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.
Again, you may believe whatever you prefer regarding the beginning of life.
The issue at hand in the HL case is their "religious beliefs" relative to life and their status which apparently allows their religious beliefs to directly affect women in their employment. There is no additional charge for coverage of all legal contraceptives and they covered those items until a right wing legal group contacted them and inspired a religious revelation (apparently) causing them to want to discontinue that coverage and disadvantage their female employees who might prefer to use those contraceptives. There is much to suggest that this case is more reflective of their political stance than of any religious discomforture, especially given the fact that they invested in the manufacture of abortifacients and in the labor forces of China (the abortion capital of the world).
The question continues to resonate, why are the "religious beliefs" of a corporation 1) valid, 2) more special than the beliefs of the female employee, and 3) allowed to directly impact the lives of other people?
Hobby Lobby fundamentally disagrees with that definition of abortion. Their belief is that, once fertilized, whether implanted or not, when cells are rapidly multiplying and if left alone it WOULD develop into a full term baby, you are indeed stopping life. You have every right to disagree with this but from their point of view, you are interfering with a process that is God-ordained. They want to honor their convictions, not hurt women. Women have the right to buy any method they choose but not force someone else to pay for it.
WHY does this despicable organization buy products from China, a country that forces women to have third trimester abortions? Why are their beliefs secondary to their investments in the companies that manufacture emergency contraception?
Put it this way; what the court ruled is that hobby lobby doesn't have to cover contraception because it can be covered in other ways, including having federal funds at least indirectly offset the costs or otherwise shifting the costs to the public at large, so did they get it right?
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
I don't ordinarily quote myself in a thread, but this bears repeating. And I can tell that a number of people found it had too many words in it to actually read. :)
From the movie "Amadeus"
EMPEROR: Well, Herr Mozart! A good effort. Decidedly that. An excellent effort! You've shown us something quite new today.
[Mozart bows frantically: he is over-excited.]
MOZART: It is new, it is, isn't it, Sire?
EMPEROR: Yes, indeed.
MOZART: So then you like it? You really like it, Your Majesty?
EMPEROR: Of course I do. It's very good. Of course now and then - just now and then - it gets a touch elaborate.
MOZART: What do you mean, Sire?
EMPEROR: Well, I mean occasionally it seems to have, how shall one say? [he stops in difficulty; turning to Orsini-Rosenberg] How shall one say, Director?
ORSINI-ROSENBERG: Too many notes, Your Majesty?
EMPEROR: Exactly. Very well put. Too many notes.
MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less.
EMPEROR: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that, aren't I, Court Composer?
SALIERI: Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty.
MOZART: But this is absurd!
EMPEROR: My dear, young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
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.
You are not very well-versed in labor law are you?
I have noticed that ridiculous inflammatory statements that have no basis in reality are fodder of choice when one's argument is shaky. Remember, insurance is a benefit, not a right. You must educate yourself on your potential employer's plan before accepting employment. They cannot change your coverage out the blue. This is one LEGAL exemption and no others are in play. You would know before you accept employment what your coverage is. Work somewhere else if you do not like it or buy into O-care. You have many options before you.
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?
I am actually pursuing my Masters so I can then obtain my Doctorate so that I may prescribe these drugs and perform abortions. I will not be doing this from an armchair. I will however fight for my rights as an American Citizen and the rights of my sisters until I am able to provide as many abortions as humanly possible.
This slacktivsim is not incongruent with my beliefs. If abortions become illegal, I will provide safe illegal abortions. I will support the right to family planning, birth control, and abortion until the day some evangelical fundie whack job kills me. I will also counsel women in need and provide whatever assistance they deem necessary, whether it be driving them to the clinic and escorting them through the hordes that crowd the sidewalks or supporting them and their children until they are able to support themselves. I will fight for them, I will grieve with them, and I will support them until the day I die. No one can take this away from me. I am pro-family, pro-choice and pro-abortion, on demand, without apology.
I've been watching a grudge match of epic proportions, and enjoying it hugely. I can barely keep up with the posts. Participating is unthinkable.
However, $ 12 an hour for unskilled labor, is crazy generous in my area.
My daughter would stand in line for hours just for an application for that job.
your daughter is not fighting for her rights to nondiscriminatory health insurance is she?
Is she also supporting herself and her {growing} family on that wage? She better be ready because they are coming for her birth control.
We are nurses. At $50/hr things look pretty easy. We are speaking from prole privilege. Your daughter has the same privilege; I doubt you wil tell her to go without because she has to pay for her birth control.
toomuchbaloney
16,089 Posts
Again, you may believe whatever you prefer regarding the beginning of life.
The issue at hand in the HL case is their "religious beliefs" relative to life and their status which apparently allows their religious beliefs to directly affect women in their employment. There is no additional charge for coverage of all legal contraceptives and they covered those items until a right wing legal group contacted them and inspired a religious revelation (apparently) causing them to want to discontinue that coverage and disadvantage their female employees who might prefer to use those contraceptives. There is much to suggest that this case is more reflective of their political stance than of any religious discomforture, especially given the fact that they invested in the manufacture of abortifacients and in the labor forces of China (the abortion capital of the world).
The question continues to resonate, why are the "religious beliefs" of a corporation 1) valid, 2) more special than the beliefs of the female employee, and 3) allowed to directly impact the lives of other people?