Monday, the Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 vote determined that the Hobby Lobby, Inc. chain of stores has the right to ignore a federal mandate under the Affordable Care Act to provide birth control coverage to women. The owners of the company believe, falsely, that certain kinds of female contraception are the equivalent of abortion, and since “life begins at conception,” that this is a sin. In other words, a corporation has sued and won the right to have a religious conscience, based on junk science.
True to a corporation, which is an entity with no possibility of having a conscience, the company also has $75 million of its pension funds invested in larger funds that hold stock for the companies that manufacture various contraceptive drugs and devices to which it supposedly objects.
I had a lot to cover in this discussion, and somehow skipped reading the chart. It’s obvious that the decision came out immediately before Mercury stationing direct — about 23 hours before. This suggests that there is, at least, going to be an unexpected backlash, and that the decision might be reversed. This will certainly be an issue used to galvanize women in the coming two federal elections. I would however caution that Roe v. Wade, the ruling that guarantees abortion rights and prevents a miscarriage from being deemed a murder scene, is on extremely thin ice right now, and I don’t think that the conservatives on the court would hesitate to reverse it, if they had the right case.
I will probably discuss this more next week, though we’ve been down a similar road before. In 1986, the court ruled on a case called Bowers v. Hardwick, in a decision that held that there is no right to anal or oral sex. Yes. Then Associated Justice William Rhenquist cited Judeo-Christian tradition in his ruling, which was one of the most criticized (harshly, by the left and the right) decisions in Supreme Court history.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote a short concurring opinion and said, “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”
There was such an onslaught of opposition that the court did something rare and reversed itself in a 2003 decision called Lawrence v. Texas.
In this edition, I also cover the USA Sibly Chart. Here is a link to an article on that chart.
Eric
The horrific Hobby Lobby decision you sent a note about yesterday is further evidence of the effort to – in law – reboot the “Corporation’ and replace it with, effectively a ‘little old me’ character; those disgusting secretive international Trade Agreements – TTIP for example – have as their central point the “Investor State Dispute Resolution” system, where the poor beleaguered corporation/ little ol’ me character must fight the cruel nation state and it’s cultural systems because that state and those systems – horror of horrors – have put laws in place to stop Corporation/ little ol me doing what it wants.
E.g., Philip Morris suing the Australian Goverment because they’ve had the audacity to pass laws to reduce smoking addiction…
One thing I would like to ask – what gender is this Corporate person’ ? Is it possible to have a gender – less person in law?
With love
Jessica
“This Land is Your Land” took me back to childhood and to the moment I memorized it. I haven’t thought about that in awhile.
I have a thought about the Court’s comment that other religious objections, such as those to vaccinations would possibly be a more compelling interest than Plan B, Ella and IUD’s. The Court says that in the case of vaccinations, they prevent the spread of infectious disease.
Some Catholic organizations are claiming religious exemption to all contraceptives. That includes condoms, of which one purpose is to prevent the spread of infectious disease. Why are these exemptions allowed?
BTW, the Green family–owners of Hobby Lobby–promote an abstinence approach to AIDS education in Africa. (It’s called ABC-Abstinence, Be Faithful and Condoms as a last resort.) Mart Green has even made a documentary called “Miss HIV” that pushes this agenda.
I offer classes via teleconference, and will include one or more (or a discount) with a Planet Waves All Access Pass. The classes are not a Planet Waves product — they are more my thing exclusively — though I will make some inclusion for AAP holders.
Lynda
Gulfport, FL 16 hours ago
Ah, yes, Five men deciding that the women among the 20,000+ employees of Hobby Lobby should find other ways to pay for birth control because the family that makes millions off their labor has religious objections to certain types of contraception–objections based on junk science. Has Cardinal Dolan taken back his comment that women can just get their IUD’s at 7-11 yet? Way too much ignorance in this decision; way too much ignorance in the discussion of the issue.
Charlotte Scot
Old Lyme, CT 16 hours ago
I hope these companies donate every penny they save to the foster care system in hopes of making life bearable for the kids who births were accidental or not wanted. The God I know doesn’t want kids to be abused and battered and neglected because someone sitting in an ivory tower decided their mothers were not entitled to birth control. I have done foster care and have seen the damaged lives first hand. Not every poor woman can up and quit her job to spend time looking for an employer who provides birth control.
I can only wonder if men who work for these people are denied coverage for Viagra.
Peter L Ruden
Savannah, GA 17 hours ago
Corporations are entities that are distinct from the natural persons who own their stock. The stockholders are thus shielded from liability and the corporate entity, even a “closely held” one, affords stockholders legal protections on the premise that it does not embody the stockholders and their assets. To pretend that in this instance the corporate entity is an extension of the stockholders’ beliefs and has the convictions attributable to a natural person seems to be even more than a legal fiction–it seems to be a legal hoax. If the business entity wishes to act as if it is a natural person then it should actually be the natural person acting–a proprietorship or a partnership, but surely not a corporation.
Secondly, the decision effectively makes the employee’s religious freedom in the realm of contraception subject to the religious convictions of their employers. How is this lost upon those that claim religious freedom was at stake because of a mere potential birth control benefit? The only people. and they are actually people, who religious freedom is affected here are the employees.
Joanne K
Indiana 17 hours ago
Hobby Lobby owners have ‘made’ most of their billions off the backs of the Chinese people, selling their cheaply made goods as a business model. The fact that China is a Communist country which mandates universal contraception and mandatory abortions evidently does not in the least offended their religious and moral ‘high horse’ they’ve saddled up riding it all the way up the the Supreme Court. Their position of moral indignation and religious outrage at being mandated by having to offer ‘voluntary contraception” to their employees is inconsistent and contradictory to their method of conducting business. While the Supreme Court decision has allowed them to continue what may be called hypocrisy with vast monetary rewards, the opposing ‘moral, religious’ contradictions still remain in their highly profitable business model. Had this family only sold goods made in America to accumulate their billions, or cease now to sell Chinese-made items and in the future sell only items made here, they would have my utmost admiration for being morally consistent, sincere and genuine, although I would disagree with their view. But as the ole saying goes, hell would have to freeze over before that’s gonna happen.
michjas
Phoenix 2 hours ago
The five justices in the majority are the five Roman Catholic males on the court. Scalia and Kennedy were alter boys. Alito attends Mass weekly, and his wife teaches religious education classes. Thomas attended St. John Vianney Minor Seminary, a first step to becoming a Catholic priest. Finally, Roberts reputedly, said he would recuse himself in any case where the law required a ruling that the Catholic Church might consider immoral.
It seems to me that there is good reason to expect that all five in the majority would have recused themselves in this case in that they were all predisposed to rule on religious grounds rather than legal grounds, as required.
reader
ny 5 hours ago
Here, the Court’s conservative block justifies its decision by deferring to the Congressional intent it infers from RFRA (though more accurately concocts. See Justice Ginsburg’s dissent). Yet in the Voting Rights Act decision, these same justices rejected (explicit) Congressional intent. What is one to make of this judicial inconsistency?
Sure, Justice Roberts is like an umpire – on the take.
Reply
12Recommend
georgesanders
— 2 hours ago
The answer is that the conservative majority are political hacks, incapable of consistent logical reasoning, claiming knowledge of “original intent” of the Founders but relying on right-wing propaganda sites for their knowledge of history. This is very likely the most embarrassingly incompetent Supreme Court leadership in over a century. I look forward to their being skewered by the legal profession for the next century.
C. Bernard White
Houston, Texas 5 hours ago
“We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us,” so said John Winthrop as he gazed out at the then undeveloped country destined to become America from aboard the ship Arbella. I can’t imagine what he’d think of today’s right-wing [corporatist and federalist society subversives] High Court majority— consisting of all old men now overseeing the wanton destruction of the very American idea/ideals they’ve sworn to protect and uphold: Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness, Freedom, and Justice for all irrespective of race, gender, IQ, networth, sexual orientation, or “Faith” beliefs? However, as the old comic strip once declared, “I’ve seen the enemy and he is us,” the American public of voters responsible for electing the presidents who seated these extremist activist Supreme Court Associate Justices who’ve shown themselves to be merely a cabal of angry, old, partisan ideologues. And the very “Pro-Lifers”… The Church, out there championing this ruling sat in silent acquiescence while this gang of thugs gutted Americans Civil and Voting Rights which they assume affects only “those people,” and not they themselves. A once great nation is being knocked to its knees by five men whose mindset is a product of the era in which they grew up: “The Dark Ages.” If there is any “Justice,” President Obama will oversee all five of their replacements.
NLP
Pacific NW 5 hours ago
I’ve spent most of the afternoon and evening trying to write about this dreadful decision. Words fail. It’s a wink-and-a-nod towards religious and corporate interests: hey, it’s a narrow ruling, it won’t apply broadly … But look, here’s some loopholes to roll back protections against discrimination. How can ‘companies’ have religious views? A company is an entity, not a person of flesh and blood Citizens United notwithstanding.
If I read the majority decision correctly, HL’s ‘belief’ that certain bc cause abortion _is_ more important than scientific accuracy that they don’t. It reminds me of that law (Texas?) introduced recently which said schools can’t teach any subject that might make a student lose faith. Pity the poor corporation-person who might be proven wrong.
Kay Johnson
Colorado 5 hours ago
Hobby Lobby just delivered the 2014 election to Hillary Clinton regardless of the finer point being about how your corporation is now a host body to impose religious requirements on women who are not of your faith. The 5 man ruling will not be lost on young women voters and those of us who are older are sick of the willful ignorance of this court.
Thank you brother, for being so grounded in the middle of our national meltdown. I am hopeful this awakens something as potent: the power of women to take back their selves from the rigidity of the sexism and classism in the already inherently racist infrastructure of our laws. We’re staying in this fight to win it.
(Cancer being the sign of the Mother.. Should have included that for readers unaware of this.)
GREAT SHOW, AS EVER!
Re: Sibly and SCOTUS
The 8th house Cancer stellium (7th-8th) gives an acquisitive, security oriented subjectivity that we see the US applying to ‘other peoples resources’ when and wherever they can, across the globe.. The ‘Principle is Everything’ Sag ascendant is consistent with both the fiery quest for freedom of all kinds; religious (original puritan settlers, separation of [sigh] church and state) the political and economic freedom as fought for in the revolution, as well as, in a shadow manifestation, a zealous attitude toward Religion. The Cancer 8th house – (one can read chart ruler Jupiter as belonging in there, it’s within orb of the cusp) together with that Sagittarius can easily seek to take for oneself in the name of principle. And that same kind of lock-down can transpose onto other 8th house matters, such as sexuality. One would think the female essence of Cancer would do something to protect women but — it rather seeks to protect Mother(s.) Still, ya can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube, and how this topples is sure to be interesting.
Hey Eric, I gotta ask right off the bat (I’m two minutes into the broadcast), ‘what’ is/are the ‘classes’ that you speak of? (..involved with the all-access pass). I live in California, aint goin’ anywhere far anytime soon. I just finalized (through my third postal service, cash transaction,..don’t do banks or elec. transfers) my 6-month subscription [by the way, Chelsea is WAY beyond cool!]. It took me like three weeks to save up some beer money to make good on my resolve, to try and do something to help facilitate my own (and others’) growth through the work that various authors, participants, and non-participants contribute to this project. I don’t understand what the classes that you speak of are. I could possibly take a day-trip to as far as Santa Cruz (from Sacramento) if there was something that was going on (and yeah, I need some time in advance to accept the shakes and twitches, to save some cash..of course, I’m always going through that..).
I read “classes” earlier, some time ago,.. but haven’t understood the meaning (..just figured it was a local New York thing..).
Apologies if I’m missing a piece but, clarification would be appreciated.
(Oh yeah,.. got a slogan for ya’: “Planet Waves,.. it’s better than beer!”) Feel free, use it anytime 😛
Jere