Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 8 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the companies==people-er-does-not-compute dept.

gishzida writes:

"According to a Reuters report Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims, "The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to open the door to companies' religious-based objections to government regulations as justices weighed whether business owners can object to part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law. From the article:

During a 90-minute oral argument, 30 minutes more than usual, a majority of the nine justices appeared ready to rule that certain for-profit entities have the same religious rights to object as individuals do. A ruling along those lines would likely only apply to closely held companies. As in most close cases of late, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote. Based on his questions, it was unclear whether the court would ultimately rule that the companies had a right to an exemption from the contraception provision of President Barack Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.

The case marks the second time Obamacare has featured prominently before the Supreme Court. In 2012, the court upheld by a 5-4 vote the constitutionality of the act's core feature requiring people to get health insurance. Although the case has no bearing on the overall healthcare law, it features its own volatile mix of religious rights and reproductive rights. A capacity crowd filled the marble courtroom, while outside hundreds of demonstrators, most of them women, protested loudly in an early spring snowstorm.

We already know that the SCOTUS thinks corporations are citizens, do you think the SCOTUS should allow corporations to have religious beliefs too?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:02PM

    by VLM (445) on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:02PM (#22008)

    "and it's really just for abortion."

    No, its not. Not at all. The point is to eliminate employer provided health insurance.

    "Well, gentlemen, we could accept $100 million dollar bonuses this year, but if we declare a religious exemption to blood transfusions, which is a sorta common-ish Christian-ish belief, we can eliminate all possibility of insurance covered surgery and pregnancy coverage, because that could require a blood transfusion which we will be religiously opposed to and no sensible person would risk an economic death penalty by becoming pregnant while working here. That would result in $200 million dollar bonuses and a lot less expensive FMLA leave."

    "However gentlemen, if we simply declare our religion only believes in faith healing, as per several Christian sects who have recently been in the news, all our diabetic employees or employees with diabetic family members will simply have to quit or die, resulting in vastly lower insurance costs because 1) we won't be using expensive medical treatment for them while they're employed, just cheap prayer 2) they tend to be sicker, so we'll have fewer sick days on average etc, furthermore basically eliminating health insurance other than astrology for diagnosis and prayer for treatment, we can all get $300 million dollar bonuses this year"

    Hmm. I wonder which they'll select?

    The whole system is hopeless and will tumble down soon enough if this is dodged. In fact the sooner it collapses so we can build a better one, the better off we'll all be. We're just dragging out the downfall to the max so the usual entrenched interests can maximally profit.

    Personally I'm a big fan of prop tax based insurance. The quality of care you'll get is directly proportional to the amount spent very close to your house, so it seems very fair.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by Nygmus on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:56PM

    by Nygmus (3310) on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:56PM (#22048)

    In fairness, at least with regards to the faith healing quip, some courts have been showing a complete willingness to disregard it and require its practitioners to seek actual medical care. At least, for their kids.

    The fact that there are people in this country that have to be ordered by a court to seek medical treatment for their sick children is enough of a reason for me to want to torch every Christian church and business in the Bible Belt.

    • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:30PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:30PM (#22065)

      Think you just might be painting with too broad a brush there, fella? That's a very, very small minority of Christians who rely on faith healing rather than modern medicine. Keep your gasoline and torches away from my not-insane church, thanks.

      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @08:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @08:23PM (#22217)

        not-insane church

        Haha, oh that's precious. Excuse me while I take a sip of my not-wet water.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:39PM (#22196)

      There was a case I heard on the news last week where an Amish family sought medical care for quite a while, and many doctors told them they had done all they could reasonably do (cancer in one of their children, I believe). Other doctors said no, they could do more (more chemo, more drugs, etc.). The government is forcing them to seek further, more drastic medical treatment then they've already performed for their daughter. This is frightening. Parents should be able to decide their children's medical care if it's reasonable and impacts no others (e.g., not getting vaccinated affects others, so non-vaccinated kids should not be allowed in public schools, etc.). Not undergoing massive chemo because some doctors say it will likely result in nothing but pain and cannot improve the late-stage cancer is reasonable.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday March 28 2014, @12:31PM

      by VLM (445) on Friday March 28 2014, @12:31PM (#22474)

      "some courts"

      Yeah... sometimes... when no money is involved. Lets see how often that keeps happening once its about the executive leadership team's ten million dollar bonuses instead of just an unusual mental illness.