US Supreme Court "Hobby Lobby" decision on contraception

[TimG]

Yes so clearly every small business owner should educate themselves on the details of health care and medicine so they can make the best cost-benefit analysis on behalf of their employees to make sure they get the coverage they most benefit from for a cost that the employer can afford.

Only the larger employers could expect an ROI that would exceed the cost of doing this kind of analysis. But this issue is whether employers should need to do this and I am arguing yes even if most smaller businesses will find it cheaper to pick one of the standards plans offered by the insurance cos. Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[Bitsy]

It's actually about 4%.

And guess what? Ontario doesn't cover any of it.

Are you seriously saying that 96% of people working in the US are employees either of non-profits, publically traded corporation or civil servants. No offense, Shady, but I believe that NYU Stern School of Business has more knowledge than you about private employment in the US. I will stand corrected if your have any reputable study that says only 4% will be affected by this ruling.

Guess what? What Ontario covers or does not cover has no bearing one me of any other US female.

[Shady]

Are you seriously saying that 96% of people working in the US are employees either of non-profits, publically traded corporation or civil servants. No offense, Shady, but I believe that NYU Stern School of Business has more knowledge than you about private employment in the US. I will stand corrected if your have any reputable study that says only 4% will be affected by this ruling.

Guess what? What Ontario covers or does not cover has no bearing one me of any other US female.

Anyone suggesting that 52% of workers will be affected by this decision is either a demogogue or ignorant.

So what is the problem then? Coverage is provided by religious institutions of 16 of 21 contraceptives, compared to none in Ontario, and we're suppose to pretend it's some kind of outrage? What???

[scribblet]

Yep, it's the abortion zealots that feel the need to force their views on people of faith. Providing coverage for perfectly acceptable, and efficient 16 contraceptives just isn't good enough.

Well yes it is the abortion zealots.

The ruling is what actually amount to family run business, and the only forms of B/C they cannot be forced to pay for are those that induce abortion.

It was narrow in that it is specific to which corporations and only to the contraceptive mandate focusing on four specific means of birth control

And even this is limited only to what essentially amounts to family-run businesses. e.g. the likes of WalMart would have to pay for all of it.

It is restricted only to the contraceptive mandate and does not provide a shield or cloak for discrimination.

There are other cases coming up in the S.C. where companies are contending that ALL forms of contraception are against their religious beliefs so they should not have to pay. It ain't over yet.

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/huge-day-at-supreme-court-as-hobby-lobby-decision-expected-court-also-could-limit-public-unions.html/

It’s also important to note that the business owners’ objections were not to contraception, per se, but to abortion. They argued that four types of contraception required to be covered amounted to abortion, as Alito noted and which Solicitor General, in arguing the Obama Administration case in March, has rejected as contrary to any ordinary understanding of what abortion is. Alito:

Actually, 85% of employers covered contraception prior to Obamacare.

Edited June 30, 2014 by scribblet

[Shady]

Wow...must be all the Catholics...eh?

You gotta wonder about the mindset of some people, irked at another group of people only offered coverage of 16 of 21 contraceptives, while having zero coverage through their provincial plan, but perfectly content. It's freaking bizarro world!

[Shady]

Well yes it is the abortion zealots.

The ruling is what actually amount to family run business, and the only forms of B/C they cannot be forced to pay for are those that induce abortion.

It was narrow in that it is specific to which corporations and only to the contraceptive mandate focusing on four specific means of birth control

And even this is limited only to what essentially amounts to family-run businesses. e.g. the likes of WalMart would have to pay for all of it.

It is restricted only to the contraceptive mandate and does not provide a shield or cloak for discrimination.

There are other cases coming up in the S.C. where companies are contending that ALL forms of contraception are against their religious beliefs so they should not have to pay. It ain't over yet.

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/huge-day-at-supreme-court-as-hobby-lobby-decision-expected-court-also-could-limit-public-unions.html/

It’s also important to note that the business owners’ objections were not to contraception, per se, but to abortion. They argued that four types of contraception required to be covered amounted to abortion, as Alito noted and which Solicitor General, in arguing the Obama Administration case in March, has rejected as contrary to any ordinary understanding of what abortion is. Alito:

You're exactly right. I don't know why people don't bother to understand the actual details of a decision. They essentially read the book by reading the cover so-to-speak. Then they feign outrage. It's completely absurd.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is why...Canadian liberals import the abortion battle from the U.S. when there is no reason to do so:

...For a clue, look south. As with health care, Canadian left-wing phobias about abortion are largely shaped in reaction to America’s culture wars, not Canada’s.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/03/jonathan-kay-blame-america-the-real-reason-canadian-liberals-go-hysterical-on-the-abortion-issue/

[Bitsy]

Anyone suggesting that 52% of workers will be affected by this decision is either a demogogue or ignorant.

So what is the problem then? Coverage is provided by religious institutions of 16 of 21 contraceptives, compared to none in Ontario, and we're suppose to pretend it's some kind of outrage? What???

There are an estimated 52% of employers that possibly fall under the private held corporation ruling. No one has suggested that any other private held corporation will take the path chosen by the companies in this case but to suggest that they won't is what I would consider ignorant.

I will not venture to guess why there is any concern one way or the other by Canadians who are not affected by this ruling. Maybe you can explain.

Why should any of the methods be denied? I don't want a corporation prescribing the best pharmaceutical choice for me, that is between me and my doctor. Many women prefer an IUD for either personal or medicate reasons, they should not be denied that choice.

[bush_cheney2004]

They are not denied the choice....just pay for it if that is their wish. Corporations with group policies can't and shouldn't include every thing under the sun...the costs would be prohibitive.

[scribblet]

This is why...Canadian liberals import the abortion battle from the U.S. when there is no reason to do so:

...For a clue, look south. As with health care, Canadian left-wing phobias about abortion are largely shaped in reaction to America’s culture wars, not Canada’s.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/03/jonathan-kay-blame-america-the-real-reason-canadian-liberals-go-hysterical-on-the-abortion-issue/

It's right that conservatives often do get labelled (erroneously) as the liberals love to play on anti Americanism on various issues and play it well, especially when it comes to health care. Some of the left buy into it regularly and use the U.S. health care system as a boogy man.

Shady is right that OHIP (Ontario) doesn't pay for birth control, they won't even cover pap smears now.

This is relevant because a pap smear is required before taking hormonal birth control

Edited July 1, 2014 by scribblet

[Shady]

They are not denied the choice....just pay for it if that is their wish. Corporations with group policies can't and shouldn't include every thing under the sun...the costs would be prohibitive.

Exactly. They aren't denied. If having a regular contraceptive paid for by your employer isn't good enough, purchase the abortifacient yourself. But to expect a Catholic institution to pay for abortion procedures, etc is beyond ludicrous. What type of bizarro universe are we living in now?

[Black Dog]

Well yes it is the abortion zealots.

The ruling is what actually amount to family run business, and the only forms of B/C they cannot be forced to pay for are those that induce abortion.

Except they don't.

It was narrow in that it is specific to which corporations and only to the contraceptive mandate focusing on four specific means of birth control

Because religious types obviously get to pick and choose what forms of birth control magical sky fairy approves of.

It is restricted only to the contraceptive mandate and does not provide a shield or cloak for discrimination.

Which speaks volumes about how seriously they consider religious freedom.

[Black Dog]

Exactly. They aren't denied. If having a regular contraceptive paid for by your employer isn't good enough, purchase the abortifacient yourself. But to expect a Catholic institution to pay for abortion procedures, etc is beyond ludicrous. What type of bizarro universe are we living in now?

Catholic institutions like yarn stores?

[Black Dog]

It's right that conservatives often do get labelled (erroneously) as the liberals love to play on anti Americanism on various issues and play it well, especially when it comes to health care. Some of the left buy into it regularly and use the U.S. health care system as a boogy man.

Shady is right that OHIP (Ontario) doesn't pay for birth control, they won't even cover pap smears now.

This is relevant because a pap smear is required before taking hormonal birth control

It's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, but do go on.

[Bitsy]

They are not denied the choice....just pay for it if that is their wish. Corporations with group policies can't and shouldn't include every thing under the sun...the costs would be prohibitive.

These contraceptives are part of ACA and ACA is the law. Lest you forget, the employee does in fact pay for them, they are part of their salary/benefit package.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Bitsy

[Shady]

Catholic institutions like yarn stores?

Yep, even lowly yarn stores are protected by the constitution.

[Shady]

These contraceptives are part of ACA and ACA is the law.

Not any more. That part of the law is unconstitutional. Plus, they're not really contraceptives. They're abortifacients.

Consequenceless sex isn't a constitutional right.

[Bitsy]

Exactly. They aren't denied. If having a regular contraceptive paid for by your employer isn't good enough, purchase the abortifacient yourself. But to expect a Catholic institution to pay for abortion procedures, etc is beyond ludicrous. What type of bizarro universe are we living in now?

Catholic institutions are opposed to all birth control also, in case you didn't know, not just the 4 methods listed by Hobby Lobby.

[Shady]

It's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, but do go on.

No it's completely relevant. If contraception is a right, who's denying us our right?

[Shady]

Catholic institutions are opposed to all birth control also, in case you didn't know, not just the 4 methods listed by Hobby Lobby.

Yes, so it shows just how far they're willing to accomodate their employees. Why isn't that good enough?

[scribblet]

Except they don't.

Because religious types obviously get to pick and choose what forms of birth control magical sky fairy approves of.

Which speaks volumes about how seriously they consider religious freedom.

HL objects to Plan B, Ella, and two IUDs, I suppose the jury is still out on whether they cause abortions or not but I'm pretty sure they simply prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

[bush_cheney2004]

These contraceptives are part of ACA and ACA is the law. Lest you forget, the employee does in fact pay for them, they are part of their salary/benefit package.

ACA is not the law for all employers. Group policies are tailored for benefit levels and coverage based on costs, which will go up for the ACA. Employers pay the bulk of such premiums compared to employees as untaxed benefits.

[Bitsy]

Not any more. That part of the law is unconstitutional. Plus, they're not really contraceptives. They're abortifacients.

Consequenceless sex isn't a constitutional right.

Unless I am totally missing something, Shady, the law requiring contraceptive coverage was not ruled unconstitutional.

Consequenceless sex is up to the individual, and the law guarantees that a woman has the right to choose how to minimize her consequences. The men that I know are pleased that a woman opts for consequenceless sex, especially if single and not ready to make a commitment or if married, they have more children than they can afford.

[Black Dog]

Yes, so it shows just how far they're willing to accomodate their employees. Why isn't that good enough?

They're willing to accommodate their employees by violating some religious principles but not others.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

HL objects to Plan B, Ella, and two IUDs, I suppose the jury is still out on whether they cause abortions or not but I'm pretty sure they simply prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Which is not the same as abortion, unless you're an insane person.