Expanding "corporate citizen" rights into health care could ultimately affect everybody, not just women.
where is the Supreme Court on this issue? Stupid concept, nobody but an individual and his/her Dr should have any say-so in one’s health care. Religious freedom has nothing to do with corporate citizen rights! It’s all about money…
SCROTUS ( Superior Christian Republicans of The United States ) has never been this disgustingly corrupt, in my lifetime at least. Their figleaf of objectivity regarding corporate rights is so small now, it couldn’t cover the smallest, pinkest parts of DJT’s little hands.
When will The Uniparty realize 15-20% of the adults in the U.S. are agnostics or atheists? And, don’t want to see this pandering to religious zealots and their personal prejudices?
Boycotts, and more, sounds about right in this mix.
Hum? The author is the Director of Corporate Accountability and yet seems to have missed the fact that corporations gained access to constitutional protections as persons (citizens) in the 1886 landmark case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. There have been many cases since then that have further expanded corporate person-hood rights. Citizens United was just one ruling in a long string of corporate friendly rulings that undermined human right to strengthened the corporate choke hold .
Furthermore, I would expect a Director of Corporate Accountability to understand that the ACA was intended to bolster the “market”, not to give us more control over our health care. I would also expect a Director of Corporate Accountability to be aware that the ACA has done a masterful job of accomplishing its intended goal. All one has to do is look at the insurance and pharma cartel stock earning since 2009.
The fact is that bosses can do whatever they want. In the United States, all workers are “at will” employees who serve at the behest of the employer, unless they have a union contract or personal services contract that gives them protection. By-and-large, normal Constitutional protections do not apply to workplaces.
The EEOC nominally protects certain “classes” of workers from discrimination on the basis of: “sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.”
However, these protections are weak, limited and require massive resources and time to pursue in a complex bureaucratic/legal process. And of course they only apply to citizens.
In any case, any non-contracted worker (and many who work under contracts) can simply be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
What bosses “should” do is irrelevant. What they have the power to do is all that counts because that’s both law and doctrine in the U.S. employment jungle.
Where is the Supreme Court on any issue?
Can you find one of them that did not come up as a corporate lawyer, prosecutor – or both?
And so we have the Duopoly punditry at work mythologizing about “liberal” and “conservative” justices, when the bums are more highly-paid clerks and pissants shuffling papers, looking stern, and harrumphing while they try to stay awake until the “court” adjourns in time for cocktails with their corproate bosses.
Bullshit! Freedom of Religion doesn’t stop at the workplace door, nor does Freedom from Religion!
The employee “funds” their part of the deal with their labor and time. We need to get away from the blind acceptance of hierarchical thinking, and the unquestioned assumption that “bosses” are more important than workers.
When Obamacare — aka, the Affordable Care Act — became law in 2010, it mandated coverage of birth control without co-payments.
I think the first sentence of this article is incorrect and misleading. From what I remember, this mandate is not explicitly encoded in the Affordable Care Act. But in the heat of the 2012 election, largely for political purposes in my view, President Obama announced that his administration was interpreting Obamacare to include the no-cost birth control mandate. Then Pres. Obama’s allies proclaimed that anyone who opposed the new measure was part of the “War on Women”.
What was it about the 1886 Santa Clara vs SPRR that awarded corporate citizenship immunity to its stockholders, owners and clientele? And how did the ACA exactly “bolster the market” as your assertion insists? I don’t get neither.
The employer-based healthcare model is a fraud.
Medicare 4 ALL!
You corporate libertarians are a real laugh.
Not so grasshopper, you cannot impose your religious beliefs as a condition of employment. That is discrimination. that fact that it only affects women would include other degrading social values.
Implied contracts are binding as well.
Implied contract exception is an exception available in at-will employment. Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee in a situation where an implied contract has formed between an employer and employee. A written instrument expressing the employment relationship will not exist.
The SC is so full of rot and mostly always has been. If you haven’t read Jeffrey Clements Corporations Are NOT People, do. I was shocked at the anti-real live people the SC has been pretty much since the beginning.
Where will it end? We don’t know. Even if the lawsuits are ultimately successful, a decision could take years.
In most modern civilized societies, whatever degree of basic health care the population requires or the society can afford is provided by its government. A society that is founded on one religion or ruled by a rapacious, blood sucking elite is not civilized and not modern. In almost all modern civilized societies, health care is provided collectively to its citizenry by its government.
And then there is the USA. Have you ever tried to litigate anything in the judicial system of that nation or seek health care assistance there. If you are a member of an extremely large portion of the resident population of that nation, you probably have trouble paying to put a roof over your head or putting food on the table or holding a decent job, never mind paying for the service of a lawyer or acquiring health insurance.
I think the Goat and others of like mind need to reexamine the separation between church and state. In a republic with democratic institutions, we the people are “the state”. The premise of their argument is that the state is separated from the citizen, which in America is just not the case. They might like to visit the Freedom From Religion Foundations website.
This book pretty well explains it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_Protection Should be required reading in all High School Civics courses.
Thank you for asking for clarification:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886) is a United States corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court on taxation of railroad properties. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that issue. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons.
The best answer to your second question are stock market trends for insurance and pharma corps since 2009. The whole structure of the ACA was to support the medical industrial complex. What other industry besides health insurance has a congressional mandate for all citizens to purchase their product?
Medical corporations will end up consuming your last dollar for healthcare whether it is mandated or not. The ACA made them expand coverage to people that had no access to care, millions of them. That is why we are ranked 39th in the world as providers and last place for industrialized countries. We spend more money reinventing the wheel than anyone else.
Laughing out loud! Thanks for my morning dose of humor.