You are currently browsing the daily archive for July 1, 2014.
Update: Highlights from dissenting judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg [page 60 of the Document].
1. “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”
2. “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”
3. “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”
4. “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”
5. “Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”
6. “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”
7. “Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well being. Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.”
8. “The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.”
9. “Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?”
10. “The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public. No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.’”
[Source]
—–
Update 2: Dr. Jen Gunter an OB/GYN’s take on the ruling:
As an OB/GYN I see six disastrous consequences of this decision:
1) The idea that religious beliefs of some are more important that the religious beliefs of others. Any woman wanting to use one of the 4 methods of contraception listed obviously doesn’t share the same beliefs as the closely held corporation who employs her. Why are her beliefs less important? Why can her place of employment push their religious beliefs (because a place of employment now has the rights of an individual) into the exam room? The First Amendment rights of women seeking health care are less important that the First Amendment rights of a corporation. Thank you Justice Alito for putting us in our place.
2) Legislating a belief over science. The 4 methods of contraception that Hobby Lobby takes issue with are Plan B, Ella, and the two IUDs, ParaGard and Mirena. We call these methods contraceptives not abortifacients because in science, unlike the Supreme Court, we like facts and facts tell us that these methods do not cause abortion (which is by definition the disruption of a pregnancy that is already implanted, no matter how early). But even if we take the evangelical definition of pregnancy (the wandering fertilized egg) we know for sure Plan B has no effect because it biochemically impossible for a progestin in that dose (or probably any dose) to prevent pregnancy by any definition, scientific or otherwise. The bulk of the medical evidence suggests that the two IUDs in the United States do not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and the same goes for Ella. We can’t say with 100% accuracy because there is no easily accessible test to tell us that a fertilized egg is wandering aimlessly around the upper reproductive tract and so the information comes from indirect methods like studying the mechanisms of action in lab and animal models and studies that have looked at the time of the cycle that the method is used. Science is fact and apparently facts don’t matter to the Supreme Court. Good to know.
3) A slippery slope for other contraceptives. If you believe the untruth that Plan B (a progestin) causes abortion (by any definition, evangelical or scientific) then all hormonal contraceptives should be excluded for sexually active women as they all contain progestins. Quick start pill taking (starting the birth control pill the day you get them versus waiting for your period) is very common and improves compliance, however, if you share the magical belief that progestins could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting then all oral contraceptives have to go, otherwise every time a woman starts her pills mid cycle a baby might die (never mind the possibility of escape ovulation). Hey, if you want to pervert science you can go down any rabbit hole.
4) A slippery slope for other medical practices that infringe on religious beliefs. Vaccinations, psychiatric care, blood transfusions, and infertility care are all opposed by some religions. While Alito wrote that this decision is “very specific” meaning that it only applies to these four contraceptives in this specific situation, it is somewhat naive (or obtuse or insulting, depending on your perspective) to think that other groups might also have”sincerely held religious beliefs.” Justice Ginsberg voiced concerns about these broader implications in her dissent, after all there is real money to be saved in carving out health care based on what a religion allows. Since case-law is integral to the US legal system what is to stop a closely held corporation owned by a Jehovah’s Witness from suing to exclude transfusions and organ transplants? If the court were to say “no” to a Jehovah’s Witness corporation (as Alito’s statement implies) they would be saying that only evangelical Christian beliefs are important and only a woman’s reproduction deserves to be controlled.
5) That contraception isn’t really health care. This legislation fuels the belief that contraceptives are, to paraphrase that wordsmith Rush Limbaugh, “slut pills.” It perpetuates the idea that sex is wrong or only for procreation, when sex is a normal part of life and people who have active sex lives tend to be healthier and live longer. In addition, the benefits of contraception in the health and longevity for women is undisputed. According to the World Health Organization “Women’s and adolescents’ right to contraceptive information and services is grounded in basic human rights. Paying for contraception is no different from paying for vaccinations, diabetes care, or an appendectomy.
6) Restricting access to IUDs increases the risk of unplanned pregnancies and thus paradoxically the rate of abortion. As an IUD costs about $900 (or as Ginsberg pointed out, about a month’s salary for a minimum wage worker). IUDs are by far the most effective method of contraception and they have been shown to reduce the rate of abortions. Fewer IUDs means more methods with higher failure rates.
The message from the five male justices of the Supreme Court who felt it was within their purview to opine on women’s health care yet ignore medical facts (which I hope was presented as evidence) is chilling. The religious beliefs of privately held corporations are definitely not insubstantial, but the rights of women most certainly are.
Did you think Canada was all about the fun? Nope, nope, nope! Learning first, then fireworks and beer. :)
“The enactment of the British North America Act, 1867 (today called the Constitution Act, 1867), which confederated Canada, was celebrated on July 1, 1867, with the ringing of the bells at the Cathedral Church of St. James in Toronto and “bonfires, fireworks and illuminations, excursions, military displays and musical and other entertainments”, as described in contemporary accounts.[35] On June 20 of the following year, Governor General the Viscount Monck issued a royal proclamation asking for Canadians to celebrate the anniversary of Confederation,[36] However, the holiday was not established statutorily until May 15, 1879,[37] when it was designated as Dominion Day, in reference to the designation of the country as a Dominion in the British North America Act.[38] The holiday was initially not dominant in the national calendar; any celebrations were mounted by local communities and the governor general hosted a party at Rideau Hall.[35] No official celebrations were therefore held until 1917 and then none again for a further decade—the golden and diamond anniversaries of Confederation, respectively.[22]
In 1946, Philéas Côté, a Quebec member of the House of Commons, introduced a private member’s bill to rename Dominion Day as Canada Day.[39] His bill was passed quickly by the House of Commons but was stalled by the Senate, which returned the bill to the Commons with the recommendation that the holiday be renamed The National Holiday of Canada, an amendment that effectively killed the bill.[40]
Beginning in 1958, the Canadian government began to orchestrate Dominion Day celebrations. That year, then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker requested that Secretary of State Ellen Fairclough put together appropriate events, with a budget of $14,000. Parliament was traditionally in session on July 1, but Fairclough persuaded Diefenbaker and the rest of the federal Cabinet to attend.[35] Official celebrations thereafter consisted usually of Trooping the Colour ceremonies on Parliament Hill in the afternoon and evening, followed by a mass band concert and fireworks display, though Fairclough, who became Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, later expanded the bills to include performing folk and ethnic groups and the day became more casual and family oriented.[35] Canada’s centennial in 1967 is often seen as an important milestone in the history of Canadian patriotism and in Canada’s maturing as a distinct, independent country, after which Dominion Day became more popular with average Canadians. Into the late 1960s, nationally televised, multi-cultural concerts held in Ottawa were added and the fête became known as Festival Canada. After 1980, the Canadian government began to promote celebrating Dominion Day beyond the national capital, giving grants and aid to cities across the country to help fund local activities.
Some Canadians were, by the early 1980s, informally referring to the holiday as Canada Day.[n 4] However, this practice did cause some controversy:[46] Numerous politicians, journalists, and authors, such as Robertson Davies,[47] decried the change at the time and some continue to maintain that it was illegitimate and an unnecessary break with tradition.[41] Proponents argued that the name Dominion Day was a holdover from the colonial era, an argument given some impetus by the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, and others asserted that an alternative was needed as the term does not translate well into French.[41] Conversely, these arguments were disputed by those who claimed Dominion was widely misunderstood and conservatively inclined commenters saw the change as part of a much larger attempt by Liberals to “re-brand” or re-define Canadian history.[41][47][48] Columnist Andrew Cohen called Canada Day a term of “crushing banality” and criticized it as “a renunciation of the past [and] a misreading of history, laden with political correctness and historical ignorance”.[49]
The holiday was officially renamed as a result of a private member’s bill that, on July 9, 1982, two years after receiving first reading in the House of Commons,[35] there received third reading when only twelve Members of Parliament were present. (This was actually eight members less than a quorum, but, according to parliamentary rules, the quorum is enforceable only at the start of a sitting or when a member calls attention to it.[50]) The bill was passed by the House in five minutes, without debate,[46] which inspired “grumblings about the underhandedness of the process”.[35] It met with stronger resistance in the Senate—some Senators objected to the change of name; Ernest Manning, who argued that the rationale for the change was based on a misperception of the name, and George McIlraith, who did not agree with the manner in which the bill had been passed and urged the government to proceed in a more “dignified way”—but finally passed.[41] With the granting of Royal Assent, the name was officially changed to Canada Day on October 27, 1982.
As the anniversary of Confederation, Dominion Day, and later Canada Day, was the date set for a number of important events, such as the first national radio network hookup by the Canadian National Railway (1927); the inauguration of the CBC’s cross-country television broadcast, with Governor General Vincent Massey’s Dominion Day speech from Parliament Hill (1958);[35] the flooding of the Saint Lawrence Seaway (1958); the first colour television transmission in Canada (1966); the inauguration of the Order of Canada (1967); and the establishment of “O Canada” as the country’s national anthem (1980). Other events fell on the same day coincidentally, such as the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916—shortly after which Newfoundland recognized July 1 as Memorial Day to commemorate the Newfoundland Regiment’s heavy losses during the battle[51][52]—and the enactment of the Chinese Immigration Act in 1923—leading Chinese-Canadians to refer to July 1 as Humiliation Day and boycott Dominion Day celebrations until the act was repealed in 1947.[53]”
[Source:Wikipedia]
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…