Some final (I hope) thoughts on Hobby Lobby

For a "narrow" case decision, Hobby Lobby has generated a huge debate, as well as a bitter division among the nine justices themselves.    Here are some random thoughts.

1.  The majority in this decision about contraceptives used by women are all middle-aged, Roman Catholic males who were appointed by Republican presidents.  

2.  I wrote yesterday about the hypocrisy in Hobby Lobby's refusing contraceptive coverage on a religious freedom claim, objecting to forms they consider abortion-inducing -- yet they do business with China, a government that forces women to have abortions.   Today, I learned that there is an even more cogent hypocrisy:   Hobby Lobby itself reportedly has $70 million invested in companies that make birth control and morning after pills.

3.  The court majority has further enraged the women justices by a subsequent decision that granted the religion-oriented Wheaton College an exemption from even having to fill out the form that allows insurance companies to provide birth control without the college paying for it.  They said even filling out the form made them complicit in the use of contraceptives.

4.  This whole argument has become a mess.    Altio's majority opinion is full of inconsistencies, non sequeters, and shoddy reasoning.   For example:   He writes that this religious freedom exemption does not apply to other medical controversies like vaccines;  but he offers no reasoning for why this is different and deserves unique treatment.  The division in the court itself and in the country is becoming a real problem, and the court's reputation is already suffering.   The public's trust in SCOTUS has dropped.  But I think that is not so much because of the divisiveness but because it is becoming ever-clearer that this court is always going to tilt toward the interests of business over the citizens and because the inconsistencies that appear obvious to others are based on justices personal prejudices -- but they claim not to let personal feelings be involved.     It erodes trust.

5.  And where does this "religious freedom" for corporations end anyway?   What about all the other religions that might want to opt out of requirements based on religious beliefs:   Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses, opposed to blood transfusions?   What about Quakers and their pacifist beliefs?   Why should they have to pay for war?   And what about Muslims wanting to follow Sharia law?

HERE IS A SIMPLE SOLUTION
 In fact, Alito even alluded to this simple remedy in his opinion, when he wrote that the best way to resolve this "would be for the government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health insurance policies due to their employers' religious objections."

Exactly.   This is perhaps the best argument we've had yet that it would be so much simpler, as well as less expensive, to just eliminate employer-provided health insurance and move to  a Medicare for All health care plan paid for through taxes.   Yes, some might call it socialized medicine.    Whatever you call it, Medicare is the most efficiently run, trouble-free, least expensive type of plan we could have.   That would eliminate all these corporations' requests for exemptions based on their religious beliefs, and it would eliminate people not wanting to be forced to buy insurance.   You just provide it and tax for it.  SCOTUS has already said that would be legal.

Just think.  All this Sturm und Drang would vanish if we had single payer insurance funded through taxes.

Ralph