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 Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Philadelphia Inquirer
Drew A. Harris, DPM, MPH, Director of Health Policy Program at the Jefferson School of Population Health
Posted: Thursday, July 3, 2014, 11:51 AM
Bad Faith - Flawed belief trumps good science in Hobby Lobby Case
A key provision of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) mandated that all health plans offer a basket of prevention services designed to lower overall health care spending and improve health outcomes. Independent medical experts convened by the government selected the actual covered healthcare services. These experts decided that preventing unwanted pregnancy was just as useful as diabetes and cancer screening in keeping people healthy. So, all FDA-approved contraception methods made the list.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it the same way. Some religions oppose most forms of contraception. Others, like the Hobby Lobby’s corporate owners, object to Intrauterine Uterine Devices (IUDs) and morning-after pills (“Plan B” and Ella) because they believe these methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
It’s very important to note that the scientific experts say these methods are not abortifacients. Abortion is just not how they work. Instead, they prevent ovulation or block fertilization.
However, the Supreme Court essentially said that the science in this case doesn’t matter. From the majority’s perspective, a strongly and consistently held belief was sufficient to trump science.
However, one newspaper's opinion and the architects of ACA (Obamacare) don't hold all the magic keys.
In this thread and the other one (Hobby Lobby on the yellow side), there have been numerous links to science-based information that yes, an IUD can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and that is one of the way the IUD works. As well as Plan B. There are times when that can happen.
And for some, that means you've terminated a life.
We can and have disagreed about this but it is only fair to at least acknowledge that this does happen. Therefore, those opposed to these methods that can logically and scientifically be called "abortifacients" have a point.
I think what is happening is we all have different definitions of when life begins so of course the Philly newspaper and ACA architects don't think that impeding the implantation of a fertilized egg is abortion. It isn't life until implantation say some. It isn't life until it can be viable outside the womb say others. It isn't viable until it takes it first breath say a few others. There is great disagreement here.
But if a fertilized egg isn't life, why do couples who are infertile harvest eggs and introduce them to a bazillion sperm in order to have a child? That fertilized egg in the petri dish IS life to some. Which bring up another issue and that is what to do with all the leftover fertilized eggs. But . .that is for another day and thread.
However, one newspaper's opinion and the architects of ACA (Obamacare) don't hold all the magic keys.
It's not one newspaper's opinion. It is the scientific consensus
In this thread and the other one (Hobby Lobby on the yellow side), there have been numerous links to science-based information that yes, an IUD can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and that is one of the way the IUD works. As well as Plan B. There are times when that can happen.
I've been following this since the beginning and see no such links.
And for some, that means you've terminated a life.
We can and have disagreed about this but it is only fair to at least acknowledge that this does happen. Therefore, those opposed to these methods that can logically and scientifically be called "abortifacients" have a point.
they don't have to use those methods. No-one is forcing thes people to use birth control
I think what is happening is we all have different definitions of when life begins so of course the Philly newspaper and ACA architects don't think that impeding the implantation of a fertilized egg is abortion. It isn't life until implantation say some. It isn't life until it can be viable outside the womb say others. It isn't viable until it takes it first breath say a few others. There is great disagreement here.
But if a fertilized egg isn't life, why do couples who are infertile harvest eggs and introduce them to a bazillion sperm in order to have a child? That fertilized egg in the petri dish IS life to some. Which bring up another issue and that is what to do with all the leftover fertilized eggs. But . .that is for another day and thread.
Personally I am opposed to that. To me it's worse than abortion. I'm not making it illegal or preventing people from getting their fertility treatments paid for by their insurance.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Thanks Karen.
However, one newspaper's opinion and the architects of ACA (Obamacare) don't hold all the magic keys.
In this thread and the other one (Hobby Lobby on the yellow side), there have been numerous links to science-based information that yes, an IUD can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and that is one of the way the IUD works. As well as Plan B. There are times when that can happen.
And for some, that means you've terminated a life.
We can and have disagreed about this but it is only fair to at least acknowledge that this does happen. Therefore, those opposed to these methods that can logically and scientifically be called "abortifacients" have a point.
I think what is happening is we all have different definitions of when life begins so of course the Philly newspaper and ACA architects don't think that impeding the implantation of a fertilized egg is abortion. It isn't life until implantation say some. It isn't life until it can be viable outside the womb say others. It isn't viable until it takes it first breath say a few others. There is great disagreement here.
But if a fertilized egg isn't life, why do couples who are infertile harvest eggs and introduce them to a bazillion sperm in order to have a child? That fertilized egg in the petri dish IS life to some. Which bring up another issue and that is what to do with all the leftover fertilized eggs. But . .that is for another day and thread.
And so you are okay with the SCOTUS ruling on ONE NARROW interpretation of this because you agree with this particular narrow interpretation. Because you agree, you are okay with the rights of other women to choose their own type of contraception being impaired, not because of science or fact, but because of a NARROW interpretation and BELIEF which is has value ONLY in the world of faith. (it won't hold water in the scientific world) Will you be so agreeable when you personally don't agree with the corporation?
I find the quiet and slow erosion of our individual rights alarming...but the very fearful people who gave us the Patriot Act are now going to give us all sort of restrictions based upon some made up and imagined rights and religions of Corporate entities.
I wonder, now that we have celebrated the birth of our nation, how American women feel about corporations having more rights than they do in this country?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
It is important to note that a woman can have quite a number of fertilized embryos placed into her uterus and she is NOT pregnant until one of them implants. Fertilized egg does not equal pregnancy.
This thread is biased in the the way the poll is worded. No hobby lobby shouldn't have to pay for an employee's birth control. They can buy condoms if they cant get other forms of birth control. They are effective and cheap. Of course that is if it is used correctly which the pills also have to be used correctly also in order to be effective. Condoms cost around 13 dollars for a pack of 40.
This thread is biased in the the way the poll is worded. No hobby lobby shouldn't have to pay for an employee's birth control. They can buy condoms if they cant get other forms of birth control. They are effective and cheap. Of course that is if it is used correctly which the pills also have to be used correctly also in order to be effective. Condoms cost around 13 dollars for a pack of 40.
Once my husband surprised me when he was in the military by coming home on leave. I hadn't been using birth control because I didn't have my husband around. We used a condom which predictably broke. I used a plan B type pill. Oh wait...............that wouldn't be covered either would it? Luckily I had a pharmacist who didn't want to impose their religious beliefs on me either.
This thread is biased in the the way the poll is worded. No hobby lobby shouldn't have to pay for an employee's birth control. They can buy condoms if they cant get other forms of birth control. They are effective and cheap. Of course that is if it is used correctly which the pills also have to be used correctly also in order to be effective. Condoms cost around 13 dollars for a pack of 40.
Nobody is asking hobby lobby to pay for birth control, the issue is whether or not they should be allowed to interfere with the employee's insurance plan which is what provides the employee with birth control.
For many people, contraception is affordable, although we also know that for many it is not, we know that about one third of American women have difficulty affording birth control at some point during their lives. We also know that unintended pregnancies carry significant economic, social, and health costs, so is your argument that we dont' actually benefit from encouraging access to birth control?
However, one newspaper's opinion and the architects of ACA (Obamacare) don't hold all the magic keys.
In this thread and the other one (Hobby Lobby on the yellow side), there have been numerous links to science-based information that yes, an IUD can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and that is one of the way the IUD works. As well as Plan B. There are times when that can happen.
And for some, that means you've terminated a life.
We can and have disagreed about this but it is only fair to at least acknowledge that this does happen. Therefore, those opposed to these methods that can logically and scientifically be called "abortifacients" have a point.
I think what is happening is we all have different definitions of when life begins so of course the Philly newspaper and ACA architects don't think that impeding the implantation of a fertilized egg is abortion. It isn't life until implantation say some. It isn't life until it can be viable outside the womb say others. It isn't viable until it takes it first breath say a few others. There is great disagreement here.
But if a fertilized egg isn't life, why do couples who are infertile harvest eggs and introduce them to a bazillion sperm in order to have a child? That fertilized egg in the petri dish IS life to some. Which bring up another issue and that is what to do with all the leftover fertilized eggs. But . .that is for another day and thread.
It seems you're implying that the "architects of the ACA" decided to include these specific forms of contraception, although that's not how it happened. The "architects of the ACA", which was the senate finance committee, included that preventive care should be provided without a surcharge, it was then up to the physicians, and nurses, at the IOM to define what constituted preventive medicine/care.
In any case, the court clearly didn't agree that these were abortifacients, even the conservative members of the court, since they ruled that the federal government should absorb the costs that HL is refusing to allow their employees to utilize in the insurance plan they've earned.
And so you are okay with the SCOTUS ruling on ONE NARROW interpretation of this because you agree with this particular narrow interpretation.
I wonder how okay people would be with this if they didn't agree with the religious belief involved.
If Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims that refuse to pay for care obtained by men from female physicians, would the "Yay!!! Religious freedom!!!" be so great then. After all, if you like your female physician, just go get a job elsewhere!
I wonder how okay people would be with this if they didn't agree with the religious belief involved.
If Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims that refuse to pay for care obtained by men from female physicians, would the "Yay!!! Religious freedom!!!" be so great then. After all, if you like your female physician, just go get a job elsewhere!
NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN
10 Articles; 19,196 Posts
Philadelphia Inquirer
Drew A. Harris, DPM, MPH, Director of Health Policy Program at the Jefferson School of Population Health
Posted: Thursday, July 3, 2014, 11:51 AM
Bad Faith - Flawed belief trumps good science in Hobby Lobby Case