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.
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
The christian business owner also gets to practice their contraceptive prohibitions individually and what others do is not their business...see how that works.
Huh? What I was saying was as a faith, we don't impose our beliefs (in this case, no transfusions) on others, therefore, it would be highly unlikely that Witness owned businesses would have a liner in the insurance policy they provide their employees that says transfusions will not be covered.
But please, you and everyone else clamoring about what people of my faith "might" do to others, continue to worry (or hate) in the face of factual information.
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!
It was an affirmation of the individual's right to function, live, work and financially support things in accordance with their beliefs.
Let's see, as women we have the right to buy whatever contraception we choose. Yes, we can do that. Our rights are fully intact. Again I ask, who is stopping us? What you want is to to take away someone else's rights by forcing them to financially contribute to our choices in family planning.
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?
All your questions are irrelevant. The right to choose is based on personal constitutional protections, not tax exempt status.
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.
The ruling wasn't actually based on the Constitution, it was based on RFRA (a law). They actually specifically avoided a constitutional claim.
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?
The SCOTUS does not need science. Hobby Lobby obviously does not understand it. If it is within HL's rights to do XYZ because their religious beliefs dictate, what's to prevent any other company from bringing similar complaints? That was my question. The EEOC prevents discrimination in the workplace, but what if said discrimination was based on a corporation's faith statement? Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't care for the precedent set.
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.
Do you mean the same government with the current VA healthcare scandal? The same government that was responsible for 40 years (both parties) for the Tuskegee syphilis scandal (they only stopped when caught, THEN proceeded to do the same thing to the people in Guatemala). Do you mean the same government that is ok with voter corruption, and all other forms of corruption?
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.
I agree that is the issue, although probably not in the same way you meant it. An employee's health plan is part of their compensation- the employer gives the employee at least 60% of the plan's value as compensation for the employee's work, the employee typically pays the other 40%.
The entire plan belongs to the employee, yet you're actually arguing the employee can't do whatever they want with their own stuff.
T... what's to prevent any other company from bringing similar complaints? That was my question. The EEOC prevents discrimination in the workplace, but what if said discrimination was based on a corporation's faith statement? Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't care for the precedent set.
I understand your frustration. You or I may not like it but you work with what you got.
The good news is that most of us have the wherewithal to exercise options. Also, it's highly unlikely that a bunch of companies are gonna have this issue.
I agree that is the issue, although probably not in the same way you meant it. An employee's health plan is part of their compensation- the employer gives the employee at least 60% of the plan's value as compensation for the employee's work, the employee typically pays the other 40%.
Benefits are entirely voluntarily. An employer can discontinue benefits at anytime; however, they may not discontinue paying wages.
The plan belongs to the company. They can discontinue both the plan and the coverage at anytime, without the employee's consent.
The employee has coverage but they don't own the plan because the employer negotiated and legally owns the contract.
OCNRN63, RN
5,979 Posts
Huh? What I was saying was as a faith, we don't impose our beliefs (in this case, no transfusions) on others, therefore, it would be highly unlikely that Witness owned businesses would have a liner in the insurance policy they provide their employees that says transfusions will not be covered.
But please, you and everyone else clamoring about what people of my faith "might" do to others, continue to worry (or hate) in the face of factual information.