SCOTUS recent ruling- Hobby Lobby

It should be between "me" (I'm a man, but I get your point) and my insurer. And since, like most people, I get my insurance through my employer, that means if my employer decides that THEIR religion won't allow ME to have [insert valid medical procedure here], that leaves me up [poop] creek without a paddle.

 

It's both freedom of and from religion, actually.

 

Explain.
Here is the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - freedom from religion. It's called the Establishment Clause.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - freedom of religion. Self-explanatory.

 

They are going to amend the ACA now. From CNN: "In the short term, the government will probably issue a regulation allowing the federal government to subsidize the contraceptives at issue, said CNN political analyst Gloria Borger. "So in terms of a real gap in medical coverage for these women, should they want it, I think what you are going to see is the government sort of picking up where Hobby Lobby would leave off."

 

Well that's a great idea..I'm sure all the vets waiting in line at VA hospitals can attest how well government healthcare works. hmy:

 

I just don't understand why corporations are being rewarded First Amendment rights. Why are we heading in a decision where corporations are being given rights of the people? We should be worried about that. Are we soon going to give corporations the right to vote? Congress already doesn't do a good job of representing We the People - we don't need to help them any further with that.

Some women choose to use non-hormonal IUDs because they have medical issues that preclude them from being able to use hormonal birth control. So to say "Well, they still cover 16 other kinds, just pick a different one!" isn't actually possible for all women unless they want to risk their own health and well-being. An interesting note - I have an acquaintance that's an OB-GYN and she estimates that less than 50% of the prescriptions she gives women for birth control are for contraceptive purposes only. She says many more take them for a medical issue alone, or in conjunction with birth control.

To go with the Viagra comparison - Viagra's primary purpose is to treat erectile dysfunction. So that a man can have sex. But, like birth control, there are other medical issues that can be treated with the drug. Because of that, and because ED is a legit medical issue, Viagra is and should be covered. However, as a society, we seem quick to criticize women and label them sluts because they want their birth control covered yet I doubt many men have to hear "Sorry, Pops, looks like the party's over. If you want to have sex, you should be paying for your pills yourself!" the way women are hearing. I don't like that double standard.

 

It protects the citizen by allowing the citizen to practice or not practice any religion he wants instead of having the government determine what a citizen will do ----- freedom of religion.

People have started using FROM so they could start applying the idea that someone shouldn't have to tolerate another's religion. It makes the argument easier to try to shut down the practice of others.

 

Maybe they can't, given the way the GOP has stripped funding away from the VA, but I have a feeling there are plenty of Medicare and Medicaid recipients that would say that government healthcare is better than no health care.

 

I'd point out that the first amendment restricts the government -- not corporations. The reason you have freedom of religion from corporations is because of nondiscrimination statutes.

I think corporatism won a much bigger victory here than religious liberty. As I've pointed out, nothing in this decision indicates that the holding would be restricted to closely held firms. There is nothing that restricts it to these particular contraceptive devices. There is (at least) a hint that religious exceptions to immunizations/transfusions might not be allowed, but there's still a lot of open territory.

I actually have fairly little concern about the contraception involved here - if the ACA had never covered contraception at all I wouldn't really have cared. The principle that corporations can make use of religious exceptions that affect the individuals working for them does bother me.

 

Holy cow...I get to pay for everyone's bc??? Yahoo!!! (insert sarcasm)

 

I believe the reason the idea of the government (i.e., the taxpayer) paying for BC is out there is because it was noted in the decision as q more legally permissible option....

 

That's an interesting debate - You should read up a bit on the author Terry Pratchett and his thoughts on it due to his rare form of Alzheimers that results in shrinking of the brain.

I typed up a whole post and then I accidentally closed the browser window.

Basically, the gist of it was that in New Orleans, a catastrophic plan is around $98 a month, a bronze plan is around $110 a month, a silver plan is around $145 a month, and a gold plan is around $160 a month. All of the plans, with the exception of the Gold, had a deductible over $2000 a year before the insurance kicked in. The Gold had a $1000/year deductible.

Can Ms. Hypothetical, the 19 year old [most likely a] college student afford to pay $1000 before she gets anything beyond preventative care covered, on top of the $98-$160 a month, which she gets no assistance on due to a lot of southern states rejecting the expansion?

 

Short answer without catching up on the thread, I will NEVER be shopping at Hobby Lobby again.

 

This is why I wasn't quite getting why people were so excited for the HL decision. Birth control coverage is now federally mandated. SCOTUS decided that a large corporation does not have to provide it as an option to its employers who pay into the insurance coverage they receive from them. I'm not sure what people really expected would happen.

 

No, you're not paying for anyone's birth control! The employee is paying their insurance premium, as always, and the employee is paying for prescriptions, as always!!

I'm assuming that you currently have health insurance. Some of your meds are probably fully covered, and some are probably partially covered. What ACA says is that one of the types of meds that has to be fully covered on an insurance plan is birth control, IUDs and pills such as Plan B. My insurance (and the vast amount of insurance companies) already fully cover theses things. HL's insurance covered birth control pills, too, but it did not cover Plan B or IUDs because (against the belief of the majority of the scientific community) they think these two things are abortifacients, and they felt that violated the corporations religious freedom. I completely disagree with this for many of the reasons already stated on this thread. I won't rehash them.

I just wanted to make it clear that THE GOVERNMENT (read:you, the tax payer) isn't paying for anyone's birth control that wasn't already receiving it for free through Medicare, etc.

 

Heh.

And more heh.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

There is no 'free'. Someone's paying.

 

Absolutely. And in the case of your insurance through your company, as we are talking about in this case, you, the employee, are paying for it!

 

Hobby Lobby is a boring store for me, and probably for most men. I've only been in two HL stores..... They both had "husband benches" up front.

When all this blows over I'm sure they will continue to be successful. At least I hope so.

 

Plenty of other places to shop; hope they will all benefit from this.

Michael's has great coupons and a teacher discount.

 

My wife spends LOTS of money at Michael's . She love it. I've never been in one.... Doesn't sound like a store for men.

ETA: I prefer stores that sell fishing gear, handheld GPS's, Guns, ammo, tents, etc.... I'm really not a great shopper outside of stores that sell guy stuff....

 

Just a reminder: The mods keep a close eye on "debate" threads. While technically, political threads aren't allowed, we do let a few of them slide as long as they stay civil. Most of this thread has been civil, but there have been a few tangents. Keep the forum rules in mind, specifically the rules about insulting other members and the forum moderation. If you have an issue with a specific member or post, please use the "report" link at the top of each post to bring the post to the attention of the moderators. If you have an issue with the forum moderation, please use the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page to send a message to the forum owner.

 

I have a side craft business. HL and Michaels are just two of many stores I frequent.

Major, BF goes there for things like picture frames.

Both stores and JoAnn's offer some good coupons and deals. I'm always on the lookout for good prices to keep my costs down!

 

*taptaptap*

Don't make me put my moderator hat on!

 

I think the media is slanting this. Several forms of birth control are covered, four aren't. This includes the morning after pill. They also pay a lot more than minimum wage. Nobody has to work there, it's a choice and private companies should have choices too. I personally respect Hobby Lobby and the fact that they choose to close on Sundays and stick to their beliefs

 

Yes and love your post.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/02/i...cision/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

Thanks kinder kids and kab164! It just seems to me that's this decision reinforces separation of church and state. The "state" has mandated/regulated health care that includes birth control methods that some people (hobby Lobby and others) feel contradicts their religious beliefs. The decision allows individuals to hold beliefs related to these several kinds of birth control, not go against their beliefs.

 

but where were HL firm religious beliefs when prior to 2012, and not being forced by the government, they DID include those birth control method as being covered?????

When it becomes more political than about your "beliefs" I have a problem with it.

If you don't believe me look it for yourself.

 

And this is the can of worms that many were afraid was being opened: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/

If you can get out of one federal mandate because of supposed religious reasons, why not try to get out of others?

 

Yup. I started a thread about that yesterday. Now tell me, if I'm Muslim and the lifestyles of non-Muslims offend my religious beliefs, can I seek a religious objection to hiring them or giving them healthcare? Do we all feel comfortable with that?

 

I think it's so flippant and dismissive to say to someone, "well just get a job somewhere else" or "pay for it yourself". I think this shows a true lack of understanding of the lives of the working poor.

 

Bingo!!!!!

especially in this economy...jobs are not easy to come by and especially not good paying jobs that pay a living wage......we should see how hard it is by the number of people on this very forum going through the job search struggle.......it is not easy to just pick up and move for jobs these days either.

in some cases it is not even the working poor that are struggling to make ends meet it it also the working shrinking middle class as well.

 

Cosmo of all publications has a nice article summarizing a lot of the issues people have with the ruling. One in particular is that people say "Well, they still cover 16 forms of birth control!" What needs to be noted is 71 other companies have already filed suit because they don't want to cover ANY birth control, and now I'm sure more will as well. This is not just about Hobby Lobby, this is about the precedent being set for more exclusions from companies - a lot of which is based on a personal belief, not science or medicine (i.e. you may believe that life begins at fertilization but science and medicine dictate that pregnancy only occurs once a fertilized egg has actually implanted. In any given month, a woman's egg may be fertilized and she will never actually end up pregnant because it doesn't implant. It is fine for one's own private life if you want to believe life starts at fertilization, but when you're using that belief to dictate your employees' health care, it is a problem).

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/hobby-lobby-lies

 

Thanks. I've been trying to get this across for 12 pages of this thread. . And if you think it's going to end with BC, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. . Wait until they decide to stop covering HPV vaccines or Pap smears to detect cervical cancer because the gals should just keep their clothes on, right?