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 could mean the govt could cover it. Question is: which govt? Federal? State? Local?
I supported the decision and I doubt most other supports support the govt paying for things employers won't pay for.
We have free healthcare already in place that requires one to qualify based on income. There are limits. The poor already qualify for free contraception. Most of us in the middle class can probably afford it ourselves and the rich can take care of themselves.
It's a slippery slope to single payer when we start subsidizing everything we feel is a public health issue. One man's public health issue is another's personal choice.
It wasn't a "could" issue and there wasn't a question of which government in the majority opinion.
The court didn't rule that the government can't require insurance to cover contraception, it ruled that the least burdensome method should be used. What Alito specifically pointed out in declaring that less burdensome alternatives were available is that HHS already has an alternative for 'true' religious employers which is that the federal government takes on the cost of contraception coverage for these employees which is offset by exchange fee adjustments, which then gets made up for with taxmoney.
Even if it were, it's income that could go away as soon as the employer decides- because the employer owns it.
How does the employer still own compensation they've already given to the employee? I've got a bunch of money my employer gave me, can they come back and ask for it. Can they decide they want the coverage they've already given me back? How would that work?
Are you arguing that benefits aren't part of an employee's compensation?
"The longer I was in it, the less I cared, so I really didn't really care what my conscience said. My conscience was totally numb anyway. But what it did do was public relations-wise. You were able, when a reporter or TV crew came, to pull out a packet of information for the patients to read and they received it. So what can anybody say? Publicly it looked good -- in reality it was another tool that was used to force a woman into abortion. It's typical -- I would give them an option and then shoot it down. The only option you didn't shoot down, obviously, was abortion." (Former abortion clinic owner Eric Harrah).
It wasn't a "could" issue and there wasn't a question of which government in the majority opinion.
The court didn't rule that the government can't require insurance to cover contraception, it ruled that the least burdensome method should be used. What Alito specifically pointed out in declaring that less burdensome alternatives were available is that HHS already has an alternative for 'true' religious employers which is that the federal government takes on the cost of contraception coverage for these employees which is offset by exchange fee adjustments, which then gets made up for with taxmoney.
Last I checked the Supreme Court can't order anything because they can't legislate. The brief pointed out that as an alternative the government could opt to cover what an employer declines to pay under ACA law.
It was introduced as an option, not an order, mandate or provision.
Last I checked the Supreme Court can't order anything because they can't legislate. The brief pointed out that as an alternative the government could opt to cover what an employer declines to pay under ACA law.
It was introduced as an option, not an order, mandate or provision.
Correct, it was offered as one way that the government could still require everyone else to contribute to an employee's contraception, So you're OK with that suggestion?
How does the employer still own compensation they've already given to the employee? I've got a bunch of money my employer gave me, can they come back and ask for it. Can they decide they want the coverage they've already given me back? How would that work?
Are you arguing that benefits aren't part of an employee's compensation?
I've actually had that happen!
I'm arguing that benefits are not mandatory. Health benefits can be compensation and optional at the same time, just like bonuses.
Benefits and bonus. Payable to the employee. Not mandated or required.
"They (the women) were never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heartbeat, they wouldn't want to have an abortion." (Dr. Randall, former abortionist).
Correct, it was offered as one way that the government could still require everyone else to contribute to an employee's contraception, So you're OK with that suggestion?
Nope. If you work, use your income to supply your own needs. If you need help, there are plenty of public and private organizations that can help.
Leave taxpayers out of expenditures that people could afford if they prioritize.
Nope. If you work, use your income to supply your own needs. If you need help, there are plenty of public and private organizations that can help.
Leave taxpayers out of expenditures that people could afford if they prioritize.
These employees are trying to use their own income, which includes their health plan. If you believe taxpayers should be left out of these expenditures then it would seem you disagree with the decision.
"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'" (Kathy Sparks, former abortion worker).
Should anyone pay for this kind of service (or disservice in this case)?
1hopefulChik
114 Posts
WOW! Everybody's a hypocrite because we all fall short of standards for excellence in our own life.
I guess you've NEVER contradicted your own beliefs ever, right? If so, why stop there. Violate ALL your beliefs since you messed up in a few.
Many of the same people who decry 'hypocrisy' are among the same who cry "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."