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.

[ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP]

If these companies don't cover birth control, then they should be forced to cover the resulting child's healthcare expenses. And I suspect that would cost them FAR more money...

[Jillybean48]

No one is disputing the religious beliefs of the business owners involved in the suit; just their right to impose their own, personal beliefs on their employees.

Forcing someone to provide birth control to others when it is against their religion has nothing to do with personal beliefs. They are not telling their employees that they have to believe in their religion. This is a constitutional case because if I start MY own business in a free economy, nobody has the right to MAKE me provide birth control to other people if it is against MY personal views; why do I say "MY personal views"? Because this is my business, I own it. If you don't like what your employer has to offer you move on.

[Jillybean48]

Of course they didn't get it right. They put the rights of corporations over the rights of the individual.

But we all know SCOTUS is bought and paid for by the 1 %.

Who owns that corporation? An individual who started it and it is his/her corporation. They have rights too. To force them to purchase birth control is not within anybody's rights. If the Supreme Court is bought and paid for by anybody, it's the left. If the right had any control, wouldn't they be getting more things to go their way?

[ceebeejay]

No, I do not agree. The whole ruling is a slippery slope. If they'd been Muslim or Satanists this ruling would never have been passed down. Nobody forced them to do anything, but provide the same insurance coverage that everyone else has to provide. They have removed the right of choice from their employees. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. I am very disappointed in the Supreme Court. First, Citizens United and now this.

[MunoRN, RN]

... They just didn't wish to PAY for Rx's ...

Employers aren't paying for the Rx, they're putting money into an insurance plan to be spent by the employee. I don't see how that's any different than employer putting money into a bank account to be spent by the employee. The employer is essentially "paying for" the Rx in the same way in both examples.

...Pills are not expensive...

As justice Ginsburg pointed out, an IUD costs an entire month's pay for a minimum wage worker.

Also, look at the example of the opposites of Rx contraception: fertility treatment or vasectomy/tubal ligation reversal surgery. Is there any outcry pressuring employers to pay for these services? No.

Infertility services are actually legally required to be provided in 13 states.

[OCNRN63, RN]

This ruling could be a disaster for anyone who works for a business owned by a Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist. It's also another great example of why health insurance should not be tied to employment.

As a life-long JW, I sure would like you to explain that to me.

[MunoRN, RN]

Forcing someone to provide birth control to others when it is against their religion has nothing to do with personal beliefs. They are not telling their employees that they have to believe in their religion. This is a constitutional case because if I start MY own business in a free economy, nobody has the right to MAKE me provide birth control to other people if it is against MY personal views; why do I say "MY personal views"? Because this is my business, I own it. If you don't like what your employer has to offer you move on.

I'm not sure how someone with this view could agree with this decision. Do you really agree that coverage of contraception should just be transferred to the government, where you'll be required to "chip in" via taxes?

[OCNRN63, RN]

Would the ruling be the same if, say, an Islamic-owned company made the same claim? An Hmong company claiming cultural restrictions?

Have you all followed the articles regarding how Hobby Lobby has conducted itself in the past? Purchasing most if not all of its merchandise dirt cheap from China, where forced abortions and infanticide are rampant?

Investing in companies that manufacture the very abortion drugs that they are objecting to?

I think this is a disastrous ruling that will open the floodgates for businesses to opt out of providing healthcare coverage for anything they darn well please by claiming a religious objection. A Jehovah's Witness-owned company could refuse to cover blood transfusions because it's against their tenets. A Jewish company could decline to cover organ transplants because they believe that the body should be whole when it is interred.

The list is endless.

It's against our faith for a member of the faith to get a transfusion. What a non-Witness does is beyond our control, and really, none of our business.

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

Forcing someone to provide birth control to others when it is against their religion has nothing to do with personal beliefs. They are not telling their employees that they have to believe in their religion. This is a constitutional case because if I start MY own business in a free economy, nobody has the right to MAKE me provide birth control to other people if it is against MY personal views; why do I say "MY personal views"? Because this is my business, I own it. If you don't like what your employer has to offer you move on.

Using that logic, you could choose not to hire people of certain religions, ethnicities, and the like....and be non-conforming to the law.

No one is asking for an employer to pay for birth control in itself. If an employee is paying into a health insurance policy that includes prescription drugs, then one would hope that it covers the same prescription drugs as the other people with the same policy, paying the same premium, who do not work for the religious right.

It is interesting that now that employers are being mandated to provide health insurance to employees when in the past that was not a mandate, they are finding little loopholes to not provide what some employees may in part have a health insurance policy for. I am not sure with my min. wage job having most of my paycheck go to the premium I would be overly thrilled at not having birth control that is prescribed to me by my MD not be covered.

Owning one's own company doesn't necessarily mean that one can make up stuff as they go along---except now apparently for religious purposes.

[Jillybean48]

I'm not sure how someone with this view could agree with this decision. Do you really agree that coverage of contraception should just be transferred to the government, where you'll be required to "chip in" via taxes?

I don't understand where you came up with that conclusion. I clearly state in my post what I believe the government has the right and does not have the right to do.

[Jillybean48]

Using that logic, you could choose not to hire people of certain religions, ethnicities, and the like....and be non-conforming to the law.

.

This makes no sense. What does that have to do with you forcing me to supply your birth control? Your argument is invalid because freedom of religion covers people obtaining employment despite their religion, ethnicities, etc. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US Constitution.

[bearscrubs75]

Here's my line of thinking with this. I'm liberal, homosexual, and pro-choice -- HOWEVER -- I do believe in a pluralistic democracy and generally support the rights of those whose beliefs differ from mine, in fact, those who hate people like me, realizing they would never support my rights in a million years. Now, I have the same issue with homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered folk who go to work for religious institutions. YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE THEY STAND WITH YOU WHEN YOU TAKE A JOB OR POSITION WITH THEM. No one is forcing you to work at places like Baylor University, Pepperdine, or other homophobic institutions. No one is forcing you to live in states like Texas or Arkansas. You don't HAVE to work at Hobby Lobby, if you disagree with its politics. Am I right?