Judge rules private company owners cannot be forced to violate their religious belief

[nehalem256]

Again here is the calculator that will tabulate the cost: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/calculator-birth-control-expensive-really-cost

You guys really buy into the whole BC is just a few bucks BS by Republican talking points. That is just a flat out lie.

Is NPR controlled by the Republican party now?

But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills—the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen—for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147820584/weekly-standard-target-sells-pills-for-9-a-month

 

[JEDIYoda]

It is their own money. The workers trade their labor for pay.

Sorry that is not true at all. Other than their paycheck insurance is a benefit that can and is regulated by what they employer is willing to provide!!

 

[Oldgamer]

How about from the source?

Take a pill each day to prevent pregnancy
Safe, effective, and convenient
Easy to get with a prescription
Cost about $15–$50 each month

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm

Yes, and that price is a variable. Because some women need different types, so it could be as much as 50 or more each month.

Then on top of that, a woman needs to be monitored while on these hormonal meds, because dosages have to be adjusted, and or if there are issues with side effects.

By the way PP costs are different from state to state and region to region. And recently with all the attacks against PP and so many being forced to shut down, costs have been increased by them.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There are many "religious" acts from all religions that people believe to me moral or immoral and have a direct conflict with laws of society.

When laws of society are different than your "religious" belief, the law is going to win. So long as the law isn't specifically targeted at the religious belief but to a broad encompassing amount of society, it passes the litmus test from that point for Constitutionality.

For example, Christianity used to have it as moral to own and beat slaves. The law says there is no more slavery. If someone took strict literal interpretation from the bible, they would claim that the law is trying to stomp on their "religious" beliefs. In fact that is exactly what happened and what was said when slavery was in the process of legal abolishment. Not all religious practices are legal practices. Human sacrifice for example.

As a civil rights issue, preventing your employee's from having access to contraception is a religious practices of others being foisted upon their employee's. Don't want to use contraceptives yourself or have an abortion? Then don't. But by the same token don't prevent others from that just because it's your "religious" right or some such non sense.

Nice try......slippery slope

 

[Oldgamer]

Is NPR controlled by the Republican party now?


http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147820584/weekly-standard-target-sells-pills-for-9-a-month

That article is not accurate:

Birth Control Pills: The “pill,” introduced in the early 1960s, uses hormones (estrogen and progestin) to prevent pregnancy. Users have to take one pill a day and need a prescription from their doctor. On average, 5 out of every 100 women who rely on birth control pills get pregnant each year. The Cost: According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month, depending on health-insurance coverage and type of pill. On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600.

See link: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2012/03/05/the-real-cost-of-birth-control

 

[Oldgamer]

Personally I find it a double standard when the founder of Dominoes has no issues what so ever with covering Cialis, and Viagra for men, but then turns around and wants to keep women from getting birth control through insurance.

 

[HumblePie]

Nice try......slippery slope

Not really. You can't have it your way. An action is legal/illegal based on a broad spectrum of people in society. There is no slippery slope if you have a proper litmus test that is not based upon one religions "beliefs" to an action being legal or illegal. Such guidelines are in place or it would be a slipper slope as you call it.

 

[nehalem256]

That article is not accurate:

Birth Control Pills: The “pill,” introduced in the early 1960s, uses hormones (estrogen and progestin) to prevent pregnancy. Users have to take one pill a day and need a prescription from their doctor. On average, 5 out of every 100 women who rely on birth control pills get pregnant each year. The Cost: According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month, depending on health-insurance coverage and type of pill. On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600.

See link: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2012/03/05/the-real-cost-of-birth-control

So you are saying that NPR is now a shill for Republican party talking points?

 

[nehalem256]

Personally I find it a double standard when the founder of Dominoes has no issues what so ever with covering Cialis, and Viagra for men, but then turns around and wants to keep women from getting birth control through insurance.

What double standard?

Fertility is not a medical condition.

Erectile dysfunction is.

But hey if you want to talk about a double standard why don't we focus on why the ACA mandates that BC be free, but does not extend the same requirement to Viagra?

 

[Matt1970]

Yes, and that price is a variable. Because some women need different types, so it could be as much as 50 or more each month.

Then on top of that, a woman needs to be monitored while on these hormonal meds, because dosages have to be adjusted, and or if there are issues with side effects.

By the way PP costs are different from state to state and region to region. And recently with all the attacks against PP and so many being forced to shut down, costs have been increased by them.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt but the vast majority of the people on minimum wage are NOT going to opt for the name brand. Average is $32.50 a month, $390 a year means 61 child bearing years. You can't get pregnant before 11 or 12 and I ain’t gonna be tappin that at 73 so……

In all actuality someone on minimum wage will opt for the $9 a month and the will qualify for Medicaid so the visit to the doctor will not be a factor.

 

[Oldgamer]

And again, it isn't as simple as a $9 pack generaic pills at Target, (which I am seriously suspect of as being really effective). You have to factor in the doctor visits, the pelvic exam, and then as I said before one type of BC doesn't fit all women. Dosages may need to be stronger for some women, or less. One generic type might not be effective and so a woman needs to switch to something else.

Its ridiculous that we are arguing about this in this day in age. Women have a right to BC and should get it without question through their insurance, especially if they are paying for that insurance through their company.

I shake my head at people who in one breath, say we need less government, and want to cut services and then in that same breath say they want to control womens choices, uteruses, and when where and how they can get access to birth control

Some women cannot take the pill.. did it ever occur to anyone that not all women can do hormonal birth control?

So they have to go to other alternatives, like an IUD, and thats expensive, or some women may need continuous dose streaming so they get the implant in their skin.

These things should be covered by insurance, period. It is a health issue.

....and I am done arguing on this. There are just some people who will not change their mind no matter what evidence, facts or reasoning you put out there.

 

[nehalem256]

And again, it isn't as simple as a $9 pack generaic pills at Target, (which I am seriously suspect of as being really effective). You have to factor in the doctor visits, the pelvic exam, and then as I said before one type of BC doesn't fit all women. Dosages may need to be stronger for some women, or less. One generic type might not be effective and so a woman needs to switch to something else.

If only we listened to Republican Bobby Jindal who said it should be OTC.

But then we couldn't force other people to pay for it. So we cant have that. 🙄

Its ridiculous that we are arguing about this in this day in age. Women have a right to BC and should get it without question through their insurance, especially if they are paying for that insurance through their company.

A right to BC does not include a right to having other people pay for it.

I shake my head at people who in one breath, say we need less government, and want to cut services and then in that same breath say they want to control womens choices, uteruses, and when where and how they can get access to birth control

Obviously the way to less government is to mandate free BC right?

 

[PokerGuy]

This. The judge is saying the owner's religious beliefs are above those of his employees. Not a great precedent to be set. I'd imagine it goes higher and gets thrown out.

Where the heck did you come up with that drivel? The employees are perfectly fine to have whatever religious beliefs they want. The employer isn't forcing them into anything, if they want coverage for contraception, they can pay for it. Very simple.

Finally some common sense from the bench.

 

[Matt1970]

And again, it isn't as simple as a $9 pack generaic pills at Target, (which I am seriously suspect of as being really effective). You have to factor in the doctor visits, the pelvic exam, and then as I said before one type of BC doesn't fit all women. Dosages may need to be stronger for some women, or less. One generic type might not be effective and so a woman needs to switch to something else.

Its ridiculous that we are arguing about this in this day in age. Women have a right to BC and should get it without question through their insurance, especially if they are paying for that insurance through their company.

I shake my head at people who in one breath, say we need less government, and want to cut services and then in that same breath say they want to control womens choices, uteruses, and when where and how they can get access to birth control

Some women cannot take the pill.. did it ever occur to anyone that not all women can do hormonal birth control?

So they have to go to other alternatives, like an IUD, and thats expensive, or some women may need continuous dose streaming so they get the implant in their skin.

These things should be covered by insurance, period. It is a health issue.

....and I am done arguing on this. There are just some people who will not change their mind no matter what evidence, facts or reasoning you put out there.

Nobody is controlling anyones choice and we have shown you it is dirt cheap. It is not a health issue. It is not a health issue. It's an issue of choice. And your last sentence is very correct.

 

[sactoking]

Mental health issues are not lifestyle choices.



Alcohol and tobacco are lifestyle choices.

Non sequitur. Whether any of the four items mentioned are "lifestyle choices" or not is irrelevant. In all four cases there are valid medical reasons to undergo treatment and in all four cases there are religions which reject those treatments based on ideological, not medical, grounds.

 

[Oldgamer]

Nobody is controlling anyones choice and we have shown you it is dirt cheap. It is not a health issue. It is not a health issue. It's an issue of choice. And your last sentence is very correct.

No you have not taken the time to read the links I provided and are ignoring many facts that I demonstrated.

 

[nehalem256]

Non sequitur. Whether any of the four items mentioned are "lifestyle choices" or not is irrelevant. In all four cases there are valid medical reasons to undergo treatment and in all four cases there are religions which reject those treatments based on ideological, not medical, grounds.

Being a life choice is very relevant.

Does life insurance pay off in cases of suicide? Does home owner's insurance pay off if you arson your own house?

The purpose of insurance is not to pay for things you want. It is to pay for unknown events that you don't want to have happen to you.

 

[nehalem256]

No you have not taken the time to read the links I provided and are ignoring many facts that I demonstrated.

You are the one essentially claiming that NPR is a mouth-piece for the Republican Party.

What's next are you going to claim that Rush Limbaugh was trying to get Obama re-elected?

 

[Oldgamer]

Here’s one thing the controversy over health insurance and contraception has taught us: Conservative men need to learn a thing or two about reproductive health.

Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh made this obvious when, echoing other some other conservatives, he suggested women wouldn’t need coverage for birth control if they didn’t insist upon having so much sex. Referring to Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who has advocated for such coverage, Limbaugh said, “She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

As you've read or heard by now, Limbaugh misrepresented Fluke’s testimony: When Fluke spoke on Capitol Hill, she described the plight of a classmate who needed, but could not afford, birth control medication to treat ovarian cysts. But somewhere in between mangling Fluke’s story and calling her a “slut,” Limbaugh also betrayed some medical ignorance.

Birth control pills aren’t like Viagra: You don’t just pop one whenever you want to have sex. Women must take them continuously, typically once a day, over the course of their menstrual cycles. That’s true whether they have sex once a day or once a month. (Rachel Maddow covered this, along with some other relevant issues, in a very helpful segment last week.)

Alas, the dosage of birth control is not the only misconception floating around on the right. Another is that just about everybody can already get effective contraception at low prices. John McCormack of the Weekly Standard figured that out by visiting the local Target and discovering that generic birth control is available for as little as $9 a month. "It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can't afford $9 per month for birth control," McCormack wrote.

I can't speak to the details of Fluke's testimony, but McCormack is telling the truth about what he found at Target. Most of the big pharmacy chains now offer some cheap generic drugs, even for people without insurance. For women who take those particular drugs, it’s a genuinely good deal.

The problem, as doctors and pharmacists will tell you, is that not every drug works for every woman.

Oral contraceptives can cause side effects, including nausea, bloating, weight gain, and headaches after initial dosages. They are less effective in patients taking other medications (like anti-convulsants, which physicians use to treat a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions) and they can aggravate existing medical conditions (like migraine headaches or high blood pressure). Birth control pills that contain estrogen can actually be life-threatening for women with histories of blood clots and some cancers.

The pills with estrogen are also a problem for women who are breastfeeding. “Women that are nursing their babies can't take them because the estrogen can decrease milk production or dry the milk completely,” Cristina Rojas, a pharmacist who happens to be my neighbor, explained to me on Sunday. Making the right contraceptive available to new mothers is a big deal, by the way, because spacing pregnancies apart has serious medical, as well as socio-economic, benefits. (Although breast-feeding reduces the chance that a woman will get pregnant, it does not eliminate the possibility altogether.)

For some women, finding the right contraceptive is a matter of finding the right pill. For others, it’s a matter of finding a whole other birth control method – like implants, inter-uterine devices, or surgical sterilization. Most of these alternatives cost more than $9 a month and some of them cost a lot more than $9 a month. But plenty of women still need them, according to Caren Stalburg, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan:

The decision for which dosing schedule, hormonal composition, and/or delivery device depends on a variety of factors including patient choice, ease of use, the patient’s medical history, how quickly the woman would like to resume her ability to conceive, etc. Adding to the complexity, sometimes these medications and devices are utilized for non-contraceptive indications such as abnormal bleeding, endometriosis, pelvic pain, management of acne, treatment after pregnancy losses due to molar pregnancies, and sometimes even in conjunction with assisted reproduction technologies.
Melissa Gilliam, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Chicago, brings up another reason why women might seek out alternatives to pills, generic or otherwise: There's no danger of forgetting to take them.

People are very poor at adhering to daily medications and birth control pills are no different. In some studies almost half of young women have stopped taking birth control pills within three months. Adherence and continuation rates are much higher for long acting methods such as the intrauterine device. Regardless, women will do best with the method they want to use.
Adam Sonfield, senior policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, sums it up well:

It's great when low-cost generics are available, if one of the ones available is the right method for you. But if we were talking about medication to address high blood pressure or to treat cancer, no one would take seriously this type of argument: "You don't need insurance coverage for that medication your doctor recommends. See, there's a different drug on sale at Target. I'm not a doctor, but, hey, it's probably just as good for you."

To be clear, McCormack and other conservatives make additional claims. They suggest, for example, that health insurance simply shouldn’t cover so many routine medical expenses – or that the public interest in providing such coverage shouldn’t outweigh the public interest in respecting the wishes of religious leaders.

Linkhttp://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101372/limbaugh-weekly-standard-birth-control-pills-target-9-dollars

 

[Matt1970]

....and I am done arguing on this.

🙂

 

[Oldgamer]

Lets be clear, having the ability to get a hard on for participating in sex is not a health issue. In fact it has been found that erectile dysfunction in most cases signals a serious health problem such as clogged arteries, precipitant of heart attack, and or depression, and many other issues.

Those are health issues, and must not be treated using drugs like Cialis, Viagra because of the serious side effects that can exacerbate these problems.

Again, having the inability to get a hard on, or keeping one is not a health issue.

You can try to justify not being able to get a hard on, or keeping one as a health issue all you want, but it isn't. It's a symptom of a bigger health issue and should be treated by methods to address that symptom, not necessarily by popping a pill to get or keep an extended hard on.

Most men who take Viagra and Cialis usually don't need it anyway, they just like being able to keep a long lasting hard on for their partner, and its a big ego boost for them as well.

 

[Oldgamer]

🙂

Yea I got sucked back in..lol

 

[ElFenix]

the employees end up paying for it anyway so from an economic perspective this guy is just collecting funds, not paying for it.

 

[Oldgamer]

You are the one essentially claiming that NPR is a mouth-piece for the Republican Party.

What's next are you going to claim that Rush Limbaugh was trying to get Obama re-elected?

What on earth are you talking about? Where did this come from? lmao

I don't think I have ever said, or posted such things..

 

[Matt1970]

It's great when low-cost generics are available, if one of the ones available is the right method for you. But if we were talking about medication to address high blood pressure or to treat cancer, no one would take seriously this type of argument: "You don't need insurance coverage for that medication your doctor recommends. See, there's a different drug on sale at Target. I'm not a doctor, but, hey, it's probably just as good for you."

And that's just it. We are not talking about medication to address high blood pressure or to treat cancer and very very few people need it for any other reason that to not get a bun in the over from getting poked.