If you have an opportunity to do so, you may want to read the majority decision authored by Justice Alito, and the 35-page dissent issued by Justice Bader Ginsberg in the Hotel Lobby case recently decided by SCOTUS.
Many very bright people have weighed in on this decision; I have collected some of the most scholarly opinions issued by the media in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court's Hotel Lobby decision.
Many, many more dissertations on this piece of judicial activism will surely follow for many years to come.
I have to be on my way to catch the USA kick some Belgian butt, but I wanted to lay down my views as to who the winners and losers are in the Hotel Lobby case. Here are my views - set down in 2-minutes flat!
WINNERS - Hotel Lobby Decision a Win for Religious Conservatives Who Are Small Business Owners, Insurance Companies and Pharmaceutical Companies
|Winners - Religious Conservatives|
* Owners of small companies who believe that birth control is morally wrong and want to impose their beliefs upon their female employees by denying them medical insurance for contraceptives
* Pharmaceutical companies, who make far more off of sales of their products to uninsured customers than they do when a customer has insurance
* Insurance companies who do not have to pay for contraceptives
* All of those who believe birth control is wrong, or a sin
LOSERS - Hotel Lobby Decision a Loss for Women Who Work for Small Business Owners Who Are Conservatives, Married Couples Who Enjoy Sex, Pro-Life Advocates and US Taxpayers
|But, Wait....Increase in Abortions?|
* Male companions or husbands of women who work for small companies owned by people who believe birth control is wrong and choose to impose their beliefs upon their female employees by denying them medical insurance for contraceptives
* Pro-Life advocates, because some women who become pregnant because they could not afford contraception will surely elect abortion over the alternative
* American citizens who pay taxes because, if a woman cannot afford contraception, it is reasonable to conclude she may need financial assistant from the Government if she thereafter has a baby
* Owners of small companies who believe that birth control is morally wrong and want to impose their beliefs upon their female employees by denying them medical insurance for contraceptives, because they will lose the services of women to whom they deny contraception insurance as a result of their absence from work following childbirth
* Insurance companies that will have to provide coverage for the vast array of medical services required for pregnant women, mothers and newborns
The list goes on, I am sure, but I got to go catch the USMT! GO USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Postscript: USA Men's Team lost a heart breaker, but were valiant in defeat. What a thrill ride. I am very proud to be an American (although the Hotel Lobby ruling tempers that feeling a bit).
What Was the Rationale Behind the Supreme Court's Decision in the Hotel Lobby Case?
The way I see it, the thinking of the Majority must have gone something like this:
Premise 1: If you have intercourse, you must do so only if you intend to conceive a child, whether you are married or not;
Premise 2: Using contraception is therefore wrong
Premise 3: We cannot stop couples from using condoms
Premise 4: We can make it more difficult for women to purchase contraceptives
Premise 5: If women buy fewer birth control devices, people will either stop having sex or there will be an increase in the amount of pregnancies
Premise 5: Unwanted pregnancies are better than pregnancies avoided by use of contraceptives
Premise 6: People that cannot afford to buy contraceptives will either choose not to have sex, will use condoms (which are less effective means of contraception) or will have unwanted pregnancies
Premise 7; People having unwanted pregnancies will either choose to have the child, or will choose to have an abortion
Premise 8: People in general disfavor abortion, so increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies will be a good thing
Premise 9: We know what is best for humanity from a morality perspective, and we have a duty to impose our beliefs upon the American people.
Naturally, there are so many flaws in the above-line of thought, that one cannot possibly think the Majority truly believed that the intended consequences of their decision (more children in the World) will ever come to fruition.
People will continue to have sex at the very same rate as existed prior to this Decision. Couples that cannot afford to purchase contraception at the uninsured price will nevertheless continue having sex, and will use other contraceptive devices or strategies.
Some percentage of individuals affected by this ruling will have unwanted pregnancies. They will either have an abortion or have the child. If they have the child, and do not place the baby up for adoption, they will likely need financial assistance from the Government in order to care for the child.
Me, personally? I believe allowing people to plan their families via use of birth control pills and the like is preferable to the above scenarios. But, it is clear, the Supremes disagree with my line of thinking on this....
Philadelphia Civil Rights Lawyer
John A. Gallagher is an employment lawyer who represents employees in Pennsylvania.
|Helping Secure Civil Rights|
Click Here if you have questions about any aspect of employment law, from wrongful termination to wage and overtime claims, from discrimination and retaliation laws to Family and Medical Leave, from worker misclassification issues to non-compete agreements…
Click Here if you have questions about any aspect of Pennsylvania Unemployment Law, from willful misconduct, to voluntary quit, Independent Contractor/Self-Employment issues, Referee Hearings, severance issues…
Click Here to e-mail John directly.
Thanks for checking in with us.