Court is paternalistic

  • Follow Letters

In the Hobby Lobby case, which we must know affects only women, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an employer could deny, through its health coverage, access to some legally approved birth control methods for its female employees. The five justices in the majority were all men, and none of the three female justices agreed.

It says again that, in America, even in the Supreme Court, it is OK for men to decide what is best for women. This is blatantly paternalistic. Religion was the reason, but that should not override the issue of gender justice.

One might think that Chief Justice John Roberts, because the case affects only women, should have assigned the writing of the decision to one of the women justices. Since none of them agreed with the decision, it was written by a man, Justice Samuel Alito. I strongly fault the chief justice to allow this abomination. He should have required a decision that at least one female justice would accept.

The effect of this case can be undone by requiring any employers with strong religious interests not to offer health insurance. They should be directed to provide their employees the money they now pay, and let them get the insurance they want. This is now readily available to all individuals.

Victor Reilly

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (37) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Riverman1
87038
Points
Riverman1 07/07/14 - 05:06 am
12
2
Who Said?

Who said employers, the government or anyone had to provide birth control to women? When did THIS start?

ymnbde
10040
Points
ymnbde 07/07/14 - 05:47 am
10
1
so can a woman abort a boy baby?

the supreme court decides any case under its jurisdiction
should a woman be allowed to abort any body
under the jurisdiction of her womb?
or just girl babies, like in China or India?
essentially, that is the argument in this letter
(oh, and Hobby Lobby does not deny birth control
they simply don't pay to kill created humans)
why don't democrats just go back to hating black kids?
they're much better at that...
oh, and by the way
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
i don't like your religion
you don't have to like mine, either

carcraft
27123
Points
carcraft 07/07/14 - 07:07 am
9
2
Oh boohoo , cry me a river ,

Oh boohoo , cry me a river , wa wa wa ! My insurance provider only provides three types of hearing aides! Hobby Lobby provides for 16 different birth control.

hoptoad
14017
Points
hoptoad 07/07/14 - 07:59 am
8
0
Employers began paying for

Employers began paying for their employees' insurance about 50 or so years ago and birth control was NEVER one of the benefits paid for - at least in any of the places where I worked. Yet women always had access to whatever form of it they chose and they paid for it themselves.

My health insurance used to cover dental. A few years ago, they dropped dental and I had to buy it out of my own pocket. Why hasn't the left raised cane about that? Afterall, it's important to have good dental health because that affects the overall health of you entire body.

Employer provided insurance never covered hearing aids. One of our most important senses tantamount to performing our duties at the workplace and to hearing sirens, trains, etc. while driving. Should we rise up and protest this exclusion?

gaflyboy
5043
Points
gaflyboy 07/07/14 - 08:07 am
9
0
Religious liberty ...

does not affect only women.

RMSHEFF
16707
Points
RMSHEFF 07/07/14 - 08:22 am
10
0
Apparently in Victor's world

Apparently in Victor's world the only one who should NOT be required to pay for birth control the the one who uses it. How in the world did we get to a point in America where so many people think others should be required to pay for their sex life.

deestafford
28762
Points
deestafford 07/07/14 - 08:45 am
9
0
Two points here....

Two points here:

So, according to your line of "rationale" women "issues" should be judged by the women justices only; black issues by Justice Thomas, and white issues by the whites?

It has nothing to do with gender. It's all about what the LAW says. What you are looking for is the type of justices Obama said he wanted, "A wise Latina who has empathy." Empathy has no place in deciding matters of constitutional law.

Second, birth control and contraceptives were not part of the LAW passed by Congress. It was a regulation added by HHS and contrary to the Hyde Amendment and violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton...whose wife screetched about how this ruling made American women like the women in Third World countries she had seen as the travelling Secretary of State. For someone with a supposed law degree she is so ignorant and only parrots what other leftist had told her about the decision.

Darby
26972
Points
Darby 07/07/14 - 10:38 am
9
0
"He should have required a decision

that at least one female justice would accept."

.
Wow! What alien planet did Mr. Reilly immigrate from? This letter could easily have been written by a high school freshman who took the time to put down his iPhone for a couple of minutes. (Or more likely, kept texting while he was writing.)

I'm wondering whether the writer understands the concept of SCOTUS (or any court) or for that matter, the Constitution.

Or perhaps he'd like to think that the Chief Justice has the same dictatorial powers that OzBama has assumed to himself.

GiantsAllDay
9865
Points
GiantsAllDay 07/07/14 - 10:45 am
2
6
Hey, just a thought but many

Hey, just a thought but many Hobby Lobby employees are probably skilled in arts and crafts, right? Perhaps the company could provide instructions on how to turn a dream catcher into a diaphragm.

Darby
26972
Points
Darby 07/07/14 - 10:52 am
7
1
It would be SO nice

to have a couple of our on-line liberals/progressives/socialists come to the aid of this hapless writer, whose trolley has so obviously jumped the track.

I hesitate to even suggest it, but is the Chronicle deliberately attempting embarrass the left simply by publishing this wish list of a letter?

I have, admittedly, very little respect for the heavy handed and irrational views of leftists. Still, I suspect that while most of them would welcome directed despotic court decisions in their favor, few would be foolish enough to put the words to print as Mr. Reilly has done.

Bizkit
33064
Points
Bizkit 07/07/14 - 11:52 am
6
0
Victor published a complete

Victor published a complete fabrication and nothing is true in his letter. It is a straw man argument-no women at Hobby Lobby are prevented from using any birth control or even have an abortion with their insurance=just the govt hast to pay for it. Why do progressives keep with lies just like the president. Then another straw man argument that male justices are jaded against women or unsympathetic-it's ridiculous. The SCOTUS supports abortion case after case. Progressives are going to have to do better than just lie.

Bizkit
33064
Points
Bizkit 07/07/14 - 11:56 am
5
0
You are correct there is a

You are correct there is a direct link with dental health and cardiovascular health.

Bizkit
33064
Points
Bizkit 07/07/14 - 12:05 pm
3
0
The SCOTUS just allowed for

The SCOTUS just allowed for an exemption to certain closely held companies such that they wouldn't have to pay for certain birth control -not deny it. Now Obama has allowed exemptions for Unions, etc and no one cried foul then. But the reason is if the Obama does it then progressives love it-but if Congress or SCOTUS does then they hate it=because they want him to be dictator. At least be consistent.

Bodhisattva
6466
Points
Bodhisattva 07/07/14 - 12:34 pm
1
6
"To permit this, would be to
Unpublished

"To permit this, would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind, ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

prov227
3267
Points
prov227 07/07/14 - 12:37 pm
3
0
There is a difference ...

in an employer with a fully-insured (purchased from an insurance company with mandated benefit requirements) and an employer like Hobby Lobby that is self-insured. Self-insured employers are given wide latitude in the benefits design of the plans. They allocate a portion of the company's income to paying for employees' health care. No employer is mandated to provide employer-sponsored health benefits. Its roots are in voluntarism and benefits evolution. Hobby Lobby is exercising its freedom of choice, a liberty many liberal-minded democrats would like to end to fit their agenda. I agree with most of the comments that this letter writer has deceptively created a straw man (or woman).

Bodhisattva
6466
Points
Bodhisattva 07/07/14 - 12:45 pm
1
6
The free men of America did
Unpublished

"The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"

prov227
3267
Points
prov227 07/07/14 - 12:52 pm
2
1
To true believers ...

God and God's law IS superior to man's law (which is mostly historically evolved from Biblical law and teachings). Man's law can be corrupted to force believers to go against their own conscience. According to the Declaration of Independence, legal citizens are considered sovereign in relationship to the central government, not the other way around. That's why there is a Bill of Rights for legal citizens. All are entitled to the equal pursuit of happiness and the exercise of religious freedom. The other way around is called slavery.

nofanofobama
6856
Points
nofanofobama 07/07/14 - 01:09 pm
7
0
how pathetic we have

how pathetic we have become...we cry bloody murder when other people do not pay for things we feel entitled to.....its no longer my responsability to care for my family or me ..its the govt...ie some poor slob who has a full time job and actually pays taxes..so us taxpayers are becoming a minority..look at the labor participation numbers.. .soon there will be nothing for the libs to take from us....all i can say is we are destroying the future for our kids, and the libs and takers either dont care or are blind as a bat....the age of sefishness and insanity is upon us...

Little Lamb
47011
Points
Little Lamb 07/07/14 - 01:34 pm
6
0
Falsehood

Victor Reilly wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that an employer could deny, through its health coverage, access to some legally approved birth control methods for its female employees.

The court ruling does not deny access to birth control. I get incensed when people lie to make a point in a debate.

Bizkit
33064
Points
Bizkit 07/07/14 - 01:37 pm
6
0
Bod none of your comments are

Bod none of your comments are accurate. This ruling had nothing to do with the first amendment and religious freedom and people doing all as you suggest, but a Congressional act FRFA that the federal govt has to comply with not states nor individuals. The ruling is specific to this instance as Justice Kennedy addressed all your concerns as a red herring, because the deal is the govt has to pay for birth control in this instance-no one is denied health care. Not like all the people who had their health insurance cancelled because fo Obama.

allhans
24030
Points
allhans 07/07/14 - 01:44 pm
5
0
LL....How true. What in the

LL....How true. What in the world is going on. I don't believe that any woman can't find at least one of the 16 "free" they are given.

jimmymac
42949
Points
jimmymac 07/07/14 - 03:29 pm
0
0
PILLS
Unpublished

When we were in our reproductive years my wife and I paid for our birth control methods. I worked for fortune 50 companies and they never included birth control. I had the best benefit plans available at the time and birth control was excluded. We felt that it was our responsibility to pay for them and it never bothered us one bit. Now women think everyone should pay for their birth control instead of themselves. The government has no right to tell a business what it should or shouldn't give to their employees in the form of pay or benefits. With so much government intervention it's no wonder why so many businesses are relocating to other countries where pay and benefits are a private matter. If you don't like your pay or benefits then you're free to find other employment.

RMSHEFF
16707
Points
RMSHEFF 07/07/14 - 03:36 pm
3
0
BIZKIT

Your last post nailed the issue. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed and signed into law in 1993. It is the law of the land and was aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. When Obamacare was passed it did not contain the birth control mandate. This provision was an order inserted by the Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius. The SCOTUS ruled this provision was a violation of the law and substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion and could not be forced to pay. Anyone else is free to pay so Bod send these women your money.

KSL
134725
Points
KSL 07/07/14 - 04:41 pm
4
1
I have been covered by health

I have been covered by health insurance since I was a child. Never by any that paid for birth control.

How did we manage?

KSL
134725
Points
KSL 07/07/14 - 04:48 pm
2
1
Oh, I was brainwashed.

Oh, I was brainwashed. Brainwashed into the idea that I needed to be able to afford what I wanted.

carcraft
27123
Points
carcraft 07/07/14 - 07:21 pm
2
1
I think Bod is confused and

I think Bod is confused and is talking about about Obama "....permit every individual to become a law unto themselve " Well gee Bod isn't that exactly what Obama and Holder have done. Holder told a gathering of State's Attorney Generals they could ignore enforcing laws they don't like. Obama is essentially writing Obama care as he goes along, ignoring immigration laws etc. Funny you haven't objected to those violations of the law.

Gage Creed
17874
Points
Gage Creed 07/07/14 - 08:13 pm
2
1
Fraternalistic...

And here I was thinking the court was supercalifragilisticexpialidocious or at a minimum fraternalistic.. now I found out they are simply paternalistic..

SMH

corgimom
34215
Points
corgimom 07/07/14 - 09:30 pm
1
2
I had birth control that was

I had birth control that was paid for by health insurance, KSL. Perhaps your policies weren't too comprehensive.

People have to decide how they want it.

They don't want poor people to have children they can't afford.

But they don't want them to have the most reliable birth control, they only want them to have the unreliable methods or the ones that are not suitable for many women.

But then when their birth control fails, they shouldn't be able to take the Plan B pill, which is nothing more than a hormone pill and doesn't cause abortions, and they shouldn't have abortions, but they shouldn't have children that they can't afford.

This is the most nonsensical thing ever.

Nobody knows how IUD's work, there is absolutely no proof that they "kill" a fertilized egg.

And since conception can occur up to 5 days after intercourse, the Plan B doesn't kill a fertilized egg, either.

It doesn't matter if Hobby Lobby pays for 16 methods or 116 methods, what birth control is appropriate for somebody is a decision made by a woman and her physician, not an employer.

There is a myth that birth control pills, implants, etc are appropriate and safe for all women. They aren't. And they have side effects, and those side effects that can be very serious for some women. They are not benign and harmless, and are not for everyone.

There are women that are taking medicines or have medical conditions that make it so that they should not become pregnant. Those women deserve the protection of the most reliable method of non-permanent birth control, which is an IUD.

And I wonder what the Hobby Lobby owners' stance are about rape victims- if they should be further penalized after being the victim of a sexual assault. I wonder how that jives with their religious beliefs.

KSL
134725
Points
KSL 07/07/14 - 11:08 pm
1
1
Well, corgi, they were what

Well, corgi, they were what a private industry and later 2 government entities offered.

You probably had the best of the best of the best because you are smarter than everyone else

KSL
134725
Points
KSL 07/07/14 - 11:22 pm
1
1
You are probably 10 years

You are probably 10 years younger than I am. Stuff changed. But then, you have been on Medicare a whole lot longer than I have. In fact, my husband and I are still working and paying in.

You speak of being an accountant, something you could do from home successfully as a self employed. But no, you are on disability. But then you just stated you have been volunteering at a school for 8 years going on 9.

Something different in tbe way we were reared?

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs