Health Care and Contraception: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right?

[Brian]

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

Here is an article on the topic:

Hobby Lobby Ruling Cuts Into Contraceptive Mandate

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.

[klone, MSN, RN]

neither was abortion but it seems to have become fodder for discussion.

I"m pretty sure Spideysmom and others who are in favor of the ruling are the ones who originally brought abortion into the discussion. Muno and Baloney (who are opposed to the ruling) seem to be one of the only ones who actually want to talk about the SCOTUS ruling and the meat of the ruling.

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

I"m pretty sure Spideysmom and others who are in favor of the ruling are the ones who originally brought abortion into the discussion. Muno and Baloney (who are opposed to the ruling) seem to be one of the only ones who actually want to talk about the SCOTUS ruling and the meat of the ruling.

C'mon guys... This is about abortion.... and the conscious of the owners of HL. If 4 out of the 20 forms of "birth control" are objectionable to them, and it violates their beliefs, then they should be able to "abstain" from being mandated to pay for them. If you owned a business, and a avowed predator from NAMBL came in and wanted a picture of him and a four year old in a sexual position imprinted on a t-shirt should you be forced to print it, just because you own a graphic design business? NOOOOO! If this violated your beliefs, why should the government be able to say, "to hell with your beliefs, do it!" No, we still need the freedom to live, and practice according to our principles... if not, what distinguishes us from lower animal forms? Our ability to reason, and determine right versus wrong!

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

C'mon guys... This is about abortion.... and the conscious of the owners of HL. If 4 out of the 20 forms of "birth control" are objectionable to them, and it violates their beliefs, then they should be able to "abstain" from being mandated to pay for them. If you owned a business, and a avowed predator from NAMBL came in and wanted a picture of him and a four year old in a sexual position imprinted on a t-shirt should you be forced to print it, just because you own a graphic design business? NOOOOO! If this violated your beliefs, why should the government be able to say, "to hell with your beliefs, do it!" No, we still need the freedom to live, and practice according to our principles... if not, what distinguishes us from lower animal forms? Our ability to reason, and determine right versus wrong!

We are talking about legal forms of women's contraception, NOT NAMBL.

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

We are talking about legal forms of women's contraception, NOT NAMBL.

BUT it is the same principle.. If it violates your conscious, why should the government force you to pay for it?

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

I am not following your logic. If I pay for something, I would like to use it. If not, your tax dollars (and everyone elses) will pay for it anyways according to the ruling.

That offends me because I am already paying for something with the expectation that the coverage is adequate.

I don't think there has been any ruling that if a NAMBL member has the choice of t-shirt design declined, that the government needs to pick up the tab for that.

If HL wants to dictate the circumstances of medical coverage, then perhaps they could pay 100% of the coverage and call it a day. But they are not. The employee still contributes, as part of their compensation package, but OH...the other lets say $500 a month that you pay (and some employees may not use) is like spitting into the wind.....

Lets get a list of the medications pertaining to men that HL is declining to have covered. Yup. That would be a list of ZERO.

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-birth-control-benefits/

The most intriguing part of all of this is that state paid for and federal paid for insurance benefits.....which tax payers foot the bill pay for all of these things....

Will HL then decline to pay taxes because it is against their religious beliefs?

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

Lets get a list of the medications pertaining to men that HL is declining to have covered. Yup. That would be a list of ZERO.

Can a man have abort a child inside of them... nope. 16 forms of control they will pay for!!! If the verdict went the other way, why would it be "okay" for the government to tell a company what they should or shouldn't pay for.. It would not be okay.

The first amendment allows for the freedom of your conscience to believe and exercise your rights according to your principles.

[elkpark]

Lets get a list of the medications pertaining to men that HL is declining to have covered. Yup. That would be a list of ZERO.

Can a man have abort a child inside of them... nope. 16 forms of control they will pay for!!! If the verdict went the other way, why would it be "okay" for the government to tell a company what they should or shouldn't pay for.. It would not be okay.

The first amendment allows for the freedom of your conscience to believe and exercise your rights according to your principles.

Again, does that mean that employers should be free to violate Equal Opportunity laws and discriminate freely against women and minorities if that is their sincere religious belief? Should employers be free to impose other aspects of their sincerely held religious beliefs on their employees? Where is the line drawn?

[Student Mom to Three]

C'mon guys... This is about abortion.... and the conscious of the owners of HL. If 4 out of the 20 forms of "birth control" are objectionable to them, and it violates their beliefs, then they should be able to "abstain" from being mandated to pay for them. If you owned a business, and a avowed predator from NAMBL came in and wanted a picture of him and a four year old in a sexual position imprinted on a t-shirt should you be forced to print it, just because you own a graphic design business? NOOOOO! If this violated your beliefs, why should the government be able to say, "to hell with your beliefs, do it!" No, we still need the freedom to live, and practice according to our principles... if not, what distinguishes us from lower animal forms? Our ability to reason, and determine right versus wrong!

Perhaps because child Media is against the LAW, while minimal health care coverage- including contraception- is LAW. Comparing illegal activities to something that is legal and mandated makes absolutely no sense at all.

[morte, LPN, LVN]

this company had enough money, (some of which comes from the investment in companies making these drugs/medical devices) to take this to the supreme court. It wasn't about abortion, it was about sticking it to Obama.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

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.

That's the reason I brought it up earlier in the thread. The reasoning behind HL - whether you agree with it or not - has everything to do with why this case was brought forward.

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.

Yes, it was/is the point. People can disagree with the point but at least acknowledge that the reasoning was due to the abortifacient nature of the 4 excluded meds/devices.

neither was abortion but it seems to have become fodder for discussion.

Again, because without the 4 excluded meds/devices having something to do with being what some folks call "abortion" this case would make no sense.

I"m pretty sure Spideysmom and others who are in favor of the ruling are the ones who originally brought abortion into the discussion. Muno and Baloney (who are opposed to the ruling) seem to be one of the only ones who actually want to talk about the SCOTUS ruling and the meat of the ruling.

In the beginning of this thread and the other on no one mentioned the reasoning behind the case. The reasoning is the 4 excluded meds/devices are considered abortifacients. They can and do at times prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. That's considered abortion by many who yes, have medical and scientific backgrounds. It even says in the medical literature that this is one way the meds/devices stop a pregnancy from going forward.

Again, we can disagree about when life is conceived but abortion IS the crux of the matter in this case. So yeah, we need to discuss it.

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

How does their beliefs discriminate against women? As a women, If my employers stated that they believe that the IUD prevents implantation of the sperm and egg, thus allowing a "human being" to die, and they don't want any part of that because it violates their conscious, why should the government say,

"Too bad.. you must pay for this anyway!" Why can't that employee:

1. Go work somewhere else.. somewhere in which they do not have a problem paying for this.

2. Pay for the IUD, or the three other objectionable forms, themselves.

Some women say that they don't want the government to dictate what they can and can't do with their bodies.. They want to be able to abort a fetus if they choose too, but then out of the other side of their mouth, they are saying, STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM, but PAY FOR MY CHOICES!

This is so wrong.