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.
While the examples the court heard only blocked coverage of specific contraceptives, the decision applies to ALL contraceptives. Based on the decision, a company now can deny coverage of ALL types of contraceptives.
I actually doesn't apply to all. Just because the AP decides to report such an opinion doesn't mean they are accurately representing the Supremes' decision. I assume you mean that a precedent has been set; that soon we will have all forms of birth control somehow taken away from us. Are you kidding me? That horse left the barn. Its here to stay. Women are now more valued for the work they do and for NOT having children. In my opinion (yes, I know I am in the minority), I would rather be valued for my capacity to create human life than my capacity to earn money. But as I said, that horse has left the barn, and we few naturalists are rare and probably dying out. Those in the majority should not be concerned, let alone outraged. You are winning. You have won.
I actually doesn't apply to all. Just because the AP decides to report such an opinion doesn't mean they are accurately representing the Supremes' decision. I assume you mean that a precedent has been set; that soon we will have all forms of birth control somehow taken away from us. Are you kidding me? That horse left the barn. Its here to stay. Women are now more valued for the work they do and for NOT having children. In my opinion (yes, I know I am in the minority), I would rather be valued for my capacity to create human life than my capacity to earn money. But as I said, that horse has left the barn, and we few naturalists are rare and probably dying out. Those in the majority should not be concerned, let alone outraged. You are winning. You have won.
They weren't reporting their opinion, they were reporting what the supreme court itself had confirmed:
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision..."
I find it disheartening that many people are commenting on the case without a thorough understanding of EXACTLY what the decision stated.
Somewhere along the line, we've forgotten that every business is someone's business. Publicly traded is not public property. Benefits are benefits, not entitlements. These fundamental facts have been muddled to the point where people actually believe it's the government and their employer's job to take care of them!
Also, its crazy how people are coming up with far out hypothetical scenarios that are not likely to happen (see the silly comparison about muslims and christian science owners).
What I find absolutely disturbing is how people refuse to accept that businesses are comprised of owners who happen to be human beings, who happen to be citizens of this country (usually). One of the benefits of citizenship is that - barring legal and constitutional guarantees against specific types of discrimination- you can do whatever you want with your own stuff.
If a business is owned by an individual or a family, it is their very personal, very private property. If a corporation wants to go in a certain direction, that corporation (even if publicly traded) is the private property of all its shareholders.
America- be careful what you wish for! If you think those 'evil corporations' are so bad, wait until the govt is in charge of your health.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
I wish the government was in charge of every citizen's healthcare. I agree with those that opine that the solution is to not make healthcare benefits dependent upon employment.
Hobby Lobby will cover 16 of 20 forms of birth control.
A woman does not have to work for Hobby Lobby.
It is their company not the employees' company.
Women are grown ups who can pay for their own contraception. We do not need big bro forcing others to pay for it for us. That is not feminism.
Hobby Lobby pays employees much more per hour than the current minimum wage, look it up. You don't hear that pro-employee part on the news, only what can be used to villify good people.
As they say, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
This is NOT a woman's health issue. The vast majority of women do not require birth control to maintain good health. It's not mandatory. It's optional.
Unless you have a medical condition for which BC is curative or helps to manage, birth control is not a medical necessity.
With very, very few exceptions, women won't die without BC. They won't get sick without it. Nor will they suffer without it.
'Women's health' is a buzzword with virtually no context related to this case- especially when the only birth control not offered by Hobby Lobby is the kind that terminates pregnancies.
Lots of misnomers, misinformation and empty political rhetoric with NO basis in reality related to the ruling going on!
With very, very few exceptions, women won't die without BC. They won't get sick without it. Nor will they suffer without it.
'Women's health' is a buzzword with virtually no context related to this case- especially when the only birth control no offered is the kind that terminates pregnancies.
Lots of misnomers and empty political rhetoric with NO basis in reality related to the ruling going on!
Misnomers, huh? In the immortal words of Fezzig as played by Andre The Giant, "I don' think tha' word means wha' you think it means." Look it up.
And then when you finish looking up the relative position of the US to the rest of the world in perinatal maternal morbidity and mortality, particularly if you discount any possibility of safe (and legal) abortion, come back and tell us again how this isn't a women's health issue and how it only effects very, very few women. Bah.
I also suggest you hit NetFlix and get the film called "If These Walls Could Talk." Dare ya.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
You do realize that pregnancy and childbirth is actually quite risky to a woman's health, right? Every woman has a right to access to safe birth control to prevent pregnancy that works for HER. It's not one size fits all, which is why there are so many FDA-approved BCMs. To prevent access to a whole type of birth control (and yes, for someone who is working at and depending upon health insurance coverage at someplace like Hobby Lobby means that forcing a woman to pay $2000 out of pocket for an IUD is essentially preventing access) is most certainly a woman's health issue.
You do realize that pregnancy and childbirth is actually quite risky to a woman's health, right? Every woman has a right to access to safe birth control to prevent pregnancy that works for HER.
The Supreme Court did not rule on pregnancy. It ruled on the company's right to pay for types of birth control or not.
Women were pregnant before Hobby Lobby and they will be getting pregnant after Hobby Lobby is long gone.
You're conflating the issue of women's reproductive biology with a Supreme Court ruling and paying for stuff.
Othernothing
17 Posts
I actually doesn't apply to all. Just because the AP decides to report such an opinion doesn't mean they are accurately representing the Supremes' decision. I assume you mean that a precedent has been set; that soon we will have all forms of birth control somehow taken away from us. Are you kidding me? That horse left the barn. Its here to stay. Women are now more valued for the work they do and for NOT having children. In my opinion (yes, I know I am in the minority), I would rather be valued for my capacity to create human life than my capacity to earn money. But as I said, that horse has left the barn, and we few naturalists are rare and probably dying out. Those in the majority should not be concerned, let alone outraged. You are winning. You have won.