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.
These are very sensitive topics and the media (liberal and conservative) has entirely missed the point. The finding of the court is based on the U.S. Constitution -the rule of law- not of individuals. Everyone of us has closely held beliefs, those beliefs are not central to the Supreme Court decision. It is simply too easy to divide ALL of us if emotions are the determinant in the argument.
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.
Thank you.
Please do explain...It seems our country was actually founded on the slaughter and exploitation of indigenous populations...How does that jive? Lets talk turkey...Did we not "rob" those people-"another side" as you say, of their "earnings/life/livelihood-freedoms"...I do not see how your argument has any basis in reality??? Perhaps you view that history as "saving" them? I am dumbfounded...again I must defer as this entire argument-actually about capitalism and profit-can be summed up as: "
[h=1]"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”[/h]
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.
And IUDs, particularly the Mirena IUD, have uses other than contraception. (I haven't seen any information about coverage of Mirena for dysmenorrhea/endometriosis for companies that fall under the new SCOTUS decision.)
And IUDs, particularly the Mirena IUD, have uses other than contraception. (I haven't seen any information about coverage of Mirena for dysmenorrhea/endometriosis for companies that fall under the new SCOTUS decision.)
Of course not...science/reality has left the building!!!
Excellent discussion and most of the facts are accurate.
I think the discussion has several dissimilar threads that we are trying to combine...like salad dressing that separates if it sits for a bit.
1-Should Privately Held corporations be able to exercise their religious beliefs during their business transactions--Yes, SCOTUS agrees;
2-Should these corporations be allowed to violate Federal Laws that are contrary to their 'closely held' beliefs on the grounds of Constitutional free exercise of religion--probably, but that was not the ruling yesterday, and the law in question needs a Constitutional review!;
3-Should health care benefits be separate from employment--probably, but again not ruled on yesterday;
4-Do women's rights to free choice in their personal life supersede a corporation's rights to freely conduct business--probably not, unless this choice can be shown to be a integral part of the business, but again not part of yesterday's ruling.
If we are to address the specific situation with Hobby Lobby: They conduct their business as they see fit, their employees are paid above (well above) minimum wage, their employees receive health care benefits meeting the company's standards and sufficient for most of those employees, and, in fact, they do provide contraception for female employees, just not all those mandated in the Affordable Care Act legislation.
If we wish to look at the potential ramifications of this decision: sure, religious exemptions can be claimed by anyone, any business now so really nothing has changed. Women still have access to any form of birth control they choose, if they pay for it. Businesses can follow their religious beliefs in hiring, training, scheduling shop hours, purchasing their product, and marketing as long as they do not violate Constitutional law and federal laws (consider a Jewish firearm dealer selling to an Islamic customer, or an Islamic delicatessen being forced to sell Kosher foods; not to mention any other permutation of crossing religious and moral boundaries!). So the discussion of 'what this ruling means for women' can fall into the category of hyperbole until we see how businesses react to it.
Of greater concern to me is the effect this ruling may have on businesses: will it cause 'closely held' businesses to support their employees, provide living wages and/ or health care benefits or will it cause these businesses to opt out of the health care provision and force employees to find their own?
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 don't see anyone here basing their claims on faith instead of science.
We are going tit-for-tat about which science link proves our point about abortifacient or not.
I found figures that range from 180 million to 600 million sperm in each ejaculate. A copper IUD cannot kill them all instantly upon arrival in the uterus. BOOM! POOF! GONE!
In rare cases, when fertilization does occur, IUDs may also prevent implantation. I found this in information in most of the medical information I researched. I didn't go to Planned Parenthood or any conservative or "faith" link. Science journals only.
The hormonal IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm have a more difficult time getting through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick. This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow.
The four abortifacients: (Plan B or "The Morning After Pill; Ella (similar emergency contraception; Copper IUD; IUD with hormones).
Another poster is right - this isn't about access.
1) Hobby Lobby will pay for 13 out of 17 birth control methods (the court ruling only concerned 4 abortifacients). The remaining 4 abortifacients WILL BE COVERED by the federal government. So practically and financially speaking, the court ruling for employees is a non-issue.
2) The Obama Administration wanted to use private American businesses to promote THEIR OWN PERSONAL IDEOLOGY regarding birth control. SCOTUS said no.
3) Analogy: A Jewish deli should not be forced to sell pork just because Obama and his friends wants pork. Those who want pork, including employees of the deli, are free to use their federal food stamps to buy pork at another deli.
"So then, each one of us will give an account of himself to God."
Hobby Lobby will pay for 13 out of 17 birth control methods (the court ruling only concerned 4 abortifacients). The remaining 4 abortifacients will be covered by the federal government. So practically and financially speaking, the court ruling for employees is a non-issue.
Analogy: A Jewish deli should not be forced to sell pork. Those who want pork can use their federal food stamps to buy pork at another deli.
Poor analogy. Better analogy: Should the owners of a Jewish deli get to decide whether or not their employees, who may or may not be Jewish, can eat pork??
That is what YOU tell the pt... But I disagree! The sperm and the egg have already joined! The IUD makes it unfavorable for implantation... That is why the IUD is one of 4 which Hobby Lobby considers inappropriate.
Point 1: Since when is an incorporated chain store that is publicly traded considered a "family-owned" business? Last time I checked, this scenario does not exist. If you are publicly traded, you are owned by the stockholders. Glad we established that.
Point 2: Freedom of religion means that you have the right to believe in and practice any religion you wish without being discriminated against for it. It DOES NOT mean that you have the right to force your religious beliefs or practices on anyone else, especially employees. If businesses were allowed to do that, then prospective employees could and would be discriminated against based on their own beliefs and practices.
Point 3: Why can a hospital seemingly force a parent to agree to treatments for their child that are against the family's beliefs or risk legal action against the parent, but can refuse to provide a procedure based on the founder's beliefs?
We need to once again establish and enforce the separation of church and state, particularly in healthcare. This ruling makes me nauseous on sooo many levels!
There are many women who are in favor of this decision. There are many women who are also pro-life.
This isn't about white men foisting THEIR ideas on women. That canard needs to be tossed in the waste bin.
Exceptions that prove the rule, in the original sense of the word when the proverb was first written: Prove means "to test." "The proof is in the pudding," means "We'll see how good it is when we test it by tasting it." The outcome, the result, is what matters; in this case the rule is tested and the outcome is quite clear.
Another way of saying this is, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it might be a goose but it's probably a duck." Or, as I typo'ed the first time, a dick. :)
The men on the court were largely, if not exclusively, initiated into the legal guild by an extremely patriarchal generation-- imagine their faculty and case studies, and the SCOTUS and other high-ranking judges for whom they clerked, who came along in a much less women-friendly time. Scalia graduated from law school fifty-four years ago; his faculty and advisors went to law school in the teens and twenties. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsberg had to struggle through that same system (Ginsberg was in the law school at the same time with my husband); you may also remember that Sandra Day O'Connor had to work as a legal secretary after she graduated from Stanford Law). If they are more in tune with the struggles that women endure and the patronizing attitudes of the Scalias of this world (another HLS classmate), is it surprising that they would see access to all forms of birth control as important?
Watermaster
19 Posts
These are very sensitive topics and the media (liberal and conservative) has entirely missed the point. The finding of the court is based on the U.S. Constitution -the rule of law- not of individuals. Everyone of us has closely held beliefs, those beliefs are not central to the Supreme Court decision. It is simply too easy to divide ALL of us if emotions are the determinant in the argument.