Health Care and Contraception: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right?

[Brian]

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

Here is an article on the topic:

Hobby Lobby Ruling Cuts Into Contraceptive Mandate

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.

[toomuchbaloney]

The women working there ARE paying for their own birth control by working and obtaining health insurance. Now they have to jump through additional hoops. Men don't have to worry about the religious beliefs of their potential employer when they go get a job. Why should women?

yes indeed, why...

[cncyana]

The women working there ARE paying for their own birth control by working and obtaining health insurance. Now they have to jump through additional hoops

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. .

And this extra taxpayer expense for YOUR personal sexual activity is paid for by other taxpayers who control their own personal sexual activity in ways that don't knowingly require birth control. Going to the federal government for taxpayer-paid birth control coverage due to YOUR PERSONAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY hardly qualifies as 'jumping through hoops'.

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. And those employees are free AT ANY TIME to leave the deli altogether and never return. Now that's freedom.

[wooh, BSN, RN]

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. .

And this extra taxpayer expense for YOUR personal sexual activity is paid for by other taxpayers who control their own personal sexual activity in ways that don't knowingly require birth control. Going to the federal government for taxpayer-paid birth control coverage due to YOUR PERSONAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY hardly qualifies as 'jumping through hoops'.

Thanks for making clear that it's all about **** shaming for you. How dare women (even married women) have sex for enjoyment and not to get themselves pregnant!! Sure, it's ok for men to need viagra to have sex for enjoyment (because I'm betting many are getting it to have sex with their post-menopause partners. But women having sex for enjoyment and not procreation is SCANDALOUS.

[macawake, MSN]

Pro-choice values promote killing, lying, and mistreatment of human beings. Pro-life values promote respect for human life, respect for women, and respect for the truth - all of which are not just "different" from pro-choice views...they're better...for both women and society as a whole.

Do you actually believe this to be true? This is possibly the most ill-informed and inflammatory statement I've ever seen on AN.

[cncyana]

The vast majority of men don't need treatment for testicular cancer. It's against my religion to treat testicular cancer. Men can just work for someone else if they want treatment for testicular cancer.

That ok?

So now because cancer is an unavoidable condition, pregnancy is also an unavoidable unforeseeable condition? Or is it the fault of women that they get breast cancer?

[cncyana]

Thanks for making clear that it's all about **** shaming for you. How dare women (even married women) have sex for enjoyment and not to get themselves pregnant!! Sure, it's ok for men to need viagra to have sex for enjoyment (because I'm betting many are getting it to have sex with their post-menopause partners. But women having sex for enjoyment and not procreation is SCANDALOUS.

hardly, but that those of us who don't have sex are paying for those that do and get pregnant. how is that fair?

When those of us taxpayers who get birth control paid for by those taxpayers that don't need it, that's NOT jumping through hoops, that's a free ride.

Feel entitled much?

[wooh, BSN, RN]

hardly, but that those of us who don't have sex are paying for those that do and get pregnant. how is that fair?

Well if you don't want to pay for their pregnancy, birth control would be the way to avoid that.

I pay for lots of things I don't want to pay for. Viagra. member pumps. Why should I pay for others on my insurance plan to get meat on their hospital meal tray when I'm vegetarian?

It's called insurance. You pay for things you won't use and others pay for things you will use.

[toomuchbaloney]

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. .

And this extra taxpayer expense for YOUR personal sexual activity is paid for by other taxpayers who control their own personal sexual activity in ways that don't knowingly require birth control. Going to the federal government for taxpayer-paid birth control coverage due to YOUR PERSONAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY hardly qualifies as 'jumping through hoops'.

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. And those employees are free AT ANY TIME to leave the deli altogether. Now that's freedom.

I wonder, why are Christians so obsessed with the sex lives of women? MOST women use some sort of contraceptive. Most women make that choice based upon the recommendations of their health professional and their own personal needs and religious or moral beliefs. Why do Christians want to be any part of that decision for people who are merely employees? Why are the choices of others so offensive? Why is inclusion of those options viewed as more offensive than investing in the manufacture of the options? Why is the employees contribution to the cost of the plan not considered in the equation?

[qnmimi]

There are only 4 abortofacients Hobby Lobby will not pay for under this ruling...all the rest will be covered. Stop crying about no contraceptives. If you take the time to read the decision, I am right. No other drugs are excluded.

[cncyana]

I wonder, why are Christians so obsessed....Why do Christians want...

Who said ONLY Christians want to opt out of paying for birth control? What about Jews, Muslims, or just ordinary non-religious people who have such values? I know many, mostly older people completely unaffiliated with religion, who have such values regarding birth control.

Group people together and prejudge them much?

[klone, MSN, RN]

Thanks for making clear that it's all about **** shaming for you. .

Absolutely. That's what it comes down to. Restricting access to BCMs, restricting access to abortion. At the meat of it, it's about shaming women who dare to have sex outside of a relationship in which a child is a welcome result. Why else would so many anti-choice supporters say "Well, except in cases of rape"? Because those women weren't slutty, they were forced into it. Therefore, they don't need to be punished for having sex. But the other women do.

[lrobinson5]

Thanks for making clear that it's all about **** shaming for you. How dare women (even married women) have sex for enjoyment and not to get themselves pregnant!! Sure, it's ok for men to need viagra to have sex for enjoyment (because I'm betting many are getting it to have sex with their post-menopause partners. But women having sex for enjoyment and not procreation is SCANDALOUS.

Well said, Thank you!