Supreme Court Rules with Hobby Lobby on Contraception

I think some of our lady members might object to your categorization of PCOS or endometriosis as "lifestyle choices."

 

I can appreciate that they don't want to or won't pay for it. It's not much different than any of the asthma medications I'm allowed to purchase on/off formulary. If I want it covered I have to go with a product that is covered if not, then I pay out of pocket for it. It is the same with doctors, my choices are what they are because I want choices and I pay a 20% copay to see my own ENT instead of one in network which means it's $200 each visit and each visit really means 2 since there is the preliminary and then the follow up 30 days later.

I don't want to work for any organization that is so closely faith based anymore than I want to work with one that is so heavily ideologically based.

As the day has worn on, I have begun to understand better that it's not going to affect my life in an adverse manner even in the future because both me and my wife won't work for organizations that are like that.

For better understanding, if I opt out of my employer's coverage am I free to pick from the state product? does that state product cover birth control?

 

Companies and corporations don't have a right to religion. As a board member you can believe whatever the hell you want. You don't get to foist those beliefs upon the people who work for you.

 

I'm going to say that there are other ways to get such medications even for free, without having to lean on the ACA as the only choice.
--- merged: Jun 30, 2014 at 5:24 PM ---

sure you can. bosses do it all the time.

laws, and particularly employment law doesn't mean you can't be an asshole.

 

The problem with this position is that it projects your own circumstances onto others. Not everyone is in a position to pay an extra $200 co-pay to see someone else. Not everyone can afford to buy their own insurance when the employer-subsidized plan is insufficient.

It's one thing if your insurance doesn't cover the brand name version of a medication. It's quite another to excise an entire category of medications from your coverage based on personal beliefs. If I said I believed asthma was God's punishment to the wicked and refused to cover inhalers of any type, would you say that's right or fair or reasonable?

Of course the ultimate solution is universal healthcare. But in absence of that as a feasible option, you must make the best of what is given. If employers are going to be saddled with the responsibility of providing healthcare for their employees, they must also be held to standards of care. Just the same as a government-run plan would.

 

and that is the crux of my point, if that's the case, I wouldn't work there anyways, because I cannot excel where someone believes I am "less than"

it is another component in my mind as to those that vote with their wallets. They also can vote where to get their paycheck from.

 

Which, again, suggests a freedom that doesn't exist for everyone. If you're supporting a family and you don't have a lot of marketable skills, you may find yourself in a position where you don't have a lot of options when it come to employment. I would suggest that such an individual has just as much right to adequate healthcare as anyone else. Even more so, I would suggest that if such a person is going to have a shot at class mobility adequate healthcare is essential.

You can't decide to tie healthcare to employment, and then not set regulatory standards for what is and is not covered. At some point an employee's well-being needs to take precedence over an employer's freedom of choice. I would suggest that decisions that allow employers to arbitrarily withhold potentially life-saving medication probably fall on the wrong side of that line.

 

Blah, blah, blah, a bunch of men making important decisions on women's health issues.

 

And to your point that there are medical reasons to acquire birth control, there are also medical reasons to get a hormonal IUD. Other methods of BC worked fine for contraceptive purposes; I chose the Mirena strictly because it meant that I would not have to have a period, and therefore would avoid the mess of cramps I had every month. I can confirm that I had to have a pregnancy test beforehand.
--- merged: Jun 30, 2014 at 8:06 PM ---

Same shit, different day.

 

You understand that this judgement goes beyond Hobby Lobby, right? They were the specific defendant in this case but SCOTUS has in their decision said that companies may ignore the ACA contraceptive mandate. That sets a precedent and has repercussions that spread far beyond what Hobby Lobby does or does not choose to do.

You're the one who suggested that women taking birth control are doing so exclusively due to lifestyle decisions. Barring the fact that this "moral high ground" position is a nonsensical argument (plenty of women in committed monogamous relationships may choose birth control to avoid a pregnancy at an inopportune time) I can't help but point out, repeatedly, that plenty of women use birth control for reasons other than contraception. Hormonal birth control has a secondary function of regulating hormonal imbalances. Many, many women use birth control not to avoid giving birth but to avoid serious complications or symptoms of medical conditions they have developed through no fault of their own. As snowy has noted, this does even extend to IUDs. This decision opens the door for corporations to choose not to cover those therapies based on "religious grounds," which is a vague reason at the best of times. It also arguably creates a precedent for refusing to cover other therapies for similar reasons.

I don't care what you believe. If you want to think that these women are going to hell because they choose to use birth control, well, that's your belief and you're entitled to it. What you cannot (or at least should not) be able to do is cause other people harm due to those beliefs. Denying women birth control coverage causes them harm. Ergo, this is a bad decision.