- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Is your reproductive healthcare now in jeopardy?
How were you paying for it before the ACA passed?
I respect pro-life people, as well as respect religious rights and beliefs. But in my view when it comes to the issue of preventitive contraception, they don't have a leg to stand on. Prevnting a pregnacy may be ofensive to them, but it's not a violation of their religious rights as far as I'm conserned It's one thing to end a potential life after conception, but quite another to prevent conception from happening.
In my opinion, this case should have never reached the Supreme Court in the first place. The Obama Administration and HHS should have just removed those 4 methods of contraception, and stuck with the 16 preventitive ones. They could have avoided this controversy and prevented this decision from ever happening, but for what ever reason, they dropped the ball on this one.
There are other religions besides yours. If you're viewing this as an ability for fundamentalist Christians to make everyone else live in a way which is more pleasing to fundamentalist Christian beliefs than you're likely to be surprised.
Over the following decade brings us to today. I always paid for my own birth control pills when I used them. And I never complained about it.
Then you're fine with other people making decisions for you based on their religious beliefs which circumvent US law? Because that's what we're talking about here.I have a religion? That's funny. And a new one on me since neither my husband nor I practice a religion, don't attend church, don't pray, and didn't have our 3 sons baptised and/or christened.
Like I've pointed out, several litigants objected to ALL of the available options, not just the 4, and some of them won their cases at the Appeals Court level. If HL didn't have to sue, those others would have eventually made it to the SC.
Then you're fine with other people making decisions for you based on their religious beliefs which circumvent US law? Because that's what we're talking about here.
He's obviously got more time to educate you than I have today.
I'm not too interested in getting into a big discussion, but I am curious and don't feel up to reading thorugh all the pages here...
I've read a couple of op-eds from people to the left who claim that this ruiling is taking away rights from women.
So, then I wonder.. Did women not have rights prior to obamacare? Aftrerall, prior to Obamacare busiensses were not required to purchase BC.
Then I also wonder.. What right was taken away. Women can still purchase as much BC as they want, they can even see a doctor to get a prescription. The only thing that has changed, as far as I can see, is who will pay for it.
I really don't want to get too into it, but I am curious about those questions... and the opeds I read didn't seem to get into specifics as to what right they thought was being removed.
Over the following decade brings us to today. I always paid for my own birth control pills when I used them. And I never complained about it.
I'm not too interested in getting into a big discussion, but I am curious and don't feel up to reading thorugh all the pages here...
I've read a couple of op-eds from people to the left who claim that this ruiling is taking away rights from women.
So, then I wonder.. Did women not have rights prior to obamacare? Aftrerall, prior to Obamacare busiensses were not required to purchase BC.
Then I also wonder.. What right was taken away. Women can still purchase as much BC as they want, they can even see a doctor to get a prescription. The only thing that has changed, as far as I can see, is who will pay for it.
I really don't want to get too into it, but I am curious about those questions... and the opeds I read didn't seem to get into specifics as to what right they thought was being removed.
The point was if your employer didn't cover contraception, you'd have been in the minority before the ACA was established, because only 10% by 2010 didn't provide coverage.
And whether you paid or your employer did, and whether or not you complained, really isn't the issue. The fact is about half of all pregnancies are unintended, resulting in millions of abortions and all kinds of social problems. The question that matters is whether an employer mandate to cover contraception, to better allow especially poorer women to have easy, affordable access to the most effective options, serves a compelling or legitimate purpose. The research seems to indicate it does and that society is better off when women can plan pregnancies. And the SC says they agree.
I guess more than anything I don't get the comments that seem to suggest that this issue isn't important, that providing easy and affordable access to women is really about them being able to have sexy fun time whenever they want instead of trying to do something about the REAL problems of unintended pregnancy in this country.
If the women get it from HHS, that's good, but if they don't then what comes with that is KNOWING that we'll have many more unintended pregnancies because for some reason women just DO have sex and without contraception DO get pregnant when they don't want to, and that leads to predictable problems like abortion and babies born to mother unprepared to adequately care for their children. We can wish it wasn't so, but that would be just burying our heads to the problem, not facing it.
Who made a decision for me? I missed that.
I suspect if Hobby Lobby hadn't narrowed their scope, they probably wouldn't have won the case... One thing I'm significantly more confident of, is if HHS had just dropped those 4 contraceptives in the first place, nobody could have won a case to be exempt on religious grounds.
Before today, no one. But moving forward it's entirely possible. Supreme Court decisions aren't done in a vacuum. They are the guidance lower courts use to make rulings.
This ruling says that the owner of a for profit corporation is allowed to object to and avoid paying for something they deem morally objectionable. The SCOTUS said that this was limited to Women's reproductive health care, but unless there's something different about women's health care then this case can be used to object to anything. That's the real problem, the decision is breathtakingly broad. Why would this deeply held religious belief trump this particular law, but other deeply held beliefs not trump other laws?
I think there is too much emphasis made on the argument of should employees be required to provide birth control as part of the ACA. That is a policy issue. The question at hand is can the government enforce a law, not is that law good policy.
Some of you people on the right are getting it wrong, the decision involved all 20 methods.I suspect if Hobby Lobby hadn't narrowed their scope, they probably wouldn't have won the case... One thing I'm significantly more confident of, is if HHS had just dropped those 4 contraceptives in the first place, nobody could have won a case to be exempt on religious grounds.
I didn't realize that an employer had some sort of obligation to keep the unwanted pregnancy rate down. I was raised to believe that it was my responsibility to not get pregnant. I never heard that it was my employer's.
Is this a new way of thinking?
Well, first of all, it's the government's job to set policy in a way to achieve broad goals agreed to by the public who elected them. If you don't think the employer mandate to provide contraception, and hopefully reduce unwanted pregnancies, is a wise decision, that we should accept millions of abortions and all the problems that come about because of unwanted pregnancies, that's fine, state that. I guess then in the face of the problem of unwanted pregnancies, we should do nothing? Just pay for the fallout?
I guess we could scold young women and tell them to not have sexy play time because it's sinful and bad. It will fail, but we might feel better doing it.
Moderator's Warning: |
Some of you people on the right are getting it wrong, the decision involved all 20 methods.
Justices act in other health law mandate cases
The goverment's job is to control the population? When did they get that responsibility?
Well, I guess to an extent it is. Laws against murder are ONE attempt to control the population. Reducing teen and unwanted pregnancies seems to me a pretty unobjectionable goal, as is providing healthcare. You know about Medicare? How about Social Security, where we had a goal to provide some small amount of money in old age and disability. Child care credits control the population by reducing taxes on parents. The EITC controls the population by incentivizing work over welfare. I could go on....
I wouldn't say liberal, I'd say disenfranchised ex-conservative.
And like any Supreme Court case, the direct effects of the rulings aren't really all that significant. Yes, there will be a few people who are negatively impacted; but the broader picture is what else can be justified with this ruling. And you're left with two scary options. Either women's health care is somehow special in that employers may veto their legal obligations to pay for it, or the door is opened for any deeply held religious belief to override any legal obligation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?