Could the Hobby Lobby Exemption be Used to Deny Medical Coverage?

Hobby Lobby has an exemption from the law in allowing their health insurance to not provide birth control methods to their female employees the method is in conflict with their religious beliefs.

Their is already a church that, by law, is allowed to with hold medical treatment on religious grounds. The Christian Scientists are one such group. They have been allowed to with hold medical treatment that could save a child's life, and that choice has caused children to loose their life.

Will organizations like the Christian Scientists attempt to with hold all insurance covered medical treatments from their employees because of their religious beliefs? They do not believe in using modern medical practices. They believe that when a person is sick, prayer is the only acceptable cure. They decide for their children if and when medical treatment is used. Their have been children who have died because of their choice. Children who could have easily been cured by modern medical practices. The children are not like an adult employee of a business. They can not decide for themselves. Now religion is trying to decide for adults what medical treatments are appropriate, and which are not.

I can see the judgement of the Supreme Court on this issue being used by others to cause people to conform to their religious doctrine. It could be used to defend an employer  who wishes to provide no medical coverage. It could also be used by individuals to defend their choice to not seek medical treatment for a sick child.

Again I say that the Supreme Court has erred grievously in their recent decision to exempt Hobby Lobby from the law. I think in the future the justices will have to reverse their decision. They will be forced to because they have stepped into the realm of making law that respects the establishment of a religion. To exempt from the law on religious grounds is in essence, making a law. That runs counter to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. The exemption can also cause people to die.

Look at this case and others, then decide:

[1] "Seth Ian Glaser, 17 months, died March 28, 1984, in Culver City, California of h-flu meningitis (bacterial meningitis). The parents used only a Christian Science "practitioner" and obtained no medical care for Seth. The parents said that on March 27th, Seth seemed ill and very tired, so they requested absent "treatment" from a church practitioner. At various points Seth seemed to improve, but then relapsed.

Symptoms on the 27th were fever, coughing, and rapid breathing and heart rate. The next morning the baby's body turned blue and he vomited up food. At 11 a.m. the parents decided that Seth's condition was serious and that they should take him to the "healer." However, they had to wait for a 1 p.m. appointment. En route Seth went into convulsions that lasted for 90-second periods. His arms and legs became rigid. Even at this point, Seth's parents testified that they did not seriously consider taking Seth to an emergency room. Alarmed at the severity of Seth's illness, the Christian Science practitioner called the church legal advisor who told her that they had the legal right to withhold medical care.

At 2:45 p.m. Seth stopped breathing. At this point another practitioner who reputedly had succeeded in resurrecting the dead was contacted. Not until 11 P.m. that night was Seth's body allowed to be taken by mortuary personnel. Seth's mother was charged with manslaughter and child endangerment; however, in a trial conducted without a jury, the Court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant."

[1] http://www.masskids.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=161&Itemid=165