anyone address this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I added a link to closely held corporation in the article, but I think it needs to explicitly address the definition of the term and its implications. See for example [1] and its statistics that 90% of American businesses fall into that definition, and [2] which claims there are several possible definitions and it wasn't clear which one the decision referred to. -- Waldir talk 21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I personally have two questions about this case that I don't think are currently answered by the article. If an editor who's more of an expert on the subject matter agrees that these questions ought to be covered, I'd be glad to see the information included, and then I'd be a little less ignorant. The first is whether Hobby Lobby made an explicit First Amendment claim or not. The article is clear that the decision was based on a statute rather than the First Amendment; I'm only asking whether such an argument was offered or not. My second question, is: Does the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" grant an unlimited freedom to interpret matters of fact as part of one's religion? I'm asking this here rather than in the article about that law, because my impression from news reports is that this case hinged on a claim that certain forms of birth control, generally accepted as such by the medical profession, actually cause abortions. Do such "non-faithy" beliefs, and practices based on them that affect other people, have the same legal protection as, say, the right of a person to pray peaceably X number of times per day if their religion commands it? Thanks! DSatz ( talk) 10:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for these replies and the article updates, and for any others that may still follow. I'm still taking this decision in. It's obviously a huge one, but it's bounded by technicalities that (as a non-lawyer) I don't have a good "feel" for yet, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. DSatz ( talk) 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The second question is also an unequivocal yes. Both the majority opinion and the dissent agree that "(“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warnedthat courts must not presume to determinethe plausibility of a religious claim" and "This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents(whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct businessin accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable)." - however, the "test" imposed by the law and the court is multi-prong. Only one of those prongs is a sincere religious belief. As both the majority and dissent also said, the calculus for other religious beliefs may come out differently, because the "least restrictive" method in other instances may legitimately involve disruption of the religious belief. @KiunkyLipids - The ruling protects owners, only because owners were being forced to take action against their belief. If employees were being forced to take action by law, they would certainly have equal protection. The case that initiated the RFRA was about two native americans fired from their job after smoking peyote in a religious ceremony. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I submit that this is a non-issue. The complaint in the case filed by Hobby Lobby et al. clearly sought to distinguish Hobby Lobby not only from common corporations, e.g., General Motors, but also from MOST small, tightly held companies. The complaint (see below for where to get a copy) makes clear that Hobby Lobby was organized, in its bylaws, to the glory of God (whatever that means), and all employees sign onto that when they take employment with the company.
Furthermore, the "et al." which should be in the title is not trivial. Hobby Lobby's co-plaintiffs, in addition to the Greens, included Marsdel, Inc., a Christian bookstore. I think it rather difficult to contest the values held (or expressed) by a Christian bookstore.
The fundamental flaw in the thinking here is that, somehow, the employees are being "picked on" by the Greens (instead of the Greens being picked on by the Government). Obviously, there may be one or two (among more than 13,000) who feel that way; but, they are not parties to the suit and (if they can establish standing) have the right to file their own suit. But, this won't happen because what the Greens asked for, in their complaint, was basically to be treated the same as similarly situated, not-for-profit organizations which the law specifically exempts -- no employee is excluded from coverage by the Greens' objections (the Greens just don't want to have to pay for it -- IF the coverage includes abortion-inducing drugs or devices).
Robert Brian Crim
User:ArnoldReinhold, the concurring opinion is not binding. It's only Kennedy's opinion. It's not the court's opinion, nor does it restrict the court's opinion. The majority opinion says that "[t]he most straightforward way of of doing this [(using the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling interest)] would be for the Government to assume the cost..." This is the main reasoning for why the mandate is not the least restrictive means. The court then responds to the government's argument:
HHS contends that RFRA does not permit us to take this option into account because “RFRA cannot be used to require creation of entirely new programs.”...But we see nothing in RFRA that supports this argument, and drawing the line between the “creation of an entirely new program” and the modification of an existing program (which RFRA surely allows) would be fraught with problems.
In other words, the court supports the argument that creation of entirely new programs can be required. The court then points to the existing accommodation for nonprofits, but only as an extra reason, specific to this case, that the mandate is not the least restrictive means. KinkyLipids ( talk) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The lede is incorrect currently. The mandate was not the least restrictive method- but not because the government can assume the cost (although that would also be true) - the majority opinion is quite clear - its not the least restrictive method, because there is already the certification process used by non-profits which causes the insurer to cover the contraceptives directly, rather than the employer. (page 49)
In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.
"We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims. At a minimum, however, it does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well."
The article makes one mention of the matter of life-saving medical treatments like transfusions regarding this ruling and it is only in the negative sense of companies supposedly now being able to deny such treatments. However, the ruling specifically addressed this matter at the very bottom of page 5 and into the top of page 6, stating that it was concerned only with the contraception mandate. I know the far-left sources cited are completely ignoring this fact, but it needs to be clearly stated in the article. 71.51.129.193 ( talk) 03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Right from the get-go, the section smacks of bias. It starts off claiming: "The case's potential consequences could extend far beyond contraception." This seems like an attempt to predict the future, which is verboten on Wikipedia the last time I checked. Neutrality would dictate that the claim is the view of some with specific examples of it. 71.51.129.193 ( talk) 03:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping to learn how these plaintiffs had Article III standing. Did they demonstrate an injury in fact, e.g. paying for the insurance, which was used by a particular employee to purchase one of the 4 contraceptives, which indeed caused a fertilized egg not to implant and/or grow? Wouldn't this be a violation of privacy rights? What other way is there to establish standing? I looked up the Hobby Lobby v Sebelius case from the Western District of Oklahoma, and while it briefly mentioned standing under RFRA (same as Article III) I didn't see how the decision was arrived at. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A key aspect of this case is the requirement that employees have made available to them an insurance plan that covers the 20 methods of contraception, even though the employer or organization need not pay to cover all 20 (and later cases demonstrate that they need not pay to cover any). However, I am unable to locate the list of these 20 methods. I am able to locate a list from the FDA which might have been the list used by IOM and referenced in this case. However, what causes me doubt is that the list I found includes "Sterilization Surgery for Men", and yet the ACA website says that vasectomy is specifically excluded from coverage. So are there typically 20 covered methods? Or just 19? Or does it mean that the only covered male surgery is castration? Do I have the correct list? I've tried tracking it down on other related pages, but it's either not there, or I don't know where to look. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 04:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The Greens answered (or anticipated) this in their complaint (see below for where to get a copy). Essentially, the complaint says that Sibelius abused her discretion under the ACA to foist a requirement for certain contraceptive coverages -- coverages which (per the FDA) may induce an abortion -- onto objecting, for-profit businesses.
What happened (or at least what the Greens alleged in a verified complaint) was that HHS adopted an interim rule, which was subject under the APA to a commentary period. In the wake of significant adverse commentary, Sebelius turned the matter over to IOM, which then excluded the objectors from participation in the process. Only pro-abortion proponents (according to the Greens) were heard by IOM, which then recommended to HHS that all methods approved by the FDA be included. This was done (per another interim rule -- requiring more comment). According to the complaint, some 100,000 adverse comments were received by HHS during this second comment period, and five days after comments were closed, Sebelius appeared before NARAL and told its members, "We are in a war!"
But, it's quite possible that HHS did not adopt, in its final rule, coverage for vasectomies, even though that's on the FDA's list.
Robert Brian Crim
After reading the introduction, I have very little idea what this case is about - I think it needs to be expanded, clarified or rewritten. Before I am flamed for being an idiot, I understand most introductions on wikipedia across most fields - and although I'm not a lawyer, I'm well read and well qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.86.130 ( talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with 188.31.7.5's removal of pix not tied directly to the case. The image of the doctor advising a women, maybe. The photo of Obama meeting congressional leaders, I think not as it implies they are arguing about this issue, when there is no reason to believe that. The shot of the Supreme Court building adds nothing, in my opinion. So I'd get ride of two of the three pix 188.31.7.5 deleted. -- agr ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Too many to address in one sitting, but here are two.
Next to last sentance in the lead: "The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, leaving no alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations who do not wish to provide birth control. " The bolded phrase ostensibly references a BusinessInsider post, which says no such thing. It says that "for now, the school's employee's and students (and their dependents) who use the school's sponsored insurance plans to pay for contraceptives won't be able to do so." So saying it leaves "no alternative for any female employee" is false, misleading, and frankly smacks of biased sensationalism. Further, in the "Wheaton College order" section of the Wikipedia article, it is explicitly noted that "The court said 'Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.'" Not sure exactly what the court was thinking here, but presumably they recognized an alternative mechanism.
The "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" section extensively cites liberal commentators but gives short shrift to conservative opinions, for example from Goldberg and Ponnuru. In fact, a cursory examination of the complete reference list indicates a majority of liberal biased sources (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.) and cherry picking of liberal commentaries from more usually conservative sources (Fox, Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News). RedBeard48 ( talk) 07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:SOAPBOX. Robert, please read
User talk:208.83.74.242 before adding more comments. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk) 04:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
I must agree with RedBeard: My efforts to change the balance somewhat promptly were deleted by whoever next read the passage.... Robert Brian Crim....
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 20:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Except that the article already is full of stuff that does not constitute "research" (original or otherwise). Consider the following extract: "The dean of the UC Irvine School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky said, 'The liabilities of the corporation are not attributed to the owners, so why should the owners be able to attribute their beliefs to the company?'" Now, I would not deny that the dean of a law school well can be an attributable source for an article about a Supreme Court opinion, so we start on solid ground here. But, the dean's statement constitutes no LEGAL opinion or analysis, nor does it even indicate that the dean ever read the Hobby Lobby complaint (see below for where to get a copy). All corporations are creatures of the State, so the legal rules to be imposed upon them are the rules created by the authority which created (or regulated) the corporation in the first place (the legislature). Asking rhetorically why the legislature didn't do things differently constitutes no expertise -- this is simply the opinion of one man who happens, concurrently, to be the dean of a law school and (apparently) personally prefers a different rule. Such an opinion is no better than mine (and no more worthy of mention).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC) But, let me, instead, address specifically RedBeard's boldprint objection because such demonstrates precisely what I've said previously. The Business Insider citation -- Business Insider's personal interpretation of the opinion in Wheaton -- simply does not belong in the article. That is because the BEST EVIDENCE is not what Business Insider thinks but what the Court actually said. All may read the Court's order (and Justice Sotomayor's sharp dissent) here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf -- which of course is the proper citation for any article in an encyclopedia, NOT a reference to editorial cherry-picking by a non-legal publication like Business Insider. What then DID the Court actually say? It granted TEMPORARY relief to Wheaton PENDING REVIEW. Which is not depriving anybody of anything. Furthermore, what the order specifically says is, "[T]he applicant has already notified the government -- without using EBSA Form 700 -- that it meets the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. NOTHING IN THIS ORDER PRECLUDES THE GOVERNMENT FROM RELYING ON THIS NOTICE, TO THE EXTENT IT CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY, TO FACILITATE THE PROVISION FOR FULL CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE UNDER THE ACT." [Emph.added.] This order comes from 6 members of the Court, including one who joined the dissent in Hobby Lobby. It separates the girls from the boys (Sotomayor was joined by Ginzburg and Kagan) -- what was said under the table to the LAWYERS who read it. What then was Justice Sotomayor's objection? It was solely that Wheaton had not made the requisite showing for INTERLOCUTORY relief UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT, given the uncertainty of rights CLAIMED UNDER RFRA. Her opinion says NOTHING about ANY OTHER potential kind of reviewable claim. I think everyone here should take the good Justice at her word! Especially when one reads the kinds of complaints actually being filed. [You can get a copy of the Hobby Lobby complaint here: www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hobby-Lobby-Complaint-stamped.pdf .] And, if anyone will just read the complaint (remember "read the bill"?), they quickly will realize that these complaints have (in addition to the RFRA claims) freedom-of-religion and FREE SPEECH counts, as well as objections under the APA. THAT'S what Justice Sotomayor QUIETLY accented with her dissent. Wheaton's rights are NOT CLEAR under RFRA -- they CANNOT be because, as Sotomayor points out, the Circuits are in conflict over what RFRA means --; but, the FIRST AMENDMENT claim is VERY MUCH alive -- and THAT'S what the Court wants to hear (and why it granted such relief). The Government has NO POWER to order anyone to utter any form of religious "speech." Why? Because the First Amendment allows for "no law." THAT'S clear! For, as Justice Sotomayor points out, the relief 6 members of the Court granted is relief available ONLY in the rarest of circumstances -- readers conceivably could witness the resurrection of Christ before they see this kind of relief granted again by the Supreme Court of the United States (it's that rare). This, of course, is why the Business Insider citation is improper: Yes, it's a "source" (in the sense it's in print); but, like so much of what is reported in the popular press about the federal courts, the representation makes no sense to one with even the most basic training in the law. This absolutely extraordinary order TEMPORARILY protects Wheaton from having to fill out a form bearing objectionable speech on the back, then having to send the form not to the government but to the insurance company. The relief applies ONLY to Wheaton -- which already has given the Government, by other means, all the notice the Government legally can command (The Government remains free to tell the insurance company anything it wants). How does THAT block ANYONE from obtaining contraceptives that may produce abortions? So, RedBeard is right that the Business Insider citation, and its writer's interpretation of it, should be stricken from the article. Not only is Business Insider wrong in its own conclusions, the Wiki writer's interpretation of said conclusions is outright false. This explains why one uses the original sources to learn what actually was said. Supreme Court opinions we would hope are written by masters. It is not scholarship to prefer instead the secondary interpretations or criticisms of some school-boy artist, just because he or she can get it into a popular magazine. Robert Brian Crim
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 ( talk) 00:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Portions of the above removed by me this 19th day of August 2014 (in light of the Doctor's judicious criticism). The remainder was edited to fit the original objection from RedBeard. RBC * * * |
The Implications section does not include any positive implications of the ruling. There are many positive implications (which is why we have this ruling) just as there are many positive implications in all court rulings. It only focuses on the negatives of religious protection for for-profit corporations, not the positives. Therefore, it is propaganda. It violates Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. Specifically: Due weight is not given to positive implications and a negative tone pervades the section. Sure, two views are given in "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others", but it is included as an afterthought, and not at all in the other two sections. Even the title "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" has a negative tone. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View 68.234.135.52 ( talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The description of the majority as conservative has been deleted twice now. Why don't we establish consensus here so we don't have to keep explaining ourselves in edit summaries. It's been argued that the word conservative is subjective, that Kennedy is centrist, and that Wikipedia's U.S. v. Windsor article doesn't mention a ruling by a liberal majority. On the other hand, it's argued that conservative is reliably sourced, well-established, uncontroversial, and neutral.
There are two arguments here, so there's clearly a controversy. One says the justices have politically ideological leanings, and the other says they do not. When it comes to neutrality or POV, describing someone as conservative is not the same thing as taking sides between conservatism and liberalism. The Wikipedia article Politics of the United States is not POV and does not break neutrality when it describes which parties are conservative or liberal.
While the justices don't explicitly call themselves conservative or liberal, their voting patterns can be objectively measured as being somewhere on a spectrum and consistent from year to year. Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms. The Windsor article doesn't talk about a liberal majority because, using the objective measures, the Windsor ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.
Wikipedia should not shy away from giving an accurate report of the political reality. While I would agree with an argument that the justices generally aren't partisan in favor of any political party, president, or senator, the idea that justices don't have an ideology at all is not a very useful fiction. They wouldn't be justices if they weren't intellectually passionate, right? The article should describe the conservative majority and (relatively) liberal minority as exactly what they are. KinkyLipids ( talk) 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A Google search on "hobby lobby all male majority" yields numerous sources, e.g. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-21/how-civil-rights-law-could-overturn-hobby-lobby. -- agr ( talk) 11:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
“Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms.”
I think it’s far better in reading the Martin-Quinn graph link above to see Kennedy more recently somewhat conservative, but a centrist in historical terms. Calling Kennedy a “conservative” – one who affirmed Roe in his decision in Casey and who has with three decisions (Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor) done more for gay rights than arguably any other American in history – is deeply questionable.
“the Windsor ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.”
I think Ginsburg and Breyer would find it amusing if you called them centrist, especially in light of Ginsburg's dissent in Hobby Lobby (joined by Breyer and Kagan except for one minor issue). The graph shows them liberal in historical terms, although recently leaning more centrist.
Although Kennedy joins his conservative colleagues in Hobby Lobby, in a concurrence he says about Ginsburg's liberal dissent: "the Court's opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent." That's about as close as you can get without agreeing. The justices tend to be nuanced, and simplistic characterizations of Kennedy's opinions as "conservative" miss the mark.
The graph should be used judiciously. One has to be careful with a graph that shows Black, a former member of the KKK, as historically one of the most liberal justices ever. Of course he wrote a number of liberal decisions as reflected by his belief in the total incorporation doctrine (Adamson v. CA), but his conservative opinions as in Korematsu (written relatively early in the midst of his most "liberal" time on the court) also had lasting repercussions.
[moved from user talk page]:
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. I had removed that content for two reasons:
I'd like to get your thoughts on the matter! Thanks, wia ( talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs
The Green and Hahn families believe that life begins at conception which they equate to fertilization, and object to their closely held for-profit corporations providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA-approved contraceptives that the Green and Hahn families believe may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (many doctors and scientists disagree), which the Green and Hahn families believe constitutes an abortion.17, 18, 19, 20
• Emergency contraceptive pills (sometimes inaccurately called "morning after" pills)
◦ Plan B ( levonorgestrel) and its generic equivalents
◦ ella ( ulipristal acetate)
• Intrauterine devices (IUDs)
◦ ParaGard ( copper IUD)
◦ Mirena and Skyla ( levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs)
17. Liptak, Adam (June 30, 2014). " Supreme Court rejects contraceptives mandate for some corporations. Justices rule in favor of Hobby Lobby". The New York Times:
The companies objected to covering intrauterine devices and so-called morning-after pills, saying they were akin to abortion. Many scientists disagree.
18. Carroll, Aaron E. (June 30, 2014). How Hobby Lobby ruling could limit access to birth control." The New York Times:
The owners of Hobby Lobby told the Court that they were willing to cover some forms of contraception but believed that the so-called morning-after pills and two kinds of IUDs can cause what they believe to be a type of abortion, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall or causing an already implanted egg to fail to thrive. As colleagues have noted, the scientific consensus is against this idea
19. Barnes, Robert (June 30, 2014). " Supreme Court sides with employers over birth control mandate." The Washington Post:
In this case, the companies' owners say that four of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA work after an egg has been fertilized and thus are abortifacients. While many, if not most, doctors and scientists disagree, Alito said the point is that the owners believe offering such services — such as the morning-after pill and IUDs — violates their religious faiths.
20. Richey, Warren (June 30, 2014). " Supreme Court rules against contraceptive mandate in Hobby Lobby case." The Christian Science Monitor
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
BC07, let's discuss before any further reversions. I'm suspect we're more on the same page than you think. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Religious exemption (U.S.) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#Religious exemption (U.S.) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 03:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)