General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere’s been some speculation that Hobby Lobby employees may be able file a Civil Rights Act Title V
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453902/hobby-lobby-means-for-your-health-care/Although the reproductive rights community is reeling from the implications of the Hobby Lobby decision, the legal fights may not be over. Theres been some speculation that Hobby Lobby employees may be able file a Civil Rights Act Title VII complaint, on the grounds that the company is treating female employees differently than male employees by refusing to cover gender-specific health services.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,298 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Cuz the lunatics are running the asylum.
Pinkflamingo
(177 posts)And how many employees will get accidentally pregnant because birth control won't be readily available? But God forbid they become "takers" because of an unwanted pregnancy.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)will hire them if Hobby Lobby fires them. Great Publicity for those two companies!!!!!
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)or really like being cowed by the religiously insane.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)tclambert
(11,080 posts)A corporation or women? Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy wouldn't pass up another opportunity to slap down women and elevate the rights of corporations.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Although I am an attorney I have zero experience in Civil Rights legislation but I think it would be fairly easy to quash a Title V challenge.
The issue likely would be framed that this has nothing to do with a gender-specific health service other than the fact that only in a female's body can a fertilized egg attach itself to the uterine wall and 9 months later pop out a baby.
They can easily distinguish the specific forms of female birth control covered by the Court's decision from a vasectomy. A vasectomy prevents the sperm from leaving the man's body. The forms of birth control covered by the Court's decision are believed (even if they don't all necessarily work this way) to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. The plaintiffs allege that since they believe life begins at conception, anything that prevents the "life" from attaching itself to the uterine wall and developing into a baby is infanticide. So a vasectomy and the hormonal type birth control pills are different in that they prevent the egg from being fertilized.
Although the Court tries to make clear that the holding only applies to the contraception mandate and at least certain forms of contraception (I haven't read the opinion but will this weekend) and not to other coverage under the ACA such as immunizations, blood transfusions, etc. I can see where other plaintiffs may come forward to challenge those as well.
Once you crack the door open I expect there will be a flood of additional challenges not only to the ACA but also to "generally applicable laws" such as those related to non-discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and possibly even gender, religion and ethnic origin.
I can see someone coming in and saying that their belief that homosexuals are evil and must be destroyed means they do not have to comply with non-discrimination laws with respect to LGBT employees. If there was anytime for Justice Scalia to issue a "slippery slope" warning this was one. But that job was left to Justice Ginsburg. She can see what is coming
lark
(23,003 posts)Scientologist - unite and fight! Make the felonious five have to really try to defend this ridiculous decision, gum up the court system.