US Supreme Court "Hobby Lobby" decision on contraception

TimG · July 1, 2014

As for the damage caused by "trampling on religious freedoms"... care to talk more about this damage?

It is about the freedom to disagree with the majority. I am greatly disturbed by the mob mentality in society today which attempts to squash any opinion which fails to conform to the mob's ideas. I see religious freedoms as a subset of the freedom to disagree and defending them pushes back against the mob that wants to impose conformity on public discourse. Edited July 1, 2014 by TimG

Bonam · July 1, 2014

It is about the freedom to disagree with the majority. I am greatly disturbed by the mob mentality in society today which attempts to squash any opinion which fails to conform to the mob's ideas. I see religious freedoms are a subset of the freedom to disagree and defending them pushes back against the mob that wants to impose conformity.

See I tend to disagree, as I see religions trying to assert rights collectively that are not granted to individuals. For example, a Christian Scientist may be opposed to healthcare and is thus exempt from the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, I may be opposed to the Affordable Care Act on political or philosophical grounds, but yet there is no exemption for me from the individual mandate. Members of certain religions are allowed to opt out of paying into ponzi schemes like Social Security, because of the assumption that they will be taken care of in their old age by their religious group. I, however, am not allowed to opt out of paying into Social Security, even if I can demonstrate that I have sufficient means to ensure my financial independence in old age.

These kinds of "respects for religious freedoms" elevate the rights of religious groups above the rights of individuals, and in effect trample on the rights of individuals. I do not support granting people additional rights, or exemptions from being required to abide by laws, based on their religion. It furthermore necessarily relegates atheists to be the group with the least rights, as every religion will lobby and accrue special rights and privileges for their members, while those that do not affiliate with a religion are left out. This is a trampling of the rights of individuals, and also constitutes discrimination based on religion, and discrimination against those without religion.

Consider this particular court decision. Is an atheist business owner also allowed to refuse contraception coverage to their employees? After all, he would save money by doing so. Allowing businesses owned by religious people to reduce their health care costs while businesses owned by non-religious people are not allowed to do so gives these religious owners a competitive advantage, and that is real discrimination with a real economic effect.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Bonam

TimG · July 1, 2014

For example, a Christian Scientist may be opposed to healthcare and is thus exempt from the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, I may be opposed to the Affordable Care Act on political or philosophical grounds, but yet there is no exemption for me from the individual mandate.

First, it is a balancing act. I don't believe religious beliefs should be grounds for a general "exemption from regulation". All I am arguing that in this case with the contraceptives they are not asking to be exempt from the ACA - they are only asking that they be given an exemption from a minor provision and granting this exemption does not undermine the broad objectives of the ACA (whether you agree with them or not). Given this context the freedom to believe dumb things should be given weight.

Second, a company and an individual are in a different situation. The ACA tells the individual that they have to buy for themselves. It tells companies what they have to buy for other people. i.e. if someone does not believe in contraceptives they don't use them and don't care that their individual plan would pay for them. Companies on the other hand being asked to pay for others to use them. The ethical context is completely different.

Edited July 1, 2014 by TimG

scribblet · July 1, 2014

There are several male and female contraceptive products that are sold OTC without a prescription. Normally, these are not covered by health insurance plans unless specifically scheduled as part of the plan/policy. Some are available free of charge from several sources (colleges, universities, clinics, schools, etc.). My son's university actually has an official "condom club".

Vasectomies are generally covered by health insurance plans, as are other "reproductive health" issues for men.

Thanks... Still, if they are covering birth control for women why shouldn't condoms for men be covered even if no prescription is required. After all, they are not only for birth control but aid in protection from disease for both male and female. Surely a savings for the health care system.

I've read that there is r/d going on with regard to hormonal birth control for men most likely given by injection. Should that ever become a reality I suppose that will eventually be another issue for the S.C. MInd you, I bet most men wouldn't want to use it -

Even Hilary Clinton misunderstood the ruling.

ETA: I just read that HL's plan does cover vasectomies and female sterilization.

Edited July 1, 2014 by scribblet

Bitsy · July 1, 2014

The one passed directly from the Lord to the authors of The Bible obviously. ~s

So you don't believe in the morality of other religions, Judaism for example?

Which sect of Christian morality should we follow? Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, LDS, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic, or more traditional sects, Methodist, Baptists, etc.

Bitsy · July 1, 2014

I see nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat, does not understand the ruling and the impact it will have on other companies who object to birth control.

cybercoma · July 1, 2014

Thanks... Still, if they are covering birth control for women why shouldn't condoms for men be covered even if no prescription is required.

Because that's the difference. A prescription is required for medication. Birth control is used for more than just contraception. Condoms are not medication. They're also not even remotely close to being as effective as the pill as a contraceptive.

cybercoma · July 1, 2014

So you don't believe in the morality of other religions, Judaism for example?

Which sect of Christian morality should we follow? Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, LDS, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic, or more traditional sects, Methodist, Baptists, etc.

Of course not. There's only one true God and those who don't listen to Him are appropriately punished. ~s

Bitsy · July 1, 2014

Of course not. There's only one true God and those who don't listen to Him are appropriately punished. ~s

Silly me, of course you are right.

bush_cheney2004 · July 2, 2014

Because that's the difference. A prescription is required for medication. Birth control is used for more than just contraception. Condoms are not medication....

If the drug plan formulary includes OTC contraceptive products, then they are covered. Here is an example formulary that does cover condoms and other OTC contraceptives, but for females, not males:

Contraceptive Coverage Under Preventive Health

Wellness Benefit

A female member age 10 – 50 years old has coverage of some FDA -

approved contraceptives for no out-of-pocket cost.

Free contraceptives are listed below:

Tier 1 oral contraceptives

Limit of three units on condoms (male or female)

Limit of 2.7 units of spermicidal product

https://www.healthalliance.org/media/Health_Alliance_Comprehensive_Formulary_Public.pdf

Shady · July 2, 2014

I see nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat, does not understand the ruling and the impact it will have on other companies who object to birth control.

I would suggest that she doesn't have a grasp of the ruling. And that the decision was made based on a law her husband signed into law.

Bitsy · July 2, 2014

I would suggest that she doesn't have a grasp of the ruling. And that the decision was made based on a law her husband signed into law.

You may suggest it but there is no evidence to support your suggestion.

Shady · July 2, 2014

You may suggest it but there is no evidence to support your suggestion.

The evidence is that she's completely oblivious to it.

Bitsy · July 2, 2014

The evidence is that she's completely oblivious to it.

Why are you avoiding pointing out what she didn't grasp about the ruling? Why don't you read her statement and then get back to me so we can discuss.

Shady · July 2, 2014

Why are you avoiding pointing out what she didn't grasp about the ruling? Why don't you read her statement and then get back to me so we can discuss.

I read her statement. It's nonsensical.

cybercoma · July 2, 2014

I read her statement. It's nonsensical.

That's not what bitsy asked you. She asked you to point out what's nonsensical about it and why.

Bitsy · July 2, 2014

I read her statement. It's nonsensical.

Which of her statements did you find nonsensical and for what reason?

Bitsy · July 2, 2014

That's not what bitsy asked you. She asked you to point out what's nonsensical about it and why.

You got it!!! Maybe now Shady will also.

cybercoma · July 2, 2014

Shady, why do you support this decision? Is it just that you believe businesses should be free to pick and choose what medical care their insurance policies cover? Or is there some other reason?

Black Dog · July 2, 2014

Shady, why do you support this decision? Is it just that you believe businesses should be free to pick and choose what medical care their insurance policies cover? Or is there some other reason?

He'll let you know as soon as he consults the conservative blogosphere for the latest talking points.

Bitsy · July 2, 2014

He'll let you know as soon as he consults the conservative blogosphere for the latest talking points.

Good, maybe then he will tell me how Hillary misunderstood the ruling.

Bitsy · July 3, 2014

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

As can be seen from the studies of two highly respected universities, NYU and Columbia, not known for their ignorance, 52% of US employees work for employers affected by this ruling. No one is suggesting that that all employers will uses this ruling for their benefit but it is theoretical possible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/

Bitsy · July 3, 2014

Even Hilary Clinton misunderstood the ruling.

Please explain Hillary Clinton's misunderstanding of the ruling. Thanks.

I wonder if your remark is responsible for Shady's opinion about Hillary not grasping the ruling?

monty16 · July 3, 2014

The whole issue is quite disgusting. It's not Canadian and it doesn't belong in Canada. The best we can do is scoff at it and distance ourselves from their politics.