Court cases already being impacted by Hobby Lobby ruling

[ktgrok]

I am pro universal healthcare.

 

I think it is not logical to say every woman should not only get free birth control, but her choice of kinds of it, because she should have the choice to control her uterus. But if they chose to use their uterus to have a baby, they have to face going bankrupt paying to have a baby. That does not sound like giving her much of choice to me. It sounds like pushing women to not have children.

 

I rarely see much pushing for better maternity care. Oh I see token griping, but I sure don't see women picketing hospitals or employers over it.

 

The argument about cost is not relevant. If it is a right to have this choice, then the cost of the right shouldn't matter. Rights are not dependent on cost of giving them. Otherwise we'd still have slaves.

 

 

Martha, am I right in reading that you are for universal healthcare, which would cover birth control, etc. You are just against companies having to provide it. Cause I can get behind that. This whole thing is going to get really sticky as different religious people decide to make different decisions about healthcare. Much simpler (and better) to have it at the national level and be done with it. 

 

that said, I still worry about the precedent. If they don't have to follow the law about providing birth control, what other laws can they ignore? Can they decide not to serve black people if they decide that is against their religion? Can they decide to discriminate openly based on sex because they don't believe women should be in the workplace? 

[MercyA]

I don't get the equating of IUDs with abortion.  All the research I have read shows they do not work that way.

 

Copying from a previous thread:  

 

IUD's can indeed prevent implantation.  

 

Estimated post-fertilization losses specifically attributable to the IUD, per year, for various types:

• Inert IUD--0.72 to 1.97 losses per year
• Copper-380 IUD (Paraguard)--0.19 to 1.04 losses per year
• Levonorgestrel-20 IUD (Minera)--0.19 to 1.82 losses per year

"These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices."

 

Source: Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: Update and estimation of postfertilization effects by Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, and Rafael T. Mikolajczyk, MD. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2002;187:1699-708.

[umsami]

The copper in the IUD is toxic to sperm.  It's not about implantation.

 

My issue with the HL case is not even the sincerely held religious beliefs, it's:

1) Those beliefs are changeable…as evidenced by their long-held investments and previous coverage

2) Those sudden beliefs are based on bad science.

 

From the ACOG and others in their amicus brief to the Supreme Court:

 

"Abortifacient has a precise meaning in the medical and scientific community and it refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Contraceptives that prevent fertilization from occurring, or even prevent implantation, are simply not abortifacients regardless of an individual’s personal or religious beliefs or mores."

 

 

http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/Sivin.pdf

 

"The critical elements in the concept that IUDs are abortifacients operating only at the uterine level are that the fertilized egg, after a brief embryonic development in the human oviduct, passes into a hostile uterine (endometrial) cavity, where it is phagocytized, destroyed by toxic products, or withers because it is unable to implant in the markedly altered endometrium. 

 

This view implies an ability to find frequent traces of fertilization in IUD users, traces that would be found with similar and high frequency in very early pregnancy among women who are not using contraceptives. One such trace would be a marker of early pregnancy released by the developing embryo. This marker would be detected by a sensitive assay of the woman's blood or urine. No unequivocal, well characterized biochemical marker of pregnancy in the first week following fertilization is available."

 

 

 

[Cammie]

Can I just say... I LOVE the IUD - BEST birth control EVER.  You have to think about it once in 5 years...that is IT.  Highly Recommended!!

[ktgrok]

And the five Catholic men on the court have made another decision about birth control and ACA. This time the women justices are united in being appalled .

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

 

This is the beginning. Hard to say where it will end.

I know many posters are cheering these developments , I just want to make very clear, this is very foreboding for many others. It feels like the start of a campaign to attack women's ability to make their own medical choices.

 

What?! So the courts had already told the college, and other groups (nuns for instance) that ok, you are against paying for birth control. Fine. You don't have to. Just send a letter saying you are a religious organization and you are against birth control to the the insurance company. They will keep it on file and will cover any requests for birth control out of their own pocket, you don't have to pay for it. The insurance company will do this because it is cheaper to provide the birth control than pay out for maternity care. Everyone wins. And now the college says, "Nope! Filling out the form is also against our religion." SERIOUSLY?

[ktgrok]

What I want to know is: When did it become corporations' responsibility to make sure employees get their "right" to birth control???  :001_huh: What about the rights of the people who run the corporations to religious freedom in their lives, including how they manage their businesses? 

 

When the duly elected representatives of the People passed a law saying it was. 

[Cammie]

What?! So the courts had already told the college, and other groups (nuns for instance) that ok, you are against paying for birth control. Fine. You don't have to. Just send a letter saying you are a religious organization and you are against birth control to the the insurance company. They will keep it on file and will cover any requests for birth control out of their own pocket, you don't have to pay for it. The insurance company will do this because it is cheaper to provide the birth control than pay out for maternity care. Everyone wins. And now the college says, "Nope! Filling out the form is also against our religion." SERIOUSLY?

 

Yes, but this isn't about controlling women, this isn't about a backlash against women's sexuality, this isn't a war on women...this is about "sincere religious beliefs."  Somehow I don't recall the "thou shalt not complete insurance opt out forms" part of the Bible.

[ktgrok]

Copying from a previous thread:  

 

IUD's can indeed prevent implantation.  

 

Estimated post-fertilization losses specifically attributable to the IUD, per year, for various types:

• Inert IUD--0.72 to 1.97 losses per year
• Copper-380 IUD (Paraguard)--0.19 to 1.04 losses per year
• Levonorgestrel-20 IUD (Minera)--0.19 to 1.82 losses per year

"These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices."

 

Source: Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: Update and estimation of postfertilization effects by Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, and Rafael T. Mikolajczyk, MD. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2002;187:1699-708.

 

I believe there have been more studies in the past 12 years.

[DawnM]

Interesting.

 

My benefits with my school district covered certain birth control methods.  

 

I have never been able to take the pill due to my reactions to it, but other teachers got it covered with their $10 copay.

 

Dawn

 

 

Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did?

So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare?

 

[mom31257]

Kind of a tough argument to make when we are coming off a recession and still a ways away from full employment.

 

I realize that not everyone can go to work just anywhere. If you are having a hard time financially and can ONLY get a job with one of these companies, then I would think it is worth buying your own birth control. Better to have to pay for it than to not have a job at all. 

[SadieMarie]

What?! So the courts had already told the college, and other groups (nuns for instance) that ok, you are against paying for birth control. Fine. You don't have to. Just send a letter saying you are a religious organization and you are against birth control to the the insurance company. They will keep it on file and will cover any requests for birth control out of their own pocket, you don't have to pay for it. The insurance company will do this because it is cheaper to provide the birth control than pay out for maternity care. Everyone wins. And now the college says, "Nope! Filling out the form is also against our religion." SERIOUSLY?

Yes, I think you got it!

 

How can anyone continue to believe that this is about abortion? It is about turning back the clock.

[ktgrok]

I realize that not everyone can go to work just anywhere. If you are having a hard time financially and can ONLY get a job with one of these companies, then I would think it is worth buying your own birth control. Better to have to pay for it than to not have a job at all. 

 

Thats the same argument used to argue against OSHA regulations, sex discrimination, mandatory overtime, not having to serve black customers, etc etc. Free market did NOT regulate this well enough, so the law stepped in. 

[SadieMarie]

It seems like we are approaching a consensus for single payer lol. But I must still be asleep and dreaming.

[mom31257]

Thats the same argument used to argue against OSHA regulations, sex discrimination, mandatory overtime, not having to serve black customers, etc etc. Free market did NOT regulate this well enough, so the law stepped in.

I don't think having free birth control (maybe $50 a month) can even come close to OSHA regulations and the other things you listed.

[mom31257]

I guess one thing it comes down to for me is that I don't think the government or your employer should have to help you be responsible with your sex life. The only reason health insurance companies offer is in the hopes that fewer people will actually get pregnant and cost them less money, leaving more profits for their investors. They don't provide it for the "rights of women". 

[SadieMarie]

I don't think having free birth control (maybe $50 a month) can even come close to OSHA regulations and the other things you listed.

Maybe not, but fifty dollars a month is a lot for a family that is living paycheck to paycheck, constantly juggling to stay afloat.

[TechWife]

But let's not split hairs about what free means. If you have no money and are pregnant, free prenatal care matters. If you have no money and a spouse you don't feel safe with, free birth control matters.

Free is great as long as you can afford those premiums or as long as your state expanded Medicaid.

[SadieMarie]

I guess one thing it comes down to for me is that I don't think the government or your employer should have to help you be responsible with your sex life. The only reason health insurance companies offer is in the hopes that fewer people will actually get pregnant and cost them less money, leaving more profits for their investors. They don't provide it for the "rights of women".

Birth control is also about economics, and not just for the insurance companies.

[Joker]

I guess one thing it comes down to for me is that I don't think the government or your employer should have to help you be responsible with your sex life. The only reason health insurance companies offer is in the hopes that fewer people will actually get pregnant and cost them less money, leaving more profits for their investors. They don't provide it for the "rights of women".

What about those of us who have needed birth control pills for things that have zero to do with our sex lives?

[Saddlemomma]

You hate abortion yet lack of access to birth control leads to more abortions. 

Quite the puzzle to piece together for folks like yourself.

Hobby Lobby provides 16 different types of bc.  They only asked to be exempt from providing for 4 that, according to research, may act as abortificants.  They still continue to provide the other 16 bc options.  No puzzle to piece together.

[MercyA]

I believe there have been more studies in the past 12 years.

 

Sure, like this one in 2007:  "Insertion of an IUD in the early luteal phase is a highly effective emergency contraceptive, suggesting that the IUDs act after fertilization.† Cheng L, Gulmezoglu AM, Van Oel CJ, Piaggio G, Ezcurra E, Van Look PFA. Interventions for emergency contraception [Reviews]. The Cochrane Library 2007; Vol. 2.

[Joker]

Hobby Lobby provides 16 different types of bc.  They only asked to be exempt from providing for 4 that, according to research, may act as abortificants.  They still continue to provide the other 16 bc options.  No puzzle to piece together.

 

Those remarks aren't about Hobby Lobby, though. This is about the fallout from Hobby Lobby (linked in the OP) and Eden Foods wanting to stop offering all birth control to their employees.

[maize]

I think single payer is a good idea, but I worry about funding. I suppose we could start by requiring companies to pay into the system the money they are now putting into private insurance.

 

Private insurance companies would fight it tooth and nail though.

[poppy]

I guess one thing it comes down to for me is that I don't think the government or your employer should have to help you be responsible with your sex life. The only reason health insurance companies offer is in the hopes that fewer people will actually get pregnant and cost them less money, leaving more profits for their investors. They don't provide it for the "rights of women".

The history of the birth control movement, starting with Margaret Sanger, as a means to allow women to control their own bodies and freedom is really remarkable. You should read up about it sometime.

[Wheres Toto]

Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did?

 

So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare?

 

I've only not worked full time for 8 of the past 25 years.  I've had just about every major insurance company out there and I've always had birth control covered.  I was on the pill from 15 to 40 years old except when pregnant for medical issues.

 

Maybe this is a state thing?   NJ also requires insurance to pay for infertility treatments. 

[poppy]

I don't think having free birth control (maybe $50 a month) can even come close to OSHA regulations and the other things you listed.

Employers fought desegregation in the name of Christianity (Google Sons of Ham if you are unfamiliar). The courts said that their religious rights were not the priority in at case. The courts are saying differently about access to health care. Exact same story, different outcome. So far.

[kiana]

I've only not worked full time for 8 of the past 25 years.  I've had just about every major insurance company out there and I've always had birth control covered.  I was on the pill from 15 to 40 years old except when pregnant for medical issues.

 

Maybe this is a state thing?   NJ also requires insurance to pay for infertility treatments. 

 

It must be a state thing. I had never had it covered in 15 years of being prescribed it.

[Kathryn]

What about those of us who have needed birth control pills for things that have zero to do with our sex lives?

I've had insurance that didn't cover contraception before and been on BCP for health reasons. My doctor wrote a letter to the insurance company and it was covered.

[melmichigan]

Sorry I thought everyone had hashed out the question of Hobby Lobby and abortion in the last thread.  This is a company that has never believed in birth control and doesn't want to cover any.  One prominent argument on the other thread was that Hobby Lobby still covered birth control.  Eden Foods "had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients".  They had never covered any forms of birth control, yet the Hobby Lobby verdict is being used to send them back to court.  The "narrow" ruling may not be so narrow.

[Joker]

I've had insurance that didn't cover contraception before and been on BCP for health reasons. My doctor wrote a letter to the insurance company and it was covered.

 

But do you know that would still work for these cases where companies are saying they do not want to offer access to any at all due to religious reasons? I haven't seen where any of these business owners felt it would be okay under any circumstances.

[melmichigan]

Sorry I thought everyone had hashed out the question of Hobby Lobby and abortion in the last thread and I wasn't looking to resurrect that discussion.  This is a company that has never believed in birth control and doesn't want to cover any.  One prominent argument on the other thread was that Hobby Lobby still covered birth control.  Eden Foods "had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients".  They had never covered any forms of birth control, yet the Hobby Lobby verdict is being used to send them back to court.  The "narrow" ruling may not be so narrow.

[kiana]

Hobby Lobby provides 16 different types of bc.  They only asked to be exempt from providing for 4 that, according to research, may act as abortificants.  They still continue to provide the other 16 bc options.  No puzzle to piece together.

 

But they don't all, even if you include blocking implantation (which is not the medical definition). I've been looking at this over the last few days, as a matter of fact. I'm going to skip the IUD's because my preliminary research indicates that it actually may block implantation to some extent, and look at Plan B.

 

Plan B is really a high dose of a standard contraceptive pill. When these pills are taken over the course of a month, they thin the endometrial lining a little, but mostly suppressing ovulation. There isn't any evidence that that will block a fertilized egg from implanting, but nevertheless, it's a hypothetical possibility in the month-long course. However, researchers say that that specific possibility doesn't happen with the one-time dose of Plan B. In other words, the *minute* chance you *may* get in the month-long course does not occur -- if anything, plan B is *less* likely than the Pill to block implantation.

 

Several studies have shown that Plan B does not work at all if the woman has already ovulated. Women who came seeking Plan B were given hormone tests to determine whether or not they had ovulated, and then given the drug. Those who had not yet ovulated did not get pregnant, whereas those who *had* ovulated got pregnant at the same rate as you would expect from women who took nothing at all. This is one reason that Plan B is relatively inefficient as an emergency contraceptive, although of course significantly better than nothing at all.

 

This is distinctly opposed to the Copper IUD, where insertion as an emergency contraceptive has something like a 99% rate of preventing pregnancy (for example, in one study in China, of nearly 2000 woman who requested one after unprotected sexual intercourse, there were no pregnancies).

 

Continuing on Plan B, they have also done experiments in a simulated uterine environment using unused fertilized embryos from fertility clinics, in which the presence of the drug had no effect on blocking them from attaching to cell walls.

 

It was on the FDA labels despite lack of evidence, that they blocked implantation. The company has been asking for it to be removed for a long time.

 

Ella seems to work the same way as Plan B, although there are fewer studies on that because it has been licensed far more recently. Another issue people have with Ella is that it is a close chemical cousin of RU-486. Some have said "but if a woman took it in the same dose as RU-486, it could cause an abortion!" Respondents have replied that it is neither licensed nor prescribed in those amounts.

 

Now, I am leaving the area where I have actually researched and moving into speculation.

 

According to my mother, RU-486 and similar drugs were originally popularly referred to as Plan B prior to the licensing. I have no evidence for this, but she swears it is true. These drugs DO cause early abortions. I wonder if this is one reason opposition is so heavy?

[poppy]

Sorry I thought everyone had hashed out the question of Hobby Lobby and abortion in the last thread.  This is a company that has never believed in birth control and doesn't want to cover any.  One prominent argument on the other thread was that Hobby Lobby still covered birth control.  Eden Foods "had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients".  They had never covered any forms of birth control, yet the Hobby Lobby verdict is being used to send them back to court.  The "narrow" ruling may not be so narrow.

 

Don't forget the Wheaton College verdict.  The Hobby Lobby ruling only applies to closely held private companies..... and now religious non profits as well. It was "narrow" for a less than a week.

[melmichigan]

If it is a religious belief, are companies who take this route required to not cover vasectomies?

 

Hormonal birth control is often used to treat other health conditions. So, is it ok to discriminate against "real" health issues rather than moral ones. How is that not a bad precedent for half the population?

 

What about stuff like Viagra. Why is it OK to treat a man's health condition and not a woman's, particularly when the woman's condition may have nothing to do with immoral behavior while the mans might.

Eden Foods is against Viagra.  The quote from the first link.

 

The benefits have not funded "lifestyle drugs," an insurance industry drug classification that includes contraceptives, Viagra, smoking cessation, weight-loss, infertility, impotency, etc. This entire plan is managed with a goal of long-term sustainability.

 

[BarbecueMom]

I wonder if now a vegan-owned company could refuse to cover pig-derived heart valve replacements. I was researching this when a relative was undergoing this procedure, and I found many vegans that *personally* would refuse a pig valve on ethical grounds. I'm guessing, though, that ethical beliefs on animal rights are not held in as high of regard as religious beliefs when it comes to legal exemptions.

 

Despite the fact that there are mechanical valves available, it's not always the best option for certain patients. And open heart surgery is not as easy as birth control to "just pay out of pocket".

[Murphy101]

I think that what you are wanting is the UK NHS: both contraception and all childbirth care are free at the point of need.  The UK's neonatal mortality statistics are better than those of the US.

 

L

 

 

Nearly every developed first world country and quite a few second world countries and iirc a couple third world countries have better maternity care or mortality statistic than the States. It's a national embarrassment.

 

I think people are being disingenuous when they say "this is about religious freedom!" I wish they would be honest, and say this is about freedom for *their* religion. I am confident if a Muslim business tried a similar suit, for example wanting to be exempt from paying for medicines with animal byproducts (like gelatin), the general response would be "Sharia!!!! They're trying to take over our country!! Go back to your own country!"

 

 

Wow. Way to paint everyone who disagrees with you as racist.

 

I don't think that is true at all, I know I wouldn't feel that way if a law was passed telling Muslims they have to pay for pork dinners to be delivered to those who want it. I'd be really pissed on their behalf. Making people/companies go buy something they morally disagree with to give to someone else is not the same as a tax.

 

 

Martha, am I right in reading that you are for universal healthcare, which would cover birth control, etc. You are just against companies having to provide it. Cause I can get behind that. This whole thing is going to get really sticky as different religious people decide to make different decisions about healthcare. Much simpler (and better) to have it at the national level and be done with it. 

 

that said, I still worry about the precedent. If they don't have to follow the law about providing birth control, what other laws can they ignore? Can they decide not to serve black people if they decide that is against their religion? Can they decide to discriminate openly based on sex because they don't believe women should be in the workplace?

 

I'm always going to be anti-birth control. But I can live with it not having any direct contribution or endorsement from me bc I'm aware I'm a minority in this nation, so I don't expect the nation to reflect my values. However, I do expect it to respect my differing beliefs and thus I don't want to sign papers okaying someone else do the dirty deed of distributing it for me. I don't want to buy into policies for it. I don't want to deal with employees demanding I give it to them. I don't want anything to do with it.

 

No law has been ignored. Legitimate citizens went through legitimate legal methods to make their problems heard and were listened to by our justices. As it should be.

 

The cake decorator and the photographer vs gay weddings cases, I feel strongly the courts were wrong. They were not refusing to sell a photo off the wall or a cookie out if the case to gay people coming in off the street. They were specifically refusing to participate in a religious ceremony they didn't agree with. To my mind, this is like going into a ok her deli and using when they refused to serve a non-kosher item on demand. They weren't refusing to serve someone walking in. They were refusing to give a custom service. If a painter is selling to anyone who comes in his gallery, is he obligated by law to paint a homosexual couple's wedding portrait if they want him to? I would argue of course not. But according to these cases, he might very well have to or be fined to the point of being driven out of business. And if he would have to paint/photograph/cake that, why not a KKK banquet?

 

I've seen zero evidence of the courts permitting any discretion to businesses to refuse service of any kind. If anything they have removed any choice whatsoever for many, which is just as wrong in the other direction.

[Kathryn]

But do you know that would still work for these cases where companies are saying they do not want to offer access to any at all due to religious reasons? I haven't seen where any of these business owners felt it would be okay under any circumstances.

I have no idea now. But this was with a privately held very religious company that didn't believe in any birth control at all.

[melmichigan]

Don't forget the Wheaton College verdict.  The Hobby Lobby ruling only applies to closely held private companies..... and now religious non profits as well. It was "narrow" for a less than a week.

Yes, I read that last night after I posted this thread.  Now all Wheaton has to do is notify the government in writing â€œthat it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraception services." Because it believes that signing a form is impermissibly facilitating abortions.

 

I loved this quote from The NY Times.

 

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,†Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.â€

The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.â€

 

 

 

[goldberry]

Hobby Lobby provides 16 different types of bc.  They only asked to be exempt from providing for 4 that, according to research, may act as abortificants.  They still continue to provide the other 16 bc options.  No puzzle to piece together.

 

So what about the Eden Soy case?  They don't want to provide any BC at all.  Is that ok too?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Hobby Lobby provides 16 different types of bc.  They only asked to be exempt from providing for 4 that, according to research, may act as abortificants.  They still continue to provide the other 16 bc options.  No puzzle to piece together.

 

Except the next round of challenges are asking to not provide any contraceptive coverage, so try again,  Heck, they are even challenging the letter that gets them out of paying for it and places it on the insurance company.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I wonder if now a vegan-owned company could refuse to cover pig-derived heart valve replacements. I was researching this when a relative was undergoing this procedure, and I found many vegans that *personally* would refuse a pig valve on ethical grounds. I'm guessing, though, that ethical beliefs on animal rights are not held in as high of regard as religious beliefs when it comes to legal exemptions.

 

Despite the fact that there are mechanical valves available, it's not always the best option for certain patients. And open heart surgery is not as easy as birth control to "just pay out of pocket".

 

Won't happen.  The guys on the Supreme Court might need those some day.

 

[goldberry]

I thought about this a long time last night.  Everyone seems to agree that you should have the right not to participate in something repugnant to you.  Yet most also agree that your rights stop at the point that they infringe on someone else's rights.

 

As an employer, you are entering into a relationship with an employee.  As a business owner, you are making an agreement to provide something to the public.  If I don't like black people (or believe homosexuals are morally wrong) I am free not to associate with them in my personal life.  By becoming an employer or a business owner, however, I am taking on a position where my rights WILL intersect with other people's rights.  I am VOLUNTARILY entering into a relationship where I will be subject to rules, regulations, and where I may have my rights limited where they infringe on someone else's rights.

 

I don't have to do that.  No one is forcing me.  But if I do, I am expected to follow the laws and ethics that are deemed acceptable in society.  Because at that point my rights intersect with other people's rights.  I do not give up my rights by going into business.  But I do have to give them up at the point they infringe on others.  If I don't like that, I shouldn't be in business. 

[goldberry]

Won't happen.  The guys on the Supreme Court might need those some day.

 

 

They ARE pretty old...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

The cake decorator and the photographer vs gay weddings cases, I feel strongly the courts were wrong. They were not refusing to sell a photo off the wall or a cookie out if the case to gay people coming in off the street. They were specifically refusing to participate in a religious ceremony they didn't agree with. To my mind, this is like going into a ok her deli and using when they refused to serve a non-kosher item on demand. They weren't refusing to serve someone walking in. They were refusing to give a custom service. If a painter is selling to anyone who comes in his gallery, is he obligated by law to paint a homosexual couple's wedding portrait if they want him to? I would argue of course not. But according to these cases, he might very well have to or be fined to the point of being driven out of business. And if he would have to paint/photograph/cake that, why not a KKK banquet?

 

I've seen zero evidence of the courts permitting any discretion to businesses to refuse service of any kind. If anything they have removed any choice whatsoever for many, which is just as wrong in the other direction.

 

Could you please at least think your analogies through a bit? Asking a kosher deli to serve items they don't have on the menu would be unreasonable.  However, if I walked into a kosher deli and they refused to serve me kosher food on their menu because I am not Jewish THAT would be analogous to the situation with the baker and the gay wedding.  The man was asked to bake a cake and was in no way participating in the wedding.  If he can't handle treating every customer the same, then he should be out of business.

[SadieMarie]

They ARE pretty old...

Not old enough.

[ktgrok]

Here is the thing. This ruling is NOT about making them provide birth control. It was about them complaining that they don't want to sign the freaking form that exempts them from providing birth control!!!!!!

 

This is the form. Explain to me how it is against one's religion to sign the freaking form? And yet would NOT be against their religion to send the government a letter saying the same thing as the form? 

 

EBSA FORM 700-- CERTIFICATION

(To be used for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014)

 

This form is to be used to certify that the health coverage established or maintained or arranged by the organization listed below qualifies for an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover certain contraceptive services without cost sharing, pursuant to 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, and 45 CFR 147.131.

 

Please fill out this form completely.  This form must be completed by each eligible organization by the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014, with respect to which the accommodation is to apply, and be made available for examination upon request.  This form must be maintained on file for at least 6 years following the end of the last applicable plan year. 

Name of the objecting organization

 

 

Name and title of the individual who is authorized to make, and makes, this certification on behalf of the organization

 

Mailing and email addresses and phone number for the individual listed above

 

 

 

I certify that, on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.

 

Note: An organization that offers coverage through the same group health plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the same controlled group of corporations as, or under common control with, such employer and/or organization (within the meaning of section 52(a) or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), may certify that it holds itself out as a religious organization.

 

I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct.  I also declare that this certification is complete.

 

 

______________________________________

Signature of the individual listed above

 

 

______________________________________

Date

 

The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification to the plan’s health insurance issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for self-insured health plans) in order for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement.

 

Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans

 

In the case of a group health plan that provides benefits on a self-insured basis, the provision of this certification to a third party administrator for the plan that will process claims for contraceptive coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) or 29 CFR 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) constitutes notice to the third party administrator that the eligible organization:

 

(1)  Will not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services; and

 

(2)  The obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A.

 

This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated.

 

 

 

PRA Disclosure Statement

 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.  The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1210-0150.  Each organizations that seeks to be recognized as an eligible organization that qualifies for an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover certain contraceptive services without cost sharing is required to complete this self-certification from pursuant to 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a)(4) in order to obtain or retain the benefit of the exemption from covering certain contraceptive services. The self-certification must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which generally requires records to be retained for six years. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 50 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, gather the necessary data, and complete and review the information collection.  If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Policy and Research, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210 or email ebsa.opr@dol.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1210-0150.

[MercyA]

The copper in the IUD is toxic to sperm.  It's not about implantation.

 

From the ACOG and others in their amicus brief to the Supreme Court:

 

"Abortifacient has a precise meaning in the medical and scientific community and it refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Contraceptives that prevent fertilization from occurring, or even prevent implantation, are simply not abortifacients regardless of an individual’s personal or religious beliefs or mores."

 

 

http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/Sivin.pdf

 

"The critical elements in the concept that IUDs are abortifacients operating only at the uterine level are that the fertilized egg, after a brief embryonic development in the human oviduct, passes into a hostile uterine (endometrial) cavity, where it is phagocytized, destroyed by toxic products, or withers because it is unable to implant in the markedly altered endometrium. 

 

This view implies an ability to find frequent traces of fertilization in IUD users, traces that would be found with similar and high frequency in very early pregnancy among women who are not using contraceptives. One such trace would be a marker of early pregnancy released by the developing embryo. This marker would be detected by a sensitive assay of the woman's blood or urine. No unequivocal, well characterized biochemical marker of pregnancy in the first week following fertilization is available."

 

First of all, not all IUD's are copper IUD's.  

 

Secondly, even copper IUD's can have post-fertilization effects. I hate to sound like a broken record, but, again, the AJOG study said, “although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices."

 

Thirdly, ACOG is free to define “abortifacient†however they want. This is, after all, the same body that changed their definition of “conception†in 1965 following the FDA's approval of the birth control pill. That doesn't change the fact that both IUD's and regular birth control pills may, as one mechanism of action, prevent the implantation of 5- to 9-day-old humans.

 

The brief you quoted said, “No unequivocal, well characterized biochemical marker of pregnancy in the first week following fertilization is available." That may be true, but there are other methods of determining if fertilization sometimes occurs with IUD use. For example:

 

“Indirect clinical evidence is supportive of the hypothesis that the effect of the copper IUD on the endometrium plays a role in its contraceptive action (Spinnato, 1997). Insertion of an IUD in the early luteal phase is a highly effective emergency contraceptive, suggesting that the IUDs act after fertilization (Cheng et al., 2007). Also, several long-term studies have established that when pregnancy occurs in IUD users the embryo is more likely to be ectopic than in control women using no contraception or in those who become pregnant while taking oral contraceptives (Sivin and Tatum, 1981; World Health Organization, 1994). The ratio of ectopic to intrauterine implantations is ∼1 in 6–8 among IUD pregnancies compared to 1 in 20 control pregnancies. The most plausible explanation for these findings is that IUDs are more effective at preventing pregnancy when it implants in the uterus rather than the tube, implying that with an IUD in place some embryos reach the uterine cavity but fail to implant.â€

 

Before objecting to the older dates on some of these studies, please note that all were cited as valid supporting references in Oxford Journal's Human Reproduction Update, Volume 14, Issue 3, Pp. 197-208, 2008.

 

I need to get some actual work done now. Have a good holiday, everyone!

[SadieMarie]

They are on a roll now. It is about getting more cases to SCOTUS. The people/groups pushing these cases not only don't want to contribute to insurance premiums that provide BC, they want to make it harder to get for their employees and, really, all women. BC just leads to sin and the decay of the family and women having tea just because they like it and god deserting the USA...

 

Someone early in this thread nailed it I think. This is about a culture war.

[poppy]

They are on a roll now. It is about getting more cases to SCOTUS. The people/groups pushing these cases not only don't want to contribute to insurance premiums that provide BC, they want to make it harder to get for their employees and, really, all women. BC just leads to sin and the decay of the family and women having tea just because they like it and god deserting the USA...

 

Someone early in this thread nailed it I think. This is about a culture war.

I'm just amazed it's moving so fast. It's been one day and they've already expanded their OWN ruling dramatically. My Facebook feed is full of women who are wondering what's next.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They are on a roll now. It is about getting more cases to SCOTUS. The people/groups pushing these cases not only don't want to contribute to insurance premiums that provide BC, they want to make it harder to get for their employees and, really, all women. BC just leads to sin and the decay of the family and women having tea just because they like it and god deserting the USA...

 

Someone early in this thread nailed it I think. This is about a culture war.

 

Well if you let women have whore pills then they become whores.  They are just saving us silly women from ourselves.