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.
God will judge all of you that collaborated indirectly to a killing of an innocent.
Who's to say the zygote/embryo/fetus is innocent? How different would the world be if Hitler's Mom had had an abortion? Or Sadam Hussein's? Or Osama Bin Laden's? Or Whitey Bulger's?
I'm with klone, I'm at peace with my beliefs. I do not believe in a higher being or an afterlife so any judgment that you predict is of no concern to me.
And what about this "judgment"? Does it extend to people who fought against gun control laws? (Typically the same people who are anti-women's rights.) Are those people indirectly responsible for killing 20 innocent children in Newtown, CT in December of 2012? Or people who are pro-death penalty? (Again, typically the same group who are anti-women.) Are they responsible for the people who were executed and now known to have been not guilty of their alleged crimes? Will God judge them as well?
difficulty getting access to contraceptives have an over-whelmingly negative impact on women. this ruling is unfair and discriminatory against women IMHO.
a very wise woman once said that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament; and the pill would probably be free and dispensed on every street corner.
In the particular case, the affected companies actually do pay for contraception, they just don't pay for the 4 options that they believe actually are a form of abortion.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.
Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.
Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.
They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.
I can't choose either answer to your poll as neither one fits.*
This decision doesn't mean women will not have access to birth control.*
I agree TOTALLY....the poll is worded in a way the COMPLETELY is negative towards the ruling. It isn't put in an unbiased and fair way.
hobby lobby isn't trying to control how their employees use birth control nor are they stopping them from going out and getting those 4 particular birth control pills that conflict with the owners beliefs.....they just won't pay for it!
I completely agree with the ruling and think it's about time reason and Americans constitutional rights are put to the forefront.
I see no reason why Jehova's Witnesses or Christian Scientists should be included in this mandate. The religious prohibitions they adhere to apply ONLY to members of their particular Faith. Wheras the main reason for Hobby Lobby's objection is that it involves a third party who is neither an employee or a follower of any faith...i.e an unborn human being.
A JW or Christian Scientist would not CARE AT ALL if I had a blood tranfusion or sought treatment by a doctor! A well known Jewish hospital performs organ transplants and have for a long time without any objection. If a Jewish person needs or wants an organ transplant, he would probably consult his rabbi as well as his physician.They don't object to friends who do not belong to their faith having whatever procedures they want. Only the patient and his physician need decide. None of these procedures provide a immediate danger to anyone but the patient!
Unfortunately most of the news coverage neglects to mention that out of the dozens of birth control methods available, Hobby Lobby objects to only four. They will pay for any others. Yet women talk as if this company will deny them birth control, period! But when pro-choice advocates say "my body, my chioce", I understand that they are thinking of the sacrifice THEY are are making, which can seem horrific. But where genetics is concerned, a fertilized egg is a human being, a potential child who has NO choices!
I'm not one who feels the government owes anybody health care, anyway. But in the case of Hobby Lobby, who pays their employees almost double what other craft stores do (at least as I understand it)
an employee might be able to afford whatever method of birth control they have been paying for all along.
The U.S. Constitution does not stipulate, in the clearest terms, whether a privately owned ( but not publically traded) company is a "person" or not. In some legal transactions they are considered the same as a person.The Supreme court so ruled 4-5 years ago, when it came to political contributions...
This may be another argument that makes this new exception controversial.
Who, in this argument, is talking about the "judgement of God"? I've heard no mention of that from Hobby Lobby.
What on earth makes you think "gun laws" have anytyhing to do with "womens's rights"? I don't notice that being 'pro-death penalty' has any bearing on being "anti-woman" either. I am a woman. I have mixed feeling about the death penalty. I have a license to carry a concealed weapon, have training in its use (and I sometimes do carry it for self protection). I don't blame anyone but the perp for the killing of 20 innocent children in Newtown...but I don't think anti-gun legislation would prevent such occurances either.
If guns are banned, criminals, who break the law anyway, will still have them. They won't care if it's legal or not. Of course, I'm not very sensitive to what others may construe as "anti-woman". I think that it's mainly a political thing.
I hate to see groups catagorized or stereotyped and don't think it's much help in this discussion either.
Who, in this argument, is talking about the "judgement of God"? I've heard no mention of that from Hobby Lobby.
What on earth makes you think "gun laws" have anytyhing to do with "womens's rights"? I don't notice that being 'pro-death penalty' has any bearing on being "anti-woman" either. I am a woman. I have mixed feeling about the death penalty. I have a license to carry a concealed weapon, have training in its use (and I sometimes do carry it for self protection). I don't blame anyone but the perp for the killing of 20 innocent children in Newtown...but I don't think anti-gun legislation would prevent such occurances either.
If guns are banned, criminals, who break the law anyway, will still have them. They won't care if it's legal or not. Of course, I'm not very sensitive to what others may construe as "anti-woman". I think that it's mainly a political thing.
I hate to see groups catagorized or stereotyped and don't think it's much help in this discussion either.
Women have the right to do whatever they choose to regarding abortion. That is a right provided for by law.
Women have the right to be able to pay for a health insurance plan with the expectation that if the plan itself allows for medications to be covered for all other participants in the health plan, that they should be included in same. Regardless of where one works. I certainly do not want my boss (or any other person who controls my income) to tell me what I can and can not do as far as birth control.
And this talk of "paying for killing babies" and "paying for birth control". No, I pay for birth control and a number of other medications as part of the premium of my health insurance. And we all pay for clinics and health insurance and the like for those who by choice or chance are dependent on governmental care.
Clinics that instead of a woman having a choice, they are bombarded with images of full term dead babies, called sinners, whatever the newest and greatest way to tear another woman down--so then we have women with a whole lotta kids, many--if none-- are particularly wanted in the broadest sense of the word--and are taken care of by taxpayers, and we wonder why these children are screwed up to say the least.
Lets not judge other women for their choices. If you are that overly concerned, then by all means say a prayer, fight for her soul. Don't be smug in the fact that you are making a difficult choice even more difficult. Because at the end of the day, we all pay for it one way or the other.
This thread started out as a certain birth control somehow being morphed into abortion drugs. Therefore would not be paid by health insurance purchased by and paid by certain employees due to a religious exemption.
It has certainly covered a great deal of topics, however, clearly if the government wants to pay for these participants (who pay a premium! This is NOT free care!!) to have the birth control of their choice (and their MD's choice) to appease the religious right, then we are all paying for other people's reproductive choices.
And that is the bottom line--one way or the other, we all pay and continue to pay for other's reproductive choices. Only some of us have the right to pay for a health insurance plan that takes that burden off the tax payers.
I can't choose either answer to your poll as neither one fits.
This decision doesn't mean women will not have access to birth control.
Hobby Lobby only had issues with four of the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the FDA, specifically those that are proven to interfere with uterine implantation of a fertilized egg, such as hormonal contraceptives like Plan B or IUD's. Because of the belief that a fertilized egg is the act of conception and therefore stopping the egg from implanting into the uterus causes the death of that embryo, a human being dies.
Viagra is not the same thing as this at all. An erection and a fertilized egg are simply not the same.
People can certainly disagree about when human life begins. However, in order to understand why people think the way they think, understanding where they come from helps us all.
The ACA (Obamacare) doesn't guarantee that health plans cover it - Obamacare would never have passed with such a guarantee. And this is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed by Prez. Clinton:
This doesn't stop women from being able to get contraception. That's hyperbole.
I'm in favor of what the Supreme Court did here.
Actually, the mechanism of action of emergency contraception is not to prevent implantation, that's hyperbole. Even if it were, sexually active women are "aborting" fetuses by the millions as not every fertilized egg implants anyway. If they're going to pay for viagra and member pumps so that their male employees can have sex, why can't they pay for the means for their female employesss to prevent pregnancy, regulate their menstrual cycles, treat endometriosis and PCOS as well as a host of other thigs? This isn't about fetuses, this is about controlling women. Hobby Lobby buys their products from China (thus supporting third trimester forced abortions) and invests in emergency contraception. They are misogynistic hypocrites.
So you want all our patients that just got health care coverage to lose it? You want our patients to go back to being bankrupted by hospital bills after a catastrophic illness? You want our patients to have to use the ER for primary care?
Angevil
11 Posts
God will judge all of you that collaborated indirectly to a killing of an innocent.