katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378 
|
Post by katybee on Jun 30, 2014 14:33:29 GMT
Companies do not have to provide contraception to employees if it goes against their religious beliefs...
|
|
freebird
Drama Llama
'cause I'm free as a bird now
Posts: 6,927
|
Post by freebird on Jun 30, 2014 14:34:36 GMT
I'll probably be in the minority with this statement but: Great!
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
|
Post by scrappinghappy on Jun 30, 2014 14:36:28 GMT
I have mixed emotions about this. I haven't purchased contraception in ages so no idea what it costs but having kids isn't cheap either, that I know right now  |
|
miyooper2b
Full Member
Posts: 330
Location: Central Indiana
Jun 27, 2014 15:38:05 GMT
|
Post by miyooper2b on Jun 30, 2014 14:36:53 GMT
Wow! I really thought it would go the other way. Need to go find the reason they decided that and if it was a split decision.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 0:30:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 14:37:19 GMT
Yay!
|
|
|
|
Post by jamh on Jun 30, 2014 14:39:02 GMT
The decision was 5 to 4,and the wording involved "closely held corporations."
JamH
|
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jun 30, 2014 14:40:31 GMT
a dangerous decision, considering the fact that this could lead to ignorant decisions regarding blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc. It's a domino effect that I would venture many have not considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura in OK on Jun 30, 2014 14:40:59 GMT
I believe that as a business, they have a right to construct their benefit package any way that they wish. If you need those items covered, go work for someone who will.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 0:30:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 14:41:32 GMT
Freebird, you are not alone. I also think it is great!
|
|
|
|
Post by lindywholoveskids on Jun 30, 2014 14:42:44 GMT
it was a 5=4 decision.
it doesn't affect me directly, and I don't shop with them by choice.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
|
Post by katybee on Jun 30, 2014 14:44:59 GMT
a dangerous decision, considering the fact that this could lead to ignorant decisions regarding blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc. It's a domino effect that I would venture many have not considered. Although I strongly disagree with this decision, I think that there is wording in the decision that prevents this. Although, that leads me to question why? If the owners of a closely held corporation are Jehovah's Witnesses, why should they have to cover blood transfusions? I will have to read the decision to see if I can figure it out... |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 30, 2014 14:45:03 GMT
Another one who thinks it's great.  |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jun 30, 2014 14:46:31 GMT
I think they just opened up a can of worms. I will not be surprised if a whole bunch of other companies suddenly become religious. I am also dismayed, as a lot of people use birth control for reasons other than birth control. :/. I guess those people will be SOL and will have to pay out of pocket for those meds.
|
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jun 30, 2014 14:46:41 GMT
That's disgusting. Companies aren't people and can't reasonably HAVE religious beliefs. Is HL going to heaven or hell when it dies? NO. Its owners are certainly free to observe their own beliefs in their private lives, but any personal beliefs they may have are should not be any excuse for violating the law.
It absolutely opens up all kinds of people to "not believe in" blood transfusions, organ transplants, vaccinating, various conditions (autism, ADHD, fibro, etc.). That's not even to mention the incredible amount of litigation I would expect regarding whether various companies do or do not qualify.
|
|
|
|
Post by rumplesnat on Jun 30, 2014 14:47:37 GMT
I sure hope the Viagra and Cialis prescriptions they cover are only being used by men who are trying to procreate with their wives.
|
|
cheleoh
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by cheleoh on Jun 30, 2014 14:47:41 GMT
Kind of like the OJ trial. I don't like it, but legally I think it's the right thing.
Chele :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by tinafb on Jun 30, 2014 14:47:53 GMT
Do they have to cover it if there is medical need, like to control bleeding issues? Or is it no contraception coverage at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by shevy on Jun 30, 2014 14:48:59 GMT
Do they have to cover it if there is medical need, like to control bleeding issues? Or is it no contraception coverage at all? I believe it's none at all. And it's only for 'closely held' companies. At least that's the wording of the decision. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 0:30:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 14:50:22 GMT
I'm sitting on the same bench as Freebird.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaosisapony on Jun 30, 2014 14:50:26 GMT
What bothers me has already been mentioned, the fact that birth control is used for so much other than just being birth control. It helps with legitimate medical issues. Also, I don't think a company can have a religious belief. It's a company, not a person.
|
|
Judy26
Pearl Clutcher
MOTFY Bitchy Nursemaid
Posts: 2,834
Location: NW PA
|
Post by Judy26 on Jun 30, 2014 14:52:41 GMT
I am quite liberal usually but am surprisingly OK with this decision. I try to keep an open mind though so I would like to hear more about why some of you think this is a slippery slope.
|
|
bomo
Full Member
Posts: 150
Jun 26, 2014 15:54:49 GMT
|
Post by bomo on Jun 30, 2014 14:52:47 GMT
Great decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jun 30, 2014 14:55:17 GMT
Do they have to cover it if there is medical need, like to control bleeding issues? Or is it no contraception coverage at all? As far as I know (which is limited....), there was not a problem with covering all birth control. It was about specific types, such as the morning after pill, which they took the position was an abortifacient. My question was why do BC meds have to be paid for, and not my BP meds or someone's cancer drugs or whatever else? Nobody was saying people couldn't get those drugs or go to doctors who prescribe them, just that they shouldn't have to pay for them. |
|
|
|
Post by just PEAchy on Jun 30, 2014 14:55:43 GMT
I believe that as a business, they have a right to construct their benefit package any way that they wish. If you need those items covered, go work for someone who will. I agree with this. Insurance was never designed to cover everything. My husband is in the medical field, so our insurance was through the hospital. It did not cover vaccinations, so I paid for them out of pocket. It was their business decision to make. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 0:30:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 14:56:45 GMT
Do they have to cover it if there is medical need, like to control bleeding issues? Or is it no contraception coverage at all? I believe it's none at all. And it's only for 'closely held' companies. At least that's the wording of the decision. They cover all birth control except those (3 or so?) of them they consider to be abortifacients. |
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jun 30, 2014 14:57:44 GMT
"If you need those items covered, go work for someone who will."
Many people in retail (and other job markets) don't have the financial luxury of quitting their jobs with our current economic situation...
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 30, 2014 15:00:38 GMT
"If you need those items covered, go work for someone who will." Many people in retail (and other job markets) don't have the financial luxury of quitting their jobs with our current economic situation... But that shouldn't override the business owner's religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by magentapea on Jun 30, 2014 15:01:10 GMT
My question was why do BC meds have to be paid for, and not my BP meds or someone's cancer drugs or whatever else? Nobody was saying people couldn't get those drugs or go to doctors who prescribe them, just that they shouldn't have to pay for them. I agree. This is one of the things that makes me angry. Why are they free to exclude coverage of potentially life saving drugs, but *must* cover contraceptives? (I know, I know - they are used for so much more than just BC, but tell that to the young mother who is dying of cancer because she can't afford the meds, or any number of people whose very existence relies on meds that they are struggling to pay for). Personally, I'm very happy with the Supreme Court decision. |
|
|
|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 15:03:02 GMT
Hobby Lobby wasn't against contraception. HL was against emergency contraception that could cause an abortion. The 4 kinds of contraceptions specifically they were fighting against were Plan B and ella pills & 2 IUD's. I'm not familiar w/ Ella & didn't know an IUD could cause an abortion after the fact. I really like how the Justices had an issue with HHS trying to implement this mandate when the Secretary was an unelected official.
|
|
|
|
Post by workingclassdog on Jun 30, 2014 15:04:04 GMT
I'm just thrilled to have a "Like" button without having to post anything... lol.. I agree with Freebird.
|
|
My original pea date was November 1999 and my number was 1803
