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.
If a Fundamentalist Christian business owner can refuse to offer birth control in their employee health plan because it violates their religious beliefs, what will stop a Jehovah's Witness business owner from refusing to offer employee health insurance that covers blood transfusions?
Ok . . . we need to really and truly stop making blanket statement that are not completely true.
This case is not about taking away ALL contraceptives. It is about the ones that are deemed abortifacients. There were four. Not ALL.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities both refused to provide employee converge for four of the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the FDA, specifically those that prevent uterine implantation of a fertilized egg, such as hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices.
I'm truly frustrated by the hyperbole and outright misinformation regarding this case.
We can discuss whether a fertilized egg is the point of conception or not but this case is not about every single birth control pill offered.
People are so misinformed about this issue; it hurts.
But it DOES prevent them from choosing a very effective form of birth control. The IUD's that they object to have a very low failure rate compared to the approved birth control options.
Ah, IUD's. Lots of complaints about the side effects of having one placed but that's another (bloody and painful) story.
The point that folks have got to at least acknowledge is that for many people, not allowing the fertilized egg to implant by some outside means (Plan B, IUD's) is abortion. Which is killing a human being. Small or large, that embryo is uniquely human.
Again, you can certainly disagree with that but the reason for this case isn't to keep women "barefoot and pregnant" or to keep ALL birth control away from women. As has been stated, Hobby Lobby had covered BCP's for women for years. Just not the ones that cause an abortion.
Seems like we could at least realize that the larger issue here has to do with religious freedom and that darn Religious Freedom Restoration Act mentioned in earlier posts by other members here at AN.
Ok . . . we need to really and truly stop making blanket statement that are not completely true.
This case is not about taking away ALL contraceptives. It is about the ones that are deemed abortifacients. There were four. Not ALL.
I'm truly frustrated by the hyperbole and outright misinformation regarding this case.
We can discuss whether a fertilized egg is the point of conception or not but this case is not about every single birth control pill offered.
People are so misinformed about this issue; it hurts.
It's really immaterial whether the issue is four specific (legal, FDA-approved, widely available and utilized) forms of contraception rather than all rx forms of contraception. How is it "not completely true" to wonder whether the next step might be a JW-owned company refusing to cover blood transfusions, or an Orthodox Jewish-owned company refusing to cover organ transplants, in the name of the business owners' religious beliefs? The principle is the same.
So, let's back up. What's "religion"? Is the government now in the business of defining what is and what is not a valid religious viewpoint?
I would love to see, say, a SCOTUS judge refused service at the family-owned dry cleaners because he was divorced and divorce was against the owner's "deeply held religious beliefs." Or because he ate pork, or didn't pray five times daily facing Mecca, or didn't make offerings of respect and devotion at his parents' graves annually, or killed insects or other living things, or wore leather products, or didn't kill a chicken when he had a big decision to make, or hired a black or Jewish or Shinto or Muslim or gay clerk. This is what is known as a "slippery slope," despite the disingenuous assertion that it is very narrowly applied. The language of the decision leaves all of this up for grabs and sets a precedent that I am sure will be cited in the next few years as more such cases get ginned up to justify racism, homophobia, and the like.
I also see it very telling that all the women on the court dissented. There's a reason for that.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
So, let's back up. What's "religion"? Is the government now in the business of defining what is and what is not a valid religious viewpoint?
I would love to see, say, a SCOTUS judge refused service at the family-owned dry cleaners because he was divorced and divorce was against the owner's "deeply held religious beliefs." Or because he ate pork, or didn't pray five times daily facing Mecca, or didn't make offerings of respect and devotion at his parents' graves annually, or killed insects or other living things, or wore leather products, or didn't kill a chicken when he had a big decision to make, or hired a black or Jewish or Shinto or Muslim or gay clerk. This is what is known as a "slippery slope," despite the disingenuous assertion that it is very narrowly applied. The language of the decision leaves all of this up for grabs and sets a precedent that I am sure will be cited in the next few years as more such cases get ginned up to justify racism, homophobia, and the like.
I also see it very telling that all the women on the court dissented. There's a reason for that.
1. Viagra enables a man, who cannot otherwise manage it, to have sex....if he wants to prevent pregnancy, he must cover up, make sure his partner is prepared, or decide to forego the experience. I have to wonder how many men who use Viagra or something else similar have partners who are of child-bearing age anyway.
Birth Control is designed to prevent a pregnancy....has nothing to do with enabling a woman, who cannot otherwise have sex, to manage it. A woman who wants to have sex must make the same decisions regarding pregnancy prevention.....make sure she is protected, have her partner cover up or decide to abstain.
So they are not the same....not even close. And not all insurances, even before the ACA, covered Viagra. And based on the arguments give here, it should now be handed out for free if Birth Control is free.
2. I have seen on other websites that once again non-medical people have decided medical issues. Well, how many of the 4 dissenting justices are MD's. Any of them? This kind of argument is far-reaching and probably not one people should use....because Michelle Obama has helped shape the school lunch debacle and she's not an MD.....the mayor of NY tried to ban giant drinks in his city and he's not an MD, and the list goes on and on. If these decisions and laws are to be made only by medical people, must all laymakers be MD's? The lawyers of the country who have become career politicians might take issue with that.
3. I have read some of those threats against the Supreme Court justices who voted in the affirmative. They should be taken seriously and people making them might want to remember that once it's out there, it doesn't go away. Will the FBI be knocking on their door? I don't know, but to make a threat like that is just sad.
I agree with you in spirit,and I am also very pro choice.The difference here is Hobby Lobby is a multi state corporation that is on the NYSE.Using that mentality,a corporation owned by a family of % religion could propose certain exclusive conditions of employment.
I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in spirit. I am not religious and I am pro-contraception, but I generally agree that a family-owned companies should be able to conduct their businesses in a manner congruent with their beliefs.
The application of this ruling, however, is potentially disastrous for women. What if more large companies start claiming they are family-owned businesses in order to save money on healthcare services for women? Women are then left in the dust.
The bigger issue underlying all of this nonsense is this: Why do Americans have to be deeply reliant on an employer for healthcare coverage?
Hobby Lobby only refuses to cover the kinds of contraception that destroy and already conceived human life. As nurses, we should understand the difference. I did not participate in the poll, because the wording is grossly misleading.
I do not feel compelled to answer yes or no to the survey...It actually is irrelevant...Of course we live in an age/society where the rights of big corporations and capitalist profit outweigh the rights of any individual...one would have to be "blind" or simply hiding their head in the sand not to see that...and forget the fact that we are getting closer to pseudo-science, fear and magical fairy tales dictating what we can/cannot do...these are obvious in the current regime...what this does however show is that healthcare MUST be single payer/provided from birth-like all other supposed "industrialized" nations...healthcare should not be connected to who you work for...we need national health care! This argument at this point is absurd...I feel for the workers of such a disgusting company...who by the way does business with a country(China) actually profits by the millions...that enforces abortions...so...where is the integrity? Of course the supreme court is going to side with the corporation...don't forget-they are people too! Sad that people even let themselves be drawn into any discussion that states otherwise...again-capitalism-profits-money...people? Not a chance...have fun!
Hobby Lobby covered 16 contraceptives prior to the case, and will continue to cover 16 contraceptives after the case. They, Conestoga Wood, and others did not want to be forced to pay for those types of contraceptives (four in number) that can cause an innocent baby in the womb to be aborted. If it is an issue of a personal decision, then it should be personally paid for as part of being a responsible person (my opinion).
This issue ONLY came to the Supreme Court due to BIG government overreach where BIG government was trying to force their views and take away personal freedoms (human beings do run businesses; people like using the term "corporation" to take away from the fact human beings with values and beliefs are the ones in charge of their business(es)). Had President Obama and the democrats (keeping in mind Obamacare is 100% partisan, and Nancy Pelosi forced the bill down without it being properly read) allowed for conscientious objection to specific areas (such as birth control, abortion, and closely related items), then this would never have gone to court.
Had President Obama and the democrats listened to the concerns brought up by the Green Family, the Mennonite family behind Conestoga Wood, and the other family owned and operated businesses as well as non profits (such as the nuns) that they would be willing to be MORE THAN FAIR (16 out of 20 is more than fair) in what they would cover, and gave an exemption (as Obama and the democrats have willingly handed out to their buddies over and over and over again ad nauseum), this issue would have never gone to the Supreme Court.
This is not an access issue, and was never an access issue. It is one side having the very gall to say "stay out of my personal decisions/bedroom body" BUT keep your bloody mouth shut while I FORCE MY WAY INTO YOUR WALLET and TAKE OUT WHAT I WANT... and while I bloody rob you, you will smile and state it is charity!
Thank you.
P.S. The poll is incorrect as it states it is an access issue. NO ONE is stopping anyone from buying their own birth control with their own money. This is an issue of religious freedom and who pays for what... not access
Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN
11,305 Posts
Ok . . . we need to really and truly stop making blanket statement that are not completely true.
This case is not about taking away ALL contraceptives. It is about the ones that are deemed abortifacients. There were four. Not ALL.
I'm truly frustrated by the hyperbole and outright misinformation regarding this case.
We can discuss whether a fertilized egg is the point of conception or not but this case is not about every single birth control pill offered.
People are so misinformed about this issue; it hurts.