Court cases already being impacted by Hobby Lobby ruling

[Carol in Cal.]

 

No, they were not providing that at the time of filing the lawsuit.  That's my point, and that has been my point.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, they were not providing that at the time of filing the lawsuit.  That's my point, and that has been my point.

 

No, that is not what you said.  The words "did not" in that sentence are used to say they never supplied those contraceptives.  They did.  They say they did.

 

You said they "specifically avoided" them, which they did not, and that statement makes no sense with what you are claiming now about them "not providing them at the time of the lawsuit."  If they "specifically avoided" them then they would HAVE NEVER COVERED THEM.

 

And regardless, the real point all along was that HL never cared enough to actually look at their health plans until someone asked them to do so to become party to a lawsuit.  Of course they were no longer covering those drugs at the time of the lawsuit - no one ever claimed they were (and yes, they would stop covering them to have grounds for the suit.)  The point that has been made is that the HL position is loaded with hypocrisy.

 

And again, own your words. 

[Carol in Cal.]

It's interesting to consider the difference between what should be controlled by law, and what is the product of people morals and beliefs that should not be controlled by law.

 

Not everything that people consider wrong should necessarily be illegal.  We are a free society, at least in theory.

 

But also, people should not be forced to do something they think is wrong, no matter how repugnant it is to me sometimes.  This is a long strand of American thought--exemplified in conscientious objection, and the right to homeschool, and the right of the Amish to stop formal education earlier than the rest of society, and the right to burn the flag, for instance.  It keeps getting expanded and contracted, but I think it's fundamental to us.

[TechWife]

 Thus, business owners have had to put their religious beliefs aside when the beliefs conflicted with customers' (or employees') civil rights (in this case rights to public accommodations) for fifty years.  

 

When did having your employer make sure your insurance covers birth control become a civil right? 

[Carol in Cal.]

I've owned my words, and they don't say what you say that they do.

Here it was (a cut and paste below).  BTW, you have continued to reassert facts not in evidence re. hyprocrisy etc.  Have you really examined these people's record?  Because I don't believe that it supports that. 

 

 

"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."

 

[TechWife]

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?

 

Some insurance policies covered it and some did not. The ACA has determined that certain types of birth control products are to be available at no cost to the consumer. That is the biggest difference. The insurance provided through an employer  and insurance obtained on the exchange has to foot the bill. Of course, this is one of the things that is playing in to the higher premiums people are seeing because the insurance companies are passing that cost along to consumers through premium increases. Make no mistake about it, the consumer is paying for it one way or another. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I've owned my words, and they don't say what you say that they do.

Here it was (a cut and paste below).  BTW, you have continued to reassert facts not in evidence re. hyprocrisy etc.  Have you really examined these people's record?  Because I don't believe that it supports that. 

 

 

"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."

 

None of which has anything to do with you saying I was misinformed, and then you claiming that HL "did not" cover those contraceptives and that they "specifically avoided" them.

If you are going to call someone misinformed, get your facts straight first.  The statements you made cannot me interpreted any other way, and no one ever said HL was covering those drugs at the time of the lawsuit.  Of course they weren't - they had to drop coverage to have grounds to sue.  The timing is not relevant to the point that this issue never mattered to the ownership until a lobbyist got them involved.  And it is a FACT (as stipulated by the Green family) that they did not look at their policies until approached about the suit.

 

It is my opinion that the Green family is a bunch of conniving hypocrites.

[goldberry]

It's interesting to consider the difference between what should be controlled by law, and what is the product of people morals and beliefs that should not be controlled by law.

 

Not everything that people consider wrong should necessarily be illegal.  We are a free society, at least in theory.

 

But also, people should not be forced to do something they think is wrong, no matter how repugnant it is to me sometimes.  This is a long strand of American thought--exemplified in conscientious objection, and the right to homeschool, and the right of the Amish to stop formal education earlier than the rest of society, and the right to burn the flag, for instance.  It keeps getting expanded and contracted, but I think it's fundamental to us.

 

This is thoughtful comment.  I guess the problem is, not everyone agrees that a legal entity can have its own morality or belief.  

[poppy]

Some insurance policies covered it and some did not. The ACA has determined that certain types of birth control products are to be available at no cost to the consumer. That is the biggest difference. The insurance that the employer provides and insurance obtained on the exchange has to foot the bill. Of course, this is one of the things that is playing in to the higher premiums people are seeing because the insurance companies are passing that cost along to consumers through premium increases. Make no mistake about it, the consumer is paying for it one way or another.

But think about why birth control is being provided with no copay. Preventative measures are much cheaper than the alternative. We're paying. If we weren't paying for contraception, we'd be paying for maternity coverage and in too many cases neglected / unwanted children.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Some insurance policies covered it and some did not. The ACA has determined that certain types of birth control products are to be available at no cost to the consumer. That is the biggest difference. The insurance that the employer provides and insurance obtained on the exchange has to foot the bill. Of course, this is one of the things that is playing in to the higher premiums people are seeing because the insurance companies are passing that cost along to consumers through premium increases. Make no mistake about it, the consumer is paying for it one way or another. 

 

Typically the employer only partially provides the insurance as most employees pay part of their premium.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 Many things are a product of people's beliefs and ethics. That's why I think the best way to deal with things is to grant you your freedom right up to the point it infringes on mine ( and vice versa ).

 

Nobody should coerce (general) you into using contraception against your will. And (general) you shouldn't prevent others obtaining contraception in line with their beliefs.

 

It's difficult for me to understand why that isn't a point of consensus, since it works for both of us.

 

Because it gives some people the sadz when they can't control the lives of others.

 

[poppy]

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?

Kind of a false analogy since birth control is very legal, and corporeal punishment for preschoolers is explicitly banned in most states.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But think about why birth control is being provided with no copay. Preventative measures are much cheaper than the alternative. We're paying. If we weren't paying for contraception, we'd be paying for maternity coverage and in too many cases neglected / unwanted children.

 

Correct, and birth control was not the only preventative care required to be provided at low/no cost.  In general these policies have little to no impact on premiums as they are very low cost.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Kind of a false analogy since birth control is very legal, and corporeal punishment for preschoolers is explicitly banned in most states.

 

And that aside, I am not aware of any employers who subsidize care having any requirements other than being licensed.

[TechWife]

But think about why birth control is being provided with no copay. Preventative measures are much cheaper than the alternative. We're paying. If we weren't paying for contraception, we'd be paying for maternity coverage and in too many cases neglected / unwanted children.

 

I was just answering a question about how insurance had previously covered birth control. 

 

FWIW, you're paying for maternity coverage in addition to paying for coverage of birth control under the ACA, so I have no idea what your point is about that. 

[TechWife]

Typically the employer only partially provides the insurance as most employees pay part of their premium.

 

 

Corrected to say "insurance provided through the employer" for clarification. Thanks.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was just answering a question about how insurance had previously covered birth control. 

 

FWIW, you're paying for maternity coverage in addition to paying for coverage of birth control under the ACA, so I have no idea what your point is about that. 

 

Her point is that access to birth control in general will lead to less need for more expensive maternity care (ie lower total health expenditures and therefore less upward pressure on premiums), plus it helps alleviate the social cost of unwanted/neglected children.

[poppy]

I was just answering a question about how insurance had previously covered birth control.

 

FWIW, you're paying for maternity coverage in addition to paying for coverage of birth control under the ACA, so I have no idea what your point is about that.

My point is that free birth control will result in fewer pregnancies.

[Carol in Cal.]

 Many things are a product of people's beliefs and ethics. That's why I think the best way to deal with things is to grant you your freedom right up to the point it infringes on mine ( and vice versa ).

 

Nobody should coerce (general) you into using contraception against your will. And (general) you shouldn't prevent others obtaining contraception in line with their beliefs.

 

It's difficult for me to understand why that isn't a point of consensus, since it works for both of us.

I agree with you.

However, HL didn't prevent others from obtaining contraception that they believed to cause abortion.  They just declined to pay for it.  It's a separate issue, requiring a separate consensus.

[TechWife]

My point is that free birth control will result in fewer pregnancies.

 

First, it's not free - remember premiums? 

Second, this remains to be seen, truly. 

 

ETA: It still doesn't change that we're paying for both maternity coverage and contraceptive coverage, so it really isn't lowering any insurance costs at this point. We were discussing insurance costs at the time.

[poppy]

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.

[poppy]

First, it's not free - remember premiums?

Second, this remains to be seen, truly.

We had premiums when my ortho tri cyclin was $35/month too.

 

Prevention is cheaper than hospital bills and months of medical care and surgeries. This is not a radical, untested concept.

[Carol in Cal.]

This is thoughtful comment.  I guess the problem is, not everyone agrees that a legal entity can have its own morality or belief.  

 

Yes, I have a problem with that myself.  Hence, I think, the decision being limited to closely held corporations as opposed to publicly traded ones.

 

It's funny how inconsistent the law is about public corporations, though.  Legally they are considered persons with the right to freedom of speech like a live human person has.  That's why it's so difficult to craft a campaign finance reform law, which I think is very unfortunate for the function of our democracy.

 

And yet they have limited liability compared to real human people, which is darned scary at times.  And also they technically are vulnerable to shareholder lawsuits if they don't maximize profits, which can tend to militate against generosity to their employees or customers, and against strong consideration of the environment. 

[TechWife]

It would be great if we could avoid references to elections and political parties, which would be more in tune with board policies, I believe.

[TechWife]

We had premiums when my ortho tri cyclin was $35/month too.

 

Yes, we did. Premiums are nothing new. The difference is that the $35 is now factored in to your premium cost instead of the cost at the time you pick up the prescription. Either way, you are still paying for the birth control. 

[TechWife]

Prevention is cheaper than hospital bills and months of medical care and surgeries. This is not a radical, untested concept.

 

Yes, preventative care is less expensive than emergent care and care for temporary or sudden illness. Birth control is less expensive than pregnancy care and childbirth. However,  the owner of the company mentioned in the Forbes article doesn't see pregnancy as something that should be prevented due to his (her? I don't remember) religious beliefs. 

[poppy]

Another item now provided with no copay is breastfeeding counseling. If my employer doesn't like breastfeeding, should he have the right to prevent me from having that coverage?   Domestic violence screenings are free, depression screenings are free.  Prenatal screenings are free. Smoking cession programs are free.  These are all programs made free under the ACA because it makes sense financially to provide them at no cost.  Why on earth should my employer's opinion on these subjects be important in my medical coverage?

[TechWife]

Another item now provided with no copay is breastfeeding counseling. If my employer doesn't like breastfeeding, should he have the right to prevent me from having that coverage?   Domestic violence screenings are free, depression screenings are free.  Prenatal screenings are free. Smoking cession programs are free.  These are all programs made free under the ACA because it makes sense financially to provide them at no cost.  Why on earth should my employer's opinion on these subjects be important in my medical coverage?

 

 

These are red herrings. The question isn't whether or not the employer "doesn't like" something, it's whether or not the employer's religious freedom is being infringed upon. 

 

ETA: As I've said before, none of this is "free" - we are all paying for it through our premiums. 

[TechWife]

No, but they are penalising their employees by not providing access as part of their insurance. Why should a corporation's religious belief ( not that I believe a corporation has one ) trump a women's right to coverage as part of her insurance ?

 

 

No one is denying anyone access to any form of birth control or whatever else you want to call it. 

 

When did insurance coverage of these products become a "right?"

[Murphy101]

The court's action undermines confidence in this institution.

 

So says one of the three female dissenting Justices regarding a decision re Wheaten College and contraception.

 

You'd think a Justice knows of what she speaks. And you'd also think more people would be concerned at undermining confidence in the law.

Oh yes. And she is supposedly catholic too. Guess it's only okay to bash male Catholics who disagree with women. I don't care if she is woman or catholic, she was wrong and I'm glad she was out-voted.

 

You would think the five other judges also know what they are talking about.

 

I'm less concerned with undermining confidence in the law, then being confident the law is wrong.

 

The ACA was a cluster from the start bc no one cared about the law. Now we want to profess upset that it isn't being upheld? Kudos to the justices who are brave enough to say the obvious. The only thing I'm shocked by is they found 5 judges who wouldn't knuckle under about it.

[poppy]

These are red herrings. The question isn't whether or not the employer "doesn't like" something, it's whether or not the employer's religious freedom is being infringed upon. 

 

ETA: As I've said before, none of this is "free" - we are all paying for it through our premiums. 

 

I have no idea Hobby Lobby, a company whose business is based on trade with China, became the poster child for the anti-abortion movement. The mind boggles.

 

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.

[StephanieZ]

Quite honestly I expect to see single-payer come a lot sooner because of this.

 

I agree. I think years from now, this decision will be seen as the death knell of employer-funded insurance. Can't be soon enough, IMHO. People should be able to get their own insurance free of interference or control by their employer. (Speaking as an employer who has controlled our employees insurance for a decade, and was very glad to be free of it once the ACA allowed our staff and ourselves to get our own policies! Our staff are no longer beholden to us to choose and maintain their health care!)

[Murphy101]

I have no idea Hobby Lobby, a company whose business is based on trade with China, became the poster child for the anti-abortion movement. The mind boggles.

 

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.

It doesn't make it the employers problem to pay for it. If a woman is being beaten by her husband, a divorce also matters. Should her employer pay for that too? If she has kids, childcare matters. Should her employer pay for that? Being properly dressed for work matters, but even if it's a mandatory company uniform, the company doesn't have to pay for it.

 

One can say something matters to them and they can go about paying for it themselves.

 

Or they can go through congress to try to affect laws in their favor.

 

But usually they can't pitch a fit and demand their employer pay for it. Which is why the entire ACA was a cluster mess from the start.

[Carol in Cal.]

No, but they are penalising their employees by not providing access as part of their insurance. Why should a corporation's religious belief ( not that I believe a corporation has one ) trump a women's right to coverage as part of her insurance ?

 

Generally it doesn't--only when the owners are private parties does this apply.  That's mostly fairly small businesses, but not always. 

 

Anyway, hey!  We did have a point of consensus! 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh yes. And she is supposedly catholic too. Guess it's only okay to bash male Catholics who disagree with women. I don't care if she is woman or catholic, she was wrong and I'm glad she was out-voted.

 

You would think the five other judges also know what they are talking about.

 

I'm less concerned with undermining confidence in the law, then being confident the law is wrong.

 

The ACA was a cluster from the start bc no one cared about the law. Now we want to profess upset that it isn't being upheld? Kudos to the justices who are brave enough to say the obvious. The only thing I'm shocked by is they found 5 judges who wouldn't knuckle under about it.

 

No one cared about the ACA?  Whut?

 

And yes, I will bash 5 Catholic men who vote to against access to birth control, especially when one of them lets his (Alito) religious beliefs slip into his opinion.

[lynn]

s

Edited July 4, 2014 by lynn

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It doesn't make it the employers problem to pay for it. If a woman is being beaten by her husband, a divorce also matters. Should her employer pay for that too? If she has kids, childcare matters. Should her employer pay for that? Being properly dressed for work matters, but even if it's a mandatory company uniform, the company doesn't have to pay for it.

 

One can say something matters to them and they can go about paying for it themselves.

 

Or they can go through congress to try to affect laws in their favor.

 

But usually they can't pitch a fit and demand their employer pay for it. Which is why the entire ACA was a cluster mess from the start.

 

Um....they bolded is what was done.

 

And your analogies are poor/terrible as we have unfortunately have set up a system where health care is generally an employee benefit. None of the examples you gave are.

[Carol in Cal.]

It's absolutely inhuman that sick people can't get access to medical care in this country.  I wish that there was an easy fix to this, but there isn't.  The law of unintended consequences is being demonstrated over and over.  We took a really bad non-system and broke it even worse.  I'm so happy for those who were unable to get coverage before and finally have it now, but there are so many others who had had some coverage and now have none.  It's a disaster.

[chocolatechip]

Most reasonable people consider birth control as a fairly basic part of women's health. It's only a right as much as women's health is a right. Personally, I believe that women do have a right to healthcare, and that a woman's right to health care trumps a corporation's right to deny it.

 

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? 

[poppy]

It doesn't make it the employers problem to pay for it. If a woman is being beaten by her husband, a divorce also matters. Should her employer pay for that too? If she has kids, childcare matters. Should her employer pay for that? Being properly dressed for work matters, but even if it's a mandatory company uniform, the company doesn't have to pay for it.

 

One can say something matters to them and they can go about paying for it themselves.

 

Or they can go through congress to try to affect laws in their favor.

 

But usually they can't pitch a fit and demand their employer pay for it. Which is why the entire ACA was a cluster mess from the start.

 

It doesn't make it her employers problem to pay for it, no. But I just can't stand quibbling over "it's not really free, we pay for it through premiums". 

 

If you can go to the doctor for a well woman visit (free), leave with a prescription for birth control, take that to the pharmacy and fill the prescription all without paying a dime, it's free.

 

A lot of our policies have hidden costs. Highways are heavily subsided, but to drive on one? Free.

 

 

 

 

And as for the rest of it, it was a very imperfect compromise but yes, I'm glad ACA did go through Congress to become the law of the land.

[FaithManor]

No, but the principle is the same. It's a closely held one, not a publicly held one. The ones in play are all privately owned.

If this was a closely held belief, the company would have investigated the insurance they participated in BEFORE a prolife lobbyist called them. They had been "providing" the very BC they were supposedly against for years.

 

If this was a strongly held belief, they would not spend their money purchasing copious amounts of product from China - a country that has routinel performed forced abortions, forced female workers onto bc, and at one point was participating heavily in infanticide, some hospitals keeping drowning buckets in the maternity wars - in order to resell it here for profit.

 

If this was a closely held belief, theywould not have chosen two mutual funds that invest heavily in pharmaceutical companies...the very ones that produce the bc they are so morally against, and these are the only 401k options for the employees!

 

This has opened pandora's box. Many medicines are not Halel or Kosher, many Christian Scientists who do not believe in any healthcare at all own businesses, scientologists....they may think they wrote a narrow ruling but if compelling public interest did not override HL in this case, then it most certainly is a huge constitutional violation to not allow other religious exemptions and especially coming from ones in which the owners can make a more substantial "closely held belief" case than HL did.

 

The ony conclusion will be singple payer healthcare and it's going to be a nightmare to start because of how little consistency or organization we have to begin with in our system. Plus, we have a GP shortage as it is, and once we have singlepayer, a lot of people are going to begin accessing the system that had other wise not....a good thing in and of itself....but we don't have near enough GP's to handle it, and it isn't as if one can churn out new docs in a year or two! Plus, most residents choose to specialize because it pays better so we need some sort of incentive to get some new docs to choose family practice.

 

And all this on a16 trillion dollar debt! So, it's going to have to be heavily rationed care at the start until things smooth out and the money is found. It's not as though this nation is on sound financial footing to begin.

 

But, that is where it is heading fast and we can thank this ruling for beginning the chaos!

[Laura Corin]

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?

 

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

[Carol in Cal.]

If this was a closely held belief, the company would have...

 

Closely held COMPANY,  not belief.

Meaning that it's not publicly traded, but rather owned by a very few people (all family I believe).

[SemiSweet]

I could be wrong but she probably meant sincerely held belief, that is the wording that has been used frequently in this case.

[kiwik]

Not American but if insurance is part of your pay and conditions or subsidised by the employer then you are paying for it. If you are paying for medical insurance then presumably it should cover your medical needs. Medical needs are generally decided by your DOCTOR not your employer. After all some employers don't believe in blood transfusion, or pain relief during childbirth either and of course they didn't go to medical school. Which is why they shouldn't be making medical decisions (unless of course your doctor is your employer which is probably unethical anyway not to mention awkward).

[Cammie]

Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs.  The question is, if you incorporate a business that you own in order to benefit from the protections that incorporation provides (financial protections, liability protections, tax benefits, etc.) how does that new entity that is separate and distinct from the owner have a religious belief?    And why should the owner's religious beliefs be a basis for avoiding generally applicable federal laws?  And where does it end?  Which religious beliefs?  Which federal laws?  Right now the Court has tried to say "only religious beliefs related to female contraception."  There is absolutely no guarantee that it will end there.

[Kate in Arabia]

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!"

[kiana]

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!"

 

I would not wager anything I would care to part with against that.

[bettyandbob]

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.

[Cammie]

And here is another question...why are the radical right and religious conservatives SO focused, actually hyper focused, on women's bodies and women's sexuality?  What is it that is so...threatening?  I no longer buy that this is about abortion.  For some people it is but for the radical right as a whole it certainly seems to be about SO much more.