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.
Individuals run corporations, not robots... this is not and never was an access issue; it is a whom pays for what issue with the left yelling "stay out of my personal decisions" while the very left robs others to pay for their personal decisions. If you want a personal decision, then make it personal by paying for it yourself. Simple logic.
I agree with the court ruling. In addition, people who are commenting that the "don't like the ruling" probably don't know (or choose to ignore) the fact that Hobby Lobby has NOT refused to pay for ALL contraceptives. Only certain ones/types, and those they will not pay for DO NOT include typical oral contraceptives. Go check
Or maybe we do know and don't like our bosses deciding we can't use the most effective birth control (IUD) simply because they don't understand science.
I agree with the court ruling. In addition, people who are commenting that the "don't like the ruling" probably don't know (or choose to ignore) the fact that Hobby Lobby has NOT refused to pay for ALL contraceptives. Only certain ones/types, and those they will not pay for DO NOT include typical oral contraceptives. Go check!
Often ignored, too, is the fact that Hobby Lobby employees are not obligated to work there. They have the full free choice to work elsewhere. Just as applies to nearly all of us: Don't like your employer's policies? Quit griping and go work somewhere else.
I know what they will and will not pay for. I just don't think it's appropriate for anyone else to be involved in a personal decision that should be an autonomous, individual choice made by a patient and informed by her healthcare provider. Does the employer have an interest in an employees uterus? I don't think so. The owners of Hpbby Lobby disagree.
The scientific consensus is that IUDs and the morning after pill do not cause abortion. The SUpreme Court chose to ignore that.
People keep their jobs at Hobby Lobby because Hobby Lobby pays them well. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it best. Corporations are not religious institutions. They are commercial institutions. A person should have the right to work in a commercial institution without having the beliefs of a religion to which she does not adhere forced on her.
I am unable to answer the poll as the questions are written in an incredibly biased manner and have little to do with the question that was before the court. The insurance provided by Hobby Lobby does cover contraception. It does not cover drugs their owners regard as abortifacients. For those who cite paying for viagra, it is paid for by insurance companies as it is used to control pulmonary hypertension, and that is also why it is paid for for women as well as men. The only use for Plan B is to prevent implantation of a zygote. Putting up straw man arguments does not help support your opinion.
That said, the Constitution reads as it does, with speech, religion and the right to gather in protest, because this country was
founded by people (Pilgrims, Huguenots, etc) who risked the long and arduous journey here mainly due to religious persecution and wouldn't sign unless they were left free to worship as they pleased. The First Amendment is very specific in prohibiting government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding free exercise of religion. And I do strongly support that. Owning a business should not require giving up your first amendment rights.
The separation clause does not appear in the Constitution, nor in any formal document of that time. It first appeared in a letter Jefferson wrote in reassurance to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802, 13 years after the creation of the Bill of Rights.
It states: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Thus reinforcing that the "wall of separation" was to protect the religion, not prevent any acknowledgment of religious worship by government.
Individuals run corporations, not robots... this is not and never was an access issue; it is a whom pays for what issue with the left yelling "stay out of my personal decisions" while the very left robs others to pay for their personal decisions. If you want a personal decision, then make it personal by paying for it yourself. Simple logic.
Besides the fact that this somehow seems like the fox news...end of days/locusts line of thinking...of course we need single payer healthcare...would you not agree?
True, however is it accomplished, killing an embryo IS the most effective birth control. Can't argue with you there.
Where is the evidence? The copper IUD when in place kills sperm. It is one of the only non-hormone forms of BC on the market. Just because there is a small (because it is very unlikely) chance that a sperm still makes it to an egg, an employer can call it an abortifacient and not cover it?
And why is there all this indignation about people robbing businesses to pay for their BC? These people PAY for their policy. They also HAVE to purchase an insurance policy due to the mandate in the ACA. We need single payer, businesses should not be middle men in our health decisions.
I am unable to answer the poll as the questions are written in an incredibly biased manner and have little to do with the question that was before the court. The insurance provided by Hobby Lobby does cover contraception. It does not cover drugs their owners regard as abortifacients. For those who cite paying for viagra, it is paid for by insurance companies as it is used to control pulmonary hypertension, and that is also why it is paid for for women as well as men. The only use for Plan B is to prevent implantation of a zygote. Putting up straw man arguments does not help support your opinion.
That said, the Constitution reads as it does, with speech, religion and the right to gather in protest, because this country was
founded by people (Pilgrims, Huguenots, etc) who risked the long and arduous journey here mainly due to religious persecution and wouldn't sign unless they were left free to worship as they pleased. The First Amendment is very specific in prohibiting government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding free exercise of religion. And I do strongly support that. Owning a business should not require giving up your first amendment rights.
The separation clause does not appear in the Constitution, nor in any formal document of that time. It first appeared in a letter Jefferson wrote in reassurance to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802, 13 years after the creation of the Bill of Rights.
It states: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Thus reinforcing that the "wall of separation" was to protect the religion, not prevent any acknowledgment of religious worship by government.
Yes...hmmm..but ultimately even with a page of rhetoric...just because a bunch of people believe in magic does not make it right...nor should I ever have to be exposed to it.
SCOTUS and Spidey's Mom got it right, but the poll answer "yes" was inaccurate in its assertion. It may as well have read: "Yes - The religious beliefs of company owners take precedence over their employees' right to have birth control AND abortifacients provided to them at the company's expense."
Religious liberty is protected by the first amendment; free or subsidized birth control and abortion are not. Access is in no way changed; a woman can still get whatever she wants, she just has to pay for it if it is not one of the TWENTY options Hobby Lobby offers.
To be fair to everyone, if we are going to consider this a "reproductive health" issue, will we subsidize Gramps' Viagra? Grammy's in-vitro fertilization?
I'm surprised in a forum full of science minded people that anyone supports a ruling based on faith claims completely contradictory to science! I could say god told me drinking is the safest way to drive. But it's not and I don't get to interfere with other people's lives by drinking and driving just because I believe that's true. Mind boggling.
I was saved by Jesus, Son of the Most High God well over a decade ago. Not a single science class I've taken disproves my faith; it only encourages my faith. This ruling was based on the very freedoms our country was founded on -- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the idea that one side has ZERO right to outright rob another side of money they earn to pay for personal issues.
Rob??? Really??? Health insurance is compensation for a job. No one insured by HL is getting insurance for nothing. And now women are getting even less compensation than men and supported by SCOTUS. Sadly unsurprising in this society.
pmabraham, BSN, RN
1 Article; 2,568 Posts
Individuals run corporations, not robots... this is not and never was an access issue; it is a whom pays for what issue with the left yelling "stay out of my personal decisions" while the very left robs others to pay for their personal decisions. If you want a personal decision, then make it personal by paying for it yourself. Simple logic.