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.

[MunoRN, RN]

Hobby Lobby is NOT a PUBLICALLY TRADED company, so you will not find it listed on any stock exchange. ALL the stock is held by family members. This was one of the requirements of SCOTUS for this exception. They said their decision would apply ONLY to "closely held" (to use the court's term) family owned companies. No need to panic unless you work for such a corporation, of which there are VERY few (and then only IF you require one of 4 types of birth control named in the court decision.)

"Very few"? About 90% of companies in the US are "closely held". The largest employer in the US, Walmart, is publicly traded and yet has still been considered a closely held company due to the Walmart family retaining primary stock control. http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/closely-held-corporations.html

The court didn't limit their decision to the four HL opposed, their decision applied to all twenty forms of contraception.

[toomuchbaloney]

"Very few"? About 90% of companies in the US are "closely held". The largest employer in the US, Walmart, is publicly traded and yet has still been considered a closely held company due to the Walmart family retaining primary stock control. Closely Held Corporations - Encyclopedia - Business Terms | Inc.com

The court didn't limit their decision to the four HL opposed, their decision applied to all twenty forms of contraception.

It is pretty clear that some folks are willing to look at this ruling from a VERY narrow perspective without considering all of the facts.

[1hopefulChik]

I see progressives are digging up their bogeyman for the elections. When they don't have something to run on, they rail against something-anything- no matter what it is.

This topic is old news. Thankfully, this hysteria is not contagious and the general public has seen enough of these hissy fits to know feigned outrage when they see it.

Moveon.org, please!

[MunoRN, RN]

I see progressives are digging up their bogeyman for the elections. When they don't have something to run on, they rail against something-anything- no matter what it is.

This topic is old news. Thankfully, this hysteria is not contagious and the general public has seen enough of these hissy fits to know feigned outrage when they see it.

Moveon.org, please!

What "bogeyman" is that? The court ruled that a companies financial responsibility can just be transferred to taxpayers. Is shifting someone's (or a company's) responsibilities to the taxpayers a progressive bogeyman, because that sounds an awful lot like a conservative bogeyman.

[1hopefulChik]

Absolutely. That's what it comes down to. Restricting access to BCMs, restricting access to abortion. At the meat of it, it's about shaming women who dare to have sex outside of a relationship in which a child is a welcome result.

Sorry for sounding so cynical but what absolute hogwash!!!!

ANY WOMAN can buy birth control of her choice. There are no prohibitions.

How dishonest and sneaky that some keep trying to make this about ACCESS when it's about PAYING FOR IT!

HL nor any other employer is prohibiting employees from buying it. HL is just not going to HELP pay for it.

BTW- Before ACA, HL's benefits always looked liked this. Notice how the employees of HL weren't up in arms and crying rivers over it?

I'm willing to venture you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of HL employees who even care that ONLY 4 forms of BC will not be subsidized by HL.

This conversation has reached such fevered pitch! Some have taken the ruling, lifted it out of the realm of reality and try to transform it into some type of nightmarish scenario.

This is NOT that big a deal. It wasn't before ACA. It isn't now. This is too much baloney!!!!!!!!!!!!

[1hopefulChik]

What "bogeyman" is that?

By nature, progressives are always 'fighting' against something. If they don't have a cause, they make one up.

This is the same tired 'war on women'- except no bullets and no teeth!

[MunoRN, RN]

By nature, progressives are always 'fighting' against something. If they don't have a cause, they make one up.

This is the same tired 'war on women'- except no bullets and no teeth!

So you agree with the decision, that hobby lobby can interfere with how a women uses their earned compensation (their insurance) and block coverage, and the cost of that coverage should then be shifted to taxpayers instead?

[1hopefulChik]

So you agree with the decision, that hobby lobby can interfere with how a women uses their earned compensation (their insurance) and block coverage, and the cost of that coverage should then be shifted to taxpayers instead?

What you said is so dishonest and foolish I can't respond to it. It's not based in fact or reality.

I'll answer you right after you explain exactly how HL is telling employees how they can spend their money.

You won't because you can't!

[MunoRN, RN]

What you said is so dishonest and foolish I can't respond to it. It's not based in fact or reality.

I'll answer you right after you explain exactly how HL is telling employees how they can spend their money.

You won't because you can't!

HL is telling employees how they can spend their compensation by telling them what they can't spend it on, that seems pretty straightforward.

What is it exactly you think the supreme court ruled?

[1hopefulChik]

So you agree with the decision, that hobby lobby can interfere with how a women uses their earned compensation (their insurance) and block coverage, and the cost of that coverage should then be shifted to taxpayers instead?

So you agree I'm right about progressives finding a bogeyman when they have nothing to advocate without villification!!!

Your post was an EXCELLENT example of my point. When you can't handle the message, try and kill the messenger.

Funny, yet sad.

[1hopefulChik]

HL is telling employees how they can spend their compensation by telling them what they can't spend it on, that seems pretty straightforward.

What is it exactly you think the supreme court ruled?

You didn't answer the question. HOW are they telling employees how to spend their own money?

[1hopefulChik]

HL is telling employees how they can spend their compensation by telling them what they can't spend it on, that seems pretty straightforward.

What is it exactly you think the supreme court ruled?

Lie much?!