SCOTUS to take up Birth Control Cases

[TheSiege]

I think the biggest argument to keep it is that its sets a precedent that companies can deny coverage of ANYTHING they want, based on religious beliefs. I would be willing to bet that the top 10 things that cost employers the most money would just happen to be "against" their religious beliefs in the SC says its unconstitutional.

 

[Wordplay]

I'm getting a little bit confused on this topic.

I read from The American Spectator:

The case isn’t even about contraception — Hobby Lobby’s employee insurance plans cover birth control

But it's more about abortion like things Huff Post:

the Plan B morning-after pill, an emergency contraceptive called Ella, and two different kinds of intrauterine devices (IUDs) that may sometimes work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus.

So do they allow the normal pill (is there such a thing?) but they do not want to cover abortifacients?

 

[zinfamous]

The issue isn't the pill, it's the contraception. Has Hobby Lobby said that they'd deny coverage to prescriptions, prescribed for different purposes, that could be potentially used for contraception?

Don't you think that would be against their own interest? I'm sure they've considered it (unless they are completely braindead to realize these issues), but allowing non-contraceptive uses of birth control would require the employee to be on an "honor" system; which precisely none of them would obey.

...unless HL subsequently demanded access to their medical records, which would be LoL.

 

[irishScott]

I think the biggest argument to keep it is that its sets a precedent that companies can deny coverage of ANYTHING they want, based on religious beliefs. I would be willing to bet that the top 10 things that cost employers the most money would just happen to be "against" their religious beliefs in the SC says its unconstitutional.

SCOTUS decisions are not typically so black and white.

To use a gun control example, in the 2008 Heller decision SCOTUS decided that there was an individual right to a firearm, but that right could be subjected to "reasonable restrictions". Both sides declared victory.

I sincerely doubt they'll set a precedent that says you can deny chemotherapy to a cancer patient because your CEO is a Christian Scientist.

 

[TheSiege]

I'm getting a little bit confused on this topic.

I read from The American Spectator:


But it's more about abortion like things Huff Post:


So do they allow the normal pill (is there such a thing?) but they do not want to cover abortifacients?

I think you are right in fact, thats not to say other companies are against BC, but I think HL main issues are with the IUD Plan B and so forth

 

[TheSiege]

SCOTUS decisions are not typically so black and white.

To use a gun control example, in the 2008 Heller decision SCOTUS decided that there was an individual right to a firearm, but that right could be subjected to "reasonable restrictions". Both sides declared victory.

I sincerely doubt they'll set a precedent that says you can deny chemotherapy to a cancer patient because your CEO is a Christian Scientist.

How would that be different, than denying BC because the CEO is Catholic?

 

[irishScott]

How would that be different, than denying BC because the CEO is Catholic?

Life threatening vs non-life threatning for starters. The difference is pretty huge.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Religion is stupid and this is just another example why.

 

[TheSiege]

Life threatening vs non-life threatning for starters. The difference is pretty huge.

So only life saving procedure should be covered? And who decides on what is life threatening?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Scott, I respect many of your opinions this one I do not. There needs to be a line drawn for what coverage is considered appropriate and birth control is where it stands. There are many obvious reasons to cover birth control and the best one is the most obvious prevent unplanned pregnancies. Businesses are not religious organizations they don't have to agree with the way an employee lives his/her life but they need to respect law and general etiquette.
Birth control isn't always used for quick sex or women with loose morals. There are other good reasons for a prescription. Currently my Fiancee is back on them not to prevent pregnancy but she is starting menopause and her menstrual cycle is no longer predictable birth control makes it predictable again. This is a quality of life issue.

 

[irishScott]

So only life saving procedure should be covered? And who decides on what is life threatening?

Not at all, I'm just saying that's the largest issue in a whole string of differences.

A lot of women take Tylenol on their period for relief. Should Tylenol be covered under a health plan? Where does one draw the line and why?

The issue is extremely complex and multifaceted, but in my mind I have a hard time justifying coverage of birth control for birth control or basic comfort purposes Would be like asking my employer to pay for condoms and ibuprofen.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'd draw it at Tylenol is an over the counter pain killer and birth control is not thus there is less competition and more expense.
Also you do not need to see a Doctor to have Tylenol prescribed.

 

[irishScott]

Don't you think that would be against their own interest? I'm sure they've considered it (unless they are completely braindead to realize these issues), but allowing non-contraceptive uses of birth control would require the employee to be on an "honor" system; which precisely none of them would obey.

...unless HL subsequently demanded access to their medical records, which would be LoL.

I'm no insurance expert (after Obamacare who is? ) but could they make some arrangement with the insurance company/government, who would have access to those records?

 

[irishScott]

I'd draw it at Tylenol is an over the counter pain killer and birth control is not thus there is less competition and more expense.
Also you do not need to see a Doctor to have Tylenol prescribed.

So if birth control one day becomes OTC like a lot of people want, it should no longer be covered?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Personally I'd be fine with HL setting up a fund to essentially pay for birth control without actually being involved in the coverage. This would most likely be more expensive though because everyone would get the offer.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So if birth control one day becomes OTC like a lot of people want, it should no longer be covered?

Sure it just needs to have multiple choices and be reasonably affordable. That day won't come because people will be concerned about minors using it.

 

[irishScott]

Sure it just needs to have multiple choices and be reasonably affordable. That day won't come because people will be concerned about minors using it.

So it's cost?

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

Cost about $15–$50 each month

That seems pretty affordable for someone with even a basic job. Granted for BC you have the cost of the appointment to get the prescription, which should be covered.

 

[dmcowen674]

SCOTUS to take up Birth Control Cases

This post on a news site makes a good point and I agree

"I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court sees through what a terrible precedent it would be to go along with Hobby Lobby.

First of all it would essentially say that a business can be a law unto themselves by deciding that the business has certain 'religious beliefs' and thus can ignore any rule it wishes without consequence. This is something that has never been allowed for persons much less something that a business can simply decide.

Next it would completely undermine religious nondiscrimination laws, which generally say that you must have a workplace accommodating to people of all faiths. But this opens up a route for the Business to use its 'Religious Beliefs' to make a workplace unaccepting of anybody who does not share those beliefs. What would be next? No non-kosher food in the lunchroom because the business is 'jewish' no coverage of blood transfusions because the business is 'LDS' no coverage of vaccinations because the business is 'conservative Islam' and so forth. The full list of various common medical procedures prohibited by one religion or another is quite long.

Finally there is the undermining of Griswold v. Connecticut. This is an extremely important ruling that said that because of a fundamental right to privacy in sexual relationships the government could not be making birth control illegal. The presumed right to privacy in sexual relationships has been the foundation of pretty much every sexual rights case since... Einstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas...but if the court decides that companies can micromanage the birth control practices of their employees over moral concerns then the privacy rights of Griswold get shredded and the avenue of support of all the rest gets undermined."

Businesses can't have it both ways.

Either they are a person and have to adhere to the laws of the United States or they are not.

Bush and the Republicans gave them personhood, now they have to suck up to it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So it's cost?

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



That seems pretty affordable for someone with even a basic job. Granted for BC you have the cost of the appointment to get the prescription, which should be covered.

And Tylenol runs about $7 for 30 pack or $20 for 100 count. Plus it is sold everywhere AND there are multiple generic pain killers available
plus I would guess the HL would have a problem paying for a Dr visit that could end up having birth control prescribed.

 

[xBiffx]

plus I would guess the HL would have a problem paying for a Dr visit that could end up having birth control prescribed.

I think there is a major difference between not paying for a doctor visit and not paying for a prescription.

 

[Wreckem]

I'm getting a little bit confused on this topic.

I read from The American Spectator:


But it's more about abortion like things Huff Post:


So do they allow the normal pill (is there such a thing?) but they do not want to cover abortifacients?

It is merely fanatics trying to move the goal post further right.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think there is a major difference between not paying for a doctor visit and not paying for a prescription.

I get your point however that that is what this is really about can a business decide what is good for an employee's health? The next logical step for HL is if they are that upset about birth control then they choose not cover that portion of any doctor visits. This then leads to why did we only pay a portion of that Doctors visit? What was going on there? Any reputable company would see this as an HR nightmare.

 

[xBiffx]

I get your point however that that is what this is really about can a business decide what is good for an employee's health? The next logical step for HL is if they are that upset about birth control then they choose not cover that portion of any doctor visits. This then leads to why did we only pay a portion of that Doctors visit? What was going on there? Any reputable company would see this as an HR nightmare.

Well, I'm not about to get started on who gets to decide on what's best for a patients/employees health. As it stands today, that isn't even up to the doctor anymore. Insurance companies get to decide what they will and won't cover regardless of what the doctor recommends/prescribes. So you are going to have a serious uphill battle in today's health insurance atmosphere using that angle to discuss this issue.

I think its absolutely retarded that insurance companies get more of a say on your health than the doctor does.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't know why you guys are wasting your time debating traditional birth control when that's not on the list of contraception Hobby Lobby is opposing.

Hobby Lobby's attorneys argue that the provision forces it to pay for four methods of contraception to which the owners morally object: the Plan B morning-after pill, an emergency contraceptive called Ella, and two different kinds of intrauterine devices (IUDs) that may sometimes work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus.

They have no problem with preventing pregnancy through traditional birth control pills, they just object to the ones that they equate with abortion. I still disagree with them, but you guys are debating a complete non-issue.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well, I'm not about to get started on who gets to decide on what's best for a patients/employees health. As it stands today, that isn't even up to the doctor anymore. Insurance companies get to decide what they will and won't cover regardless of what the doctor recommends/prescribes. So you are going to have a serious uphill battle in today's health insurance atmosphere using that angle to discuss this issue.

I think its absolutely retarded that insurance companies get more of a say on your health than the doctor does.

Ha we're on the same team and good observation Mr. Playboy