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.
ANY WOMAN can buy birth control of her choice. There are no prohibitions. NONE!!!!!
How dishonest and sneaky that some keep trying to make this about ACCESS when it's about PAYING FOR IT!
This is NOT that big a deal. It wasn't before ACA. It isn't now. Before ACA, HL's benefits always looked liked this.
Where was all this outrage before ACA- when HL was doing the SAME THING?
HL is just not going to SUBSIDIZED anymore than the 14 they ALREADY DO.
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.
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!
As opposed to the War on Christmas? Oh nos!! Someone said "Happy Holidays!" to me!
Of course the war on women is actually affecting our healthcare. The war on Christmas, that's stopped how many people from attending their Christmas Eve service?
1hopefulChik
114 Posts
SCOTUS ruled HL is permitted to opt out of SUBSIDIZING birth control methods that contradict their well-established beliefs.
It's AGAINST THE LAW for an employer to tell you have to spend your wages- which is why the SCOTUS ruling is nothing like the fantasy you envision.
Wow...