Court cases already being impacted by Hobby Lobby ruling

[SadieMarie]

If women don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't be having sex. And if they do have sex then they need to pay the price. That belief/attitude is what a lot of this is about. EdenSoy would rather pay more for insurance to cover pregnancy and delivery than in any way contribute to women having non procreational sex.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Neither?

 

What I was saying was that they were not covering the drugs/IUD at the time of the lawsuit.  That is extremely clear in the Time mag article.  It talks about them thinking that the requirement would not be imposed, pretty much right up to the last minute, and filing the lawsuit kind of with their backs to the wall.

 

My question was prior to the ACA, and that has been how it is generally stated, although the nitpicky timing you are applying is not relevant to the overall point - Hobby Lobby was covering those drugs and they were never concerned enough about the issue to look into it before someone called and asked them to do so.

[Murphy101]

One of the links I posted quoted the head of Hobby Lobby explaining how he didn't know what they covered until they got a call from the lawyer for a lobbying group who asked them about it. He then checked into it and found that they *did* cover all of those things, which HL believes to be abortifacients (scientists disagree). They changed their plan when they could and filed suit.

Eta:http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/

And that doesn't bother me in the least. He found out something he didn't know before, he found out it went against his beliefs, and he worked to change it. Sounds like the way it's supposed to work to me.

 

If I was doing something yesterday and today my priest/lawyer/friend/neighbor/lobbyist pulled me aside and said, "Did you know your money is going to this?" And I said, "No. No I didn't. I didn't even think of that. But that's wrong. I'm going to stop." And they said, "but you can't unless you go to court bc ___ is trying to legally mandate it!" And I decided to get a lawyer to do just that? Okay then. There's nothing wrong or sinister or whatever about that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If women don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't be having sex. And if they do have sex then they need to pay the price. That belief/attitude is what a lot of this is about. EdenSoy would rather pay more for a pregnancy and delivery than in anyway contribute to women having non procreational sex.

 

And some of the people cheerleading the result claim to hate abortion with a passion, but love court decisions that can lead to more abortions.

 

It gets so confusing sometimes.

[Carol in Cal.]

My question was prior to the ACA, and that has been how it is generally stated, although the nitpicky timing you are applying is not relevant to the overall point - Hobby Lobby was covering those drugs and they were never concerned enough about the issue to look into it before someone called and asked them to do so.

Sorry I misunderstood your question, but the timing issue I don't regard as nitpicky at all.

 

What I asserted from the beginning of this thread was that they

--were not covering this

--were about to be forced to cover it

--filed a lawsuit to prevent that

--prevailed under statute

 

Those are factual statements and are the crux of the matter.

Whether they EVER covered these in ignorance or not does not effect these facts or that crux.

 

Also (not to you specifically but in general) I think it's nonfactual to imply that they were looking to act politically--there is considerable evidence that they made other fairly expensive sacrifices for their beliefs, and did not trumpet that for any kind of political gain. The record I see is one of people sincerely trying to do the right thing by their lights.

[SadieMarie]

And some of the people cheerleading the result claim to hate abortion with a passion, but love court decisions that can lead to more abortions.

 

It gets so confusing sometimes.

But at least if a woman has an abortion she suffers more, especially now in Massachusetts with the sidewalk "counseling" she will have inflicted on her on the way into the clinic. If some of these people were so worried about babies they would be supporting services that help them instead of wanting to cut those programs. It isn't about babies. It is about returning to the past, the pre feminist past.

[Murphy101]

If women don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't be having sex. And if they do have sex then they need to pay the price. That belief/attitude is what a lot of this is about. EdenSoy would rather pay more for a pregnancy and delivery than in anyway contribute to women having non procreational sex.

Then that's completely their right to believe that.

 

And quite frankly, I will never believe people want women to have genuine free choice unless at the very least, maternity is also covered 100%.

 

If it is about choice, then why penalize her financially for not choosing birth control?

 

Someone said they were sad that a woman's choice was being made harder.

 

I don't agree. I think it is being more equal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sorry I misunderstood your question, but the timing issue I don't regard as nitpicky at all.

 

What I asserted from the beginning of this thread was that they

--were not covering this

--were about to be forced to cover it

--filed a lawsuit to prevent that

--prevailed under statute

 

Those are factual statements and are the crux of the matter.

Whether they EVER covered these in ignorance or not does not effect these facts or that crux.

 

Also (not to you specifically but in general) I think it's nonfactual to imply that they were looking to act politically--there is considerable evidence that they made other fairly expensive sacrifices for their beliefs, and did not trumpet that for any kind of political gain. The record I see is one of people sincerely trying to do the right thing by their lights.

 

They were covering it prior to the ACA - that was the point.  If someone wanting to find someone to file a suit against the ACA had not contacted them they would likely still be covering it.  Crying foul over something they were ALREADY doing seems suspicious at best.

 

So again, in the future when someone makes factually correct statements it is best to not accuse them of sowing disinformation.

[Heather in Neverland]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a sincerely held belief because a lobbyist contacted them and they wanted to do their part in the fight against the president. I think there is a lot of fear going on these days because of the decreasing religious people in our society. It's scary to go from being the majority, I'm actually not being snarky here. The reason religion is so much more vocal over the last decade or so is because change is happening, and fear mongers (looking at the likes of Glenn Beck here) are pounding it into people's heads that if they don't do something about it now they'll soon be persecuted. I think this whole case and the far right wing getting more and more religious really has to do with that fear. When I was a conservative religious person I felt it too, my pastor even preached it. We had a visiting convert from Islam come and tell us that they were training men to marry our daughters and turn the world into a Muslim majority. That kind of stuff is just so harmful and terrifying and it's been completely bought. So every case like this, every thing that has to do with religion in any way, shape, or form gets treated with way more importance than the case might warrant.

In many ways you are right. It is difficult to be part of a shrinking majority (minority?). It is sad to see all of your deeply held religious values not only tossed aside, but scorned and mocked. It is devastating to have everything that goes against what you believe now held up as the model for all. But what's even more difficult is being forced to participate in something you are deeply opposed to. It may be the way things are, and to the victors go the spoils... but it is still difficult to accept.

 

I get that the tide has turned, that the majority opinion is already against us (or soon will be). It doesn't surprise me and I've been expecting it. But it is tough. We won't let go of our deeply held beliefs without a fight and we don't expect those who believe differently to give up without a fight either. I mean, seriously, how important is our faith to us if we don't fight for it? Seems like those of you fighting for what you believe would get that part at least.

 

This is all new territory for everyone and there will be growing pains as we all figure out where we fit among all these changes.

[Murphy101]

In many ways you are right. It is difficult to be part of a shrinking majority (minority?). It is sad to see all of your deeply held religious values not only tossed aside, but scorned and mocked. It is devastating to have everything that goes against what you believe now held up as the model for all. But what's even more difficult is being forced to participate in something you are deeply opposed to. It may be the way things are, and to the victors go the spoils... but it is still difficult to accept.

 

I get that the tide has turned, that the majority opinion is already against us (or soon will be). It doesn't surprise me and I've been expecting it. But it is tough. We won't let go of our deeply held beliefs without a fight and we don't expect those who believe differently to give up without a fight either. I mean, seriously, how important is our faith to us if we don't fight for it? Seems like those of you fighting for what you believe would get that part at least.

 

This is all new territory for everyone and there will be growing pains as we all figure out where we fit among all these changes.

Excellently stated.

[SadieMarie]

Then that's completely their right to believe that.

 

And quite frankly, I will never believe people want women to have genuine free choice unless at the very least, maternity is also covered 100%.

 

If it is about choice, then why penalize her financially for not choosing birth control?

 

Someone said they were sad that a woman's choice was being made harder.

 

I don't agree. I think it is being more equal.

I am not sure I understand your point about it being more equal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Then that's completely their right to believe that.

 

And quite frankly, I will never believe people want women to have genuine free choice unless at the very least, maternity is also covered 100%.

 

If it is about choice, then why penalize her financially for not choosing birth control?

 

Someone said they were sad that a woman's choice was being made harder.

 

I don't agree. I think it is being more equal.

 

Wow. I am not even sure where to start with the logic in this post, but I will point out that the same groups advocating for better access to birth control also consistently fight for better health care for women, which includes better access to maternity care.  However, due to the expense of births, expecting them to ever be covered 100% is setting a standard that likely won't happen under the current set up.  Using that as an argument to not cover birth control is not particularly rational.

 

You do make a good case for single payer care that would offer better maternity coverage though.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

They were covering it prior to the ACA - that was the point. 

No, the point is that they stopped covering it when they realized what they were doing, for the sake of their consciences.  And under the way that the new health care law was being rolled out, they were denied the right to continue on that course.  That is the point. 

 

They were not covering it when they filed the lawsuit, and now they don't have to.  And that is good for all of us because it is protecting one of our basic freedoms.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In many ways you are right. It is difficult to be part of a shrinking majority (minority?). It is sad to see all of your deeply held religious values not only tossed aside, but scorned and mocked. It is devastating to have everything that goes against what you believe now held up as the model for all. But what's even more difficult is being forced to participate in something you are deeply opposed to. It may be the way things are, and to the victors go the spoils... but it is still difficult to accept.

 

I get that the tide has turned, that the majority opinion is already against us (or soon will be). It doesn't surprise me and I've been expecting it. But it is tough. We won't let go of our deeply held beliefs without a fight and we don't expect those who believe differently to give up without a fight either. I mean, seriously, how important is our faith to us if we don't fight for it? Seems like those of you fighting for what you believe would get that part at least.

 

This is all new territory for everyone and there will be growing pains as we all figure out where we fit among all these changes.

 

Nobody is asking to you to lose their faith.

You are being asked to not inflict it on others.

If someone ever tries to force you to have an abortion you don't want, enter a same sex marriage you don't want, or even force your church to recognize same sex marriage if it doesn't want to do so, I would be standing by your side ready to fight for your rights.

 

Just like I am standing by the side of people who don't want your "morals" dictating aspects of their lives that have NOTHING to do with you.  If that disheartens you, then so be it.  Now you know how others have felt for generations, except they weren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else then or now.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, the point is that they stopped covering it when they realized what they were doing, for the sake of their consciences.  And under the way that the new health care law was being rolled out, they were denied the right to continue on that course.  That is the point. 

 

They were not covering it when they filed the lawsuit, and now they don't have to.  And that is good for all of us because it is protecting one of our basic freedoms.

 

Yay for them.  Now they have a few more bucks to help pay for forced abortions in China.

[SadieMarie]

Wow. I am not even sure where to start with the logic in this post, but I will point out that the same groups advocating for better access to birth control also consistently fight for better health care for women, which includes better access to maternity care. However, due to the expense of births, expecting them to ever be covered 100% is setting a standard that likely won't happen under the current set up. Using that as an argument to not cover birth control is not particularly rational.

 

You do make a good case for single payer care that would offer better maternity coverage though.

Maybe it isn't about the money but about making more women want babies than BC (and tea just for the sake of enjoying a nice cup of tea) by making maternity care free the way BC is, or was, free. Because I don't know, women are deciding not to have procreational tea because the just for fun tea has been free? I don't know, I think more explanation would be helpful.

[SemiSweet]

In many ways you are right. It is difficult to be part of a shrinking majority (minority?). It is sad to see all of your deeply held religious values not only tossed aside, but scorned and mocked. It is devastating to have everything that goes against what you believe now held up as the model for all. But what's even more difficult is being forced to participate in something you are deeply opposed to. It may be the way things are, and to the victors go the spoils... but it is still difficult to accept.

 

I get that the tide has turned, that the majority opinion is already against us (or soon will be). It doesn't surprise me and I've been expecting it. But it is tough. We won't let go of our deeply held beliefs without a fight and we don't expect those who believe differently to give up without a fight either. I mean, seriously, how important is our faith to us if we don't fight for it? Seems like those of you fighting for what you believe would get that part at least.

 

This is all new territory for everyone and there will be growing pains as we all figure out where we fit among all these changes.

I agree, I really hope that I was not coming off condescendingly. I was there, it is scary. My own views have shifted but I still remember and try to feel empathy for other people. The constant access to media and opinions doesn't help anyone and it's so hard to just trust that everything will most likely be okay (no matter where you are on the political/religious spectrum). If you have deep beliefs, chances are someone is trying to scare you into believing that the worst is just lurking around the corner. I actually had to get off Facebook because the political/religious stuff was giving me anxiety.

[Murphy101]

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.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, the point is that they stopped covering it when they realized what they were doing, for the sake of their consciences.  And under the way that the new health care law was being rolled out, they were denied the right to continue on that course.  That is the point. 

 

They were not covering it when they filed the lawsuit, and now they don't have to.  And that is good for all of us because it is protecting one of our basic freedoms.

 

And just to be clear, this is what you originally posted:

"You've been misinformed.  They paid for a lot of contraceptives, and continue to do so; however, they did not and now will not be forced to pay for abortifacients.  They specifically avoided that in their health plan selections. "

 

Both of the bolded are incorrect, and I was not "misinformed."

[SadieMarie]

Yay for them. Now they have a few more bucks to help pay for forced abortions in China.

Yes, but that is so we can all fill our houses with cheap plastic crap. I mean, that's important right?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

The cost is the issue, as there is a balancing act between premiums and what is covered.  Getting insurance companies (and employers) to cover birth control is much easier than getting 100% coverage for other care, and even gets less push back from consumers due to a lesser impact on premiums. However, you do realize that the ACA is giving more women access to maternity care than before, right?  FTR, maternity care is already covered under all policies under the ACA.

I also don't think anyone should face near bankruptcy for heart surgery or cancer or...well, you get the idea.

 

You are simply trying to make providing birth control an anti-family stance when it isn't.

 

[SadieMarie]

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.

Maybe some of the picketers at abortion clinics could cover that, on their off days. I haven't noticed any outcry from them either. And I am pretty sure it is not uncommon for women to choose abortion for financial reasons. So it would be a win win.

[Heather in Neverland]

Nobody is asking to you to lose their faith.

You are being asked to not inflict it on others.

If someone ever tries to force you to have an abortion you don't want, enter a same sex marriage you don't want, or even force your church to recognize same sex marriage if it doesn't want to do so, I would be standing by your side ready to fight for your rights.

 

Just like I am standing by the side of people who don't want your "morals" dictating aspects of their lives that have NOTHING to do with you. If that disheartens you, then so be it. Now you know how others have felt for generations, except they weren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else then or now.

 

We may not be forced to have abortions but we are being forced to pay for them. We may not be forced to recognize same sex marriages but we are being forced to participate by providing services for the marriage. And so forth...

 

And honestly, just because "others" have felt in the past what we are feeling now... Does that negate the feelings we are having? Like some sort of strange "payback"? And I am truly not asking you to sympathize with my being "disheartened" but I would expect for you to empathize with it since you seem to hold to your values so strongly and are willing to fight for them.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We may not be forced to have abortions but we are being forced to pay for them. We may not be forced to recognize same sex marriages but we are being forced to participate by providing services for the marriage. And so forth...

 

And honestly, just because "others" have felt in the past what we are feeling now... Does that negate the feelings we are having? Like some sort of strange "payback"? And I am truly not asking you to sympathize with my being "disheartened" but I would expect for you to empathize with it since you seem to hold to your values so strongly and are willing to fight for them.

 

When are you being forced to pay for abortions?  Services?  Do you mean like baking cakes?  I see the frustration there but the restaurant owners who had to serve blacks at the lunch counters got over needing to treat all customers equally, so I imagine a baker here and there will as well.

 

And to the bolded...honestly, a little.  I just don't feel for those who are upset because they can't dictate how others live their lives when it doesn't affect them in any way.

 

And remember, I said I am willing to fight for your rights if they are ever taken from you.  You, however, have not been willing to do the same for others.

[Murphy101]

Why is saying buying your own birth control is anti-choice, but paying your own maternity is not?

 

I wasn't making it an anti-family stance.

 

I was making it an anti-choice stance, which it most certainly is.

 

It is ridiculous to claim buying your own $50 or less birth control is anti-women/choice, but buying your own $10k+ maternity is not.

 

That was my very basic point.

 

And yes, I know many pro-lifers who work very hard to give quality maternity and newborn care to under privileged women so they don't have to make that financial choice.

[Heather in Neverland]

When are you being forced to pay for abortions? Services? Do you mean like baking cakes? I see the frustration there but the restaurant owners who had to serve blacks at the lunch counters got over needing to treat all customers equally, so I imagine a baker here and there will as well.

 

And to the bolded...honestly, a little. I just don't feel for those who are upset because they can't dictate how others live their lives when it doesn't affect them in any way.

 

And remember, I said I am willing to fight for your rights if they are ever taken from you. You, however, have not been willing to do the same for others.

It is this type of utter disregard for anything we believe that makes us hold onto our beliefs even tighter. You treat our beliefs with condescension and contempt... As if they are nothing. And maybe they are nothing to you. So be it. There is plenty of blame for this rift in our society to go around.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why is saying buying your own birth control is anti-choice, but paying your own maternity is not?

 

I wasn't making it an anti-family stance.

 

I was making it an anti-choice stance, which it most certainly is.

 

It is ridiculous to claim buying your own $50 or less birth control is anti-women/choice, but buying your own $10k+ maternity is not.

 

That was my very basic point.

 

And yes, I know many pro-lifers who work very hard to give quality maternity and newborn care to under privileged women so they don't have to make that financial choice.

 

You do realize that maternity care is covered under the ACA, right?  In fact, it can no longer be treated as an add on plan at greater expense.  Your point is not relevany when it comes to the ACA birth control provision as it is incorrect.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It is this type of utter disregard for anything we believe that makes us hold onto our beliefs even tighter. You treat our beliefs with condescension and contempt... As if they are nothing. And maybe they are nothing to you. So be it. There is plenty of blame for this rift in our society to go around.

 

I am pretty certain I stated you have the right to your beliefs, and I would help to defend them as long as they are for you only.  The moment you wish to enforce YOUR beliefs on OTHERS is where we part ways, and no, I can't get worked up because you can no longer keep gays from getting married or keep other women from making decisions about their bodies.

Please hold on to your beliefs as tight as you wish.  That is what you can and should do.  You just are losing the ability to control the lives of others.  And that is a good thing to most people.

[Murphy101]

You do realize that maternity care is covered under the ACA, right? In fact, it can no longer be treated as an add on plan at greater expense. Your point is not relevany when it comes to the ACA birth control provision as it is incorrect.

 

It does not cover maternity at the same percentage as birth control or abortion services, so yes, it is relevant. It denies women equal and genuine choice. I financially penalizes them for choosing pregnancy.

[mom31257]

Wouldn't all of this just make employers compete more for employees? If you really want birth control for free, then go to work for someone who offers it. If you are against birth control, then go to work for someone like this.

 

What's the big deal? Most employers in this country are going to offer it all.

[SemiSweet]

It does not cover maternity at the same percentage as birth control or abortion services, so yes, it is relevant. It denies women equal and genuine choice. I financially penalizes them for choosing pregnancy.

Abortion coverage is not mandated in any way, shape, or form.

 

http://www.ppaction.org/site/DocServer/Fact_Sheet_-_Abortion_and_ACA.pdf?docID=641

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It does not cover maternity at the same percentage as birth control or abortion services, so yes, it is relevant. It denies women equal and genuine choice. I financially penalizes them for choosing pregnancy.

 

FTR, the ACA does not require any coverage for abortion services, so please get your facts straight.  (Did a double check - the ACA actually allows states to explicity ban abortion coverage in their exchanges.  So you were not just wrong, but very wrong.)

And to be fair, the maternity % depends on the plan, and in general low cost services are often covered at higher %s than low cost, but again that is plan dependent.  So basically your facts are off a bit.

Also, blowing off the fact that the ACA mandates maternity coverage is being a bit disingenuous.

[staceyobu]

Why is saying buying your own birth control is anti-choice, but paying your own maternity is not?

 

I wasn't making it an anti-family stance.

 

I was making it an anti-choice stance, which it most certainly is.

 

It is ridiculous to claim buying your own $50 or less birth control is anti-women/choice, but buying your own $10k+ maternity is not.

 

That was my very basic point.

 

And yes, I know many pro-lifers who work very hard to give quality maternity and newborn care to under privileged women so they don't have to make that financial choice.

 

I must admit that I am sooooo confused watching the current conversation play out.  

 

I am personally very pro-life and very conservative on the religious scale.

 

I jumped for joy upon realizing that insurance would be forced to cover IUDs at 100%.  Want to get rid of abortion? End unwanted pregnancy!  Get every woman who wants one a free IUD that is almost 100% effective.  No one has to remember to take a pill every day.  Or go buy condoms.  It's the most fail-proof birth control you can possibly have.  Without insurance coverage, IUDs run over $1000.  Out of reach for most people.  I read one study that cited free birth control was predicted to drop the abortion rate by 40%.

 

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

 

I do not get why everyone on all sides of the political spectrum doesn't want women to have access to this.  It looks like an across the board win.  Reduce abortions, provide healthcare, allow women to make their own medical decisions.  

 

I seriously think I am the only person in my church who feels this way.  And it completely baffles me that I can't get anyone else to see the light...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wouldn't all of this just make employers compete more for employees? If you really want birth control for free, then go to work for someone who offers it. If you are against birth control, then go to work for someone like this.

 

What's the big deal? Most employers in this country are going to offer it all.

 

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

[bettyandbob]

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?

Every ins plan I've had covered birth control. I've had HMO plans and Cadillac plans. I've had ins through my work or dh for 27 years and every single plan covered birth control.

 

ETA every plan I've had covered maternity, as well. Honestly, it's much cheaper for insurance to cover birth control than it is to cover childbirth and the resulting child. I always thought that was why insurance covered birth control, since I've never seen a plan that did not.

[SemiSweet]

I must admit that I am sooooo confused watching the current conversation play out.

 

I am personally very pro-life and very conservative on the religious scale.

 

I jumped for joy upon realizing that insurance would be forced to cover IUDs at 100%. Want to get rid of abortion? End unwanted pregnancy! Get every woman who wants one a free IUD that is almost 100% effective. No one has to remember to take a pill every day. Or go buy condoms. It's the most fail-proof birth control you can possibly have. Without insurance coverage, IUDs run over $1000. Out of reach for most people. I read one study that cited free birth control was predicted to drop the abortion rate by 40%.

 

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

 

I do not get why everyone on all sides of the political spectrum doesn't want women to have access to this. It looks like an across the board win. Reduce abortions, provide healthcare, allow women to make their own medical decisions.

 

I seriously think I am the only person in my church who feels this way. And it completely baffles me that I can't get anyone else to see the light...

I just need to repeat this.

[NASDAQ]

Didn't we already have this discussion in the previous thread? Did that one get locked or something?

[SadieMarie]

I must admit that I am sooooo confused watching the current conversation play out.

 

I am personally very pro-life and very conservative on the religious scale.

 

I jumped for joy upon realizing that insurance would be forced to cover IUDs at 100%. Want to get rid of abortion? End unwanted pregnancy! Get every woman who wants one a free IUD that is almost 100% effective. No one has to remember to take a pill every day. Or go buy condoms. It's the most fail-proof birth control you can possibly have. Without insurance coverage, IUDs run over $1000. Out of reach for most people. I read one study that cited free birth control was predicted to drop the abortion rate by 40%.

 

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

 

I do not get why everyone on all sides of the political spectrum doesn't want women to have access to this. It looks like an across the board win. Reduce abortions, provide healthcare, allow women to make their own medical decisions.

 

I seriously think I am the only person in my church who feels this way. And it completely baffles me that I can't get anyone else to see the light...

Because for a lot of people it isn't really about abortion. It is about women being able to have tea without paying the Piper, so to speak, especially single women.

[maize]

This is interesting. So the taxes we pay to our government is its earnings and it is free to spend it as it pleases - even though the government is actually meant to represent the people.

 

But individuals who earn benefits are not meant to spend their earnings as they please?

 

If the government wanted me to pay for some service or item and donate it to the government rather than just handing over $$, I would hope to have some decision making power in what I paid for. I would happily buy natural disaster emergency supplies, would not be so happy to pay for a private jet for Senator Jim Bob Smith. Paying for something specific is qualitatively different than just handing over money. I don't think private companies are out there telling employees what prescription medications they can and can't spend their paychecks on.

[staceyobu]

Because for a lot of people it isn't really about abortion. It is about women being able to have tea without paying the Piper, so to speak, especially single women.

 

And, honestly, that is the only reason I can think that it has played out the way it has.  Which makes me slightly sick to my stomach.  I wish someone would look into ways to "punish" absentee fathers... 

[SadieMarie]

It is this type of utter disregard for anything we believe that makes us hold onto our beliefs even tighter. You treat our beliefs with condescension and contempt... As if they are nothing. And maybe they are nothing to you. So be it. There is plenty of blame for this rift in our society to go around.

To be honest, I think there has been plenty of contempt and condescension on both sides.

[Mrs Mungo]

If women don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't be having sex. And if they do have sex then they need to pay the price. That belief/attitude is what a lot of this is about. EdenSoy would rather pay more for insurance to cover pregnancy and delivery than in any way contribute to women having non procreational sex.

Considering that this lawsuit was originally in regard to *emergency* contraception, this statement is problematic. Women seeking emergency contraception often weren't given a choice.

[goldberry]

If the government wanted me to pay for some service or item and donate it to the government rather than just handing over $$, I would hope to have some decision making power in what I paid for. I would happily buy natural disaster emergency supplies, would not be so happy to pay for a private jet for Senator Jim Bob Smith. Paying for something specific is qualitatively different than just handing over money. I don't think private companies are out there telling employees what prescription medications they can and can't spend their paychecks on.

 

A majority of companies use third party insurance providers.  They pay the insurance company to provide insurance to employees.  It is between the insurance company and the employee how the insurance is used. 

 

If the company chooses to self-insure and feel like they are personally responsible for each little thing, they always have the option of stepping back out of the process.

 

(Of course, ideally companies should not be involved in this process in the first place!  Separate health insurance from the workplace!  End of controversy.)

[chocolatechip]

:svengo: Here we go again. . . :glare:

[Carol in Cal.]

And just to be clear, this is what you originally posted:

"You've been misinformed.  They paid for a lot of contraceptives, and continue to do so; however, they did not and now will not be forced to pay for abortifacients.  They specifically avoided that in their health plan selections. "

 

Both of the bolded are incorrect, and I was not "misinformed."

Nope, they were doing exactly what I said for some time before planning and filing their lawsuit. 

[goldberry]

The courts overturned a previous ruling today regarding birth control in general.  The story is in Forbes here.

 

 

So...the Supreme Court really didn't see this coming?  "This is really narrow and won't really be a big deal.."  Really??

And this company doesn't want ANY contraceptives period...

[goldberry]

The point of the timing regarding the Hobby Lobby case is that if this issue was *that important* to them, then they would have in fact known about it.  And known about their IRA investments.  They are not an average person.  They are a multimillion dollar company that claims that thier religous beliefs govern their business actions.  If so, then they would not have been totally oblivous up until this point. 

 

The Eden Soy people apparently have at least been consistent in their position.  Not that I believe that makes it right, but at least it is more sincere.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nope, they were doing exactly what I said for some time before planning and filing their lawsuit. 

 

Seriously?  What are you reading?

 

Again, you said:

"You've been misinformed.  They paid for a lot of contraceptives, and continue to do so; however, they did not and now will not be forced to pay for abortifacients.  They specifically avoided that in their health plan selections."

 

1.) They stated in their complaint they HAD been providing these drugs, but have decided they don't want to do so. How on earth does that fit with your statement that they "did not" pay for these contraceptives?  They said they did.

2.) If they were paying for these drugs and didn't know it, how could they have "specifically avoided" them in their plan selections?

 

Neither of those points can be disputed as this is what the Green family says themselves.

 

You made a factually incorrect statement while accusing others of doing the same.  You should just admit you are wrong and own those words.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

C'mon, I have hope that one of these days a contentious WTM forum thread will end in consensus. Then we take over the world.

 

 

It started to happen once in 2012.  Fortunately sanity prevailed and the bickering continued or the Mayans may have been right.

[maize]

A majority of companies use third party insurance providers. They pay the insurance company to provide insurance to employees. It is between the insurance company and the employee how the insurance is used.

 

If the company chooses to self-insure and feel like they are personally responsible for each little thing, they always have the option of stepping back out of the process.

 

(Of course, ideally companies should not be involved in this process in the first place! Separate health insurance from the workplace! End of controversy.)

But the company still must choose which provider and which plan(s) to pay for.

 

I don't have strong feelings/opinions about birth control so let's try an analogy: I'll be a business owner putting together a benefits package for my employees, and let's say the government has mandated that business owners must pay for childcare for their employees. There are several childcare providers in the local area, I know that some of these facilities use paddling as a discipline measure for children, and I am religiously and morally opposed to the use of paddles on children. Should I be forced to pay for the facilities that practice paddling, or can I choose to not include them in my covered childcare options even if some of my employees would prefer to send their children to these facilities? I am not paddling the children myself, i am not making the decision to paddle, but should I be forced to pay for someone else to paddle them?