It is still not the only type of birth control available. I'm not against IUDs personally and insurance companies aren't either in general. But not covering it still doesn't mean you are denying birth control to people.
I have realized this, but for many women copper IUDs are the best form or the only form of BC they can use due to complications from traditional hormonal birth control. Progestin hormonal IUDs can also provide many health benefits other than just pregnancy prevention that are provided by traditional birth control but with less complications. IUDs are also the most effective form of birth control outside of abstinence. Hobby Lobby should not be able to pick your form of regular birth control.
They aren't picking your form of birth control, they are picking what their premiums pay for. Also of note is that on any other plan this big, the companies can pick all sorts of things. They can "pick" who your regular doctor will be by picking certain networks. They can "pick" whether procedures come out of your pocket or are under a copay. They can "pick" whether lifesaving weight loss surgery will be covered by the plan. Yet you think government should be able to force them do cover very specific types of birth control that violate the religious beliefs of the owners. Courts disagree.
actually, the decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was introduced by Chuck Schumer, passed the House unanimously, the Senate 97-3, and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
that's not what they did- they sued so they would not have to supply abortion inducing drugs. HL provides, and continues to cover, 16 other forms of birth control.
Two things I have heard multiple differing statements for that I need clarity on. 1) "Cover" is a misnomer in that Hobby Lobby no longer has to pay for an employee's birth control/contraceptive. The issue was never about coverage, it was about whether HL had to directly pay for it. 2) The birth control that HL didn't want to provide a co-pay for are emergency contraceptives, but if they choose, they do not have to provide co-pay for *any* form of birth control. I'm pretty sure about #1, but #2 is still fuzzy for me.
shot: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>.<a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama">@BarackObama</a> is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HobbyLobby?src=hash">#HobbyLobby</a></p>— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) <a href="https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/statuses/483627798159187968">June 30, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> chaser: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash">#BREAKING</a>: White House will consider whether president can act on his own to mitigate effect of Supreme Court contraception ruling</p>— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) <a href="https://twitter.com/Reuters/statuses/483653687961595904">June 30, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> via @SonnyBunch
My opinion is an opinion, I will not always agree with the courts and neither will you. I will admit ignorance here but I was under the impression that the employer selected the plan, that the health insurance company built, based on their needs but they had no right to dictate what was and wasn't specifically covered. They just select the plan that was built within the parameters of the law, but I may be mistaken. I have a problem with this because the basis of these denials is religion and not similar to a traditional reason why a certain form of surgery is denied (experimental, restraints of the purchased plan etc.) You and I both know that many minimum wage retail employees will most likely not be able to cover these expenses out of pocket. In my mind the decision to not cover these forms of birth control is to effectively "pick" the forms for many of the women, especially when traditional forms are not an option. I understand where you are coming from and you do have a point but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
To me, this is kinda BFD either way. So many work-arounds, for one, don't work at HL. It's a minimum wage clerk job, find another one.
On big accounts they create their own plans most of the time. They typically do a self funding pool as well where they insurance company is adjudicating claims but the company itself is the payor with a reinsurer coming in to provide stop loss coverage at the top. You don't even have to be that big to get access to that type of setup, but normally if you don't want to be self funded and still setup custom plans you need to be pretty big. I'm not sure why refusing to cover something because they don't like the cost is better justification than moral opposition.
You don't see how the government granting people immunity, special privileges, or exemptions based on their religion can cause a few problems...?
Religious exemptions fit into pretty strict rulings. But no, I don't see how this ruling is all that big of a deal. Hobby Lobby still provides coverage for birth control, just not for certain ones that violate a fundamental religious belief of the owners. It would be a ridiculous leap to go from this ruling to then saying "Well we don't have to pay taxes at all because of religion! Or we don't have to provide any insurance!" Do you think the kid who gets a note to get out of watching a video or something in school is walking a slippery slope to where he'll be allowed to use his religion to get out of everything?
You're right, it would be a ridiculous leap, which is why I'm not predicting such a thing to happen in one motion. It's a very slow process, one step at a time. Gradually making it more and more OK for these type of exemptions to happen. Setting a precedent, if you will. Ginsburg said it best: "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision." I wouldn't be worried at all if it weren't for the fact that you can apply the same line of reasoning Hobby Lobby used to skirt this mandate to virtually any other mandate on the books. Worse yet, this applies to organizations, and not just individuals, so it has farther reaching consequences. Make one exemption based on religion, and you have to accommodate them all. No playing favorites around here. That's the way 'murica (kinda) works.
Hobby Lobby Raises Minimum Wage to $14 for Full-Time Employees http://www.christianpost.com/news/h...mum-wage-to-14-for-full-time-employees-94233/
I can see the issue . . . My main issue is the courts continually treating Corporations like they are people Rocket River People have religious views .. not corporations
This is such a weird deal to me. Are business owners not people??? This ruling was narrowly limited to closely held corporations, so none of this publicly traded companies with a board are people. You are talking companies owned by a handful of people or less. How are they not people? No, the buildings are not people, but a corporation is exactly that: people, or a person. How can they NOT have religious freedom?
