|
Post by Really Red on Jun 30, 2014 16:45:37 GMT
Yes.
I'm sad about this decision, but I'm one who thinks the government should give out birth control like candy. The fewer unwanted children we have, the better.
|
|
|
Post by PinkPrincess77 on Jun 30, 2014 16:49:05 GMT
Horrendous. While the decision only covers 4 types of contraception (2 morning after pills and 2 IUDs) the blowback is dangerous. Any attack on the ability of women to control their own reproduction is an attack on all women. How to you think women have gotten as far as they have in this country? It's because of their ability to decide for themselves when they would or wouldn't have a child. I never shop at Hobby Lobby and I never will. This decision is shameful. the company isn't saying the employees can't use birth control, only that they won't pay for ir. My Mirena IUD was not covered the first time I got it, so I paid out of pocket. I was grateful that it is now covered, but if you want bc, there is the option to pay yourself. If price is an issue, talk to your doctor or go to the county health or planned parenthood and see if they can help An IUD is the only form of birth control I can use, for various reasons; I have tried them all. When I didn't have insurance, it was over $600 at Planned Parenthood. That's not something that I can afford to pay out of pocket for and I make above minimum wage. I'm highly disappointed in the decision. However, as my boss pointed out, the silver lining could be that because these corporations are now considered to be no different than their owners, one can pierce the corporate veil and go after personal assets when suing the company.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:06:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 16:53:25 GMT
This concerns me, too. It would be a lot easier to agree with this if companies were refusing to pay for drugs like Viagra and Cialis. If that's the case, then talk about a can of worms!
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jun 30, 2014 16:55:45 GMT
I posted the first bullet on NPR, also on Facebook. The other quotes are ones I found that worded things better than I could. I won't be shopping at HL any longer. They are a bunch of hypocrites. Here are several reasons why: - A win for the huge hypocrites who sell a ton of Made in China crap, where 13 million abortions take place every year.
- "When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare's contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers."
~Mother Jones
- "Here is the slightly glossed-over rank hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby, in one sentence:
'They will cover male contraception, in the form of a vasectomy.'
Unlike female oral contraception ('The pill'), which have also been used to treat other medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, amenorrhea, menstrual cramps, adenomyosis, menorrhagia (excessive menstral bleeding), menstruation-related anemia and dysmenorrhea (painful menstruation), vasectomy has no other medical indications besides birth control.
Unadulterated hypocrisy." ~Kurt Michael Friese
Before people say that they will cover the pill so that quote is invalid; the IUD is also considered treatment for many of these conditions.
|
|
|
Post by doesitmatter on Jun 30, 2014 16:55:51 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. ^that is what I thought as well. I support the decision and Hobby Lobby.
|
|
|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 16:59:28 GMT
Honestly, I don't think a company believing some contraceptions can cause an abortion & not wanting to provide coverage is in the same argument as not covering chemo or anti-depressants. I'm curious why you think there would be a distinction. If a company were against antidepressants or, let's say vaccinations, for religious reasons, why should that be treated any differently than being against contraceptives? ETA* I agree with Ashley - it isn't a slippery slope argument. Those examples should be seen on equal footing. The point I'm trying to make is Hobby Lobby feels by using the contraceptions in question it could cause the end of a pregnancy which the owners are against. I don't feel comparing chemo drugs vs a possible abortion drug is comparing apples to apples. One question i do have, in the most sincerest form, is if this did happen to a woman and your insurance didn't provide coverage for the drug why wouldn't you just get the prescription if you can afford it? Or go to Planned Parenthood?
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jun 30, 2014 17:05:28 GMT
Have we ever met and shared a java or something, RS? You have no clue how I feel about anyone, especially those who most need our support. Wow please don't think you know my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 30, 2014 17:07:01 GMT
But most IUDs last quite some time. The Mirena back in 2004 cost $700, but lasts for 5 years, paraguard lasts 10. If I paid for prescription BC with insurance it is $10-$20/month around the same, if not more than an out of pocket IUD. I understand the first IUD may be a surprise for the price, but after, it should become part of your budget just as prescriptions people take monthly.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 30, 2014 17:08:30 GMT
Will they cover tubal ligation?
|
|
mapchic
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Jun 26, 2014 0:16:00 GMT
|
Post by mapchic on Jun 30, 2014 17:09:32 GMT
I actually wasn't intending my question to be a slippery slope argument, it was sincere because I DO know people who have religious beliefs that preclude the use of modern medicine. I don't see how that's a slippery slope, it's the exact same thing. I agree. It seems like, right now, one particular religious belief is being allowed to dictate medical insurance decisions. Why just that one? I completely disagree with the decision, but I don't understand how it can't be applied equally to all religious beliefs. Other than because right now, at this moment, someone said "because I said so." Otherwise it seems we're elevating one religion over others, which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed either. What? What religion is being elevated? How is it being elevated? This case was argued based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Not the 1st Amendment. That said you seem to only care about part of the first half of free exercise clause and want to deny fellow citizens the second.. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both parts are important.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jun 30, 2014 17:10:52 GMT
I'm curious why you think there would be a distinction. If a company were against antidepressants or, let's say vaccinations, for religious reasons, why should that be treated any differently than being against contraceptives? ETA* I agree with Ashley - it isn't a slippery slope argument. Those examples should be seen on equal footing. The point I'm trying to make is Hobby Lobby feels by using the contraceptions in question it could cause the end of a pregnancy which the owners are against. I don't feel comparing chemo drugs vs a possible abortion drug is comparing apples to apples. One question i do have, in the most sincerest form, is if this did happen to a woman and your insurance didn't provide coverage for the drug why wouldn't you just get the prescription if you can afford it? Or go to Planned Parenthood? It would be apples to apples if there were religious prohibitions. Maybe not chemo drugs (although, what the hell do I know) but certainly antidepressants, vaccinations, blood transfusions. . . You (general you) don't get to decide which religious reasons have merit and which do not.
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jun 30, 2014 17:13:40 GMT
Planned Parenthood's funding is being cut drastically in many states, causing clinic closures seen at an unprecedented rate. Some women in rural towns have to travel very far to get to a PP clinic. Hours, even. Also, IUDs are among the most expensive birth control methods. Although PP usually charges along a sliding scale, it is still more expensive than other options, but way more effective and longer lasting.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,009
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jun 30, 2014 17:14:04 GMT
I can't wait until the first civil lawsuit against Hobby Lobby. "Corporate veil? What corporate veil?"
Justice Kennedy said that the government can just pay for it instead. I'm sure this will make all the fiscal conservatives ecstatic.
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Jun 30, 2014 17:19:18 GMT
I have been asked to give a statement to the press today. This is my official statement on the matter, as it concerns Texas women in particular:
"Today's Supreme Court decision tells us that corporations are people but women are not. Employers no longer have to cover birth control and other reproductive medications in employee insurance plans. HB 2 has or will shutter all but six clinics where hard working Texas women could obtain these medications affordably. This means it is more important than ever for Texas women and men who care about Texas women to elect Wendy Davis and Leticia van de Putte this November. They will work hard to make sure that women, no matter how much they make, can access affordable health care services state wide."
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 30, 2014 17:24:49 GMT
Planned Parenthood's funding is being cut drastically in many states, causing clinic closures seen at an unprecedented rate. Some women in rural towns have to travel very far to get to a PP clinic. Hours, even. Also, IUDs are among the most expensive birth control methods. Although PP usually charges along a sliding scale, it is still more expensive than other options, but way more effective and longer lasting. Well, I believe that we should be funding planned parenthood better, but that isn't this discussion. I live in a rural area. It takes me 30 minutes to get to towns. Whether Hobby Lobby provides BC or planned parenthood is funded is not going to change where I live, or the people who live 30 minutes east of me who are an hour from a town. I'm sorry that IUDs are more expensive ($927.18.), $16 per month if you are budgeting. It sucks when you are on a budget, but for most people, the pill or the shot, or the implant are options. I don't think that you always get the luxury car instead of the one that just gets you there if aren't willing to pay for it. I get generic drugs, not the brand name because my insurance won't pay for the brand name. Hell there are some drugs my insurance doesn't pay for at all that I would have to pay out of pocket or work with my doctor and the drug companies..
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jun 30, 2014 17:30:54 GMT
Just in case we have "forgotten" the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby:
"When Obamacare compelled businesses to include emergency contraception in employee health care plans, Hobby Lobby, a national chain of craft stores, fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court. The Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, the company's owners argued, forced them to violate their religious beliefs. But while it was suing the government, Hobby Lobby spent millions of dollars on an employee retirement plan that invested in the manufacturers of the same contraceptive products the firm's owners cite in their lawsuit.
Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.
click here
Advertise on MotherJones.com
These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Greens object to covering Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus—a process the Greens consider abortion. But researchers reject the notion that emergency contraceptive pills prevent implantation the implantation of a fertilized egg. Instead, they work by delaying ovulation or making it harder for sperm to swim to the egg. (Copper IUDs, which are also a form of birth control, can prevent implantation.) The Green's contention that the pills cause abortions is a central pillar of their argument for gutting the contraception mandate. Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the plan.
A website Hobby Lobby set up to answer questions about the Supreme Court case states that its 401(k) plan comes with "a generous company match." In 2012, Hobby Lobby contributed $3.8 million to its employee savings plans, which had 13,400 employee participants at the beginning of that year.
The information on Hobby Lobby's 401(k) investments is included in the company's 2013 annual disclosure to the Department of Labor. The records contain a list, dated December 31, 2012, of 24 funds that were included in its employer-sponsored retirement plan. MorningStar, an investment research firm, provided Mother Jones with the names of the companies in nine of those funds as of December 31, 2012. Each fund's portfolio consists of at least dozens if not hundreds of different holdings.
All nine funds—which have assets of $73 million, or three-quarters of the Hobby Lobby retirement plan's total assets—contained holdings that clashed with the Greens' stated religious principles.
Hobby Lobby and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the conservative group that provided Hobby Lobby with legal representation, did not respond to questions about these investments or whether Hobby Lobby has changed its retirement plan.
In their Supreme Court complaint, Hobby Lobby's owners chronicle the many ways in which they avoid entanglements with objectionable companies. Hobby Lobby stores do not sell shot glasses, for example, and the Greens decline requests from beer distributors to back-haul beer on Hobby Lobby trucks.
Similar options exist for companies that want to practice what's sometimes called faith-based investing. To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research. Dan Hardt, a Kentucky financial planner who specializes in faith-based investing, says the performances of these funds are about the same as if they had not been screened. But Hobby Lobby's managers either were not aware of these options or chose not to invest in them."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:06:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 17:31:19 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. Or be a responsible person and plan accordingly for these types of possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Anna*Banana on Jun 30, 2014 17:31:37 GMT
The SCOTUS has spoken. You know, like when were people jumping all over those giving their opinion on the Supreme's ruling over ACA, they were told it doesn't matter cuz it's law now...
|
|
|
Post by scraphappyinjax on Jun 30, 2014 17:31:48 GMT
This is for a whole other discussion but reading everyone's responses makes me wish healthcare wasn't tied into one's employer. Rather it was all individual which made for more competition, lower rates & better coverage. Then we could possibly have whatever coverage was best for us or our families.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jun 30, 2014 17:34:24 GMT
I strongly disagree with the decision...and we need to get more women on the court...
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jun 30, 2014 17:35:32 GMT
The SCOTUS has spoken. You know, like when were people jumping all over those giving their opinion on the Supreme's ruling over ACA, they were told it doesn't matter cuz it's law now... Does that mean we can't discuss it?
|
|
Pinky Zebra
Full Member
I love Daryl Dixon. I want to lick his face and have his babies.
Posts: 169
Location: West Texas
Jun 26, 2014 5:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Pinky Zebra on Jun 30, 2014 17:36:49 GMT
Viagra and Cialis don't terminate a pregnancy, thereby killing an unborn baby. Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by Anna*Banana on Jun 30, 2014 17:37:13 GMT
This is for a whole other discussion but reading everyone's responses makes me wish healthcare wasn't tied into one's employer. Rather it was all individual which made for more competition, lower rates & better coverage. Then we could possibly have whatever coverage was best for us or our families. I don't know a single conservative or Republican who didn't voice similar sentiment. I don't know a single person who didn't want some kind of overhaul that gave more power and better rates to individuals.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 30, 2014 17:39:08 GMT
This is for a whole other discussion but reading everyone's responses makes me wish healthcare wasn't tied into one's employer. Rather it was all individual which made for more competition, lower rates & better coverage. Then we could possibly have whatever coverage was best for us or our families. Unfortunately the insurance lobby is powerful. The ACA could have been a great thing had it not been screwed up by small interest groups and lobbyist and our politicians afraid of the insurance company. I am very, very grateful for the coverage we have and the price we pay for it. I know we are very lucky. I wish everyone had affordable health insurance, but unless there is insurance overhaul, it isn't going to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:06:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 17:40:14 GMT
The SCOTUS has spoken. You know, like when were people jumping all over those giving their opinion on the Supreme's ruling over ACA, they were told it doesn't matter cuz it's law now... Does that mean we can't discuss it? Not at all. This was just an all too common refrain when many people were less than pleased with the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA.
|
|
|
Post by Anna*Banana on Jun 30, 2014 17:41:06 GMT
The SCOTUS has spoken. You know, like when were people jumping all over those giving their opinion on the Supreme's ruling over ACA, they were told it doesn't matter cuz it's law now... Does that mean we can't discuss it? I was pointing out the hyperbole of the original statements made at 2 peas when there was grumbling about the ACA ruling...
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 30, 2014 17:41:15 GMT
The SCOTUS has spoken. You know, like when were people jumping all over those giving their opinion on the Supreme's ruling over ACA, they were told it doesn't matter cuz it's law now... Does that mean we can't discuss it? Of course you can discuss it. Anna is simply recollecting the comments of many liberal peas when the ACA was enacted to the effect that "it's the law; deal with it". The same comments can be made to those upset with this decision. I do realize, however, that it's always "different" when the shoe's on the other foot.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jun 30, 2014 17:43:00 GMT
hmm...5-4 vote. Pretty dang close...
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 30, 2014 17:44:55 GMT
Yep, and broken down, as usual along party lines; just like the Senate.
Nonetheless; it's now the law of the land just as abortion right are.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 22:06:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 17:46:30 GMT
Certainly I cannot be the only one old enough to remember when birth control (any form) wasn't even covered under health insurance. Guess what? I still used birth control, even when it wasn't covered under my insurance.
I just paid for it. And even as a young newlywed, we could afford it. (and I didn't even attempt to go to Planned Parenthood or the local health department, who I'm certain could've provided my pills to me much cheaper than my local pharmacy)
This is not a war on women. As a woman, I'm offended at the pundits that will make that claim.
|
|