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.

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

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.

.

Actually, Plan B sits on many young college-aged girls beside tables in a brown paper bag and they use it as birth control. When my daughter was in college in a local college-town known for having the distinction of being the "#1 Party School in America" . . . . she said her friends used Plan B as birth control after hook-up sex. They didn't like putting chemicals into their bodies and so didn't want to use BCP's but would use Plan B instead since they didn't have to use it everyday. One of the reasons I wasn't crazy about the OTC nature of this drug . . . because many college girls are airheads.

It's funny - as an aside . . everything has to be organic with these girls, no cleaning products in the house unless they are natural, and yet . . . . . most of these young girls smoke cigs.

[nurseprnRN, BSN, RN]

hardly, but that those of us who don't have sex are paying for those that do and get pregnant. how is that fair?

When those of us taxpayers who get birth control paid for by those taxpayers that don't need it, that's NOT jumping through hoops, that's a free ride.

Feel entitled much?

And when you get cancer and my premiums helps pay for your treatment, or your kid breaks an arm playing football and my premium helps pay for his ER and OT, or your daughter-in-law has a high-risk pregnancy and the baby needs NICU after the C-section and my premiums help pay for their care, how is that fair? I don't have cancer, my kids are grown up and no longer my responsibility, and I am well-past menopause, so by your logic ... .

See, it's like this. It's not a matter of zero-sum games, and it's not a matter of tit-for-tat (with apologies to the breast cancer analogy).

This is a matter of public health, of being citizens of the same country all together. It's a matter of the common good.

Think about your fellow citizens in that way, and your citizenship in this great country as including bearing responsibilities towards the common good and not just "what's in it for me, why should I pay for you," and you might begin to see why this is important.

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

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.

Sure, This could not be about a morally upright company exercising their right to think and run their company according to biblical principles. Naw, the monies spent on lawyers and time and trouble they had getting it through was all about them saying.. HaHa Obama you lost! Really?

Wow you must think that they believe Obama really means something to them!

[BrandonLPN, LPN]

Sure, This could not be about a morally upright company exercising their right to think and run their company according to biblical principles. Naw, the monies spent on lawyers and time and trouble they had getting it through was all about them saying.. HaHa Obama you lost! Really?

Wow you must think that they believe Obama really means something to them!

But if it's really about morals and biblical principals, why do they invest money in companies that manufacture the same contraceptives they claim are tantamount to abortion and against their religion?

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

First of all prove to me that this is the case, and not some talking point!

In addition, if it is true.. tell me.. If you have a portfolio, how much of your investments go to what? Would you know? Especially if a third party is handling that?

That isn't an excuse, it's just reality. And if I knew that was in my portfolio, I would do something about it.

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

Sure, This could not be about a morally upright company exercising their right to think and run their company according to biblical principles. Naw, the monies spent on lawyers and time and trouble they had getting it through was all about them saying.. HaHa Obama you lost! Really?

Wow you must think that they believe Obama really means something to them!

To be fair this does actually relate to Obamacare . . . .

Nuns Still Face Obamacare Mandate Despite Hobby Lobby Ruling

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

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.

Yes, Child Media is unlawful, as is making laws in which an employer can't exercise their rights under the constitution.

I have a right to run my company how I choose, and as long as I run it according to the law, I shouldn't have ANYONE telling me that I need to pay for something that violates my principles.

[IVRUS, BSN, RN]

To be fair this does actually relate to Obamacare . . . .

Nuns Still Face Obamacare Mandate Despite Hobby Lobby Ruling

Yes, of course because it is Obama'a HC which got us to this point.. but to say that this is JUST TO GET BACK at him is ridiculous.

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

It is important to at least acknowledge where this all started. Again, we can disagree about when life begins but the issue really is quite simple.

True or False? Hobby Lobby Banned Birth Control

It is important to know what you are protesting for or against. Always important.

Watch: Do Hobby Lobby Critics Know the Drugs at Issue?

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

Yes, of course because it is Obama'a HC which got us to this point.. but to say that this is JUST TO GET BACK at him is ridiculous.

Well, that's certainly true.

[toomuchbaloney]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hobby Lobby owners and some here BELIEVE that the excluded contraceptives are abortifacient. That does not make them, in fact, abortifacient. Regardless, the SCOTUS determined that the corporation could apply it's misguided religious thought to the contraceptive practices of female employees, presumably because women have fewer rights than corporations.

A fertilized egg is not the same as a pregnancy. Preventing pregnancy after the fertilization is not abortion, it is preventing the need for abortion. This a difficult distinction for those who believe that life begins at fertilization (apparently). Did you know that as many as 80% of all pregnancies fail by day 12 (post ovulation) because of problems or delays in implantation. Pregnancy occurs when the embryo successfully implants and the hormonal changes necessary for the duration occur.

Preventing implantation prevents pregnancy and the need for abortion.

[trishmsn]

A fertilized egg is not the same as a pregnancy. Preventing pregnancy after the fertilization is not abortion.

This is one of the many points that are zooming right past many people, both in general and on this thread. It does not matter when YOU believe an embryo is ensouled and human (if ever). What this SCOTUS decision held was that those who DO believe that the soul is present at conception need not be obligated to pay for a medication that may cause that life to die.

It is morally equivalent to giving someone money you know will be used to hire a hit man for murder. YOU do not have to believe this, it is sufficient a moral quandry to those who DO to excuse them from supporting this act by others.