Jump to content

SCOTUS

Posted

Specializes in Critical Care,Recovery, ED. Has 40 years experience.

Do you agree with the Hobby Lobby decision of the SCOTUS

  1. 1. Do you agree with the Hobby Lobby decision of the SCOTUS

    • 15
      YES
    • 12
      NO
    • 0
      NO OPINION

27 members have participated

Okay, SCOTUS has ruled on Hobby Lobby and contraception and also on the IL. healthcare workers and agency fee, any thoughts?

To me the ruling on Hobby Lobby reverse previous SCOTUS ruling which always put individual rights (freedoms) over business entities. Business entities are not people.

Jillybean48

Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health. Has 16 years experience.

How can you say business are not people? If you started a business and it is your business, how is it okay for the government to tell you that you MUST provide birth control to employees? That is YOUR business an this is a free economy. Nobody is forcing the employee to stay there; if they don't like what the employer has to offer, move on. My business, MY freedom of religion.

BrnEyedGirl, BSN, MSN, RN, APRN

Specializes in Cardiac, ER. Has 18 years experience.

While I do not share the same views as Hobby Lobby about the IUD or Plan B, I do respect their point of view. It is their business, if they really have strong view points they shouldn't be forced to pay for something they so strongly disagree with. Hobby Lobby pays their employees well, offers insurance etc. If discounted access to these forms of birth control is that important to you, work somewhere else or choose a different insurance policy!

I have never owned my own business, but I remember when the government decided that there would be no smoking in any businesses open to the public,..including bars. I can't imagine how angry it would make me for someone to tell me how to run my business. If smoking offends you go somewhere else! This is just one more way the government is taking control and honestly it scares me.

Been there,done that, ASN, RN

Has 33 years experience.

The issue is freedom of choice.. my employer CANNOT dictate my reproductive choice.Birth control is a personal decision that a corporation has no right to attempt to control.

Do you realize that Holly Hobby's retirement plan invests in birth control methods?

Corporations are not people, Corporations are entities that make money from the sweat off PEOPLE'S back.

TriciaJ, RN

Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory. Has 40 years experience.

The issue is freedom of choice.. my employer CANNOT dictate my reproductive choice.Birth control is a personal decision that a corporation has no right to attempt to control.

Do you realize that Holly Hobby's retirement plan invests in birth control methods?

Corporations are not people, Corporations are entities that make money from the sweat off PEOPLE'S back.

They're not dictating your reproductive choice. They're just not paying for it. You can use whatever method you choose; I'm pretty sure it's illegal for them to ask what type of birth control you use. They're probably not willing to pay for your tummy tuck, either. Many insurances don't cover chiropractic or massage. Doesn't mean you can't have them. If you want them paid for, you're just going to have to find a job with better benefits.

TriciaJ, RN

Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory. Has 40 years experience.

By the way, I do think they're misinformed about Plan B and the IUD. But it's still their business.

Student Mom to Three

Has 2 years experience.

The ACA does not require that insurance plans cover tummy tucks- so that was just a silly thing to say.

The ACA DOES require contraceptive coverage. HL is NOT providing the contraceptives, just the insurance plan that should cover them for their employees who need it. HL has no problem with typical OCs but is being allowed to manipulate their insurance coverage to deny women free access to IUDs and emergency contraceptives, which goes against the ACA.

The owners of HL believe some contraceptives are immoral......they shouldn't use them. But, to deny insurance coverage for them to their employees is definitely imposing their religious beliefs on their employees. Of course the female employees could pay out of pocket for these medications.....but why should they have to when they are paying into an insurance plan that was intended by the ACA to cover them??

We are intelligent people here....surely we can see some other things this could lead to?? Catholic business owners (I'm not talking hospitals, but just regular businesses) opting out of all BC coverage? What if you had a family member who worked for a Jehovah's Witness owned business? No coverage for transfusions even in the event of trauma?? I am not trying to imply that any JW business owner would try to do this, but the precedent has now been set and I don't see why they couldn't.

The ACA was intended to allow access to a standardized health insurance plan for all, not to allow employers to pick and choose what coverage they want their employees to have based on their own personal theistic beliefs. In my ideal world we would never even be AWARE of our employer's religious views. It is supposed to be something personal and sharing/imposing on others is totally unnecessary and unappreciated.

Edited by Student Mom to Three

Jillybean48

Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health. Has 16 years experience.

The issue is freedom of choice.. my employer CANNOT dictate my reproductive choice.Birth control is a personal decision that a corporation has no right to attempt to control.

Do you realize that Holly Hobby's retirement plan invests in birth control methods?

Corporations are not people, Corporations are entities that make money from the sweat off PEOPLE'S back.

Who's freedom of choice? You and I already have the freedom of choice. If you want to use birth control, use it. It's not my business and I don't care. How are employers dictating your reproductive choice? Does the employer tell you when you can and can't have sex, who you can and can't have it with, how many children you should or shouldn't have?? This makes ZERO sense. "Corporations are entities that make money from the sweat of people's backs"...... REALLY?? All of them huh? So if your mom and dad had a little mom and pop store, they are a corporation that makes money from the sweat of your back? Should the government come in and tell your mom and dad, "Hey, screw your religious freedoms, even though you built this business with your bare hands and have slaved and slaved to keep this business.... we are making you provide birth control to your employees!" Well, poor mom and dad, they are just another corporation that makes their money from the sweat off OUR backs. A free economy is what our economic system is based on, that means business, if there were no big business we would not have jobs.

TriciaJ, RN

Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory. Has 40 years experience.

The ACA was a good general idea, but poorly thought out. ("You have to pass it to know what's in it.") The biggest flaw is it does nothing to address the biggest costs in health care (hint: tort reform). So I wouldn't be quoting it as any kind of gospel.

I'm not sure it's entirely valid for employers to single out specific forms of birth control and refuse to cover them based on misconceptions. But that is still a very far cry from declaring that they are dictating your use of birth control. You are legally entitled to use whatever form of birth control you want. The only issue is whether anyone's employer is legally obliged to pay for it. I don't have a strong opinion either way at the moment, but I have to object to victim language.

MunoRN, RN

Specializes in Critical Care. Has 10 years experience.

Who's freedom of choice? You and I already have the freedom of choice. If you want to use birth control, use it. It's not my business and I don't care. How are employers dictating your reproductive choice? Does the employer tell you when you can and can't have sex, who you can and can't have it with, how many children you should or shouldn't have?? This makes ZERO sense. "Corporations are entities that make money from the sweat of people's backs"...... REALLY?? All of them huh? So if your mom and dad had a little mom and pop store, they are a corporation that makes money from the sweat of your back? Should the government come in and tell your mom and dad, "Hey, screw your religious freedoms, even though you built this business with your bare hands and have slaved and slaved to keep this business.... we are making you provide birth control to your employees!" Well, poor mom and dad, they are just another corporation that makes their money from the sweat off OUR backs. A free economy is what our economic system is based on, that means business, if there were no big business we would not have jobs.

Are you arguing that the government can't/shouldn't make laws businesses have to follow against the business owner's preference?

Jillybean48

Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health. Has 16 years experience.

The ACA does not require that insurance plans cover tummy tucks- so that was just a silly thing to say.

.

She was using the tummy tuck as an example. And it made perfect sense to me. People (other people; this is not directed at you, Student Mom) keep asking the same questions over and over again in different ways, maybe some examples will help them understand or at least accept the views of others; and maybe some illustrations and coloring books will help others who do not seem to understand the words. Do you honestly believe if you continue to fight about this issue that you will be changing any minds/beliefs/religious views? Instead of posters behaving like they have been victimized by this court decision, maybe it's time to agree to disagree. But if they'd prefer, they can continue pestering the people who don't agree with them and I, for one, will be more than happy to keep explaining the same thing over and over again until it sinks in. Be a big girl and go buy your own birth control.

MunoRN, RN

Specializes in Critical Care. Has 10 years experience.

She was using the tummy tuck as an example. And it made perfect sense to me. People (other people; this is not directed at you, Student Mom) keep asking the same questions over and over again in different ways, maybe some examples will help them understand or at least accept the views of others; and maybe some illustrations and coloring books will help others who do not seem to understand the words. Do you honestly believe if you continue to fight about this issue that you will be changing any minds/beliefs/religious views? Instead of posters behaving like they have been victimized by this court decision, maybe it's time to agree to disagree. But if they'd prefer, they can continue pestering the people who don't agree with them and I, for one, will be more than happy to keep explaining the same thing over and over again until it sinks in. Be a big girl and go buy your own birth control.

Here's what I don't get; the argument seems to be that employers shouldn't be required to provide insurance which includes contraception coverage because that would be providing someone with the means to obtain contraception. If instead the employee buys their own birth control using cash instead of insurance, the cash still came from the employer, so the employer is providing the employee with the means to obtain contraception either way, so how are those two things significantly different in terms of the employers contribution to that transaction?

Jillybean48

Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health. Has 16 years experience.

Are you arguing that the government can't/shouldn't make laws businesses have to follow against the business owner's preference?

ONCE AGAIN, there are laws currently in place that businesses have to follow. Making me pay for your birth control should not be one of them and it isn't. In THIS case the business owners "preference" is his/her right to their religious freedom. Your generalized questions, such as what I believe the government can't/shouldn't make laws about is not helpful to this conversation... we are discussing ONE SPECIFIC aspect.. which is the courts decision.

Jillybean48

Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health. Has 16 years experience.

Here's what I don't get; the argument seems to be that employers shouldn't be required to provide insurance which includes contraception coverage because that would be providing someone with the means to obtain contraception. If instead the employee buys their own birth control using cash instead of insurance, the cash still came from the employer, so the employer is providing the employee with the means to obtain contraception either way, so how are those two things significantly different in terms of the employers contribution to that transaction?

What you do with your paycheck is not my business. FOR EXAMPLE: let's say we have an alcoholic. He/she pays for his/her alcohol with their paycheck, right? Okay, now instead of paying that person and letting him make his own choice of what to do with his paycheck, (which, by the way, is HIS right), how would you feel about cutting out the middle man and just buying his alcohol for him? Their IS a difference.

MunoRN, RN

Specializes in Critical Care. Has 10 years experience.

ONCE AGAIN, there are laws currently in place that businesses have to follow. Making me pay for your birth control should not be one of them and it isn't.

That actually was, and still is a law. The employer mandate and the requirement that insurance cover preventative care is a law. Besides that law, there are also laws that require you and your employer to pay into medicaid, which then covers birth control.

In THIS case the business owners "preference" is his/her right to their religious freedom. Your generalized questions, such as what I believe the government can't/shouldn't make laws about is not helpful to this conversation... we are discussing ONE SPECIFIC aspect.. which is the courts decision.

You just made the statement in this very same post (see above) regarding what the government can and can't require you to do, so it would seem to be relevant based on your own arguments.

MunoRN, RN

Specializes in Critical Care. Has 10 years experience.

What you do with your paycheck is not my business.
Then why is what I buy with other forms of compensation, such as an insurance plan, your business?

FOR EXAMPLE: let's say we have an alcoholic. He/she pays for his/her alcohol with their paycheck, right? Okay, now instead of paying that person and letting him make his own choice of what to do with his paycheck, (which, by the way, is HIS right), how would you feel about cutting out the middle man and just buying his alcohol for him? Their IS a difference.

I'm not sure that it's really accurate to compare someone who uses birth control with an alcoholic, but I'll play along. Employers aren't actually buying contraception for employees, their providing them with a means to obtain contraception as well as various other health services. The insurance company is basically playing the role of middleman. A more accurate comparison to your example would be if an employer provided a Costco membership as a form of compensation. If the employee/alcoholic uses that membership to buy alcohol at Costco, is the employer really "just buying his alcohol for him"?

The ACA was a good general idea, but poorly thought out. ("You have to pass it to know what's in it.") The biggest flaw is it does nothing to address the biggest costs in health care (hint: tort reform). So I wouldn't be quoting it as any kind of gospel.

(I don't want to take the thread off topic, but do feel the need to point out that "tort reform" is largely a red herring when it comes to health care costs. There are individual US states that have passed state "tort reform" laws (TX, for one, has made it nearly impossible to sue a physician or hospital) which have now been in place for years, but those states have not seen any significant reduction in healthcare costs.)

pmabraham, BSN, RN

Specializes in Hospice, Palliative Care. Has 3 years experience.

Good day:

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.

Edited by pmabraham
removed ps

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.