| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 |
|
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by 2BadSoSad
Thing is, their religious freedom was NEVER infridged upon. A corporation is NOT a person. ..
Actually, according to the SCOTUS 2010 Citizens United decision, a corporation IS considered a "person" under the law.
Justice Alito explained why corporations should sometimes be regarded as persons. “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends,” he wrote. “When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people."
As to the Hobby Lobby ruling, I think some of the posters should read the actual decision and not rely on soundbytes. While I am concerned about the general direction the Court is taking on women's reproductive rights/issues, the ruling here was legally correct.
The Court properly applied the "least restrictive means" test under the Constitution to these particular set of facts. Much of Ginsburg's dissent was hyperbolic because Alito clearly stated the decision applied only to private/closely held corporations, it also stated that not any company can just file a claim based on impingement of religious freedoms. Each case has to be reviewed on its own individual merits/circumstances.
Message edited 7/1/2014 10:52:00 AM.
|
Posted 7/1/14 10:46 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
mnmsoinlove
Mommy to 2 sweet girls!
Member since 3/09 8585 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by 2BadSoSad
The precedent it sets is beyond frightening.
ITA!!! It's really disgusting!
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:47 AM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by MrsM0829
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see at as an infringement upon a woman's reproductive rights. While an employer may not have to offer a health plan that covers birth control, the employer cannot prevent female employees from obtaining it. I've had to pay OOP for OCP to treat endo in the past because the brand I needed wasn't covered by my insurance. It's not that expensive and wasn't really that big a deal.
And corporations are treated, for legal reasons, as a "person" for many purposes, so that aspect of the ruling is nothing new.
Women finally scored a victory when the ACA gave them (us) the ability to obtain BC for free. You may have been able to afford your BC and didn't find it expensive but there are thousands of women who use it not only for BC but for medical problems, as you yourself did, and do find it expensive or are unable to afford it. So yes, it is a big problem.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:49 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54917 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by ElizaRags35
Posted by MrsM0829
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see at as an infringement upon a woman's reproductive rights. While an employer may not have to offer a health plan that covers birth control, the employer cannot prevent female employees from obtaining it. I've had to pay OOP for OCP to treat endo in the past because the brand I needed wasn't covered by my insurance. It's not that expensive and wasn't really that big a deal.
And corporations are treated, for legal reasons, as a "person" for many purposes, so that aspect of the ruling is nothing new.
Women finally scored a victory when the ACA gave them (us) the ability to obtain BC for free. You may have been able to afford your BC and didn't find it expensive but there are thousands of women who use it not only for BC but for medical problems, as you yourself did, and do find it expensive or are unable to afford it. So yes, it is a big problem.
I'm confused though. If your MD determines you need the BC for MEDICAL reasons, of which I know there are many, why shouldn't it be covered? It's not being used to control birth at that point, but as a hormonal therapy.
There has to be a way around that.
If there isn't ,that is insanity!
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:53 AM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by Pumpkin1
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by MsSissy
Well ain't that some shit.
Money Money Money
It's ALWAYS about the money when it comes to these corporations.
Make no mistake. It's never about religion, or beliefs or anything other than the almighty dollar.
Even things like hospitals not providing formula or making the babies room in. They claim it's to be "baby friendly" but let's face it. It's ALL about the money.
This is what I mean.....it goes to show you its not about their "religious" freedom, it is about "sticking" it to Obamacare. It is vaguely shrouded in "religious freedom".
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:54 AM |
| |
|
McSullivan
.
Member since 5/05 1573 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Birth control is still covered. There are four drugs that are not covered, but women will still have access to them. They are not being banned or outlawed.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:54 AM |
| |
|
AngnShaun
Sisters
Member since 1/10 21015 total posts
Name:
Ang
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by ElizaRags35
Posted by MrsM0829
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see at as an infringement upon a woman's reproductive rights. While an employer may not have to offer a health plan that covers birth control, the employer cannot prevent female employees from obtaining it. I've had to pay OOP for OCP to treat endo in the past because the brand I needed wasn't covered by my insurance. It's not that expensive and wasn't really that big a deal.
And corporations are treated, for legal reasons, as a "person" for many purposes, so that aspect of the ruling is nothing new.
Women finally scored a victory when the ACA gave them (us) the ability to obtain BC for free. You may have been able to afford your BC and didn't find it expensive but there are thousands of women who use it not only for BC but for medical problems, as you yourself did, and do find it expensive or are unable to afford it. So yes, it is a big problem.
I'm confused though. If your MD determines you need the BC for MEDICAL reasons, of which I know there are many, why shouldn't it be covered? It's not being used to control birth at that point, but as a hormonal therapy.
There has to be a way around that.
If there isn't ,that is insanity!
Sounds like the medical world should figure out a new name for it when its not used to prevent pregnancy.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:56 AM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Posted by 2BadSoSad
Thing is, their religious freedom was NEVER infridged upon. A corporation is NOT a person. ..
Actually, according to the SCOTUS 2010 Citizens United decision, a corporation IS considered a "person" under the law.
Justice Alito explained why corporations should sometimes be regarded as persons. “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends,” he wrote. “When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people."
As to the Hobby Lobby ruling, I think some of the posters should read the actual decision and not rely on soundbytes. While I am concerned about the general direction the Court is taking on women's reproductive rights/issues, the ruling here was legally correct.
The Court properly applied the "least restrictive means" test under the Constitution to these particular set of facts. Much of Ginsburg's dissent was hyperbolic because Alito clearly stated the decision applied only to private/closely held corporations, it also stated that not any company can just file a claim based on impingement of religious freedoms. Each case has to be reviewed on its own individual merits/circumstances.
There are two sides to every story. Four of the justices didnt feel this was "legally" correct.
Additionally, I meant by "a person" that the Green's hid behind the veil of their Corporation when it was in fact about the rights of PEOPLE, of Women, of their PERSONAL BELIEFS as PEOPLE. It was about the best interest of the Corporation.
And could you be a little more condescending about "soundbytes" I have followed every single moment of this case.
Even if it is "legally" correct that doesn't make it OK. There are a lot things that are "legally" correct that I don't agree with and have a huge problem with. At one point in our history, there were some abominations that at the time were regarded as "legally" correct, that have been since overturned. The courts have been known to be wrong.
Honestly, I dont give a sh!t about the "technical legalities" of this case, I give a sh!t about the precedent it sets. There is no set of "legalities" that is going to make this sit well or be OK with me.
Message edited 7/1/2014 11:02:28 AM.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:59 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Food for thought:
Hobby Lobby insurance provides 100% coverage (no co-pay) for Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries and Female sterilization implants.
For what appears to be based on genuine religious beliefs, they don't want to pay for IUD or the morning after pill. .
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:59 AM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by ElizaRags35
Posted by MrsM0829
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see at as an infringement upon a woman's reproductive rights. While an employer may not have to offer a health plan that covers birth control, the employer cannot prevent female employees from obtaining it. I've had to pay OOP for OCP to treat endo in the past because the brand I needed wasn't covered by my insurance. It's not that expensive and wasn't really that big a deal.
And corporations are treated, for legal reasons, as a "person" for many purposes, so that aspect of the ruling is nothing new.
Women finally scored a victory when the ACA gave them (us) the ability to obtain BC for free. You may have been able to afford your BC and didn't find it expensive but there are thousands of women who use it not only for BC but for medical problems, as you yourself did, and do find it expensive or are unable to afford it. So yes, it is a big problem.
I'm confused though. If your MD determines you need the BC for MEDICAL reasons, of which I know there are many, why shouldn't it be covered? It's not being used to control birth at that point, but as a hormonal therapy.
There has to be a way around that.
If there isn't ,that is insanity!
someone pointed out this is like braces or other types of medical needs considered elective or cosmetic. I had my lump in my breast removed purely based on it being an unknown lump (cyst) but the doc told me very clearly that it was nothing dangerous and could stay (it was VERY annoyingly rubbing on my chest and caused much discomfort). He said it was considered 'cosmetic' and he had to put me through 2 more tests to validate it for the insurance to pay.
Turn around and ClaritinD is over the counter which very much affected my budget. I used to get a month's supply for $10 now its ridiculously expensive.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 11:11 AM |
| |
|
MrsM0829
... With a cherry on top!!!
Member since 11/09 1332 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by ElizaRags35
Posted by MrsM0829
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see at as an infringement upon a woman's reproductive rights. While an employer may not have to offer a health plan that covers birth control, the employer cannot prevent female employees from obtaining it. I've had to pay OOP for OCP to treat endo in the past because the brand I needed wasn't covered by my insurance. It's not that expensive and wasn't really that big a deal.
And corporations are treated, for legal reasons, as a "person" for many purposes, so that aspect of the ruling is nothing new.
Women finally scored a victory when the ACA gave them (us) the ability to obtain BC for free. You may have been able to afford your BC and didn't find it expensive but there are thousands of women who use it not only for BC but for medical problems, as you yourself did, and do find it expensive or are unable to afford it. So yes, it is a big problem.
I really don't see free BC as a "victory" for women. I think the real outrage should be that the medical community isn't doing more to find effective treatments for the medical conditions for which OCP is currently one of the only options.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 11:13 AM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Hobby Lobby ruling?
Look, they aren't saying you can't buy birth control they already cover that in their health plan. They fought to say they didn't have to pay for the morning after pill. Which I'm a little more wavering on (still not 100% against it because it should be part of a rape kit, really).
BUT if you want to say they can do this, then you should then SUPPORT planned parenthood so those who do have a need can access affordable safe medical assistance.
but that's my $0.02
|
| Posted 7/1/14 11:13 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Food for thought:
Hobby Lobby insurance provides 100% coverage (no co-pay) for Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries and Female sterilization implants.
For what appears to be based on genuine religious beliefs, they don't want to pay for IUD or the morning after pill. .
Correct, I believe it was 4 specific things they did not want covered, because they may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. I am as pro choice as they come. My real issue here is that once again a corporation is being treated as a person (based on prior SCOTUS ruling) which is the bigger problem. I have no issue if an actual religious organization that employs people wants to limit what is covered due to religious beliefs. I do take issue religious zealots that chose to be business owners and employ people get this same protection. Honestly, I hope this feeds the fire to sever healthcare from our employment and allows for either universal coverage or a true free market where we can shop coverage we want and need. I also feel that the one thing SCOTUS got right (again based on their previous rulings about corporations and not that I agree with it) was the separation of church and state by not allowing a government mandate to force someone to go against their beliefs. Slippery slope as it may be, it has to work both ways.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 11:14 AM |
| |
|
McSullivan
.
Member since 5/05 1573 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by BaseballWidow
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Food for thought:
Hobby Lobby insurance provides 100% coverage (no co-pay) for Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries and Female sterilization implants.
For what appears to be based on genuine religious beliefs, they don't want to pay for IUD or the morning after pill. .
Correct, I believe it was 4 specific things they did not want covered, because they may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. I am as pro choice as they come. My real issue here is that once again a corporation is being treated as a person (based on prior SCOTUS ruling) which is the bigger problem. I have no issue if an actual religious organization that employs people wants to limit what is covered due to religious beliefs. I do take issue religious zealots that chose to be business owners and employ people get this same protection. Honestly, I hope this feeds the fire to sever healthcare from our employment and allows for either universal coverage or a true free market where we can shop coverage we want and need. I also feel that the one thing SCOTUS got right (again based on their previous rulings about corporations and not that I agree with it) was the separation of church and state by not allowing a government mandate to force someone to go against their beliefs. Slippery slope as it may be, it has to work both ways.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 11:18 AM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Hobby Lobby ruling?
I really hope the employees of Hobby Lobby hit this company with a discrimination lawsuit.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 11:36 AM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by BaseballWidow
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Food for thought:
Hobby Lobby insurance provides 100% coverage (no co-pay) for Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries and Female sterilization implants.
For what appears to be based on genuine religious beliefs, they don't want to pay for IUD or the morning after pill. .
Correct, I believe it was 4 specific things they did not want covered, because they may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. I am as pro choice as they come. My real issue here is that once again a corporation is being treated as a person (based on prior SCOTUS ruling) which is the bigger problem. I have no issue if an actual religious organization that employs people wants to limit what is covered due to religious beliefs. I do take issue religious zealots that chose to be business owners and employ people get this same protection. Honestly, I hope this feeds the fire to sever healthcare from our employment and allows for either universal coverage or a true free market where we can shop coverage we want and need. I also feel that the one thing SCOTUS got right (again based on their previous rulings about corporations and not that I agree with it) was the separation of church and state by not allowing a government mandate to force someone to go against their beliefs. Slippery slope as it may be, it has to work both ways.
well said
|
| Posted 7/1/14 11:39 AM |
| |
|
smiles
Life is good!
Member since 2/06 1450 total posts
Name:
S
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by Pumpkin1
I really hope the employees of Hobby Lobby hit this company with a discrimination lawsuit.
Discrimination against what... not paying for their morning after pilll? There are no grounds for discrimination against anyone.
They are very public about their beliefs. If you need to have coverage for your IUD or morning after pill... work for someone else.
I went for an interview a few years ago and the company did not have dental insurance. They told me up front and it was my choice whether or not I wanted to work for them. Should I sue them because I have teeth and they won't cover them.
My husbands current company has now gone to "self insurance". The scary part is that this is legal now under Obamacare. They only cover preventative care 100%. That means we get one well visit a year. Everything else is out of pocket until we hit our 9000.00 deductible. Oh and that doubles if we go out of network (ie. go to an emergency room). I would take Hobby Lobby's insurance in a heartbeat.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 12:12 PM |
| |
|
TheDollyMama
LIF Adolescent
Member since 4/13 538 total posts
Name:
DollyMama
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by Pumpkin1
I really hope the employees of Hobby Lobby hit this company with a discrimination lawsuit.
Why? They would most definitely lose.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 12:13 PM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by TheDollyMama
Posted by Pumpkin1
I really hope the employees of Hobby Lobby hit this company with a discrimination lawsuit.
Why? They would most definitely lose.
I will pose the same question to you, why not? The issue of discrimination was not addressed in the court's decision. Being female is a constitutionally protected class.
Message edited 7/1/2014 12:23:53 PM.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 12:22 PM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by smiles
Posted by Pumpkin1
I really hope the employees of Hobby Lobby hit this company with a discrimination lawsuit.
Discrimination against what... not paying for their morning after pilll? There are no grounds for discrimination against anyone.
They are very public about their beliefs. If you need to have coverage for your IUD or morning after pill... work for someone else.
I went for an interview a few years ago and the company did not have dental insurance. They told me up front and it was my choice whether or not I wanted to work for them. Should I sue them because I have teeth and they won't cover them.
My husbands current company has now gone to "self insurance". The scary part is that this is legal now under Obamacare. They only cover preventative care 100%. That means we get one well visit a year. Everything else is out of pocket until we hit our 9000.00 deductible. Oh and that doubles if we go out of network (ie. go to an emergency room). I would take Hobby Lobby's insurance in a heartbeat.
*snip* Meh.. self insured means something else but not worth splitting hairs so I removed it..
I remember when HMO was the coolest thing out there to be on. LOL I'm old then the craze for a PPO and now the best option is a very High Deductible with an HSA (fully refundable to me as its my money and not use it or lose it) to offset that deductible.
But I agree with you - you don't HAVE to work for a company if you don't like their benefit package. I feel Obamacare has allowed more employers to reduce offerings since they don't have to offer anything the government isn't offering (the minimum acceptable levels) and if you don't like it? Buy it from Uncle Sam. My whole purpose of job shopping used to have a large section set aside for the benefit package. Times are changing tho. *sigh* Now I look for enough money to survive and hope the benefits are at least acceptable enough to not cost me so much that the pay increase would be offset by healthcare costs.
Message edited 7/1/2014 12:56:02 PM.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 12:26 PM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by MrsM0829
Posted by ElizaRags35
Posted by MrsM0829
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see at as an infringement upon a woman's reproductive rights. While an employer may not have to offer a health plan that covers birth control, the employer cannot prevent female employees from obtaining it. I've had to pay OOP for OCP to treat endo in the past because the brand I needed wasn't covered by my insurance. It's not that expensive and wasn't really that big a deal.
And corporations are treated, for legal reasons, as a "person" for many purposes, so that aspect of the ruling is nothing new.
Women finally scored a victory when the ACA gave them (us) the ability to obtain BC for free. You may have been able to afford your BC and didn't find it expensive but there are thousands of women who use it not only for BC but for medical problems, as you yourself did, and do find it expensive or are unable to afford it. So yes, it is a big problem.
I really don't see free BC as a "victory" for women. I think the real outrage should be that the medical community isn't doing more to find effective treatments for the medical conditions for which OCP is currently one of the only options.
To each their own.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 12:47 PM |
| |
|
TheDollyMama
LIF Adolescent
Member since 4/13 538 total posts
Name:
DollyMama
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by Pumpkin1
Posted by TheDollyMama
Posted by Pumpkin1
I really hope the employees of Hobby Lobby hit this company with a discrimination lawsuit.
Why? They would most definitely lose.
I will pose the same question to you, why not? The issue of discrimination was not addressed in the court's decision. Being female is a constitutionally protected class.
Because being in a protected class is not without limits. In addition, the contraception is not covered by insurance for ANY employee. Not just females. It is not discrimination.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 12:50 PM |
| |
|
kahlua716
3 Girls for Me!
Member since 8/07 12475 total posts
Name:
Keri
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by BaseballWidow
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Food for thought:
Hobby Lobby insurance provides 100% coverage (no co-pay) for Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries and Female sterilization implants.
For what appears to be based on genuine religious beliefs, they don't want to pay for IUD or the morning after pill. .
Correct, I believe it was 4 specific things they did not want covered, because they may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. I am as pro choice as they come. My real issue here is that once again a corporation is being treated as a person (based on prior SCOTUS ruling) which is the bigger problem. I have no issue if an actual religious organization that employs people wants to limit what is covered due to religious beliefs. I do take issue religious zealots that chose to be business owners and employ people get this same protection. Honestly, I hope this feeds the fire to sever healthcare from our employment and allows for either universal coverage or a true free market where we can shop coverage we want and need. I also feel that the one thing SCOTUS got right (again based on their previous rulings about corporations and not that I agree with it) was the separation of church and state by not allowing a government mandate to force someone to go against their beliefs. Slippery slope as it may be, it has to work both ways.
I tend to agree with this. I am not outraged by this decision. If they said no BC AT ALL- that would be one thing.
ETA: I wasn't aware that insurance covered the morning after pill anyhow. Isn't it available OTC to anyone over 17?
Message edited 7/1/2014 2:50:15 PM.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 2:49 PM |
| |
|
peanutbutter2
Carpe diem!
Member since 11/10 5287 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by kahlua716
Posted by BaseballWidow
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Food for thought:
Hobby Lobby insurance provides 100% coverage (no co-pay) for Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries and Female sterilization implants.
For what appears to be based on genuine religious beliefs, they don't want to pay for IUD or the morning after pill. .
Correct, I believe it was 4 specific things they did not want covered, because they may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. I am as pro choice as they come. My real issue here is that once again a corporation is being treated as a person (based on prior SCOTUS ruling) which is the bigger problem. I have no issue if an actual religious organization that employs people wants to limit what is covered due to religious beliefs. I do take issue religious zealots that chose to be business owners and employ people get this same protection. Honestly, I hope this feeds the fire to sever healthcare from our employment and allows for either universal coverage or a true free market where we can shop coverage we want and need. I also feel that the one thing SCOTUS got right (again based on their previous rulings about corporations and not that I agree with it) was the separation of church and state by not allowing a government mandate to force someone to go against their beliefs. Slippery slope as it may be, it has to work both ways.
I tend to agree with this. I am not outraged by this decision. If they said no BC AT ALL- that would be one thing.
ETA: I wasn't aware that insurance covered the morning after pill anyhow. Isn't it available OTC to anyone over 17?
I'm pretty sure anyone can walk into Planned Parenthood and get it...
|
| Posted 7/1/14 3:10 PM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by MsSissy
Well ain't that some shit.
Money Money Money
It's ALWAYS about the money when it comes to these corporations.
Make no mistake. It's never about religion, or beliefs or anything other than the almighty dollar.
Even things like hospitals not providing formula or making the babies room in. They claim it's to be "baby friendly" but let's face it. It's ALL about the money.
Religion is used/admissible as an excuse when it's really all about the money... and that's what's frightening.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 3:16 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 |
