Supreme Court To Take Up Controversial Birth Control Cases

Pages

Link

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will take up the question of whether a for-profit company can refuse to cover contraception for its employees because of religious objections.

Dozens of companies have sued the Obama administration over a rule in the Affordable Care Act requiring most employers -- with the exception of churches and religious non-profits -- to cover the full range of contraceptives in their health insurance plans. The Supreme Court will hear the most high-profile case, filed by the Christian-owned craft supply chain Hobby Lobby, as well as Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, a case filed by a Pennsylvania-based furniture company owned by a family of Mennonites. The cases will be heard together, likely in March 2014, with a decision expected in June.

Another big part of the ACA being looked at. Should be interesting. Personally I think they should have to cover it but I am kind of liberal (I know shocking).

farley3k wrote:

Link

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will take up the question of whether a for-profit company can refuse to cover contraception for its employees because of religious objections.

Dozens of companies have sued the Obama administration over a rule in the Affordable Care Act requiring most employers -- with the exception of churches and religious non-profits -- to cover the full range of contraceptives in their health insurance plans. The Supreme Court will hear the most high-profile case, filed by the Christian-owned craft supply chain Hobby Lobby, as well as Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, a case filed by a Pennsylvania-based furniture company owned by a family of Mennonites. The cases will be heard together, likely in March 2014, with a decision expected in June.

Another big part of the ACA being looked at. Should be interesting. Personally I think they should have to cover it but I am kind of liberal (I know shocking).

It still infuriates me that even churches and religious non-profits can make the call that so greatly affects their employee's lives and well-being outside of work. Freedom of religion means that people should also be allowed to have freedom FROM religion.

If companies (like Hobby Lobby) want to provide extra benefits (guaranteed Sunday's off, in their case) due to their religious beliefs, fine. Trying to say the rules of every other company don't apply to me, however... nope. I'm sure Scalia will say something about how because Hobby Lobby is a person, and the person suing is a person, we have two people here... but, hey one of them is way richer and agrees with my religious beliefs, I'll vote for them.

Let's just decouple health insurance from employment and get it over with.

I really don't see how even Scalia can rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. It would give businesses a huge amount of control over their employees' personal lives and even further cement the idea of corporate personhood.

Nevin73 wrote:

I really don't see how even Scalia can rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. It would give businesses a huge amount of control over their employees' personal lives and even further cement the idea of corporate personhood.

Scalia always emails me to see how I would rule on a case, then does the opposite. I sided against hobby lobby. Sorry.

In a more realistic response, Scalia has been pushing a hyper aggressive form of corporate personhood since forever. His "nyaa I'm an originalist" statements are lies.

Nevin73 wrote:

I really don't see how even Scalia can rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. It would give businesses a huge amount of control over their employees' personal lives and even further cement the idea of corporate personhood.

I'm... confused... are you being ironic here, that's kind of exactly why I expect him to do this.

MyBrainHz wrote:

Let's just decouple health insurance from employment and get it over with.

+1

Also let's get rid of the concept of marriage while we are at it. Civil unions for everyone and those who want a religious marriage can go do so at their place of worship.

MyBrainHz wrote:

Let's just decouple health insurance from employment and get it over with.

Single payer? Hell yes!

Edwin wrote:
MyBrainHz wrote:

Let's just decouple health insurance from employment and get it over with.

+1

Also let's get rid of the concept of marriage while we are at it. Civil unions for everyone and those who want a religious marriage can go do so at their place of worship.

+2 to both parts.

Seth wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I really don't see how even Scalia can rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. It would give businesses a huge amount of control over their employees' personal lives and even further cement the idea of corporate personhood.

Scalia always emails me to see how I would rule on a case, then does the opposite. I sided against hobby lobby. Sorry.

In a more realistic response, Scalia has been pushing a hyper aggressive form of corporate personhood since forever. His "nyaa I'm an originalist" statements are lies.

Scalia knows full well that Dumbledore and Sirius destroyed a Horcrux each, and Harry, Ron, and Hermione are well into their search for the final four, so he's going to inflict as much woe upon the Earth as he can before his cowardly grasp on his horrific un-life slips away.

Demosthenes wrote:

Single payer? Hell yes!

But that's not what I said.

MyBrainHz wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Single payer? Hell yes!

But that's not what I said. :(

It would get health care out of employer's hands though.

MyBrainHz wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Single payer? Hell yes!

But that's not what I said. :(

Either we have single payer or companies will provide health insurance as a benefit.
Having no single payer and banning companies from providing it would just result in a gargantuan disaster.

realityhack wrote:

Either we have single payer or companies will provide health insurance as a benefit.
Having no single payer and banning companies from providing it would just result in a gargantuan disaster.

One wonders how the auto and home insurance markets even exist!

MyBrainHz wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Single payer? Hell yes!

But that's not what I said. :(

haha That's one of the problems, no one is putting up a viable alternative. Just "This is bad, let's go back to 30mil+ with no insurance and emergency room care!"

MyBrainHz wrote:
realityhack wrote:

Either we have single payer or companies will provide health insurance as a benefit.
Having no single payer and banning companies from providing it would just result in a gargantuan disaster.

One wonders how the auto and home insurance markets even exist!

You mean those two markets where people also get screwed by not having the right or enough insurance or having no insurance, thus screwing not only themselves, but other people?

I don't see your point, or know how you want me to respond to that. I never said the auto/home insurance system is perfect. Of course, in many instances, it works fine. There would be failures in a single-payer system too, so I'm not sure why a success rate of <100% is a compelling argument.

Besides, this is getting off topic.

karmajay wrote:

haha That's one of the problems, no one is putting up a viable alternative. Just "This is bad, let's go back to 30mil+ with no insurance and emergency room care!"

Shrug, I have ideas about alternatives, but this isn't really the thread for that.

Well, I'm sold.

MyBrainHz, You actually did propose an alternative. Separating employers from health insurance (the only way to do that is to ban them from offering it at all) AND not have a single payer system.
There are different ways the specifics could be arranged, but you made a clear proposal.
One that I find indefensible.
At no time did I indicate such a thing could NOT exist. Making your most recent post dismissible as a non-sequitur. I said it would be a gargantuan disaster.

I understand if you think this is off topic and do not want to continue the discussion but your shrug isn't quite accurate. You painted a clearly limited space.

On the topic of contraception coverage.
Does anyone here think companies should be able to opt out of covering contraception?
What if it is required for other reasons?

Does anyone think think the court will allow opting out of contraception?
If so do you think we will see any companies opting out of covering prostate cancer because it is a blight on men for their sinning ways?

realityhack wrote:

On the topic of contraception coverage.
Does anyone here think companies should be able to opt out of covering contraception?
What if it is required for other reasons?

That was something I was thinking about too. I knew a girl in junior high school that had terrible cramps/bleeding/etc during her period. Her doctor put her on the pill to help manage the symptoms (being in junior high we all thought it was hilarious that she was on the pill which is the only reason I remember).

Now what would happen to her under if the supreme court allows this exemption? Does she not get the pill? Does the doctor have to fill out some form saying it is medically necessary? And if that were the solution how can anyone with a straight face talk about "the government getting between a patient and their doctor"? So your employer can but not the government?

realityhack wrote:

Does anyone think think the court will allow opting out of contraception?
If so do you think we will see any companies opting out of covering prostate cancer because it is a blight on men for their sinning ways?

I was thinking more about treatment for AIDS or any other STD. Obviously they got the disease doing something against the church's morals so they should be able to not cover that right?

farley3k wrote:
realityhack wrote:

Does anyone think think the court will allow opting out of contraception?
If so do you think we will see any companies opting out of covering prostate cancer because it is a blight on men for their sinning ways?

I was thinking more about treatment for AIDS or any other STD. Obviously they got the disease doing something against the church's morals so they should be able to not cover that right?

Unless you're born with it.

Yeah come to think of it - original sin. Religious organizations shouldn't have to cover any medical needs. We deserve it because of Adam and Eve. The ultimate preexisting condition!

I threw out that specific example as a very common male only condition.
The anti-contraception idea is very heavily rooted in the idea of women being controlled. I suspect if the case was about a male issue we wouldn't even have made it this far.

But if you allow religious exemptions at all you tread near allowing all of them. Women/Men don't get covered by my company because they are property in my religion equal opportunities be damned.

farley3k wrote:
realityhack wrote:

On the topic of contraception coverage.
Does anyone here think companies should be able to opt out of covering contraception?
What if it is required for other reasons?

That was something I was thinking about too. I knew a girl in junior high school that had terrible cramps/bleeding/etc during her period. Her doctor put her on the pill to help manage the symptoms (being in junior high we all thought it was hilarious that she was on the pill which is the only reason I remember).

Now what would happen to her under if the supreme court allows this exemption? Does she not get the pill? Does the doctor have to fill out some form saying it is medically necessary? And if that were the solution how can anyone with a straight face talk about "the government getting between a patient and their doctor"? So your employer can but not the government?

I'm very curious about this as well. Birth control is also a treatment option for girls/women who suffer from endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and hormone imbalances.

It is not the business of an employer to know an employee's medical history or necessary treatments. So how will this work? No to all contraception? Yes, in specific circumstances? Pre-approved by the employer or a doctor?

I can't really see this case ending in favor of an employer's religious beliefs. Women have plenty of medical reasons to take birth control. But hey, I've been surprised before.

karmajay wrote:
MyBrainHz wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Single payer? Hell yes!

But that's not what I said. :(

haha That's one of the problems, no one is putting up a viable alternative. Just "This is bad, let's go back to 30mil+ with no insurance and emergency room care!"

No one is turned away from an emergency room from care if they are in need of care. One of the burdens of the insured is that we pay for the uninsured one way or the other.

Mystic Violet wrote:
farley3k wrote:
realityhack wrote:

On the topic of contraception coverage.
Does anyone here think companies should be able to opt out of covering contraception?
What if it is required for other reasons?

That was something I was thinking about too. I knew a girl in junior high school that had terrible cramps/bleeding/etc during her period. Her doctor put her on the pill to help manage the symptoms (being in junior high we all thought it was hilarious that she was on the pill which is the only reason I remember).

Now what would happen to her under if the supreme court allows this exemption? Does she not get the pill? Does the doctor have to fill out some form saying it is medically necessary? And if that were the solution how can anyone with a straight face talk about "the government getting between a patient and their doctor"? So your employer can but not the government?

I'm very curious about this as well. Birth control is also a treatment option for girls/women who suffer from endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and hormone imbalances.

It is not the business of an employer to know an employee's medical history or necessary treatments. So how will this work? No to all contraception? Yes, in specific circumstances? Pre-approved by the employer or a doctor?

I can't really see this case ending in favor of an employer's religious beliefs. Women have plenty of medical reasons to take birth control. But hey, I've been surprised before.

You can receive birth control from any planned parent hood or similar establishment, for free, and those locations tend to bunch in poorer areas. You can also purchase birth control without insurance from Walgreens for $10.

I think they will side with the employer. Women have plenty of medical reasons to take birth control but the number of women with a medical need to take birth control is such a small % of the overall birth control usage that it isn't really a concern. Women also have plenty of options to purchase birth control without insurance or receive it for free. I just did a quick google search and you can purchase birth control for $9 for a 30 day usage at Wal Mart.

Also the women have the choice to change jobs to obtain benefits that they want.

Ulairi wrote:

Also the women have the choice to change jobs to obtain benefits that they want.

I love you man but this part is ludicrous. The ones who'll need their employer to pay for contraception the most are the ones that aren't able to change jobs.

Ulairi wrote:

No one is turned away from an emergency room from care if they are in need of care. One of the burdens of the insured is that we pay for the uninsured one way or the other.

Incorrect. They are required to stabilize not provide any care necessary.

Although I can commiserate with you. I am sooo burdened to have health insurance... no... wait... NO I f*cking love having health insurance. You might have an argument for single payer healthcare in there somewhere but your statement comes off feeling a little too much like the ramblings of a privileged jerk.

Ulairi wrote:
Mystic Violet wrote:
farley3k wrote:
realityhack wrote:

On the topic of contraception coverage.
Does anyone here think companies should be able to opt out of covering contraception?
What if it is required for other reasons?

That was something I was thinking about too. I knew a girl in junior high school that had terrible cramps/bleeding/etc during her period. Her doctor put her on the pill to help manage the symptoms (being in junior high we all thought it was hilarious that she was on the pill which is the only reason I remember).

Now what would happen to her under if the supreme court allows this exemption? Does she not get the pill? Does the doctor have to fill out some form saying it is medically necessary? And if that were the solution how can anyone with a straight face talk about "the government getting between a patient and their doctor"? So your employer can but not the government?

I'm very curious about this as well. Birth control is also a treatment option for girls/women who suffer from endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and hormone imbalances...

You can receive birth control from any planned parent hood or similar establishment, for free, and those locations tend to bunch in poorer areas. You can also purchase birth control without insurance from Walgreens for $10.

I fail to see this as relevant.
Does the cost of the treatment effect wither the employer has a say in wither they pay for it? If so on what legal basis and where might the line be?

Ulairi wrote:

I think they will side with the employer. Women have plenty of medical reasons to take birth control but the number of women with a medical need to take birth control is such a small % of the overall birth control usage that it isn't really a concern. Women also have plenty of options to purchase birth control without insurance or receive it for free. I just did a quick google search and you can purchase birth control for $9 for a 30 day usage at Wal Mart.

For X woman where X woman has a legitimate medical need for birth control that is not related to contraception and therefore the company is by definition incapable of having a moral stand against it (thereby bypassing any ruling made)... exactly what grounds are you imagining being used to deny that claim? It's $10 is not an argument.

Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow companies to choose what is covered on a religious basis?

Ulairi wrote:

Also the women have the choice to change jobs to obtain benefits that they want.

This is among the most ignorant statements/arguments I have ever seen on these forums.
I sincerely hope you made it without thought while recovering from overhearing a coworker listening to Limbaugh or something.

Pages