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.
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.
It may not be the point, but having all the facts helps when arguing about something. I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, aside from the issues regarding what this will mean for other companies and other religions, etc.
I don't really have a stance on the whole subject, but the fact is that they aren't denying birth control, they are denying one form of birth control, since the morning after pill isn't something someone would need to take every day anyways, not to mention it is OTC in most states.
I don't think they are right, mind you. I just think it's important to have all of the facts. It's not as outrageous as it's being made to seem.
Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
I find the article a bit condescending I think there are those of us who remember a time when a woman's right to choose was not hers and was illegal. We are cautious about losing this simple right for a woman to choose her healthcare choices for her body.
.
What right to choose? The religious right is making it too difficult for family planning clinics or OB/GYN practices who want to provide abortions to stay open. As a result, some women have no access to abortion without traveling to another state -- something which is particularly difficult for low income women to do. And now they're trying to take away our right to choose our own birth control?!
If men could get pregnant both abortion and birth control would be sacrements.
Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
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'm sure most nurses -- at least those of us working full time -- CAN afford to pay for an IUD. But then how many nurses does Hobby Lobby employ? Those women they DO employ -- working for far less money than I do -- may NOT be able to afford an IUD, an iPhone, a big screen TV or dinner at a good restaurant.
The other thing is, the reason they don't want to allow the IUD is because they believe it leads to spontaneous abortion, it's not because they don't believe in birth control.
What I would like, is for them to become more educated on the subject, and realize that the copper IUD blocks sperm, much like other BC methods, and that conception is extremely unlikely with this device.
I do understand what their issue is-- They feel they are "paying" for a device that causes miscarriage. They're wrong, but I understand the point of it.
I don't have a problem with them not wanting to pay for the morning after pill, it's expensive and often used as regular birth control.
My husbands employer pays not only his premiums, but for the actual procedures depending on what kind they are. It's part of their contract. They pay for ER visits out of pocket, and have implemented a 150 copay if you aren't admitted because people were abusing it, resulting in spending over 30k on one employee in 2012 for nonsense visits.
Employers, depending on the plan, do sometimes pay directly out of pocket for certain things pertaining to their employees plans.
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 think it's been confused both ways. Hobby Lobby's particular preference was to not cover four specific forms of contraception, but the SCOTUS ruling doesn't just apply to those four, it applies to all twenty forms of covered contraception. Another company that decides to act on the ruling's precedence can deny any or all of those twenty, not just the four HL opposed.
While we're at it, there seems to be some suggestion that this was limited in that it only applies to "closely held" companies, which is true but the majority of companies (more than 90%) in the US are considered closely held. The largest single employer in the US, Walmart, is closely held even though it is a traded comany, and then there are another 6 million people employed by private companies, which are also considered closely held.
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.
Are you referring to Hobby Lobby or the government?
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.
Ultimately what is covered in any given insurance plan is whatever the business who negotiates with the insurance company decides to cover. That is why some insurance plans cover more things than other plans.
Ultimately what is covered in any given insurance plan is whatever the business who negotiates with the insurance company decides to cover. That is why some insurance plans cover more things than other plans.
It's not really whatever the business decides to cover, it's whatever they decide to cover in addition to the minimum coverage requirements.
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.
What?
Maybe its just because its 4am and my brain is fried, but I don't understand who you're talking about here.
It may not be the point, but having all the facts helps when arguing about something. I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, aside from the issues regarding what this will mean for other companies and other religions, etc.
I don't really have a stance on the whole subject, but the fact is that they aren't denying birth control, they are denying one form of birth control, since the morning after pill isn't something someone would need to take every day anyways, not to mention it is OTC in most states.
I don't think they are right, mind you. I just think it's important to have all of the facts. It's not as outrageous as it's being made to seem.
Ah, but it is pretty outrageous. An IUD is placed and can be kept in place for 5 years. It is not only used for birth control.
A morning after pill is a once in a while, once in a lifetime, whatever thing--but does NOT cause a woman to "abort". That is just not the mechanism of action.
Regardless, the outrage comes from women not having the freedom to use their health insurance coverage like every other woman with the same plan and coverage who does NOT work for this company.
Thousands of companies have already been exempted from the mandates of Obamacare as political favors. That is probably one of the reasons the ruling went the way it did. Had there been no exemptions period, then this case would have been a slam dunk the other way.
It's my opinion that they should cover birth control, but should be allowed to not cover the morning after pill or pay for abortions.
It's my understanding that this is why they were fighting this in court.
I am strongly pro-life and When I worked OB I told my employer I would could not take pt's who were having an abortion. The hospital was a Baptist institution and only did them under severe circumstances. My employer respected that request and out of the 2 pt's that we took care of in 3 1/2 years I did not assist. Now when it was done and over with I was fine to go help. I treated the pt no different than any other pt.
I took care of many pt that had previously had abortions and also treated them well. I was non judgmental and kept my beliefs to myself.
But as far as this ruling goes, I agree with it. I could never knowingly participate in anything having to do with abortion because of my strong beliefs on the subject.
Glycerine82, LPN
1 Article; 2,188 Posts
It may not be the point, but having all the facts helps when arguing about something. I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, aside from the issues regarding what this will mean for other companies and other religions, etc.
I don't really have a stance on the whole subject, but the fact is that they aren't denying birth control, they are denying one form of birth control, since the morning after pill isn't something someone would need to take every day anyways, not to mention it is OTC in most states.
I don't think they are right, mind you. I just think it's important to have all of the facts. It's not as outrageous as it's being made to seem.