(Closed) So Disappointed in the US Supreme Court's Ruling…

posted 5 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 242
Member
1039 posts
Bumble bee

Mrs.Sawyertobe:  I think covering reproductive health procedures for males opens the door for discrimination cases to be taken up, which I do think will happen in the future. You cannot, as a corporation cite “religious freedom” as a reason for not covering some forms of birth control and yet cover it fully for the opposite gender and expect that to fly.

Also do we as women get to say to a man, “We don’t get testicular cancer so we don’t feel we should pay for that but treatments for ovarian cancer are cheaper so we’ll cover that instead”? ( I am well aware this is a completely made-up scenario but its to illustrate a point).

I will also reiterate that I’m not 100% sure what the answer is myself but we already have some forms of socialized medicine in this country. Medicare and medicaid are forms of socialized medicine. They are flawed (as is obviously employee-run healthcare…) but they are working and I know most seniors don’t want it taken away from them.

Post # 243
Member
2120 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2015

 

gelaine22:  Uhm, I work for the federal government (US) as well. All birth control methods are covered. The only thing that isn’t is plan B.

Women’s health needs to stop being separated from overall healthcare.

Post # 244
Member
859 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

I think we can only truly have a meaningful discussion when we STOP saying that Hobby Lobby is “banning” contraceptive coverage to women. No, they aren’t. They actually provide several types of contraceptive coverage, but do not cover the kinds they believe to induce abortion of an already fertilized egg. If you are a Hobby Lobby employee who is picky about your contraception, pony up the $9 a month and deal with it. Otherwise use the kinds that they do cover.

People are very adamant about their employer staying out of their uterus/bedroom/vagina/what have you…. except they want them to pay for it all. Makes no sense. Employers are people too, with rights and opinions and this whole issue is just government overreach at its finest.

Post # 245
Member
1465 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2014

FutureDrAtkins:  Really disappointed and angry. This actually infringes on my religious rights because in Judaism you are COMMANDED to have an abortion if there is a threat to the mother’s life. This is not religious freedom, it is religious oppression. 

Post # 246
Member
2847 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

 

nawella:  I jewish person can still h ave an abortion.  Your employer just doesn’t have to pay for it.

Post # 246
Member
2120 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2015

FutureMrsT1221:  There should be no distinction in healthcare between genders.  Men get ED drugs paid for by insurance at little cost with no pushback, but birth control, which is used for a VAST majority of other issues than solely pregnancy prevention, is heavily regulated, because it’s ok for men to have sex, but not for women unless they are explicitly trying to have babies.

Then you run into the issue where women are not getting complete sex education, restricted access to birth control, heavily restricted access to abortions if they decide to have one, and then little access to post-pregnancy assistance (both financial and otherwise) if they were “compelled” to have an unplanned pregnancy due to lack of education and prevention tools.

Post # 248
Member
14969 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2011

I just had an interesting chat with my friend about this.  I think the reasons touched on by either side throughout prety much this entire thread is completely irrrelevant.   This nothing to do with HL making any medical decisions for anyone, or banning BC, or anything to do with womens right and health imo, the only things that matters in this case to me is the fact that HL was allowed to not follow a LAW based on religious beliefs.  Doesn’t matter that the topic is about women, could have been about men, children, dogs, whatever.  The point is that full covereage was passed as a law, and there should be no exception to that.  I mean, can murderers claim religion in the courts to not follow the law and kill someone? 

Post # 249
Member
7977 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2013 - UK

FutureDrAtkins:  http://jubileedebt.org.uk/

Wasn’t going to comment on this any more, because I seem to have caused offence (although I’m not exactly sure how). The Jubilee campaign has been going for many years, and takes Deuteronomy 15 as its inspiration. Although it focuses mainly on vulture funds and eliminating third world debts, it is also related to debt relief movements which aim to eliminate “unfair” debt… student loans would be considered to come under that umbrella.

Makes you wonder if they could indeed do a test case in the USA…

Post # 250
Member
2847 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

 

FutureDrAtkins:  Any New Testament Christian believer will tell you that Jesus came in fulfillment of the laws of the Old Testament.  Jesus is the living sacrifice and the the fulfillment of the law.  So, that idea would not fly for a Christian based business.  I guess you could see how an orthodox (?) Jew felt about that. 

Post # 251
Member
2847 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

 

pinkshoes:  Actually, HHS had already carved out an exception for not for profit religious organizations and churches. 

The Court based its ruling on another statute enacted by Congress.  So, in essense, you have 2 pieces of legislation, passed by the same body.  The Court looked at both and the regulations and made the call.

FWIW, Congress did not define full coverage.  That is not in the statute.  HHS defined it in implementing regulations. 

Post # 252
Member
2847 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

 

Katie-Didnt:  Maybe, maybe not.  I think Viagra has been covered for over a decade now and in vitro never has been, so I am not sure where the challenge would be.  Insurance companies tell you all the time what they will pay for and what they won’t and how much is covered.  For example, under my dental insurance, an extraction is covered at 80%.  The implant necessary to replace the tooth is covered at 50%.  Why?  My guess is because the implant is expensive.  I would condier a molar a functional tooth that you need.

Post # 253
Member
1009 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

Poeple should really read Ginsburg’s dissent- http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/06/read-justice-ginsburgs-passionate-35-page-dissent-in-the-hobby-lobby-decision/373703/  They say it’s 35 pages, but each page is only a few paragraphs so it’s actually a pretty quick read.  As she makes clear, there were many, many past cases where corporations and other similar entities tried to do something under the guise of religion, and courts said NO.  This case is a HUGE change from precedent and the legislative intent of the Religious Freedom Reformation Act.

Yes, HL refused to cover only a few methods.  But this case makes clear that an employer now has the freedom to refuse to cover ANYTHING that they claim violates their religious beliefs, whether that’s all forms of contraception or blood transfusions.

People (and HL) are factually wrong in how emergency contraception and IUDs work.  Emergency contraception prevents ovulation.  It’s been shown that it has no effect on implantation.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  The IUD prevents fertilization- “The copper IUD releases copper into the uterus, which works as a spermicide. The Mirena releases a form of the hormone progestin (levonorgestrel) into the uterus. The progestin thickens the cervical mucus so that sperm can’t reach the egg and may keep some women from ovulating.”  So 5 men on the Supreme Court believe that a legal entity (that has protections in place to ensure that the actual people at the helm get lots of legal protections that aren’t available to regular people without such corporation status) have a “religious” right to be factually, scientifically wrong to the detriment of their employees.

I’m currently pregnant, and while I thought my weight gain over the past week was due to a growth spurt, I’m thinking it might be due to those judges deciding to move into my uterus.

Post # 254
Member
14969 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2011

Mrs.Sawyertobe:  But HL is not a not for profit org or church.

Post # 255
Member
7977 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2013 - UK

Mrs.Sawyertobe:  “that idea would not fly for a Christian based business.  I guess you could see how an orthodox (?) Jew felt about that.”

The tens of thousands of people who support the Jubilee campaign (which is a “limited company” and therefore, I believe, would fall under the remit of being a corporation) obviously feel differently…

The topic ‘So Disappointed in the US Supreme Court's Ruling…’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors