This past week,
social media, as well as just about every “talking head” has weighed in on the
Supreme Court’s decision regarding Hobby Lobby. Today’s post discusses
implications for those affected by a chronic condition as a result of the ruling, but
first a recap of events:
• June 30, 2014: In Burwell v. Hobby
Lobby, the Christian owners of the craft store
chain challenged the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that companies
provide contraception coverage to their employees. In Monday’s U.S. Supreme
Court decision, the ruling says privately
held companies have the right to deny contraception
for women if they object on religious grounds. The majority opinion,
which none of the court’s female justices joined, claimed that the 1993
Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the rights of such businesses’
owners to withhold coverage for birth control if they claim it violates their
religious beliefs.
• July 1, 2014: The Supreme court ordered all lower courts to rehear any
cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for contraception, not just
the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.
• July 1, 2014: A group of religious
organizations sent a letter to the President saying they wanted exemption from
the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) hiring order.
If your waiting to see what will be filed in light of Monday’s decision,
there is no wait as The Becket Fund, the religious law firm that represented
Hobby Lobby in its legal case, lists 49 pending federal cases in which
for-profit companies have brought religious objections against the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) and an additional 51 cases that involve non profits.
More than 50% of US companies meet the criteria of “privately held,” and
some of these are very large companies, so this has the potential to impact
many women.
Precedent, which is what our legal system
revolves around, looms large here. Has the precedent has been set for
challenging other practices, that make good sense medically but certain
religious groups find objectionable? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought so in
her dissenting arguments. Is she going over board, as some claim?
On July 2, the
New England Journal of Medicine contained a Perspective written
by two lawyers and a physician.
In the wake of Hobby
Lobby, we may anticipate challenges to other medical services that some
religions find objectionable, such as vaccinations, infertility treatments,
blood transfusions, certain psychiatric treatments, and even hospice care. Hobby Lobby's implications may also
extend into civil rights law, with employers asking to “opt out” of laws
intended to protect people from employment and housing discrimination based on
religion, race, sex, national origin, or pregnancy status. Although the
majority deemed these slippery-slope concerns unrealistic, the dissent
expressed serious concerns.
Though
the decision applies only to closely held, for-profit corporations, it sets a
precedent for religious exemptions that could have sweeping implications — and
reflects the Supreme Court's great potential impact on U.S. health care. Yet
the Court was applying Congress's statute, and Congress could, if it chose,
scale back the protection offered to religious objectors — a good reason to
share public reactions to the decision with our elected representatives.
So what does this all mean for people with chronic conditions? First and
foremost, be concerned.
The precedent has now been set that a private business
can decide what they will or will not pay for when it comes to their employees
health care based on their particular religious beliefs and not what has been
found medically appropriate. It’s worth noting here that the employee benefit
package is part of their pay and not just the company being nice. So if the
employee is actually paying for their healthcare, shouldn’t they have the say
and not the employer?
In addition to denying health services, the ruling is
already being used to justify discrimination against a group of people, namely
the LGBT community, as far as employment.
I’d like to believe that the silver lining to this
situation is that the country will finally wake up to the fact that employers
should not be brokering employee’s health care. A single payer universal health
care system is needed, which. could be phased in by lowering the age for Medicare
and extending the age of childcare services, until they eventually meet and
everyone is covered:
In the mean time,consider the following:
• Contraception has been shown over and over
again to be fundamental to women’s health and well being. For women with
chronic disease, it can be a lifesaver, so support organizations that work to help women obtain free and
affordable contraception.
• Stay connected with your condition specific
organization and support their efforts.
• If you have insurance through your employer, do
the homework to see if considerations are being made to make changes as a
result of Monday’s decision
• As the authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article pointed out “share public reactions”-let your public officials
know how you feel about this issue.
• Vote!
