Hi Hubski,

While floating around some more offbeat corners of the net, I ran across something about the Hobby Lobby decision that confused me. I decided to confirm for myself whether what was being claimed was true, and indeed I found the following passages on page 9 of the decision (page 15 in the pdf at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf, emphasis mine):

"In addition, HHS has effectively exempted certain religious nonprofit organizations, described under HHS regulations as “eligible organizations,” from the contraceptive mandate." ...

"To qualify for this accommodation, an employer must certify that it is such an organization. §147.131(b)(4). When a group-health-insurance issuer receives notice that one of its clients has invoked this provision, the issuer must then exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide separate payments for contraceptive services for plan participants without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the eligible organization, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries. §147.131(c).8"

"Although this procedure requires the issuer to bear the cost of these services, HHS has determined that this obligation will not impose any net expense on issuers because its cost will be less than or equal to the cost savings resulting from the services. 78 Fed. Reg. 39877."

If I understand this correctly, the existing exemption for religious organizations (churches, religious schools etc.) still requires contraceptive services to be provided, however at the policy issuer's cost. I don't think this is consistent with how the decision is being reported.

b_b:

Yes, your interpretation is correct. Basically, someone still has to pay, since it is written into law that insurance has to cover contraception. Essentially, the gov't has made the case to insurers (and apparently the actuaries agree) that just because the employer is refusing to pay this small amount, it's still a whole lot cheaper for the insurer to just take a hit on it, given that an abortion costs a lot, and a child costs a whole lot for a long time. This entire saga is nonsense, mere proof that anyone can find any legal justification for any ideological position, so long as suspension of disbelief is maintained. If you want a real headscratcher, compare and contrast Hobby Lobby with the recent Wheaton College injunction. Apparently Roberts' avowed "respect for precedent" lasted a mere four days in this case. We live in the judicial version of Bizzarro World.


posted 3571 days ago