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.
It's all fine as long as the religious viewpoint conforms to the majority (i.e. Christianity in the USA) but this SCOTUS decision sets a terrible precedent. What if my company subscribes to principles of an alternate religion? No blood transfusions covered because the owners are Jehovah's Witness? Sacrificing employee fetuses because the owners are Satanists? Where does it end? This is a very bad deal, not the least because corporations are NOT people and are NOT entitled to free speech. Corporations cannot be put in jail and cannot face the death penalty and are therefore not entitled to freedom protections under the Constitution.
Gotta do homework before you sign up. If that's their belief, it's their belief. You still have the option to purchase health insurance on your own and access any health care you feel is necessary.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
What would stop it is we (JW) don't share the same beliefs as these business owners. As I stated previously, the prohibition on blood is for JW. What others do is not our business.
The christian business owner also gets to practice their contraceptive prohibitions individually and what others do is not their business...see how that works.
Somewhere along the line, we've forgotten that every business is someone's business.
Publicly traded does not mean 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!
It's disturbing how some people have trouble acknowledging 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.
The christian business owner also gets to practice their contraceptive prohibitions individually and what others do is not their business...see how that works.
Yup. If Hobby Lobby never paid a dime towards their employees' contraception, those employees could still do whatever they want.
Their employer may not cover it, but they can still do it- and it would be none of Hobby Lobby's business- nor their expense.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Who is stopping her? We can be big girls and pay for our own bc. Paternalistic is saying that women are too tread upon and victimized to pay their own way! As a woman, nurse and one who pays for her own bc on way less than what you may think, I resent the argument that it is my right to make others take care of me! Where did all the feminists go? We have become a bunch of needy women wanting handouts and victim status.
women are not looking for a handout, they are looking for equal protections under the law, they are looking to have equal rights when it comes to employer discrimination.
it is none of the employers business what type of health care or treatment their employees seek to obtain with their employer provided health insurance...even if the employee is a lowly woman rather than a man.
the fact that the ruling was based upon junk science and the "feelings" and "beliefs" of a nonperson is just icing on the cake.
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
Somewhere along the line, we've forgotten that every business is someone's business.
Publicly traded does not mean 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!
It's disturbing how some people have trouble acknowledging 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.
Businesses incorporate to protect those who started the business from liability to their personal holdings. If the owners separate themselves in this way, how is it they can claim non-separation in religious beliefs? They want their cake and to eat it too.
Last I check, the law does not guarantee subsidy for contraception.
The ruling was based on the Constitution- not feelings or junk science. Your need to reduce it because you don't agree with it is - oh- intellectually dishonest.
One of Samuel Alito's remarks: "[W]e must decide whether the challenged...regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do...The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients."
So by this precedent, does it not set a standard for any company with "religious beliefs" to deny ANYTHING to ANYONE whom they believe opposes those views? It's illegal for employers to ask our religious preferences, our sexual identity, etc.....but if Hobby Lobby is granted exemption based on their religious foundation for this instance, does this not open the court up for umpteen other religious exemption cases, extending well beyond BC?
And fwiw, I identify as a Christian. I simply am appalled at the lack of science presented in this case and the boat load of rhetoric substituted for it. "According to their religious beliefs" (direct quote from Alito) does not make a decent substitute for scientific knowledge.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Somewhere along the line, we've forgotten that every business is someone's business.
Publicly traded does not mean 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!
It's disturbing how some people have trouble acknowledging 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.
Can you explain what it means legally to incorporate a business?
What is the definition of a corporation?
So if a corporation is transferred to another owner does the corporation retain the original religious beliefs or does the corporation automatically assume whatever religious belief of the new owner? How does the corporation decide, especially if the owner is more than one individual?
One of Samuel Alito's remarks: "[W]e must decide whether the challenged...regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do...The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients."
So by this precedent, does it not set a standard for any company with "religious beliefs" to deny ANYTHING to ANYONE whom they believe opposes those views? ...
And fwiw, I identify as a Christian. I simply am appalled at the lack of science presented in this case and the boat load of rhetoric substituted for it.
This case involved a legal, constitutional question- not a science project. Why would the SCOTUS need science to determine the company's right to choose?
As you know we are a devoutly religious family owned company & as followers of the one true God "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" we will no longer be covering gluten allergies or celiac disease as is decreed for real Pastafarians.
This is a meme but you get the gist. This was a bad call, because it could come down to the dictates of Islam, Judiasm, Chuthulu, Kali, Set etc etc. I don't have a problem with any of these religions, it's just that how do you pick which religious dictates are ok to protect in a "private company/person"? Bad call!
1hopefulChik
114 Posts
Gotta do homework before you sign up. If that's their belief, it's their belief. You still have the option to purchase health insurance on your own and access any health care you feel is necessary.
You're not stuck.