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 NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Why do pro-choice groups consistently label an unborn child as 'less' than a human being?
Dehumanizing the victim is a common coping mechanism and justification used among perpetrators of injustice. Human history abounds with such examples. Hutu perpetrators involved in the Rwanda genocide called their Tutsi victims "cockroaches". The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a black slave, Dred Scott, to be nothing more than the "private property" of his master. When the Nazis labeled their Jewish victims as Untermenschen,or subhuman, they meant it - literally.
David Livingstone Smith, director of the Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology at the University of New England, and author of "Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others", described the Nazis' labeling of Jews as follows: "They didn't mean they were like sub humans. They meant they were literally subhuman."
Smith argues for the need to define and describe dehumanization, because that is precisely what opens the door for cruelty and genocide. He continues, "We all know, despite what we see in the movies, that it's very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them." So, it’s important to understand how some human beings are able to, "...overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin...."
Another recent example of this was an article on Britain's child-sex rings which reported how the perpetrators viewed the young girls as "lesser beings" and "something less valuable" ("Britain's child-sex rings", Orange County Register, May 20, 2012)
The pro-choice community is in denial regarding: the humanity of the unborn; the life of the unborn; and death by abortion. Pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf addressed this and stated: "Clinging to rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life." (Naomi Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls," The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26-35).
Jewish Rabbi Yehuda Levin put it this way: "Each form of genocide, whether Holocaust, lynching, abortion, etc., differs from all the others in the motives and methods of its perpetrators. But each form of genocide is identical to all the others in that it involves the systematic slaughter, as state sanctioned "choice," of innocent, defenseless victims -- while denying their 'personhood.'"
the last time I heard a person refer to another as a subhuman it was a republican speaking about the POTUS...just saying
It most certainly is NOT about both men and women. There are no religious restrictions upon the man's ability to obtain reproductive health care in any form. They have access to all of those ED drugs which they can take to increase the size and duration of their erections thereby promoting sex for the purposes of entertainment and recreation.
It is certainly about BOTH women AND MEN. Both are required to get pregnant!
And how do you know so much about so many religions to say what is or isn't a religious restriction? Remember, religious restrictions come from PRINCIPLES in religion, not just a simple mentioning of 'drugs' and other modern medicinal implements which usually aren't mentioned.
Why should an unborn child be given the same right to life as a grown adult?
Level of development is irrelevant regarding the right to life in any other situation. The unborn are less developed than newborns, but newborns are less developed than children, and children are less developed than adults. Children do not possess fully developed reproductive systems, yet we would not attempt to make the case that they are not fully worthy to live because of it. We certainly would not make the case that we should be able to kill children because they are less developed, nor should we make such a case regarding the unborn.
"There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. I finally got to the point I couldn't look at those little bodies anymore." (Dr. Arnold Halpern, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic)
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
It is certainly about BOTH women AND MEN. Both are required to get pregnant!
Of course the only things affected by this are the female's choices relative to contraceptives. There is no language in the request nor in the ruling which puts any responsibility or burden upon the male engaged in the sexual behavior. You are implying something that is not expressly mentioned or included.
And how do you know so much about so many religions to say what is or isn't a religious restriction? I have read a great deal about a number of religions in the world. While I am far from an expert in theology I am reasonably well versed. Remember, religious restrictions come from PRINCIPLES in religion, not just a simple mentioning of 'drugs' and other modern medicinal implements.
Are you saying that all religious restrictions come from "principles" in that religion and not from the hearts of the religious? Are you certain? So all of the restrictions that you can think of in the various religions are based in sound religious principles? None are based in interpretation?
Generalize much?
Are you suggesting that I generalized about a specific concept?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Why should an unborn child be given the same right to life as a grown adult?
Level of development is irrelevant regarding the right to life in any other situation. The unborn are less developed than newborns, but newborns are less developed than children, and children are less developed than adults. Children do not possess fully developed reproductive systems, yet we would not attempt to make the case that they are not fully worthy to live because of it. We certainly would not make the case that we should be able to kill children because they are less developed, nor should we make such a case regarding the unborn.
"There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. I finally got to the point I couldn't look at those little bodies anymore." (Dr. Arnold Halpern, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they may act accordingly upon it, especially if their action does not interfere with the freedoms of another citizen of this country.
Many people do not view the embryo or fetus as a human with a soul which is entitled to the same rights as the woman to whom the womb belongs. Are you saying that those people are not entitled to that POV? Is there a requirement in this country that people view the embryo or fetus as a child? Do people have to make some sort of statement of faith about the life/status of a fetus in order to become a citizen of the country?
I'm not going to state my position on this, as there will always be someone who disagrees. However, there are a lot of interesting points being made, so I'm just along for the ride. Carry on.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Sooo...just curious, is Healthcare coverage provided free of charge to their employees?
"I've saved some sunlight if you should ever need a place away from darkness where your mind can feed." - Rod McKuen
I think you are asking if the employees contribute to the cost of their health insurance coverage and I believe that the answer is; yes they pay into it also, so NO it is not "free of charge" to the employee.
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!
There is no birth control that terminates a pregnancy. There are chemical abortions, however, neither an IUD or the morning after pill are those things.
People have a prescription plan they PAY FOR as part of their health coverage. No one is asking that a free clinic be set up by the scrapbooking section to dole out Plan B or a private room in the knitting aisle for IUD insertion.
As a women who pays for comprehensive health care coverage, my expectation would not be to be singled out and told I can not be covered for something that my MD has prescribed.
It is not as easy as getting another job. Those are scarce.
And all of this comparing a "human embryo" to sex slaves and women's sole purpose and goal is to have the blessings of multiple children is absurd.
But not as absurd as the fact that most of us pay taxes. And part of those taxes pay for far, far more than contraception for the hundreds and thousands of people who are currently getting free federal health insurance.
I do not think that my boss needs to be in on my family planning. Women in this country have rights. They are protected by law. And what they choose to do or not do is no one's business but their own.
Many people do not view the embryo or fetus as a human with a soul which is entitled to the same rights as the woman to whom the womb belongs. Are you saying that those people are not entitled to that POV?
Defining 'personhood' is an attempt to quantify a METAPHYSICAL concept, not a scientific one. Anyone - even a civil judge - who defines 'personhood' is merely expressing their own personal moral, philosophical, or religious point of view. Any such definitions of personhood are subjective, arbitrary, and scientifically UNPROVABLE. Thus, defining 'personhood' requires a co-mingling of religion and state rather than the separation of religion and state. Since pro-choice groups prefer the 'separation of religion and state', any definition of 'personhood' should be considered inappropriate for use in defining civil law if we are to honor this pro-choice preference and remain truly consistent with the 'separation of religion and state'.
Defining 'soul' or the timing of the 'infusion of a soul' into the body at a particular point in the unborn child's development is also an attempt to quantify a METAPHYSICAL or RELIGIOUS concept. Any viewpoint which includes the incorporeal 'soul' is arbitrary and incapable of scientific proof and, hence, inappropriate for use in defining civil law. Any pro-choice group promoting the 'separation of religion and state' as a part of their pro-choice argument should themselves honor the 'separation of religion and state' by avoiding the claim "the unborn have no soul" which is a RELIGIOUS statement, not a scientific one. For any pro-choice group to use such a religious claim - when it suits them - is to employ a double standard for the sake of their own convenience.
Scientifically and legally speaking, prevention of implantation of an egg is NOT abortion.
Thank you. It is very disheartening to read on this thread how many NURSES do not know the difference between contraception and abortion. There is not one form of contraception that causes an abortion. None of the methods of contraception that Hobby Lobby objects to do. None of them will disrupt an implanted pregnancy. Preventing implantation is NOT abortion.
The implications of this ruling are potentially disastrous.
toomuchbaloney
16,103 Posts
the last time I heard a person refer to another as a subhuman it was a republican speaking about the POTUS...just saying