CommunicatorIC
@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Hobby Lobby and Scientology business health insurance coverage for psychiatric care.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 the case entitled Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public...y_Stores_Inc_No_13354_and_13356_US_June_30_20
In Hobby Lobby the U.S. Supreme Court held that, as applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) (often referred to as "Obamacare") imposing the contraceptive mandate violate The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).
In other words, a closely held corporation does not have to provide insurance coverage for contraception if doing so would violate the owner's religious beliefs.
The obvious question for this forum is whether the decision in Hobby Lobby will permit a closely held corporation or other business owned by a Scientologist to refuse to provide coverage for care by a psychiatrist or psychologist, or for psychiatric medication. Despite the fact, discussed below, that in dissent Justice Ginsberg recognized and generally discussed the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to decide the question. The answer is therefore a resounding "Maybe." No one knows whether subsequent cases decided under Hobby Lobby will hold that a closely held corporation or other business owned by a Scientologist may refuse to provide coverage for care by a psychiatrist or psychologist, or for psychiatric medication.
The most efficient starting point for analysis is Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, in which (as to the part I'm about to quote) Justices Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagain all joined. Justice Ginsberg asks:
Most importantly, the majority and controlling opinion by Justice Alioto responds:
The Supreme Court (i.e., speaking through the 5 to 4 majority opinion by Alioto) is clearly leaving open the issues concerning insurance coverage for vaccinations, blood transfusions and (by necessary implication) coverage for psychiatric and psychological care, and psychiatric medication. For our purposes the key words in the majority opinion are those highlighted in red, i.e., "necessarily" and "may."
There are now numerous news stories that assert that the decision in Hobby Lobby is "limited" to contraceptive coverage. While in one sense that may be technically true, do not be misled. The Hobby Lobby Court did not "limit" its decision to contraceptive coverage in the sense of clearly stating that all other religiously objectionable coverage (e.g., for vaccinations, blood transfusions, psychiatric and psychological care, psychiatric medication) is mandated. The Hobby Lobby Court instead left open the issue whether coverage for religiously objectionable coverage (e.g., for vaccinations, blood transfusions and psychiatric and psychological care, psychiatric medication) is mandated even in the face of a religious objection under the RFRA.
A Scientology owned closed corporation or other business can certainly refuse to provide insurance coverage for psychiatric and psychological care, and psychiatric medication, and either: (a) file a lawsuit to establish it is exempt from the requirements of Obamacare under the reasoning of Hobby Lobby; or (b) defend a lawsuit by HHS on the ground that it is exempt under the reasoning of Hobby Lobby. Right now nobody knows, with certainty, how such a lawsuit would turn out. The U.S. Supreme Court very expressly left the question undecided.
Going further, I personally would be surprised if Scientology owned closed corporations and other businesses did not object to providing insurance coverage for psychiatric and psychological care, and psychiatric medication, on the ground that they are covered by the reasoning of Hobby Lobby.
One final observation. I predict an RFRA objection to insurance coverage for vaccinations would likely be rejected. The U.S. Supreme Court's observation that coverage for immunizations, "may be supported by . . . the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases," sends a pretty strong signal to the lower courts. Unfortunately, I see no such strong signal concerning insurance coverage for psychiatric and psychological care.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 the case entitled Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public...y_Stores_Inc_No_13354_and_13356_US_June_30_20
In Hobby Lobby the U.S. Supreme Court held that, as applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) (often referred to as "Obamacare") imposing the contraceptive mandate violate The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).
In other words, a closely held corporation does not have to provide insurance coverage for contraception if doing so would violate the owner's religious beliefs.
The obvious question for this forum is whether the decision in Hobby Lobby will permit a closely held corporation or other business owned by a Scientologist to refuse to provide coverage for care by a psychiatrist or psychologist, or for psychiatric medication. Despite the fact, discussed below, that in dissent Justice Ginsberg recognized and generally discussed the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to decide the question. The answer is therefore a resounding "Maybe." No one knows whether subsequent cases decided under Hobby Lobby will hold that a closely held corporation or other business owned by a Scientologist may refuse to provide coverage for care by a psychiatrist or psychologist, or for psychiatric medication.
The most efficient starting point for analysis is Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, in which (as to the part I'm about to quote) Justices Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagain all joined. Justice Ginsberg asks:
Dissent at p. 44.Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives 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 (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, "each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test." Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision.
Most importantly, the majority and controlling opinion by Justice Alioto responds:
Opinion, at p. 26.HHS and the principal dissent argue that a ruling in favor of the objecting parties in these cases will lead to a flood of religious objections regarding a wide variety of medical procedures and drugs, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions, but HHS has made no effort to substantiate this prediction. 42 HHS points to no evidence that insurance plans in existence prior to the enactment of ACA excluded coverage for such items. Nor has HHS provided evidence that any significant number of employers sought exemption, on religious grounds, from any of ACA's coverage requirements other than the contraceptive mandate.
It is HHS's apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA-no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers-that would lead to intolerable consequences. Under HHS's view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question-for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome.
In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
The Supreme Court (i.e., speaking through the 5 to 4 majority opinion by Alioto) is clearly leaving open the issues concerning insurance coverage for vaccinations, blood transfusions and (by necessary implication) coverage for psychiatric and psychological care, and psychiatric medication. For our purposes the key words in the majority opinion are those highlighted in red, i.e., "necessarily" and "may."
There are now numerous news stories that assert that the decision in Hobby Lobby is "limited" to contraceptive coverage. While in one sense that may be technically true, do not be misled. The Hobby Lobby Court did not "limit" its decision to contraceptive coverage in the sense of clearly stating that all other religiously objectionable coverage (e.g., for vaccinations, blood transfusions, psychiatric and psychological care, psychiatric medication) is mandated. The Hobby Lobby Court instead left open the issue whether coverage for religiously objectionable coverage (e.g., for vaccinations, blood transfusions and psychiatric and psychological care, psychiatric medication) is mandated even in the face of a religious objection under the RFRA.
A Scientology owned closed corporation or other business can certainly refuse to provide insurance coverage for psychiatric and psychological care, and psychiatric medication, and either: (a) file a lawsuit to establish it is exempt from the requirements of Obamacare under the reasoning of Hobby Lobby; or (b) defend a lawsuit by HHS on the ground that it is exempt under the reasoning of Hobby Lobby. Right now nobody knows, with certainty, how such a lawsuit would turn out. The U.S. Supreme Court very expressly left the question undecided.
Going further, I personally would be surprised if Scientology owned closed corporations and other businesses did not object to providing insurance coverage for psychiatric and psychological care, and psychiatric medication, on the ground that they are covered by the reasoning of Hobby Lobby.
One final observation. I predict an RFRA objection to insurance coverage for vaccinations would likely be rejected. The U.S. Supreme Court's observation that coverage for immunizations, "may be supported by . . . the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases," sends a pretty strong signal to the lower courts. Unfortunately, I see no such strong signal concerning insurance coverage for psychiatric and psychological care.
Last edited: