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.
"And those rights include FORCING women to live by the personal issues of the corporation"
Oh, wow... so asking you to buy your own contraception is force? Really? And if you have to buy your own food, shelter, etc... that is being forced on you?
Articles: Mature Women don't Cry-yi-yi, is an interesting article on the subject matter. Do mature women cry victim because others cannot be forced to pay for birth control the woman wants?
Thank you.
You continually say these women want someone else to buy their contraception. What part of them having jobs do you not understand? They want their compensation to be as inclusive as their male counterparts' insurance. When you want your viagra or testicular cancer treatment paid for, are you an immature man crying victim and expecting your employer to be forced to pay for things for you? Or are you expecting to use the compensation you've worked for?
If employment with Hobby Lobby is a condition of receiving a certain health insurance policy, they must be paying for it. Remember there is a hearty fine by the US Government for companies that don't follow the ACA guidelines insurance. Sounds like the government is deciding what Hobby Lobby will cover, via the ACA., not Hobby Lobby. Isn't that why they went to court? Their objection was, they didn't want to PAY for something they had religious objections to! Yes, the employers pay... the employee pays only a part. It's a load shared by both.
You may say..." it's not my employers business what kind of contraception I use". If it isn't, why do you want them to cover contraception at all. "it's not your employers business what happens in your bedroom",... I'm quite sure they have more important things to think about, but the ACA has MADE it their business by forcing them to PAY.
BTW, Hobby Lobby is not publically traded, as some have supposed. It doesn't sell stock on the NYSE or any other exchage. All its stock are owned by family members, so effectively it is a family business. This, plus the religious freedom issue, was the most important reason the Supreme Court allowed the exception. That's what they meant by a "closely held family business".
As far as the poor nurses who couldn't afford to pay for an IUD ...could they afford an iphone, big screen TV, dinner at a good restaurant once in a while? I've found that people can usually "afford" what's most important to them. I'm sorry if it's a sacrifice...but most of us make sacrifices sometimes.
If employment with Hobby Lobby is a condition of receiving a certain health insurance policy, they must be paying for it. Remember there is a hearty fine by the US Government for companies that don't follow the ACA guidelines insurance. Sounds like the government is deciding what Hobby Lobby will cover, via the ACA., not Hobby Lobby. Isn't that why they went to court? Their objection was, they didn't want to PAY for something they had religious objections to! Yes, the employers pay... the employee pays only a part. It's a load shared by both. That has always been true. Hobby Lobby is much more than a "middle man".
You may say..." it's not my employers business what kind of contraception I use". If it isn't, why do you want them to cover contraception at all. "it's not your employers business what happens in your bedroom",... I'm quite sure they have more important things to think about, but the ACA has MADE it their business by forcing them to PAY.
BTW, Hobby Lobby is not publically traded, as some have supposed. It doesn't sell stock on the NYSE or any other exchage. All its stock are owned by family members, so effectively it is a family business. This, plus the religious freedom issue, was the most important reason the Supreme Court allowed the exception. That's what they meant by a "closely held family business".
As far as the poor nurses who couldn't afford to pay for an IUD ...could they afford an iphone, big screen TV, dinner at a good restaurant once in a while? I've found that people can usually "afford" what's most important to them. I'm sorry if it's a sacrifice...but most of us make sacrifices sometimes.
I am still confused as to why people keep saying Hobby Lobby would be "paying" for anyone's contraception.
HL is not a provider of medical services. They simply offer health insurance as a form of compensation. Isn't what is covered in an isurance plan ultimately up to the insurance company?
I notice Blue Cross doesn't get all drama-queen-ish and try to impose their religious views on its customers. And I'm sure whatever family or group of people in charge of that company has their own moral and religious principals. They're just not foisting them on others. There is nothing virtuous about what HL is doing.
Oh, and I'm also confused as to why some seem to be poo-pooing birth control as not being a legitiamte need or form of healthcare. Few medical services have had as big an impact on the health of women as the widespread introduction of birth control.
Y'all know that they're only refusing to cover the morning after pill and IUD's, right? They cover all other forms of BC. Not that I am really on either side here, but it seems many people are confused about what happened.
My apologies if this was already discussed, I didn't read through all of the posts.
Y'all know that they're only refusing to cover the morning after pill and IUD's, right? They cover all other forms of BC. Not that I am really on either side here, but it seems many people are confused about what happened.
My apologies if this was already discussed, I didn't read through all of the posts.
I wouldn't care if it was only one out of a thousand forms of birth control they were denying their employees. That's really not the point.
Y'all know that they're only refusing to cover the morning after pill and IUD's, right? They cover all other forms of BC. Not that I am really on either side here, but it seems many people are confused about what happened.
My apologies if this was already discussed, I didn't read through all of the posts.
This seems to have gotten lost on a lot of debates on this subject. They made it sound like they are refusing all birth control when it is actually the ones you mentioned. And no, I don't believe it has been pointed out in this thread-they're too busy arguing about abortion and whether it's right or wrong depending on which side of the fence you're sitting on which has entirely nothing to do with the Supreme Courts decision.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
If employment with Hobby Lobby is a condition of receiving a certain health insurance policy, they must be paying for it. Remember there is a hearty fine by the US Government for companies that don't follow the ACA guidelines insurance. Sounds like the government is deciding what Hobby Lobby will cover, via the ACA., not Hobby Lobby. Isn't that why they went to court? Their objection was, they didn't want to PAY for something they had religious objections to! Yes, the employers pay... the employee pays only a part. It's a load shared by both.*A*
You may say..." it's not my employers business what kind of contraception I use". If it isn't, why do you want them to cover contraception at all. "it's not your employers business what happens in your bedroom",... I'm quite sure they have more important things to think about, but the ACA has MADE it their business by forcing them to PAY. *B*
BTW, Hobby Lobby is not publically traded, as some have supposed. It doesn't sell stock on the NYSE or any other exchage. All its stock are owned by family members, so effectively it is a family business. This, plus the religious freedom issue, was the most important reason the Supreme Court allowed the exception. That's what they meant by a "closely held family business".*C*
As far as the poor nurses who couldn't afford to pay for an IUD ...could they afford an iphone, big screen TV, dinner at a good restaurant once in a while? I've found that people can usually "afford" what's most important to them. I'm sorry if it's a sacrifice...but most of us make sacrifices sometimes.*D*
*A* First we must agree with the SCOTUS that corporations are people and further that those (owned) people practice specific religions. Hobby Lobby went to court because they were invited to by an activist legal group. They didn't have any particular objection to providing a comprehensive insurance policy before they were approached, their religious sensibilities don't prevent them from doing considerable business with the worlds greatest fan of abortion (China), or from investing in companies which manufacture abortifacient medications and devices.
*B* Providing a comprehensive health insurance package as a portion of compensation is not some new agreement between employers and employees. The corporate expectation that the compensation should be restricted in scope by the "religious" sensibilities or opinions of the employer is unprecedented and dangerous in scope. This is not about the corporation knowing what is going on in your bedroom. This is the employer making decisions about your access to contraceptives in complete ignorance of YOUR needs/wishes/desires/finances/etc. This is the employer saying you are woman, I am master, and my religion is your religion when it comes to your compensation. This is the SCOTUS saying you are woman and you will bow to the scientifically unsound belief system of an owned entity that we decided erroneously is the equivalent of human.
*C* Yes, we get that this is a "closely held" corporation. I guess that is why the corporation is the same religion as the patriarchs of the family. It is surprising to me that out of 500+ stores that all of them are Christian...but I guess it is just the entire business model that is Christian. I wonder how that Christian family decided that they should do business with China as a major supplier? Do you suppose that the political and social policies of that country influenced their religiously founded business decisions as they have built the empire? Many of us are impressed with the consistency and passion with which this family has pursued their dreams, we just don't happen to think that those business activities or dreams have been particularly Christian.
*D*I'll bet that you didn't mean to categorically criticize and disrespect NURSES specifically in your last paragraph but, rather, you were referring to working poor women in the employment of Hobby Lobby. It is so precious to be reminded (again) that there is no shortage of people who are eager to assume whatever seems most unflattering about the poor and poor women in particular. This is not socially conservative it is socially regressive. Your application of what "you find" is nice but completely irrelevant to a working poor woman trying to access contraception in a world that finds her less important than a corporation.
People can't have it both ways. They complain because the government is trying to take away people's liberties yet they want to be able to force others to do things the way they want to in the process of doing so.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
This seems to have gotten lost on a lot of debates on this subject. They made it sound like they are refusing all birth control when it is actually the ones you mentioned. And no, I don't believe it has been pointed out in this thread-they're too busy arguing about abortion and whether it's right or wrong depending on which side of the fence you're sitting on which has entirely nothing to do with the Supreme Courts decision.
The disagreement is about whether or not a corporation (an owned THING) may dictate which contraception will be provided by the insurance entity that is contracted to administer that portion of the employees compensation.
Now that corporations get circumcised, have baptisms, and bat mitzvahs they get to micromanage that portion of women's lives. It is sort of a capitalist form of Sharia law.
wooh, BSN, RN
1 Article; 4,383 Posts
You continually say these women want someone else to buy their contraception. What part of them having jobs do you not understand? They want their compensation to be as inclusive as their male counterparts' insurance. When you want your viagra or testicular cancer treatment paid for, are you an immature man crying victim and expecting your employer to be forced to pay for things for you? Or are you expecting to use the compensation you've worked for?