Will Hobby Lobby Case Cause Reduction of Benefits?

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Brookings VP Darrell West, Rev. Robert Sirico, president of Acton Institute, and Bloomberg's Greg Stohr and Jonathan Allen discuss the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that closely held companies can refuse on religious grounds to offer birth-control coverage to their workers. They speak with Trish Regan on "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)

See businesses utilize this ruling.

Might we actually see a reduction in terms of health benefits as a result?

Your take?

There will be companies that are going to deny birth control coverage to their employees.

But i think this decision is bad from a governance standpoint.

There are 49 different court cases pending where corporations want to nullify various aspects of public policy.

There are companies that don't like the policy on transfusions, one vaccinations.

This sets a precedent that could very well lead to corporate nullification of public policy.

Will individual business owners have a right to their own religious belief?

Why is it, when you start a business, you are no longer allowed to have personal conviction?

That is precisely what the court has ruled.

It does not make the distinction between a person's religious conference, and that person organized in a corporation.

Let us also remember, this is a kind of restricted ruling.

It is those who are closely related.

It is privately held businesses with not a lot of members.

The hobby lobby family have demonstrated that.

That is one of the differences.

This is a privately held company as opposed to a publicly held company.

Greg, if you are still with us, explain the significance of that.

They are talking about companies held by a small group of individuals, as opposed to many stock shareholders.

The court said we are not necessarily ruling out that a publicly traded company could do this, but as a practical matter, it is very unlikely to occur.

It is much easier to tell, in the case of hobby lobby.

There are very few family members.

Much harder to see how that would translate in the context of a big, publicly traded company.

How is this going to play out in democratic circles?

Are we going to hear a lot about a slippery slope?

Democrats making the argument the supreme court is now engaged in a war on women, much like you have heard them talking about republicans in congress being engaged in that war in women.

Not just the hobby lobby case, but with another one today involving home health care workers.

I think they see women as being the victims of a supreme court decision here, in particular with regard to hobby lobby, not being able to access contraception, for the reduced rates you would get by having your health insurance program.

That is the argument ruth bader ginsburg made.

I think we have a full-screen quote from her, what she wrote on this, if we can bring it up.

Take a look here.

Concern it really is going to be a slippery slope that will have a big effect on many people.

Are those concerns perhaps a

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change