Health Care and Contraception: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right?

[Brian]

Should religious family-owned companies be required to cover contraceptives under their insurance plans? The high court says no.

I'm curious how you nurses feel about this? Please take a second to vote in our quick poll.

This is a highly political topic, I'd rather not turn this into a hot argumentative subject, so please keep your comments civil :) But please feel free to comment. Thanks

Here is an article on the topic:

Hobby Lobby Ruling Cuts Into Contraceptive Mandate

In a 5-4 decision Monday, the Supreme Court allowed a key exemption to the health law's contraception coverage requirements when it ruled that closely held for-profit businesses could assert a religious objection to the Obama administration's regulations. What does it mean? Here are some questions and answers about the case.What did the court's ruling do?

The court's majority said that the for-profit companies that filed suit-Hobby Lobby Stores, a nationwide chain of 500 arts and crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a maker of custom cabinets-didn't have to offer female employeesall Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptivesas part of a package of preventive services that must be covered without copays or deductibles under the law. The companies had argued that several types of contraceptivesviolate their owners' religious beliefs. The ruling also covers a Hobby Lobby subsidiary, the Mardel Christian bookstores.

[Muser69]

Supreme Court judges should all be atheists. Only fair way to judge separation of church and state.

[elkpark]

Religion and religious beliefs have always been respected in many arenas worldwide.

And for that I'm grateful. I agree with the ruling.

No one is disputing the religious beliefs of the business owners involved in the suit; just their right to impose their own, personal beliefs on their employees.

[MunoRN, RN]

I think there's maybe some confusion about what the supreme court ruled. They didn't actually rule that Hobby Lobby can't in some way be required to subsidize all types of birth control for their employees. They ruled that the less restrictive ways of doing this must be used.

Justice Alito made a few suggestions of less restrictive ways of doing this, which included requiring providers or insurers to provide contraception for free for those with employer provided plans, the providers or insurers would then be reimbursed by the government (with funds that come from taxes, which Hobby Lobby is still required to pay). This seems equally restrictive to me.

I'm curious if people who support this decision also support that employers can still be required to cover all contraception, just with an added moral money laundering step in between.

[Been there,done that, ASN, RN]

Of course they didn't get it right. They put the rights of corporations over the rights of the individual.

But we all know SCOTUS is bought and paid for by the 1 %.

[toomuchbaloney]

Why can the owners incorporate to create legal distance between themselves and their business for financial reasons then choose to ignore that distance in order to apply their personal religious beliefs to the corporation so that their beliefs may be imposed upon the employees?

Why do those justices feel this expression of religious belief is valuable and relevant but the Native American use of peyote or cannabis is not(as they previously determined)? Why do the justices believe that this only very narrowly applies to contraception and not to other religious beliefs? Why does the SCOTUS view the religious beliefs of the corporation have more value than the religious beliefs of the employee or the the more value than the medical needs of the employee? Why did the SCOTUS allow this ruling to be made based upon junk science that wrongly identified some contraceptives as abortifacients?

Can we now sue for a rebate because our religious beliefs do not allow us to finance war and killing? Where are my tax dollars?

[Here.I.Stand, BSN, RN]

Nobody was denying access to birth control; they weren't testing women's blood/urine for hormone levels in the way employers test for drugs of abuse or sometimes nicotine. They just didn't wish to PAY for Rx's which have the potential to stop the implantation of a zygote, thus stopping its life.

If something isn't covered, one has two choices. Pay for it themselves, or find an employer who will. Pills are not expensive. I want to say Planned Parenthood has a sliding scale fee. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood wouldn't be in the news if their court battles were common. Almost any other employer, I'd venture to guess, will pay for Rx contraception.

Also, look at the example of the opposites of Rx contraception: fertility treatment or vasectomy/tubal ligation reversal surgery. Is there any outcry pressuring employers to pay for these services? No. And no, I don't think they should be required to either. It would be nice for the people who want these services, but ultimately I believe it to be up to the one paying for it. I do think though, that if one is so on fire for choice, they should respect the choice to have a child just the same as they respect the choice to prevent one.

Just my $0.02.

[Here.I.Stand, BSN, RN]

Supreme Court judges should all be atheists. Only fair way to judge separation of church and state.

State-sponsored religious discrimination?

[mc3, ASN, RN]

Spidey's Mom,

As usual I agree with you 110%!!!

mc3:yes:

[akulahawkRN, ADN, RN, EMT-P]

Of course they didn't get it right. They put the rights of corporations over the rights of the individual.

But we all know SCOTUS is bought and paid for by the 1 %.

Actually, they put the rights of the individual over the rights of Government. Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for those medications and devices that they believe will result in an abortion. They can if they choose to, but they can not be forced to by Government. They do, however, pay for contraception. Publicly held corporations can be.

Believe me, the restraint on Government would have been much greater had they reached the 1st Amendment to base their ruling on. It wouldn't have been a very narrowly tailored ruling. Going that route could possibly have greatly damaged the ACA or greatly damaged the 1st Amendment.

[akulahawkRN, ADN, RN, EMT-P]

Supreme Court judges should all be atheists. Only fair way to judge separation of church and state.

State-sponsored religious discrimination?

If the Supreme Court Justices were indeed atheists, shouldn't they really be agnostics? Then they can rule that people should be free FROM Religion...

That would result in state-sponsored anti-religious crusades...

[eagle78]

Spidey's Mom,

As usual I agree with you 110%!!!

mc3:yes:

Me too!!!

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

How awesome! Not. There are FOUR contraception methods/pills that the insurance company will not pay for?!?!?! Seriously?! If I am paying my share of an insurance plan, then I would assume that perhaps they would not pay for "name brand" drugs, however, would pay for the generic version. Which in actuality,I am also paying a portion of the premium, so....and if one can get into the Planned Parenthood through the protesters that line the block, then perhaps I would just say no and go get my own birth control.

And to base it all on religious beliefs?! Please keep Jesus outta my bedroom. I think that the employees should then ask for a free daycare center for all of the children that they will now have, perhaps a stipend to care for said children, and a bonus for each child they have due to this foolishness.

In all seriousness, there are many forms of birth control and this is only 4 of them, but if it is one of the four you need to use, then what a pain to then have to pay or find alternatives.

I would LOVE to see the uproar if some trumped up interpertation of the Bible says that artificially constructed erections are against Jesus word. The whole "we won't pay" thing would be thrown out if they declined to pay for Viagra.

Another way for women to "cleave and submit". Sad.