Was the Supreme Court right to rule that the Affordable Care Act violated the religio
1024
No - The ruling allows bosses to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Besides, the Constitution grants religious freedom to individuals, not corporations.
483
Yes - The religious beliefs of company owners take precedence over their employees' right to have access to birth control.
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
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.
Another way of saying this is, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it might be a goose but it's probably a duck." Or, as I typo'ed the first time, a dick. :)
This sums up my thoughts on the matter entirely, GrnTea. And it was snort-worthy too. I should know better than to be drinking water when I read AN.
Analogy: A Jewish deli should not be forced to sell pork just because Obama and his friends wants pork. Those who want pork, including employees of the deli, are free to use their federal food stamps to buy pork at another deli.
Whats more its horrifying that nurses posting here have the wrong idea about how contraceptives work.
Something many fail to see is that health insurance provided to workers is a form of compensation and by reducing any form of coverage the company is effectively reducing the compensation for certain workers and not others specifically targeting women. How is this not discrimination?
For those of you to say health insurance should not be provided as a benefit of work exactly how many of you receive health coverage as part of your work compensation? The majority of nurses work in the hospital setting if healthcare insurance is often a deciding factor about employment.
Denying contraceptives to HL's workers is a big deal. They offered all before the ACA but claim they knew nothing about the coverage. Excuse me but a company making billions and claiming they have their family involved about every policy they have just doesn't ring true.
Analogy: A Jewish deli should not be forced to sell pork just because Obama and his friends wants pork. Those who want pork, including employees of the deli, are free to use their federal food stamps to buy pork at another deli.
Actually, it would be a better world if none of us ate pork! A vegan lifestyle would certainly reduce all of our health care costs! And think of all the senseless slaughter and torture of all those cute little piglets we could avoid!
Its not a big deal for Hobby Lobby to deny contraceptives which will be provided by the federal government. If an employee is provided with contraceptives, whether from one party or another, what is the difference? None.
Analogy: A Jewish deli should not be forced to sell pork just because Obama and his friends wants pork. Those who want pork, including employees of the deli, are free to use their federal food stamps to buy pork at another deli.
Actually, it would be a better world if none of us ate pork! A vegan lifestyle would certainly reduce all of our health care costs! And think of all the senseless slaughter and torture of all those cute little piglets we could avoid!
Somehow, I am convinced that Viagra is still covered.
The supreme court and my employer should keep their nose out of my uterus.
Amen, sista.....and really, Viagra is an artificial erection, therefore if it ends up that a woman conceives because of it, there is no issue that somehow it is not "real" therefore, not valid? Give me a break....
Thankfully morning after pills are in some places easy to get, and sometimes without a prescription. IUD's on the other hand, not so much, and expensive on a $10 an hour rate of pay.
Heyyyyy will they not cover hysterectomies or for that matter tubal ligations because then it no longer a women's job to crank out babies???
People have the right to religious freedoms. Just not to impose them on their workers. If said worker is paying a health insurance premium, then they should have the right to have the same things covered as those loose women at the Hobby Palace down the street....
Luckily for American women, the Supreme Court doesn't have the ultimate say in contraceptive coverage, and least not with the Hobby Lobby decision. For example, Kaiser Health News, reports:
More than half the states have "contraceptive equity" laws on the books that require most employers whose health insurance covers prescription drugs to also cover FDA-approved contraceptives as part of that package. Unlike the ACA, those laws do not require that coverage to be available without deductibles or co-pays. [...]The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the court used to say the closely held companies don't have to abide by the federal mandate, "doesn't supersede state law," said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. "They stand as independent protections."
Some of those states have exemptions for non-profit religious organizations, like the federal law, with just Arizona and Illinois expanding them beyond expressly religious entities. However, Hobby Lobby and other firms that self-insure aren't subject to state insurance laws, because they're not buying state-regulated insurance. Other companies, though, which don't self-insure do have to abide by that state law.But there aren't just state protections, and here is one of the glaring problems with the decision--women are singled out. And this:
But [self-insuring companies] are still likely subject to a ruling issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the year 2000 that employers that fail to cover contraception as part of their health insurance benefit package are discriminating against women in violation of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law was itself an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The employees of Hobby Lobby and other companies that take advantage of the exemption could sue their employers, charging gender discrimination. The litigating is far from over on this one.
Excuse me but a company making billions and claiming they have their family involved about every policy they have just doesn't ring true.
You're not understanding the concept of conscience.
Example: If you live in a country where a president believes that sex slaves (or human embryos in this case) are less than human, and killing them (abortion in this case) is not a problem, should you be forced to support the slave industry, regardless of how much your own business makes? Would you consider paying for slavery to be a direct involvement in it? Of course you would. And you wouldn't want to be forced to support the slave industry.
Furthermore, the federal government will pay to cover those forms of contraception not covered by Hobby Lobby. So all forms of contraception will be covered by one entity or another in which case it makes no practical difference who covers it.
Analogy: A Jewish deli should not be forced to sell pork just because Obama and his friends wants pork. Those who want pork, including employees of the deli, are free to use their federal food stamps to buy pork at another deli.
"So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God"
First, no one is imposing a religion on anyone. I haven't heard anything about anyone trying to convert employees to evangelical Christianity. Paying for your own birth control because your evangelical boss won't isn't forcing you to do anything other than what you have done all along-pay for your own birth control. Second, the "right to have access to birth control" is an inflammatory couching of the issue, to say the least. It's not as if these employees don't have access to birth control. They won't get FREE birth control of CERTAIN TYPES perhaps, but they can still get it.
Please, please be honest in your arguments and defense of your positions. To deflect possible ad hominums, I voluntarily discolse that I don't care one way or the other about the decision. Getting ANYTHING for free at the expense of others is abhorable in my view. I don't care if its statins, vaccines or ED meds. Enough with the free stuff. I'm not an evangelical, but I am spiritual, and I believe everyone uses birth control too much. Just my view. We seem to have a bigger war on babies than on women. (I'm a woman).
Once again, this is just my view, and I am sure it will make blood boil and heads spin, but I believe that before everyone jumps on any bandwagon, they ought to really do some deep thinking about what the creators of the bandwagon are saying we need to buy into. To me this has nothing to do with religion ultimately. Free birth control? Seriously, why?
Looking over my above posted response to the question posed I see quite a few errors (abhorable, sic). I'm leaving them. We're all human, all flawed, and I have no desire to pretend I am incapable of error in my writings or my opinions.
AmyRN303, BSN, RN
732 Posts
This sums up my thoughts on the matter entirely, GrnTea. And it was snort-worthy too. I should know better than to be drinking water when I read AN.