Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43
Like Tree106Likes

Thread: Supreme Court Rules in Contraceptive Case

  1. #1
    Elite Member sluce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Top Secret Spy for Leann Rimes
    Posts
    37,386

    Default Supreme Court Rules in Contraceptive Case

    I hate to say it but I agree with the court. Private companies should be permitted to decide the level of benefits they will provide, and then employees can decide if they want to work for a company that will not provide contraception. Insurance plans block certain things all the time. Weight loss surgury is the latest thing they encourage us to block on plans we make available for our employees.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us...ited.html?_r=0

    By ADAM LIPTAKJUNE 30, 2014

    WASHINGTON —

    Requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated a federal law protecting religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision on Monday.

    The decision, which applied to two companies owned by Christian families, opened the door to challenges from other corporations to many laws that may be said to violate their religious liberty.

    The coverage requirement was put in place under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. It was challenged by two corporations whose owners say they try to run their businesses on religious principles: Hobby Lobby, a chain of crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which makes wood cabinets.

    The health care law and related regulations require many employers to provide female workers with comprehensive insurance coverage for a variety of methods of contraception. The companies objected to some of the methods, saying they are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. Providing insurance coverage for those forms of contraception would, the companies said, make them complicit in the practice.

    Activists advocated for access to birth control outside the court on Monday.Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
    The companies said they had no objection to other forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery.

    The Obama administration said it did not question the sincerity of the companies’ beliefs, and it has offered exemptions to other groups on such grounds.

    A federal judge has estimated that a third of Americans are not subject to the requirement that their employers provide coverage for contraceptives. Small employers need not offer health coverage at all; religious employers like churches are exempt; religiously affiliated groups may claim an exemption; and some insurance plans that had not previously offered the coverage are grandfathered in.

    But the administration said that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood must comply with the law or face fines.

    The cases are Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell, No. 13-356.

    The companies challenged the coverage requirement under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The law was a response to a 1990 Supreme Court decision that declined to recognize religious exceptions under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to generally applicable laws. Congress effectively reversed that decision.

    “What this law basically says,” President Bill Clinton said before signing the bill, “is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion.”

    The threshold question in the new case was whether the companies were permitted to raise a claim under the law.

    The companies argued that they were, and they said the coverage requirement imposed a “substantial burden” on religious practices by subjecting Hobby Lobby, for instance, to fines of $1.3 million a day if it chose not to offer comprehensive coverage, and to different fines of $26 million a year if it stopped offering insurance entirely.

    Some scholars responded that the company would be better off financially if it dropped coverage, and so does not face a substantial burden.

    The administration argued that requiring insurance plans to include comprehensive coverage for contraception promotes public health and ensures that “women have equal access to health care services.” The government’s briefs added that doctors, rather than employers, should decide which form of contraception is best.

    A supporting brief from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy group, said that many women cannot afford the most effective means of birth control and that the law will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions.
    You don't engage with crazies. Because they're, you know, fucking crazy. - WitchCurlGirl

  2. #2
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    59,055

    Default

    I don't think weight loss surgery and contraceptives are on the same level. IMO contraceptives are basic and should be mandatory in even the most basic plans. Never mind that these religious assholes forget that not all women are on the pill so they can whore it up without consequences (not that there's anything wrong with that). What about women on contraceptives for PCOS?


    I just can't with this bullshit. That's twice in a row the court makes bad judgements that fuck women over.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  3. #3
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,548

    Default

    Don't agree with this one bit at all. So where does this end? I don't believe in vaccinations so that preventative care is not covered by our health plan, I don't believe in erections so viagra is no longer covered (oh wait, it is!) I feel terrible for all the people that work there because they need a fucking job and not a fuck ton of other options. Fuck Hobby Lobby and any other company that pulls this bullshit.
    sputnik and louiswinthorpe111 like this.
    KILLING ME WON'T BRING BACK YOUR GOD DAMNED HONEY!!!!!!!!!!

    Come on, let's have lots of drinks.

    Fuck you all, I'm going viral.

  4. #4
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,521

    Default

    I don't think I have seen many employees in Hobby Lobby that were not past menopause anyway,but this seems like a basic need. Wonder if they allow long term maternity leave for both mothers and fathers since they are so keen on births.
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  5. #5
    Elite Member Brookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the "D"
    Posts
    24,751

    Default

    Nope, you do NOT get to tell me that you're not covering a basic female need. YOU JUST DO NOT. This is fucked up.
    Life is short. Break the Rules. Forgive Quickly. Kiss Slowly. Love Truly.
    Laugh Uncontrollably. And never regret ANYTHING that makes you smile.

    - Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,807

    Default

    Ugh. I wish people/corporations would just accept that reliable contraception is just a basic part of women caring for themselves and preventing unwanted pregnancy and get over themselves.
    Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum

  7. #7
    Elite Member louiswinthorpe111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middle America
    Posts
    14,178

    Default

    Nope, I just can't with this. SCOTUS just now said that Employers' rights overrule Employees' rights. This is total minefield and where does it end? You work for a Scientologist and now you can't get meds for your Schizophrenic child? A Jehovah's Witness buys out your company and won't allow insurance to pay for blood transfusions? No. Just No.


    The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision
    —By Dana Liebelson

    | Mon Jun. 30, 2014 11:32 AM EDT
    On Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a blistering dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the government can't require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control and emergency contraception that conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

    Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
    ◾"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
    ◾"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
    ◾"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
    ◾"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
    ◾"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
    ◾"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
    ◾"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

    The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision | Mother Jones
    RELIGION: Treat it like it's your genitalia. Don't show it off in public, and don't shove it down your children's throats.

  8. #8
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,447

    Default

    Those are great points. By the way, CNN was having a round-table discussion about this as I was driving back to work a few minutes ago. Hobby Lobby, and the other plaintiff, apparently only had objections to 4 out of 23 contraceptives. The four were Plan B, Ella, and two types of IUD. In all cases, it was because the contraceptive in question could/would prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg onto the walls of a uterus.

    What I find puzzling about that is that nobody's Bible or religious text addresses when something becomes "a life". This is not really religious dogma that is being enforced, but some kind of extrapolation from it. That makes the religious freedom angle even tougher to swallow.

  9. #9
    Elite Member louiswinthorpe111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middle America
    Posts
    14,178

    Default

    With that thinking, I hope they don't plan on covering vasectomies either.
    rockchick likes this.
    RELIGION: Treat it like it's your genitalia. Don't show it off in public, and don't shove it down your children's throats.

  10. #10
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiswinthorpe111 View Post
    With that thinking, I hope they don't plan on covering vasectomies either.
    The Catholic Church does not approve of vasectomies, so any staunchly Catholic business owner could theoretically refuse to allow the health plan to cover them.

  11. #11
    Silver Member Gilmourgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    554

  12. #12
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    59,055

    Default

    ^^^^
    i bet they cover viagra and penis pumps too. funny how fundies don't have issues with those

    i'm so fucking sick of religious assholes trying to shape the world according to their outdated, patriarchal worldview. if you want to believe in that nonsense, then just indoctrinate your kids, no need to inflict that bullshit on the rest of humanity. i really wish it were true that christians were being persecuted. unfortunately, it's just (more) paranoid delusion on their part.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  13. #13
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,447

    Default

    If you are diabetic (or have a covered spouse or child who is) and work for a muslim company, they could refuse to pay for any insulin that is pig derived. Wouldn't that be just wonderful?
    Kittylady likes this.

  14. #14
    Silver Member misrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    in a constant state of fluxus
    Posts
    632

    Default

    It's not the US, so not entirely relevant, but they have blocked contraceptive cover in Australian private health by saying 'the desire to not get pregnant is not a medical condition'. But there are 5 x brands that are covered with a dr's certificate stating they are used for a purpose other than contraceptive use. Of course with erectile dysfunction and male pattern baldness being 'medical' conditions, viagara and propecia are covered. And the additional premiums to cover pregnancy are through the roof, so sucks to be female! Love those male politicians...I strongly encourage every customer making a complaint to me about it to contact their govt. Representatives and make some noise.

  15. #15
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    I just can't. Thank you to RBG for writing the dissent, pointing out all the ways this is going to be an imposition of religion on our lives.
    gas_chick likes this.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. California Supreme Court to consider age bias case against Google
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 25th, 2010, 01:09 AM
  2. Supreme Court rules in favor of white firefighters in discrimination case
    By purple rain in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 11th, 2009, 12:39 PM
  3. FCC appeals Janet Jackson case to Supreme Court
    By bychance in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 25th, 2008, 12:19 PM
  4. Supreme Court to hear abortion rights case.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 1st, 2005, 03:28 PM
  5. Supreme Court hears whisle blower case.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 12th, 2005, 01:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •