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.

[toomuchbaloney]

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.

It is morally equivalent to believing that someone will commit murder when all that is happening is the individual is dying of other causes but has received morphine to make them comfortable. YOu may believe that the person is killing them with morphine but that is not actually true when the actual science is examined.

[morte, LPN, LVN]

matter of opinion, and you know what they say....

Well that's certainly true. [/quote']

[morte, LPN, LVN]

if it weren't true, you really think it would be out there in the press without rebuttal????

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.

[trishmsn]

It is morally equivalent to believing that someone will commit murder when all that is happening is the individual is dying of other causes but has received morphine to make them comfortable. YOu may believe that the person is killing them with morphine but that is not actually true when the actual science is examined.

Your example is an "error" or a "miscommunication". There is no scientific method for proving ensoulment or personhood. It is a matter of faith, and the Court has ruled that those who hold this belief, REGARDLESS of your opinion, may not be forced to facilitate a potential human death.

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

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.

I've mentioned this before but it may have been on the other thread that is now closed.

The natural occurrence of a fertilized egg not implanting is different when an outside "force" so to speak makes that happen. Totally different.

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

if it weren't true, you really think it would be out there in the press without rebuttal????

There are many rebuttals out there about the outrage about supposed hypocrisy but I found one particular article that shows how 401K's work . . . . at Forbes . .not Mother Jones.

Apparently, this also means that Hobby Lobby can’t have a 401(k) plan for their employees. Why? Well, according to Redden and Ungar, the Hobby Lobby owners are religious kook hypocrites. The company 401(k) plan has investments which themselves invest in companies that make the abortion drugs.

This is a ridiculous argument for several reasons, all of which would be obvious to Redden and Ungar if they had ever run a business in their lives:

Hobby Lobby Owners Can Have a 401(k) and First Amendment Rights - Forbes

[elkpark]

I've mentioned this before but it may have been on the other thread that is now closed.

The natural occurrence of a fertilized egg not implanting is different when an outside "force" so to speak makes that happen. Totally different.

How convenient a rationalization ...

[emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B]

matter of opinion, and you know what they say....

"Opinions are like demo tapes, I don't want to hear yours" Stephen Colbert

[elkpark]

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.

Totally aside from the question of whether or not HL invests in "abortifacient" birth control methods that they wish to deny their employees, you can walk into any HL store, start picking up items and looking at the "Made In ..." labels, and see for yourself that the vast majority of the items they sell are made in China, a country well known around the world for its one-child and forced-abortion policy. It seems to me that, if HL owners really cared so deeply about the innocent, pre-born little children they went to court over, they would refuse to do business with companies in a country in which who-knows-how-many of the female workers making the products they sell may be forced to have abortions, even late-term abortions. Apparently they don't mind profiting off the labor of women forced to have abortions, and don't mind doing business with companies in a country with that policy. I might have some respect for their supposed "conscience" about the contraceptive methods if they were consistent enough to refuse to do business with China -- but, hey, that would cut into their profits.

And, BTW, I do know what is in my portfolio, because I make a point of investing in a "socially responsible" fund for that exact reason -- so I know where my money is going, and that I'm not investing in any companies with business models and policies that conflict with my personal ethics and beliefs.

Too bad HL owners don't feel the same concern.

[toomuchbaloney]

There are many rebuttals out there about the outrage about supposed hypocrisy but I found one particular article that shows how 401K's work . . . . at Forbes . .not Mother Jones.

Apparently, this also means that Hobby Lobby can’t have a 401(k) plan for their employees. Why? Well, according to Redden and Ungar, the Hobby Lobby owners are religious kook hypocrites. The company 401(k) plan has investments which themselves invest in companies that make the abortion drugs.

Certainly they may have investment plans for their employees. It is simply hypocritical to object to what you believe are abortifacients being covered as a portion of the insurance compensation but not interested enought to eliminate actual abortifacient manufacturers from the investment portfolio for similar "religious" misgivings. I suspect that HOBBY LOBBY has confessed to their priest or similar and are absolved of any wrong doing while making profit but cannot be relieved of their "sin" if they simply allow their female employees to make their own choices relative to contraception.

[OCNRN63, RN]

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.

Well, duh...it's tobacco, so it's natural​!

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

How convenient a rationalization ...

Obviously I don't think so. I wasn't trying to rationalize anything.

Trying to find a moral equivalency between miscarriage and an outside force causing miscarriage is like saying a natural death is the same as a homicide.

I'm a hospice nurse - I have a patient actively dying right now of brain cancer. Something no one gave her or injected into her system. In fact, there is no real risk factors to ID with this cancer in order to make changes in your lifestyle in order to keep from getting brain cancer.

That death will certainly not be the same as one in which someone walks up and cold-cocks a person from behind and causes brain hemorrhage or if someone falls off a counter in their kitchen and hits their head causing a brain hemorrhage.

Just not the same at all. In my opinion.