The Hobby Lobby case.
It’s finally happened. The conservative Catholic gang have found a case where they could drop their pretense of legal objectivity in favor of (male) bosses’ supposed “religious rights” to interfere with female employees’ personal healthcare.
Note that there is no pretense whatsoever that this decision is fair and equal with respect to its effect on both men and women. On the contrary, the 5-judge majority make it clear that only women are allowed to be victims of their employers’ religious prejudice under this decision. The Court wrote that it intends this decision to apply only to forms of contraception specifically for females (which would have been covered by the employees’ insurance under the ACA) and NOT to apply to any other employer “religious” objections such as those against transfusions or vaccines, which might affect both male and female equally. Hobby Lobby’s paid health insurance will still cover vasectomies. And erectile-disfunction prescriptions.
In addition, the Court rationalizes its destruction of women’s rights of equal access to health care by pretending that this decision affects only a tiny segment of the USAian corporate economy. This is not even close to true. It applies to IRS-defined “closely-held” corporations (where 50 percent of the stock is held by no more than 5 individuals; the remaining stock may be publicly traded, or not.) These closely-held corporations constitute more than 90 percent of the total number of businesses in the US, and employ more than 50 percent of the total labor force.
SInce there cannot be any test for “sincerity of beliefs”, every small partnership/corporation can now declare that it has “religious” objections to complying with the contraceptive provisions of the ACA, which were supposed to protect all citizens equally.
It’s going to be one hell of a mess. Suddenly, every woman in the nation has her personal health at risk (at least potentially at risk, depending on their being lucky or unlucky with a rational or irrational employer) because of the perversion of five men in the US Supreme Court.
This particular group of Supreme Court justices will go down in history as one of the worst ever, perhaps even worse than the Dred Scott court. Short of hoping for better replacement justices (and then hoping for a speedy overturn of this biased decision) there doesn’t seem to be any rational course of action to restore secularism and respect for the principle of equal treatment under law.
SeverskyP35,
Your assumption is incorrect. Of the 20 contraceptive methods covered by the ACA, the owners of Hobby Lobby object to four only: Plan B, Ella, and two forms of IUD.
You should stick with this initial reaction. Otherwise, it seems to me you allow individuals who own corporations extra votes. This seems to an outside observer what distorts US democracy. Commercial corporations have excessive influence. I could be mistaken.
Alan,
Extra votes?
Not literally! I said I could be mistaken! Try undue additional undue political influence
SeverskyP35,
Consider two scenarios:
1. Hobby Lobby pays Cecile her salary. Cecile chooses to spend some of it on an IUD.
2. Hobby Lobby purchases health coverage for Cecile. Cecile uses her health coverage to obtain an IUD.
In both cases Hobby Lobby gives something of value to Cecile, without specifying how it is to be used. In both cases Cecile uses it to obtain an IUD.
What is the relevant moral difference, and why? It seems to me that the moral responsibility rests with Cecile in both cases.
You’re not thinking this through. Yeah, there are “other ways” for women to “be provided” with birth control. Let’s you and I as taxpayers provide for it simply because you’re swayed by the Catholic argument that it is better to harm you and I directly (financially) than to witness any attenuated and indirect harm to David Greens “beliefs” — not direct harm to him, personally, just his “beliefs” — nor financial harm to his corporation (since health insurance which provides for female birth control is cheaper than insurance which provides for maternity care). Great to know that you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is by covering the bills for a 5xbillionaire in your defense of his made-up “religious rights”.
Don’t sign me up for your plan, though. What you propose is immoral. It’s immoral to suggest that we should pick up the slack for David Green’s obligations to treat his employees equally, to grant him (and other liars like him) a special exemption because, never mind, we can pay the price for him.
I can’t believe you’d be foolish enough to buy their argument when they use “religious beliefs” to assert that they don’t have to pay minimum wage. You wouldn’t make a thoughtless claim that it doesn’t “substantially harm” the employees, because there are plenty of other ways for the employees to obtain food and shelter. Why, there are community food pantries, and welfare, and … You cannot possibly be callous enough to go along with that argument. So why do you not think it through when it’s about female birth control?
Ew, girls. Squick. No wonder it’s easier not to think and just go along with the misogynist David Green.
Dumb. There aren’t any male contraceptives which are prescription drugs/devices. But if there were, HL would pay for them. They cover vasectomies. And prescription viagra. It’s only women’s lives that they want to interfere with.
Truly sucks that people are willing to let them get away with it when DG and Hobby Lobby’s 401k have mega-million dollar investments in companies which manufacture female birth control devices/medications. The exact same items which – supposedly – offend David Green so much that he can’t be associated with them even to a miniscule extent like paying for insurance which might provide them to an employee? Yep, he’s fine with himself, his corporate officers, and even his employees directly pocketing the profit from sales of contraceptives. Just not fine with his female employees actually using them.. And the corrupt christians were willing to rule in his favor based on his lies about how much of a “burden” it is to make him go against his “religious beliefs”; all they wanted was a plausible excuse to make the case.
Shame on anyone who takes his side. Not all christians are dumb enough to approve of his misconduct. There is absolutely no reason for a non-theist to go along with his bullshit excuse of needing to be treated more favorably than everyone else because of “religious beliefs”.
There’s no moral difference from either David Green’s or Cecile’s PoV.
One provides the financial wherewithal, one chooses how to spend it in both the wage and the insurance case.
In neither case will David Green ever know if Cecile chose contraception – since the HIPAA protects the privacy of her health-care decisions – so if he wishes to salve his conscience, in both cases he can remain equally cheerful that his outlay never happens to get used as an “occasion of sin”. Or in both cases, he can remain equally distraught that he can’t control every choice of every woman. That’s his problem, of course, and it’s not a moral problem.
I really don’t understand this POV. To me, this “logic” then implies that corporations should not be compelled to pay their employees anything as currency (dollars) can be used freely for goods and services the corporations may find offensive. Thus, things like minimum wage…or any wage…should go away. Similarly, this “logic” implies that corporations should not have regulated hours or holidays or vacation since a given corporation could argue that any time off lead to sloth.
Beat me by several days on this. Thanks Neil – my question exactly.
I don’t care to engage in this debate, but the folks I know who object to these four contraceptives consider them to induce abortions and consider abortion murder. I don’t personally agree with this, but if the debate is to continue, it should focus on the thing people actually object to.
I think that’s right, Petrushka. The thing that bothers me, however, is that the people who do so object, having failed to convince their representatives in Congress of the alleged evil of these items, then claim that they don’t have to provide insurance that gives access to them, in spite of that failure in D.C. As I’ve already said, it’s like claiming that you don’t have to pay any portion of your taxes that is spent on anything you don’t approve of. I mean, arguably, some of that money is actually used to murder adults, no?
Folks like Joan Baez did exactly that, or claimed to. Most of my friends were Conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War. (And my father-in-law during WWII.)
But that’s not an argument I care much about. I do think it’s a bad Idea for the government to mandate the details of health care. I think if you start down that road, you get what you asked for, which may not be what you wanted.
Consider your argument for a moment. The law has been interpreted. Obviously many people disagree with the interpretation. But that happens when when you allow politics to make decisions about ordinary purchases. And these are not big ticket items.
petrushka,
Not true, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent:
I haven’t argued that I agree with the decision. What I disagree with is making such things subject to politics. I don’t believe lawmakers should be in the business of deciding what should be covered and what should not.
petrushka,
That, too, is a sentiment people need to take up with their representatives, not enforce by consuting whatever scripture they can find around that happens to comport with their own druthers. You don’t like Obamacare?Fine, lobby your representatives. You don’t think birth control should be included? Same story. You don’t think your representative is heeding your wishes? Get a better one.
But the Baez-Green approach is absurd–unless one is willing to face the penalties for such civil disobedience. The Roberts Court says instead (to Green but not Baez) ‘No problem–you get a pass because we like your religion.’
petrushka,
I was objecting to your characterization of these as “ordinary purchases” and “not big ticket items”. Something that costs almost a month’s full-time pay qualifies as a “big-ticket item” in my book.
Insurance makes all the difference. From Ginsburg’s dissent:
We all make choices about medical supplies and procedures based on price.
I mentioned that I have a choice of cataract surgeries — one thousand or eight thousand dollars — based on getting what the government provides or what I want.
There are forms of birth control that cost just a few dollars a month.
If you allow the government to decide what procedures and supplies are available, it will eventually decide that expensive procedures are not cost effective. This includes such life-saving procedures as MRIs.
The rich and politically connected are always going to have Rolls Royce healthcare, regardless of the nominal system. Whether this translates to longer lifespan is debatable, but it’s definitely more comfortable to be rich. Of all the options, there is not one on the table that makes everyone poor. People in power — whether corporate bigwigs or politicians — will always have more choices.
petrushka,
None of that changes the fact that IUDs (and cataract surgery) are “big-ticket items” for most Americans. We are not talking about “ordinary purchases”.
I strongly disagree with your characterization:
You are free to have your opinions. The same government you trust to make medical decisions for everyone does not see fit to consider deafness a problem in seniors. Nor dental care. Neither are provided for by Medicare.
The procedure you are focusing on is expensive, but it is one of a rather vast array of options, and is probably the single most expensive. If you think the need for Cadillac contraceptive is more important than my hearing and vision, then we will simply disagree. This is how it is when politics is substituted for the marketplace. Everyone winds up hating anyone who is perceived to be receiving some special privilege.
petrushka,
How is something that costs nearly a month’s full-time pay NOT a “big-ticket item”?
I don’t see how you can defend this statement:
One thousand dollars spread over 120 months works out to about eight dollars a a month.
Second, anyone really living on minimum wage can get assistance with surgical expenses.
Second, anyone really living on minimum wage can get assistance with surgical expenses.
I wouldn’t think you’d approve of that either. Isn’t any such support a result of “lawmakers [being] in the business of deciding what should be covered and what should not”?
I don’t see the connection.
I do not have an ideological opposition to welfare and subsidies.
Just as the community could give school bucks or provide schooling, it could give med bucks or provide medical treatment or provide insurance, or provide insurance premium subsidies for products that pass its tests. For various reasons (some good, some bad, IMO), the Congress has chosen to do the last of these.
I take it you seem to like the idea of providing cash best. It’s less paternalistic, certainly, but, as I’m sure you know, there are problems with such schemes. In any case, as I’ve said above, the way to get laws you like better than the ones we have should not involve Bible thumping and personal exemptions.
keiths:
petrushka:
Right, and the cost of any “big-ticket item” can be amortized. So? They’re still big-ticket items.
Sorry, petrushka, this doesn’t make sense.
There isn’t an installment-plan for IUD purchases, not at most health-care providers, there isn’t.
And when you’re a mother working at Hobby Lobby for just above minimum wage, as their store employees do, then you’re at or just above the Federal poverty line. Your family (probably) qualifies for food stamps, free school lunches … you already can’t feed the two kids you’ve got; you’re not going to be able to set aside
2 million, out of 3.3 Billion revenue.
Is your point that we, as taxpayers, should pick up that $8/month for 5 years because it’s Hobby Lobby’s god-given right to get away with paying their employees a less-than living wage? To get away with pretending that their “religious beliefs” are more important than everyone else’s democratically-passed laws and regulations? Then, no, I don’t agree with you. The taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay for his employee’s birth control when
1 he/his corporation can afford it far more easily than you or I;
2. he’s lying about his objection to it since he’s happy to profit from investments in companies which manufacture/sell the birth control he supposedly objects to – and he’s happy to source most of his goods from China with their strong pro-abortion policies;
3. he got the benefit of the corrupt gang of 5 Supremes and their Catholic 1900s theology which explicitly silenced our (secular) voices;
4. corporations/employers always have asymmetric power over their employees; it’s immoral for us to abet that.
Other corporations are – at least so far – playing fair and providing a balanced health insurance plan to all their employees. Why should David Green get away with costing you and me money just because he pretends to have “beliefs”?
That may well be but that wasn’t the question before the court.
The issue was whether the government’s interest in the provision of birth control was sufficiently compelling to justify forcing the owners of a closely-held corporation to act against their deeply-held religious beliefs by offering to their employees health insurance which included the provision of abortifacient birth control.
Put simply, we can all agree that people should have access to contraception but why should an employer be forced to pay for it when it’s against his or her faith? We may disagree with those beliefs but is that sufficient reason to set aside their First Amendment rights? Shouldn’t we always be mindful of the danger that lightly brushing aside the constitutional rights of others makes it easier for others to dispossess us of our own?
Hotshoe:
My problem is I do not think the government should be mandating insurance coverage in detail.
Right now it appears to be a good thing, because all the bells and whistles have been thrown in. Why not? It’s all free, because employers are paying for it.
But five or ten years down the road the benefits will shrink. I know this will happen, because I’ve seen it happen with Medicare. And VA? The waiting list for a hearing aid is about a year. Assuming someone doesn’t just disappear you from the waiting list.
You think five to 900 dollars is a lot of money? If I got the mandated insurance for my wife, it would be 900 dollars a month. That’s more than I have left over after mortgage and loan payments.
Except for the dominionists who are actively working to prevent anyone from having legal access to any kind of contraception whatsoever, so it depends on who you mean by “we” …
Well, given what as that’s the lies the Catholics told about the case, it’s terribly disappointing to see you falling for it. Two reasons, which have been explained over and over again.
First, because David Green was not paying for contraception, he was paying for health insurance coverage which might – or might not – have been used to pay for a woman’s contraception, but he would never know for certain that it ever had, because HIPAA. It’s not a moral burden to him what other people do with their insurance; he’s lying about that (along with the Catholics and the rest of the religious wierdos) as part of their effort to excuse their otherwise inexcusable effort to interfere with women’s private decisions.
Second, because even if it’s a burden to him, tough shit. People’s “beliefs” are in conflict with civil obligations all the time. If you’re going to pretend that people shouldn’t be “forced to pay” when it really really hurts their feelings to, we might as well say goodbye to any hope of civilization. You, I, everyone is “forced to pay” taxes for things which directly – not indirectly like paying for insurance which might not be used for contraception – directly purchases things which are horribly offensive to our beliefs.
Nuclear bombs. Strange, isn’t it, that the Supremes don’t rule that I have a “right” not to be forced to pay for nuclear bombs in spite of my fierce beliefs against them; strange that the only “belief” they grant a special “right” to is the belief that women should be denied affordable health care because the Pope says so. Strange that you would be on the Pope’s side.
yes, of course it’s a sufficient reason in a secular society to not allow any one delusion (or several sects’ worth of delusions) to be granted special status. The only way for all citizens of all religions and no religion to be equal is to deny them all from having special privilege based on “belief”.
You’re just wrong again. In case you hadn’t noticed, this case was not a FA case. Even those assholes didn’t try to spin it by pretending that the government was violating their FA rights.
Nope.
You’re welcome to think highly of yourself for how carefully you respect the “rights” of someone who intends me – and our entire secular society – to have no rights whatsoever unless we bow to their genocidal misogynistic homophobic god. But no thanks, you’re not an ally of ours. You’re on the wrong side, being tolerant of intolerance, and willingly giving special privileges to those demanding them as their birthright only as christians. The special privileges you grant them are what directly dispossess me of my rights. That’s on you.
Why? Why? Why would you think it’s acceptable to scold me for not being sufficiently “mindful” of David Green’s hoked-up “right” to break the law? Why aren’t you scolding him for being un-mindful of everyone else whose different faith he’s trampling on? Why do you respect christian lawbreakers more than you respect the rest of us, your secular neighbors, and the non-christian faithful? Why are you siding with the odious bigots and expecting us to think you’re an admirably-careful thinker for how well you defend their bigotry?
Petrushka,
I’m sorry, I’m really not understanding what you’re saying here. I’m sure you’re making sense, so it must be that I’m just not getting it. I don’t know if I agree or disagree with things you’re saying. Maybe you should give me up for a lost cause here.
I will say this, though: I don’t think our government should mandate the purchase of health insurance — and I’m pretty sure that makes us in agreement, right? I think our supposed representatives failed to actually represent us, but honestly I don’t know what else they could have done given the conflicting interests and the disaster of lack of health care pre-ACA. A majority of USAians felt that Something. Must. Be. Done. And something was.
keiths, to SeverskyP35:
SeverskyP35:
It’s entirely relevant. Health insurance is a form of compensation, just as wages are. If scenario #1 is acceptable, then why not scenario #2?
Keiths, if your two scenarios are equivalent, why not allow number one? Why not allow people to choose?
petrushka:
They aren’t equivalent, especially not from Cecile’s standpoint. They’re merely morally equivalent in the sense I described:
petrushka:
Do you mean, why not allow employees to choose to receive cash in lieu of health insurance?
The question has arisen, why not allow employees to choose to receive cash in lieu of health insurance? It seems to me that a good reason is that the employer, by negotiating for many employees, can negotiate a better deal than the individual can. But the employer, in negotiating should consider it a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to get the best product available for the employees, and surely the employees should have some say in determining what is the best deal. The health insurance provided is a part of a compensation package – compensation for work performed. After the work is performed the compensation belongs, surely, to the employee, not the employer. If the employer chooses one health insurance product rather than another legal product, based on his, the employer’s, religious convictions, is that not a violation of the religious liberty of the employees? I know nothing of the law. Does the employer have a legal obligation to allow his employers religious liberty in this situation? Does the employer’s right to religious liberty trump the employee’s right to religious liberty?
The best case for government involvement is the fact that people differ from birth in their need for healthcare. On the other hand, like auto insurance, people also differ in their need based on their behavior.
It’s a very complex and dynamic system.
On one hand, we do not want a system that leaves reckless people lying half dead in the street, and on the other hand, most people would like to see people who abuse the system pay more. And the phrase,. abuse the system, has various meanings. Are people who engage in promiscuous sex and acquire expensive diseases abusing the system? When they are broke,do we allow them to die?
Do smokers and overweight people pay more?
I don’t feel qualified to make these decisions, and I have no ideological answers, even though I have personal feelings about them.
When the government subsidizes insurance, we run into odd dynamics. For example, smokers and obese people require more healthcare, but they die earlier and reduce the cost of Social Security payments.
Perhaps a good evolutionary algorithm could optimize these conflicting needs. However, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a rational approach. As usual, the optimization will be determined by buying votes from interest groups.
No. The best argument is what happens when you don’t have government involvement.
We’ve all seen it. People go uninsured. Then they get sick, and go to the emergency room of the hospital. Then they fail to pay their bills. And then the medical providers increase their prices, to cover the loss. This causes huge inflation in medical costs. It is a terribly inefficient system.
I’m not a big fan of ACA (or Obama Care). I would have preferred a single payer system. But already, ACA is improving the situation over what we had before.
From my perspective it makes little difference but from Hobby Lobby‘s perspective it clearly does. If they are compelled by law to offer health insurance which must include birth control methods that they regard as equivalent to abortion – something to which they are directly opposed on religious grounds – then that is arguably an undue burden on the free exercise of their religion. Whether we agree with those beliefs is irrelevant We may find the Muslim prohibition against the consumption of pork to be absurd. Does that mean the state is entitled to compel Muslim butchers to prepare and sell pork or are we bound to respect their constitutional right to practice their religion as they choose, provided it does not infringe on the rights of others?
My view, as was argued, is that the state may only abridge the constitutional rights of citizens if it can show it has a compelling interest in so doing and that it is the least burdensome of the alternatives available.
I believe that men and women should be entitled to access to all legal methods of birth control. I also believe that we should respect the right of all men and women to practice the religion of their choice, provided that practice does not infringe on the rights of others. If someone has a deep religious objection to abortion, on what grounds are we entitled to compel them to provide access to a service that includes what they regard as tantamount to abortion-on-demand?
The fact that health insurance is offered as a form of compensation does not mean it is the same in all respects as remuneration in the form of wages. Employers do not routinely specify what employees may spend their wages on and, I would argue, they have no right to do so. A health insurance plan, on the other hand, in this case requires the provision of certain specified services, one of which is birth control. Amongst the specified methods of birth control are those which Hobby Lobby regards as abortion. They do not as far as I am aware, object to paying women wages but they do object to being required by law to provide, as part of health insurance, access to abortion on demand when they find that deeply offensive on religious grounds. On what grounds are we entitled to override those objections and compel them to provide access to what they regard as methods of abortion?
“If someone has a deep religious objection to abortion, on what grounds are we entitled to compel them to provide access to a service that includes what they regard as tantamount to abortion-on-demand?”
As keiths has asked, why isn’t payment of salary to one who intends to use it for an abortion also providing access to a service which the employer abhors on religious grounds? I’d think the only solution to this made-up quandary would to be for every employer to ensure that all its employees are paid an amount that is too low for them to afford an abortion without assistance from elsewhere.
I suspect this discussion is now deceased, but I feel compelled to pile on to the question that’s been left unanswered. Seversky35’s argument appeared to be that it was the fact that companies were being compelled by the government to pay for health insurance that may be used for birth control purposes was the problem. I’ve encountered this argument before, and there seems to be a way to put it to rest.
Employers are compelled by the government to pay a minimum wage which employees MUST be able to use to purchase birth control that the employer erroneously but sincerely believes to cause birth control.
I see no distinction that keeps the employers sincere beliefs from being effected the same by both forms of compensation.
Because being required by law to provide specific health insurance plans which include the specific provision of abortifacient methods of birth control effectively makes the provider complicit in the provision of abortion. As an aside, It could also be interpreted as implying an endorsement of abortion. Paying a salary to an employee does not involve a commitment to the specific provision of abortion nor does it imply approval of it.
The owners of Hobby Lobby strongly object to abortion on religious grounds. They do not approve of it and do not want to be forced to provide access to it. Whether we agree with those beliefs or not and allowing that there is no such thing as an untrammeled right to anything, they have a constitutional right to practice their faith as they choose. In order to place any restrictions on that constitutional freedom the state must show a compelling reason why they should be applied. Again, if we expect others to respect our constitutional rights we should be prepared to stand up for those of others whether we like them or not.
I certainly agree with the proposal of a minimum wage. In fact, I would like to see it available worldwide, especially in those countries that are founding their rapid economic growth on the exploitation of vast pools of very cheap labor.
Of course, a third way round the religious objection would be the creation of a national heathcare system like the UK’s National Health Service, paid for out of taxation. That relieves the employer of the burden of providing healthcare, including birth control.
Okay. I’ve been self-employed and uninsured since a few months after 9/11. Now I have Social Security, but my wife is uninsured. On top of that, I will pay a penalty for being uninsured. Even if I stopped eating I could not pay for the minimum bronze plan. I have had no heat or air-conditioning. My roof leaks and the plaster is falling in from the ceiling.
A few years ago I had emergency surgery. I had the surgery instead of paying taxes. Now I am paying more than half my income in taxes. I get an allowance for the IRS to live on. It includes $125 a month for medical and dental expenses. That’s going to pay for things already done.
Last year someone in the IRS pushed the wrong button and tried to garnish 100 percent of my wages. When I called to complain — and after a two hour wait — the woman who answered joked about the situation and said sometimes the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. She not only failed to correct the error, she could not tell me who might be able to. When I lost my temper, she called the police and had me locked up for a week.
I am generally a sensible person. Some of you have seen me post here and at AtBC for several years. I have a few odd opinions, but I am not politically extreme. But my personal history with the government is not very good. My earliest encounter with the government was being drafted and sent to Vietnam.
For seven years I was the government. I worked in children’s protective services and had the power to take peoples’ children. I saw how welfare works and what it does to people. I was not happy with what I saw.
You have some opinions about what happens without government, and I have some first-hand observations of what it can do. Obviously our personal experiences differ.
FWIW, petrushka, if we’d had decent national medical care, like most sensible countries for some time, you’d never have had all the crap with the IRS, and your roof wouldn’t be leaking now. That kind of Hobson’s choice you had to make was a function of too little gov’t, not too much.
Also, I’ve spent considerably more time in government work than you have (as has my wife), and neither of us has any illusions about its omniscience. It’s quite fallible, and since powerful, it’s dangerous. (Watch a few episodes of ‘Veep’ for examples.) But those are necessary evils of civilization. Even Madison recognized this. Even Paine!
That must be why rich Brits go private and why rich Canadians go south for medical care. It’s good to be rich, and it sucks to have bad luck. It also sucks to be on the wrong end of a clerical error made by an omnipotent agency.
I don’t have a political ideology. I just have a collection of personal experiences. And boundless rage at the machine.
By the way, I have VA benefits. Would you like to talk about the VA?
Am I reading this right? You were imprisoned for a week for shouting at someone during a telephone call?
The level of care and expertise is the same whether opting for NHS or private treatment (the consultants generally work for both systems). The advantages of private treatment seem more to do with timing (avoiding waiting lists), choice of specialist and quality of accommodation than with medical and surgical procedures.
In a psychiatric hospital. The advantage of jail is you have access to a lawyer.
My commiserations seem inadequate. Nevertheless, you have them. The people best able to abuse a system are those who run it.