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.

[hope3456, ASN, RN]

So working poor women in republican states which have not expanded medicaid and which have reduced the number of women's health clinics in total have good access to publicly funded contraceptives? Do you know that these services are actually available in the communities where these working poor women live/work?

For instance, in Texas many women have lost their local access to reproductive health clinics secondary to the "conservative" legislative agenda of the men in charge of the state. One Year Later, Cuts to Women's Health Have Hurt More Than Just Planned Parenthood | The Texas Observer

There are over 90 HL stores just in Texas alone.

You asked where poor women can get reduced cost birth control.

As for the situation in Texas - how poor women are being affected - of course sources like The Texas Observer and any liberal group will want to sensationalize it as much as possible but according to the Texas Tribune the state legislature approved $71 million dollars (a record amount) for women's health care including BC. http://medcitynews.com/2013/12/claims-birth-control-wellness-exams-drop-texas-takes-womens-health-program/

I also live in a rural area/ conservative state and there is adequate access to low cost BC thru federally/state funded programs.

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

First of all prove to me that this is the case, and not some talking point!

In addition, if it is true.. tell me.. If you have a portfolio, how much of your investments go to what? Would you know? Especially if a third party is handling that?

That isn't an excuse, it's just reality. And if I knew that was in my portfolio, I would do something about it.

Well being it is a "closely held family company" and all, who seemingly has the time and energy to dictate where their employees health insurance premiums are going, I would assume they would be ALL over their major investments in those things that they declare are "against their religion".

Oh, but those other things actually MAKE them money, therefore, apparently a religious exemption of another kind entirely.

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

You asked where poor women can get reduced cost birth control.

As for the situation in Texas - how poor women are being affected - of course sources like The Texas Observer and any liberal group will want to sensationalize it as much as possible but according to the Texas Tribune the state legislature approved $71 million dollars (a record amount) for women's health care including BC.

I also live in a rural area/ conservative state and there is adequate access to low cost BC thru federally/state funded programs.

Which again, tax dollars pay for. So now, in addition to one's health insurance premium, having to pay out of pocket for one's contraception if you are just sinner enough to use one of the forbidden fruit, we all (HL and the entire state of Texas included) are paying for it anyways--and HL has a lot more money than me.

Again, I can not stress enough--we wonder why we have some troubled children in this world. The unwanteds. The errors in judgement, the mistakes. Keep forcing women to have no other choice than to keep on popping out babies--and multiple children later, and we shall all yet again pay dearly. At the expense of the kids.

[toomuchbaloney]

You asked where poor women can get reduced cost birth control.

As for the situation in Texas - how poor women are being affected - of course sources like The Texas Observer and any liberal group will want to sensationalize it as much as possible but according to the Texas Tribune the state legislature approved $71 million dollars (a record amount) for women's health care including BC. Claims for birth control and wellness exams drop after Texas takes over women's health program

I also live in a rural area/ conservative state and there is adequate access to low cost BC thru federally/state funded programs.

The Texas Observer is a liberal media source?

In Texas there are 89 Hobby Lobby stores, but this case could affect many more women than those employed at the chain of arts and crafts stores. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, there are 47 cases pending at different levels of jurisdiction where for-profit companies are challenging the federal Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which requires employers to cover some of the contraceptive costs for their employees' heath insurance plans. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted an exception for churches and other places of worship, but there is no precedent for corporations claiming a religious objection on the issue.

Texas Conservatives Laud Court Ruling on Birth Control | The Texas Tribune

Texas is not one of the 28 U.S. states that require employers who provide prescription drug coverage to their employees to also provide contraceptive coverage, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an advocacy and research organization that promotes abortion rights but produces data cited by both sides.

Judge Denies Relief for El Paso Abortion Clinic | The Texas Tribune

Senators Discuss Progress of Women's Health Programs | The Texas Tribune

[lrobinson5]

The argument that "Hobby Lobby invested the money and what the investment firm did with the money is not important" has to be one of the most hypocritical things I've yet read.

So they invest the money, they don't know what the investment firm is doing with it, so they are free from any moral responsibility.

Sort of like if they offered an employee health plan, but didn't know what the employee used the health plan for, they would be free of any moral responsibility, right?

Hobby Lobby's argument is that their deeply held religious beliefs prevent them from participating in abortion IN ANY WAY, or funding or providing or facilitating abortion IN ANY WAY, and thus they CANNOT provide coverage that could provide these drugs to their employees. The notion that a massive financial investment in the companies that create and sell the drugs that they seem to oppose to IS a massive conflict of interest and a massive hypocrisy, and saying otherwise is simply disingenuous.

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

On the same realm of thinking, there are all SORTS of passages in the Bible regarding women and that they should not "dress like a man" or wear makeup, or cut their hair. They need to cleave and submit. And I suppose that some women live this way. But I would think that there are many others who do not.

So, religious moral high ground is just ducky for some things but certainly not for others.

[trishmsn]

You are free to charactarize a fertilized egg as a human which can be murdered. However, your desire to believe such a thing does not make it true or scientifically correct. It is a fertilized egg (potentially) which is not equivalent to a pregnancy.

THIS is where you fail to note the difference between that which is verifiable by science, and that which is a matter of faith. Once again, you do not know when a human receives a soul. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. Whether a blastocyst (an early embryonic structure per medical and biological texts) is human prior to implantation is a matter of faith.....and PLEASE do not circle back to 'scientifically correct', a meaningless phrase in this context.

You are asking the owners of Hobby Lobby, and many other Christians, to substitute YOUR opinion of when personhood and possession of a soul begins for their own.

And if you can prove or disprove a metaphysical concept.....you are far beyond Decarte, Thomas Aquinas, and Plato.

[Muser69]

Hahahaha

[toomuchbaloney]

THIS is where you fail to note the difference between that which is verifiable by science, and that which is a matter of faith. Once again, you do not know when a human receives a soul. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. Whether a blastocyst (an early embryonic structure per medical and biological texts) is human prior to implantation is a matter of faith.....and PLEASE do not circle back to 'scientifically correct', a meaningless phrase in this context.

You are asking the owners of Hobby Lobby, and many other Christians, to substitute YOUR opinion of when personhood and possession of a soul begins for their own.

And if you can prove or disprove a metaphysical concept.....you are far beyond Decarte, Thomas Aquinas, and Plato.

Here is the thing.

You may believe that a fertilized egg is "life" that is fine. Don't push your belief upon young women with the intent to change their contraceptive options.

I can prove this.

That "life" that you are so fond of CANNOT survive without being successfully implanted into the womb and/or with the subsequent hormonal changes to maintain it. I can prove that the fertilized egg that you are so confident is "life" has no heart, no brain, and no ability to feel anything as it has no nervous system. It is relatively easy to prove that a zygote or a blastocyst MUST CHANGE if it isn't going to end up in the toilet. A number of things must happen correctly for the cell division to continue.

If you want to consider that very fragile clot of cells to be "life" with a soul and you want to work hard to preserve that...fine.

You are free to believe that those little fertilized eggs in IVF labs are little tiny people with little tiny souls. (that's kinda cute) I, on the other hand, don't nor do many other women. why do your views or the views of a corporation matter more than the woman's? Many Christians believe that the soul enters the body with the first breath per the Bible. Why is there no respect for their faith?

Surely you can see that the women who work for HOBBY LOBBY are NOT going to agree with their corporate master as to the origins of life...why do you feel it is appropriate for the corporation to be allowed to dictate a religious belief to an employee? Is it okay because those affeted employees are just women?

[nurseprnRN, BSN, RN]

You are free to believe that those little fertilized eggs in IVF labs are little tiny people with little tiny souls. (that's kinda cute) I, on the other hand, don't nor do many other women. why do your views or the views of a corporation matter more than the woman's? Many Christians believe that the soul enters the body with the first breath per the Bible. Why is there no respect for their faith?

It's a little-known or -acknowledged fact (but you can look it up) that, as recently as the 19th century, the Roman Catholic Church did not recognize fetal "personhood" (for lack of a better term) until "quickening,", i.e., the first perceptible (to the mother) fetal movements.

[trishmsn]

Here is the thing.......

It is fine...you are stuck on biology. Not everyone can see past that which is visible to the eye.

...and then it is a quick dodge to misogyny and class baiting. Oh well, you can only manage to use the tools you have.

Peace....

[elkpark]

It is fine...you are stuck on biology. Not everyone can see past that which is visible to the eye.

But that's exactly the issue here -- everyone has different opinions and beliefs about what is "past that which is visible to the eye." Under what circumstances does one individual or group get to impose one set of beliefs about that which we all agree cannot be measured/verified on others who do not share that particular set of beliefs?