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 is 14 an hour for unskilled labor, quite a bit of money for a retail job. That is not something they had to do but did it purely to benefit the employee. And do you know any of these women you are speaking speaking for? I have yet to hear any real Hobby Lobby employee complain, just a bunch of people far removed from the situation. Why on earth can this fictitious woman not find employment elsewhere? Are you currently in talks with a bunch of disgruntled Hobby Lobby employees?
Have you tried to find another unskilled position which makes $12-14/hr to start? I can only speak for myself, but even in this very expensive state of the union, they don't grow on trees. My sister, who worked retail for years spent the better portion of six months searching for a job when she moved. They're not out there in abundance. I know this deviates from the topic at hand, but it's certainly relevant.
The rhetoric about "abortifacients" brings home the salient point belief all of this stuff: Women who have sex bear the responsibility, and must take the consequences of sex. Presumably, this is a corollary to the "no sex outside of marriage/virgins only" meme that underpins so much of the religious-based objection.
Pregnancy has been seen as a shameful punishment for "bad girls" for these people for a looooong time, as those of us who are old enough to have been around when birth control INFORMATION, not just devices or medications, was illegal to provide to unmarried females of any age. Yep, we sure do remember that.
So although it's often cloaked in a "right to life" garment, the mindset behind it still believes that sex is sinful outside of marriage and any woman who dares be sexually active deserves to be punished and shamed --- by a pregnancy she cannot be permitted to avoid.
Compare and contrast to the uunquestioned availability of sildenafil (Viagra) for males, without whom, presumably, there would be few conceptions in the first place. Discuss.
Wow, now they are villlified for being overly-generous?!?!? This company cannot win with you. These fictional women should go back to school and better themselves if they need more. I did it at 34 with four kids. It can be done. Many grants and low interest loans can be had and the state even offers childcare to those who may neef it. Stop blaming a company who is creating jobs in a economically harsh time and providing full benefits ( minus 4 little drugs) plus higher than average pay to people who are grateful and not spoiled entitled robots. Better yet, take action yourself, start a company, give out bc to all who scream for it. It is very easy to be an armchair warrior, isn't it?
This issue is about who pays for what; it has never been an access issue. Those who DO NOT believe in personal responsibility want to FORCE others to pay for their wants, desires, and needs. Those who believe in personal responsibility are grateful when others pick up the tab, would never force others to pick up the tab, and will pay for it themselves (or do without). Simple.
Thank you.
"Or do without"
Simple? Perhaps. It’s also in my opinion an extremely callous way to view your fellow man/woman or “thy neighbor” if you prefer.
It’s difficult to me to understand why anyone would resent having to pay for someone else’s medical needs and why force would even be necessary to accomplish it.
You know what, it’s perfectly possible to believe in personal responsibility and still want to contribute to collective medical insurance that covers each and every individual in the society you live in.
I live in a country with universal healthcare and I’m very glad that I do. I am actually very, very glad. I’m sure that’s both incomprehensible and shocking to some
If I’m fortunate (I eat healthy, exercise and tend to avoid jumping from high altitudes, with or without a parachute. Still, there’s no guarantee that I’ll remain healthy) enough to reach old age without being stricken with serious illness then I will likely have contributed more money (through taxes) to healthcare than I will have directly (I still benefit indirectly in that I live in a humane society) benefited from.
If I have my health then I’ll take comfort in the fact that my money will have helped treat other human beings in my community less fortunate than I. I don’t and won’t ever feel that I was forced to pay for someone else’s healthcare. This of course includes the most appropriate and safe method of birth control for each individual woman in need of one.
Should I need expensive treatments and medications then I can feel secure with the knowledge that they’ll be available to me. I’d be able to focus all my energy on coping with my illness and not have to waste any of it on worrying about if my insurance will cover this or that drug or cover however many treatments are needed. The same is true for all people in my community regardless of their personal circumstances. That brings me peace.
I don’t much care for the “us vs. them” mentality in “those who believe and those who do not believe (in personal responsibility). People don’t fit as neatly into these two groups as you seem to believe. Furthermore, division is not a good way to promote a safe and flourishing society.
As far as the question of access issue, of course it is one. Why should female employees of this company have to pay extra (money they may not have) for certain methods of birth control (methods that might for medical reasons be the most suitable for them) when they are already insured? The BC methods not covered by insurance are randomly chosen based on the owner’s layman opinion of their actions and MOA rather than on scientific/medical fact.
Three final points. I wholeheartedly agree with those who have expressed the opinion that it is hypocritical to object to certain birth control methods for ethical or moral reasons and at the same time do business with China.
It should be up to the individual to decide together with their medical provider which treatment or medication is the most suitable. I don’t see why it concerns an employer.
This is in my opinion a scary ruling. The risk of other arbitrary exemptions in an employee's insurance cover in the future seems very real with this precedent.
"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)?
no one is. The Hyde amendment prevents Federal dollars for being used to fund abortion services.
"Abortion is not a sign that women are free, but a sign that they are desperate." (Frederica Mathews-Green, contemporary writer and National Public Radio commentator)
We wouldn't be desperate is we had free and equal access to birth control
Where do you live?!?!? We absolutely can walk into any pharmacy and get whatever we want that is legal. Why is this point so hard for you to understand? Take responsibility and get your own bc, be a grown up not a dependant. This is true feminism. Daddy does not need to take care of us.
Whats more its horrifying that nurses posting here have the wrong idea about how contraceptives work.
.
I haven't been here for a few days! Whew . . .that's a lot of reading when I should be cleaning. Again, I posted earlier that we've gone "tit for tat" in posting definitions from different medical/scientific journal about what happens with conception. So, there are medical/scientific people who believe that once the egg and sperm get together, that's human life. Others think it takes implantation to become human life and of course, without implantation, that life wouldn't grow.
Folks who mention that our bodies naturally go through early miscarriage or implantation fails has to do with natural occurrences. What is at the heart of this issue for Hobby Lobby is having an outside source impeding implantation. Of course none of us are saying that the natural occurrence is wrong. It is just the way the body works. Linking that with abortifacients isn't fair. And yes, some of us "horrifyingly" think, based on science, that the fertilized egg IS human life. And as mentioned, it is fine and dandy to disagree about that. But forcing a company to pay for what they consider the taking of a human life is wrong based on the freedom to choose our faith or lack thereof. As many have mentioned, this is not about access. Planned Parenthood offers all of these birth control options.
The rhetoric about "abortifacients" brings home the salient point belief all of this stuff: Women who have sex bear the responsibility, and must take the consequences of sex. Presumably, this is a corollary to the "no sex outside of marriage/virgins only" meme that underpins so much of the religious-based objection.
Pregnancy has been seen as a shameful punishment for "bad girls" for these people for a looooong time, as those of us who are old enough to have been around when birth control INFORMATION, not just devices or medications, was illegal to provide to unmarried females of any age. Yep, we sure do remember that.
So although it's often cloaked in a "right to life" garment, the mindset behind it still believes that sex is sinful outside of marriage and any woman who dares be sexually active deserves to be punished and shamed --- by a pregnancy she cannot be permitted to avoid.
Compare and contrast to the uunquestioned availability of sildenafil (Viagra) for males, without whom, presumably, there would be few conceptions in the first place. Discuss.
Actually, it has changed in the last 30 years where it is not '"shameful" to have a baby without being married to the father of the baby. There is no real judgment anymore about that even though it might just be better for a baby to have an intact family.
I'm not sure why people think Christians only think women should be abstinent until marriage. This holds true for both sexes in every church I've ever attended. I've never heard it was ok for men to have sex outside marriage. Not sure where you heard that.
Regarding Viagra . . . .I've already mentioned that equating coverage for Viagra with this issue doesn't make any sense. An erection and a fertilized egg? Nah. For the most part, Viagra is for older men with ED. It has not much to do with actually trying to become a parent. Personally, I think insurance covering absolutely everything is not the way to go but especially not single payer. But that's another subject.
The problem with this is that their (Hobby Lobby) convictions don't make them scientifically accurate.
Your statement is UNscientific. According to scientists and biologists, Hobby Lobby's stand on when life begins is scientifically correct. Life begins at fertilization and BEFORE implantation:
When life begins: The consensus from the scientific community
The predominant definition in medical dictionaries and which is consistent with the scientific data is life begins at fertilization/conception i.e. at the moment of fusion of sperm and egg. Although most pro-choice groups acknowledge life begins at conception, some pro-choice groups would have us believe this question remains unanswered by the scientific community or is 'controversial'. However, the scientific community has a tremendous overwhelming consensus on when life begins.
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion .... It is plain experimental evidence." (The 'Father of Modern Genetics', Dr. Jerome Lejeune, University of Descartes, Paris).
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." (Dr. H. Gordon, Chairman - Department of Genetics, Mayo Clinic).
"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." (The "Father of In Vitro Fertilization," Dr. Landrum Shettles M.D., Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Director of Research at the New York Fertility Research Foundation).
"Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." (Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, M.D., Professor, Harvard University Medical College).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei ... and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning of a human being." (Moore, Keith L., Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker, Inc., 1988, p.2).
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3).
"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." (Dr. McCarthy de Mere, M.D., law professor, University of Tennessee).
"I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being." (Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine).
Hobby Lobby provides birth control as part of their benefits package. What they objected to was being mandated to pay for the morning after pill which is not birth control but an abortificant. There is a difference.
No there isn't. There really isn't. Look it up. I provided the link
The Hyde amendment prevents Federal dollars for being used to fund abortion services.
Your statement is false. Federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund abortion:
Why are abortion businesses accused of greed?
Abortion providers profit financially - and significantly so - from performing abortions. Their business model is purely a financial one. But they never mention financial profit as the basis for their pro-choice platform. Rather, they prefer to mention their concern for 'women’s' rights' instead - a decidedly more noble sentiment.
From 2006 to 2007, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, increased the number of abortions from 264,943 to 289,650. With that increase, total revenue was over 1 BILLION dollars. This included taxpayer dollars in the form of government grants and contracts in excess of $336 million dollars (ref: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Annual Report 2006).
Planned Parenthood lobbies our politicians at Washington D.C. to remove abortion restrictions in order to assure their future financial success. In 2006, the Planned Parenthood Political Action Committee spent 53.1 million dollars to 'adjust' public policy. (Ref: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Annual Report, 2006). See http://www.feministschoosinglife.org/counter/
AmyRN303, BSN, RN
732 Posts
Have you tried to find another unskilled position which makes $12-14/hr to start? I can only speak for myself, but even in this very expensive state of the union, they don't grow on trees. My sister, who worked retail for years spent the better portion of six months searching for a job when she moved. They're not out there in abundance. I know this deviates from the topic at hand, but it's certainly relevant.