The verdict in this one should be really obvious, but if not, that's a pretty slippery slope right there for religion in people's business and health.
[ November 27, 2013, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Render contraceptive coverage unto Caesar, doofbags. Don't care if we have to drag you kicking and screaming into the modern world, ciao
plan b stuff is scary though yo
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My employers religious views should not be allowed to impact my healthcare, or my medical choices. End of discussion.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Your employer's religious beliefs don't affect your healthcare or medical decisions unless you ask them to pay for it. Asking someone else to pay for a procedure they find immoral sets a dangerous precendant.
Say the tide turns, and Starbucks is ordered by the federal government, under the penalty of a hefty daily fine of 15 million dollors, to include homosexual recovery therapy in their health insurance coverage for their employees. Does Starbucks have the moral right to refuse to offer that coverage?
The best thing for birth control, I believe, is to make it OTC, instead of requiring a doctor's prescription. Making someone else pay for it doesn't solve the problem.
As for Plan B, is that because the average dose is too weak for women who are heavier? I wonder if the formula can be changed to include women who don't fall under that weight.
Sigh...us fatties always get shafted....
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
They are going to end up paying for something they don't like eventually. Either through taxes to pay for singlepayer or through providing healthcare.
For as long as they exist to make money they can't discriminate based on religious beliefs.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Your employer's religious beliefs don't affect your healthcare or medical decisions unless you ask them to pay for it. Asking someone else to pay for a procedure they find immoral sets a dangerous precendant.
Except it's none of their damn business. My daughter requires a birth control medicine to keep her from having debilitating cramps. Should Hobby Lobby be able to say she can't have that medicine or, possibly worse, should they be able to determine whether or not she can get a certain medicine depending on how she intends to use it?
quote:Say the tide turns, and Starbucks is ordered by the federal government, under the penalty of a hefty daily fine of 15 million dollors, to include homosexual recovery therapy in their health insurance coverage for their employees. Does Starbucks have the moral right to refuse to offer that coverage?
If the medical establishment determines that it's safe & effective and it's voluntary and only available through consultation between the doctor and patient? No.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yet one more reason we need to abandon the unified employment insurance paradigm.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Or the national health care system could make sure that every woman could have access to the type of birth control that best met her health and lifestyle needs, free at the point of access.
Oh wait. Sorry. Can't have that. It would be ridiculous, impossible, and way too much like what plenty of other countries provide their citizens. The US must stay exceptional, after all.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook:
Say the tide turns, and Starbucks is ordered by the federal government, under the penalty of a hefty daily fine of 15 million dollors, to include homosexual recovery therapy in their health insurance coverage for their employees. Does Starbucks have the moral right to refuse to offer that coverage?
As useless and harmful at those particular therapies are, presumably receiving that treatment requires consent of the "patient". It will be news and a problem when the government rounds up gay people and makes 'em go.
Of course, homosexual recovery therapy is well-known not to actually work. Presumably, health insurance only likes paying for things that work.
On the other hand, birth control is something an individual chooses for herself, or it's recommended for treatment of a number of conditions (PCOS, legally required to be joint with accutane, severe menstrual cramps). And it's known to actually work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm wary of going with my instincts on this issue. On the one hand, I'm uncertain about the ethics of abortion or procedures which terminate even seconds-post-conception life. I'm also uncertain about the ethics of restricting such procedures!
But then I'm also wary of government creep on personal-conscience style choices-so I worry about the reality of anyone (not just government) telling private citizens what they must do with respect to their religious beliefs. I'm worried about that even though the trend right now is more or less going my way.
But, I tend to let's just say not be a fan of people who start to lobby and agitate to restrict access to birth control or contraception. I tend to 'not be a fan' of theirs even in light of my uncertainty, so my bias wishes old-fashioned holy rollers would just get with the program as they've spent generations insisting everyone else must do for them. Part of that dislike is focused on what seems to me to be a large amount of ignorance on the part of opponents as to the whole 'birth control isn't just for contraception!' valid argument. Should Hobby Lobby be able to tell Joan Doe her health insurance won't cover medically necessary bc pills because they think Jane Doe wants to avoid or end pregnancy? All of my uncertainties feed into that, but I end up often not liking what I hear when the Hobby Lobbys have to say about why, since it often ends up sounding less about high-minded concern for sanctity of life and closer to (if only relatively speaking) Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm wary of going with my instincts on this issue. On the one hand, I'm uncertain about the ethics of abortion or procedures which terminate even seconds-post-conception life.
I'm not. My understanding is that only 25% of fertilized eggs manage to pull off implantation anyway. Who cares if it's a little more than that 25%? Also, it hasn't even reached the stage where it's a sea monkey from hell with a tail. Monty Python has a song that the people who worry about blastocysts and pharmaceutically slippery uteri might love.
Miscarriages before 12 weeks are also an unfortunately common occurrence. Anecdatally, EVERY single person I told about my sister's miscarriage* responded with one in their immediate family. At this point, it's probably my mother as the only person in the world who hasn't lost a pregnancy. Personally, if we stop obsessing over embryos as people, it will be a lot better for the collective mental health of people trying to conceive.
Hobby Lobby claims they are okay with methods that don't prevent implantation. Barriers are okay. Of course, like many pro-life groups, they claim that certain methods that only prevent ovulation may destroy fertilized eggs.
*Actual baby born last week. I get to see him Friday. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Except it's none of their damn business. My daughter requires a birth control medicine to keep her from having debilitating cramps. Should Hobby Lobby be able to say she can't have that medicine or, possibly worse, should they be able to determine whether or not she can get a certain medicine depending on how she intends to use it?
No, they absolutely should not. That's why health insurance should not come through your employer.
Posted by dansigal (Member # 12661) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: [QB] Your employer's religious beliefs don't affect your healthcare or medical decisions unless you ask them to pay for it.
But they're not paying for it, they are paying for insurance, then the employee is choosing to use that insurance for the contraceptive. How is that different than the employer paying a salary and the employee then choosing to use that salary to pay for contraceptive? It's the same thing, except the latter costs the employee a lot more.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
This isn't an argument about the merits of birth control or gay therapy. I'm personally in favor of birth control and use it myself. I also pay for it myself. And maybe this is just me and my silly issues with being an independent woman, but I'd be insulted if the government made it "free" for me. It's my choice and my responsibility. And you can't have one without the other. I also wish other women would stop the pretense of helplessness when it comes to this issue.
There is a difference between paying someone for a job (who may use that pay for anything they want) and being told by the federal government the type of insurance you must offer your employees, even if that insurance covers procedures you're opposed to.
If Starbucks were forced to offer health insurance with the option for elective gay therapy, and they felt that gay therapy was immoral, would it be okay for the government to force them to carry that insurance anyway?
Posted by dansigal (Member # 12661) on :
Yes. I mean it's a horrible example, because it's such an extreme, being that gay reversion therapy has no medical credibility whatsoever and I know of no insurance that would cover it. But, assuming that wasn't the case, and there was an insurance company out there, and a consenting adult wanted it in their policy, then yes, Starbucks should not be allowed to deny it based on their moral beliefs.
Insurance is just another form of compensation, so I really do not see the moral difference between providing one type of compensation that their employee decides to use for contraceptives vs. providing the other?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
What if we were to look at another extreme?
Let's say a company with a Jehovah's Witness CEO decided they didn't want to provide employer insurance that would cover any surgery or procedure that required a blood transfusion?
Would this still be an argument over whether or not a for-profit company had a right to make medical decisions based on the religious beliefs of a few individuals?
What is a corporation didn't want to cover certain medications because they increased thoughts of suicide, which they consider immoral? Is it up to them to decide whether or not an employee has the right to use such medication under observation from their doctor?
As the joke goes, I'm waiting for a female CEO to step up and declare they will no longer cover Viagra. Its a pretty equivocal comparison especially for woman who take birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with pregnancy prevention. A female classmate in college took Viagra while waiting for a heart transplant.
My doctor put me on Valtrex while trying to lower the active Epstein-Barr virus in my system. Now that was an embarrassing prescription to fill. Thank goodness my employer doesn't get on some high horse about not covering medications for sexually transmitted diseases (you know those loose women deserve it /end sarcasm).
At the end of the day, I really don't want any corporation having the power to cherry-pick what medications or treatments they will cover. I'd rather leave that up to actual medical professionals.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I'm personally in favor of birth control and use it myself. I also pay for it myself. And maybe this is just me and my silly issues with being an independent woman, but I'd be insulted if the government made it "free" for me. It's my choice and my responsibility.
Everything that your body does is your responsibility, excepting injury caused by some other individual.
When your own cells start replicating out of control, will you use insurance to cover your surgery and chemo, or would that be too insulting?
When you're corning in your own mucus because your immune system wasn't up to the task of fighting off some bacteria, are you going to pony up the costs of your hospitalization and treatment out of pocket so that you can be proud of your own independence?
The idea that you're somehow denigrated by having your health insurance cover your health issues is just.... Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes, they should, because it is a therapy that is proscribed, and has NOTHING to do with my job performance.
My employer offers insurance as a way to make sure I want to work for them, They have NO say in my care. That's why I have doctors.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Compromise:
Churches can restrict access to birth control, and in return they lose their not for profit status and have to start paying taxes. That tax money goes into a fund that provides universal birth control for all women.
Really though, I agree with Blackblade that this is just one more sign that employer healthcare is an historical quirk that turned into a monster that needs to being undone. We tend to treat it, in politics and the media as if it's the best idea ever. In truth it's a terrible idea that stifles economic mobility for poorer workers and saddles businesses with ever ballooning costs they have little power to control. It's a beast too big for private companies to tame.
I also agree with dansigal. Healthcare is a form of compensation. Your employer has no right to tell you what you can do with your money. That's the governments job.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Can't all teenagers get birth control from Planned Parenthood anyways?
I think it should be like the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Employees of companies with less than 15 employees are not covered by the act. In my opinion that is how it should be. A company that small is typically run by a single person who has the right to believe and act based on his religion or other beliefs.
Anything larger and laws should be in place protecting the employees.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We are in complete agreement that the whole idea of health care through one's employer is demonstrably broken in yet another way, so.
But as long as luddites keep that system going for us, putting some obligation on the companies in regards to that is fine
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
tertiaryadjunct,
I'm not arguing against health insurance. I'm arguing against the government telling private businesses that they must provide health insurance, and it must be the kind the federal government has approved.
Shanna,
If a company run by Jehovah Witnesses didn't want to offer health insurance that could potentially cover all the random things that freak them out, that's within their right in my opinion. Just as the Jehovah Witness CEO can't tell his receptionist not to spend her paycheck on a blood transfusion, Uncle Sam can't tell Mr. Ceo that he has to pay for health insurance that would cover her blood transfusion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: tertiaryadjunct,
I'm not arguing against health insurance. I'm arguing against the government telling private businesses that they must provide health insurance, and it must be the kind the federal government has approved.
Shanna,
If a company run by Jehovah Witnesses didn't want to offer health insurance that could potentially cover all the random things that freak them out, that's within their right in my opinion. Just as the Jehovah Witness CEO can't tell his receptionist not to spend her paycheck on a blood transfusion, Uncle Sam can't tell Mr. Ceo that he has to pay for health insurance that would cover her blood transfusion.
I don't see a problem with the idea that, while the government cannot force employers to provide health insurance, they can regulate insurance if you choose to do so.
The government does not force anyone to provide insurance. So if they want to provide it, they have to follow the rules.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The government does not force anyone to provide insurance.
I think you'll find that, under Obamacare, it does.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld argue that if the gov't tells you to provide insurance they can also tell you how to provide it, just how they define what exactly is legally allowed to be sold as a "car" in the United States, they can define just what is "insurance".
What if a Car CEO held the DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF that a car MUST NOT have seatbelts? That seatbelts let people drive more recklessly because now they can survive crashes better?
Surely if the government can regular what is allowed to be sold as a car, as medicine, as food, why not health insurance?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The government does not force anyone to provide insurance.
I think you'll find that, under Obamacare, it does.
I suppose that depends on how you view the penalty they impose if you are a larger business and you cancel coverage. You don't have to provide insurance, but if you're larger to an fifty employees, then you have to pay a fine.
Is that really much different than the role companies play in social security or corporate taxes?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I thought of something.
Let us suppose that someone feels that corporations shouldn't have to provide insurance plans that cover whatever that infringes on their 'deeply held religious beliefs'.
Would that someone also agree with said corporation if their solution was to pay in walmart gift cards instead of cash? Because cash can be used to purchase immoral things?
Does that sound right?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The difference is that the corporation has to buy the insurance, which is like buying a mutual fund, but with services instead of stock. And they don't want to buy a mutual fund with stock in a company they find reprehensible. Personally I agree with the consensus that this is just another way our current health-care system sucks. We've forced ourselves into a no-win situation here, and while I think mandating certain things be covered (birth control included) is the best solution, I can't deny that this is at least a partial infringement on the rights of others.
Hobbes Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The problem is the 10th Circuit decision:
quote: V. Merits
A. Hobby Lobby and Mardel Are "Persons Exercising Religion" Under RFRA
RFRA provides, as a general rule, that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(a) (emphasis added). The parties dispute whether for-profit corporations, such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel, are persons exercising religion for purposes of RFRA. We thus turn to the question of whether Hobby Lobby, as a family owned business furthering its religious mission, and Mardel, as a Christian bookstore, can take advantage of RFRA's protections.
The government makes two arguments for why this is not the case. First, it cites to civil rights statutes and labor laws that create an exemption for religious organizations. It then references case law suggesting that non-profit status is an objective criterion for determining whether an entity is a religious organization for purposes of these civil rights statutes and labor laws. The government therefore argues that, as a matter of statutory [**11] interpretation, RFRA should be read to carry forward the supposedly preexisting distinction [*1129] between non-profit, religious corporations and for-profit, secular corporations. Second, the government asserts that the for-profit/non-profit distinction is rooted in the Free Exercise Clause. It suggests Congress did not intend RFRA to expand the scope of the Free Exercise Clause. The government therefore concludes RFRA does not extend to for-profit corporations.
We reject both of these arguments. First, we hold as a matter of statutory interpretation that Congress did not exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA's protections. Such corporations can be "persons" exercising religion for purposes of the statute.[fn5] Second, as a matter of constitutional law, Free Exercise rights may extend to some for-profit organizations.
If this is upheld its opening pandora's box in which a religios for profit is now exempt from labour laws the same way a non profit is.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: The difference is that the corporation has to buy the insurance, which is like buying a mutual fund, but with services instead of stock. And they don't want to buy a mutual fund with stock in a company they find reprehensible. Personally I agree with the consensus that this is just another way our current health-care system sucks. We've forced ourselves into a no-win situation here, and while I think mandating certain things be covered (birth control included) is the best solution, I can't deny that this is at least a partial infringement on the rights of others.
Hobbes
What about Scientology? They won't support paying for mental health services.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
What if the federal government said that employers MUST provide insurance that only has prescription coverage via Wal-Mart stores? Would everyone be okay with that? You can get any meds you need, but you have to visit Wal-Mart to pick them up.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: What if the federal government said that employers MUST provide insurance that only has prescription coverage via Wal-Mart stores? Would everyone be okay with that? You can get any meds you need, but you have to visit Wal-Mart to pick them up.
I don't quite understand. The idea of 'getting paid in giftcards' is bad because its like the return to company script which restricts upwards mobility.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Here's the similarity: the owners of Hobby Lobby feel like the government is compelling them to provide insurance with a restriction that they disagree with on a moral basis.
Some people are morally opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart because it is a large corporation. If the government compelled the employer/employees to do business with a large corporation, some employers would find it morally offensive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
All things that people find morally offensive are not equal.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Some people are morally opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart because it is a large corporation. If the government compelled the employer/employees to do business with a large corporation, some employers would find it morally offensive.
The government already does this routinely, if not directly. The government engages in business with virtually every large corporation, including Walmart. The government compels you to pay taxes and those taxes are used for all of the purposes of government, including dealings with business entities that you may find offensive.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: Shanna,
If a company run by Jehovah Witnesses didn't want to offer health insurance that could potentially cover all the random things that freak them out, that's within their right in my opinion. Just as the Jehovah Witness CEO can't tell his receptionist not to spend her paycheck on a blood transfusion, Uncle Sam can't tell Mr. Ceo that he has to pay for health insurance that would cover her blood transfusion.
Health insurance is another benefit of a job, like a paycheck. Just like the CEO can't tell the receptionist what to do with her paycheck, she shouldn't be able to tell the receptionist what to do with her healthcare.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Here's the similarity: the owners of Hobby Lobby feel like the government is compelling them to provide insurance with a restriction that they disagree with on a moral basis.
Some people are morally opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart because it is a large corporation. If the government compelled the employer/employees to do business with a large corporation, some employers would find it morally offensive.
No, because the original concern is regarding employee compensation so your counter(?) example is a bit of a non-sequitor.
Why would the gov't even have an interest in having insurance only be through 'Walmart' (or some, more realistically speaking, kind of HMO) when it'ld just be cheaper to have the government directly provide it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Here's the similarity: the owners of Hobby Lobby feel like the government is compelling them to provide insurance with a restriction that they disagree with on a moral basis.
Well, darn. If Hobby Lobby was owned by the jehovas witnesses and they pulled the same stunt to say they didn't have to cover emergency blood transfusion because religion, it would be just as asinine a piecemeal justification.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Personally, though, I feel that if you want to incorporate and receive the government benefits of that incorporation, you should also expect to give up some autonomy. By ceding some of the responsibility for the corporation's actions, you also cede some of the rights to control of the corporation's actions. I'm not sure whether this falls in the realm of "things a corporation just needs to suck up if it wants to be a corporation" or not, but I think it probably does. But then, I also don't find birth control morally offensive.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Alternative health care isn't health care, it is religion.
In my opinion this goes back to the arguments of Title VII. Those arguing that employers should not be forced to offer health care that provides birth control because of their personal religious views, would have been in favor of allowing employers to hire and fire based on sex, religion, and race back in the 60s.
Libertarians would be OK with that.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Alternative health care isn't health care, it is religion.
Kind of the point. You would find such a requirement morally wrong on some level, because in your judgement such "healthcare" is not fit for consumption. Probably (projecting here) you feel it's fine if people want to do it, but you shouldn't be forced to subsidize it. And if the government told you you had to provide it to your employees you'd be somewhat outraged. If you further had a belief that performing immoral acts resulted in eternal consequences, your aversion would likely be significantly heightened. Hence, Hobby Lobby.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Alternative health care isn't health care, it is religion.
Kind of the point. You would find such a requirement morally wrong on some level, because in your judgement such "healthcare" is not fit for consumption. Probably (projecting here) you feel it's fine if people want to do it, but you shouldn't be forced to subsidize it. And if the government told you you had to provide it to your employees you'd be somewhat outraged. If you further had a belief that performing immoral acts resulted in eternal consequences, your aversion would likely be significantly heightened. Hence, Hobby Lobby.
The problem with alternative medicine is that it doesn't work. If faith healers' work could be shown to produce outcomes significantly better than placebo, than that would be a whole different story.
Requiring things to pass a double blind study is independent of religion.
No one on either side believes that birth control pills don't do their job (weight thing aside).
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Kind of the point. You would find such a requirement morally wrong on some level, because in your judgement such "healthcare" is not fit for consumption. Probably (projecting here) you feel it's fine if people want to do it, but you shouldn't be forced to subsidize it. And if the government told you you had to provide it to your employees you'd be somewhat outraged. If you further had a belief that performing immoral acts resulted in eternal consequences, your aversion would likely be significantly heightened. Hence, Hobby Lobby.
So then let us just repeal Title VII. Any employer can make any and all employment decisions based solely on their imaginary friends in the sky.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Stephan, I think you're pretty uncharitable there.
Senoj, I quite agree with your second paragraph. Since the whole point of incorporating (particularly as a for-profit) is to limit personal liability, then it seems like you ought to expect limited personal direction, particularly in non-business decisions.
I could see a (weak to me) argument if the addition of the birth control requirement was onerous from a business profitability standpoint.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote: Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., the first federal court to consider the issue of employer’s duty under Title VII to provide contraceptive coverage after the EEOC ruling, held that an employer offering otherwise comprehensive health insurance to its employees, but failing to cover prescription contraceptives, was in violation of Title VII. The court found that women disproportionately bear the “adverse economic and social consequences of unintended pregnancies,” rendering the defendant’s exclusion of prescription contraceptives from the health plan while including a range of other preventive drugs discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. There has been limited case law directly addressing the issue ever since, with the majority of cases finding that the exclusion of contraception from an otherwise comprehensive health insurance plan that includes preventive services constitutes impermissible sex discrimination.
In Cooley v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 281 F.Supp.2d 979 (E.D. Mo. 2003), the court held that the exclusion of prescription contraceptives from the employee insurance plan, while “seemingly neutral” placed a burden on women since only they have the capacity to become pregnant and the only prescription contraceptives available were for women. In Mauldin v. Wal-Mart, 89 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1600, 2002 WL 2022334 (N.D. Ga. 2002), the court certified the plaintiff class of women who use contraceptives and cited Erickson favorably. The case ultimately settled with the provision of contraceptives to Wal-Mart employees.
If the supreme court rules in Hobby Lobby's favor, Title VII itself could be overturned.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I could see a (weak to me) argument if the addition of the birth control requirement was onerous from a business profitability standpoint.
I am not going to hunt down descriptions of people who stop taking bc when they lose insurance, or because money is tight, even the copay is too much, but this isn't uncommon, and it's been mentioned at least once on Hatrack.
It saves massive amounts of money for everyone involved, simply due to the externalities of having a baby.
One uncomplicated vaginal birth costs $10,000, plus the additional money for prenatal care, and having the child on insurance for 26 years. Add in the cost of maternity care, whatever meager leave Hobby Lobby gives, or the cost to the company of training additional employees.
Roughly 50% of pregnancies in the US are unplanned.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
theamazereeaz, birth control is actually really affordable. What isn't affordable to some is the cost of going to the doctor, getting the required examinations, and getting a prescription for birth control.
Why are we fighting--not for affordable, easy-to-access birth control--but for Hobby Lobby to have to provide health insurance that covers birth control?
Unless, of course, the object has more to do with forcing Hobby Lobby to update its moral principals to match that of the current culture than actually making birth control widely accessible.
(Edited to fix a grammatical mistake)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Unless, of course, the object has more to do with forcing Hobby Lobby to update its moral principals to match that of the current culture than actually making birth control widely accessible.
The object has to do with what fight is easier and more expedient. I would absolutely like to see birth control available over the counter. And until that is available and while employers are the means by which people obtain healthcare they should not be able to cite religious reasons for not providing comprehensive healthcare services.
It's like the whole "let's just get government out of marriage" SSM position. Yes, let's do that. But until that happens, the government-recognized institution of marriage should not be discriminatory.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Birth control *is* available over the counter. Condoms are easy to get. In fact, Planned Parenthood will give them to you for free. So will lots of other organizations.
And condoms aren't the only choice available to everyone.
It's true that not ALL forms of birth control are available OTC, but that's not what you said.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Re: Hobby Lobby, I thought this was a great response:
quote: I will refrain from asking where Hobby Lobby gets the nerve to claim ‘conscience’ when their shelves are full of products from countries with appalling labor laws. I won’t even ask which version of the bible they’re reading where Matthew 25.36 reads “I was sick and you sued not to cover my medical care.”
Instead, I want to know exactly where they’re getting the idea that conscience protections are a consequence-free exemption from legal obligations.
During World War II, men who refused conscription for reasons of conscience didn’t get to go back to their normal lives. They were conscripted instead for difficult, dangerous jobs. They served as forest fire fighters (including smoke jumpers), psych ward orderlies, and subjects in medical testing.
That program formed the basis of the Alternative Service Program used during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If a draft were called tomorrow, the Alternative Service Program would start right back up again.
And Alternative Service applies to work that people are required to actually carry out themselves, not to things they’re only required to pay for.
Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government. I tell myself that I’m paying for roads and schools; food for hungry families and head start programs.
I am, of course. But I’m also paying for Guantanamo Bay.
I’m paying for two wars, and for racist immigration laws.
I’m paying for drone strikes, including those that kill and maim children.
I’m paying for federal executions, and for lawyers to argue that the government is not obligated to provide comprehensive medical care to Chelsea Manning.
I’m paying for the prison industrial complex.
All of those things violate my religious beliefs.
And if I refused to pay my taxes because of that? I would go to jail.
There are Quakers whose consciences really won’t permit them to pay federal taxes. Many of them manage that by making sure they don’t make enough money to incur tax liability. They live on far less than they could earn if they were willing to pay taxes, but they’re willing to make that sacrifice, because their conscience demands it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dustin, although I don't think that argument goes as far as you think it does (since I disagree, that's to be expected) it doesn't do anything for the problem of women's health concerns that are treated with birth control that's not prescribed for the purposes of birth control.
Do these women get swept up along with the morally objectionable types who will spend Hobby Lobby's money (which if paid to the employees directly, isn't and no kne thanks twice but paid in the form of health care...)?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: .... Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government <for stuff I don't like>.
If this were about the government providing birth control, than I could see this as being parallel. But it's about the government compelling someone else to provide birth control, which is quite a different issue.
The Alternative Services question is more parallel. If the law were written in such a way that the fines Hobby Lobby paid for not providing Health Insurance with a birth control option were similar to the extra cost they would face with the birth control option, then I think it would be more parallel still. However, the fines on companies that don't meet every regulation, including the one about birth control, are far more financially burdensome. It would be like saying that, rather than serving in the Armed Forces for two years, conscientious objectors can choose to serve in the Alternative Service for a hundred. That doesn't strike me as realistically respecting individual conscience.
But, again, what I really think the case is about is whether corporations have a right to conscience at all. Arguments about individual rights are only appropriate if you grant that those individual rights ought to vest in the corporations those individuals are responsible for running. In general that isn't the case, and if the court finds that it is the case with respect to free exercise of conscience, that would signal a significant practical expansion of corporations' rights.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: it doesn't do anything for the problem of women's health concerns that are treated with birth control that's not prescribed for the purposes of birth control.
This argument as mis-direction in a larger moral tug-of-war. If that's really the issue there are a number of ways to ensure that those women who need hormonal contraceptives for non-birth control reasons can have access to it, even while employed by businesses such as Hobby Lobby.
And is Hobby Lobby against any and all forms of birth control? If not, and employees are provided coverage for other means of family planning, then I don't see this as a terribly difficult problem to solve.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This argument as mis-direction in a larger moral tug-of-war. If that's really the issue there are a number of ways to ensure that those women who need hormonal contraceptives for non-birth control reasons can have access to it, even while employed by businesses such as Hobby Lobby.
Such as? Because the only way I can think of involves requiring women to pass a morality test interfacing them, their doctors, and their employers in whether or not it'll be covered. All for the sake of Hobby Lobby's flexibly Christian conscience as referenced above. Somewhat related, but boy howdy do I love when religious conservatives flex their conscience when it comes to what women are or aren't, should or shouldn't be doing. No notion of men being required to promise they won't use their wage for condoms, vasectomies, Viagra (the latter two of which I don't know are coveted by their insurance). But wait, women getting BC *without* the single extra layer of buffer of 'we pay them, then they buy this' versus 'we pay them in insurance, which may be used for this'. No! A bridge too far.
quote: And is Hobby Lobby against any and all forms of birth control? If not, and employees are provided coverage for other means of family planning, then I don't see this as a terribly difficult problem to solve.
That's quite true, but if they aren't against other forms...what's the beef here?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: .... Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government <for stuff I don't like>.
If this were about the government providing birth control, than I could see this as being parallel. But it's about the government compelling ***someone else*** to provide birth control, which is quite a different issue.
Emphasis mine. I think that's the crux. I don't think it is someone, but rather something.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Such as? Because the only way I can think of involves requiring women to pass a morality test interfacing them, their doctors, and their employers in whether or not it'll be covered.
...
That's quite true, but if they aren't against other forms...what's the beef here?
To begin with, it's my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object to hormonal birth control (the pill) or true contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms. They take issue with post-conception forms of birth control like the morning-after pill and IUDs. Are the forms of BC to which Hobby Lobby objects being used to treat the medical conditions you referred to earlier?
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: To begin with, it's my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object to hormonal birth control (the pill) or true contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms. They take issue with post-conception forms of birth control like the morning-after pill and IUDs.
The morning-after pill IS hormonal birth control, and neither the morning-after pill nor IUDs are "post-conception" birth control. They prevent ovulation and/or fertilization of the egg.
Post-conception birth control (aka "the abortion pill") like RU486, is not required to be covered.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: .... Every year, I pay taxes to the United States government <for stuff I don't like>.
If this were about the government providing birth control, than I could see this as being parallel. But it's about the government compelling ***someone else*** to provide birth control, which is quite a different issue.
Emphasis mine. I think that's the crux. I don't think it is someone, but rather something.
Exactly. That's what I was trying to elucidate in my third paragraph above. If this were a question of an individual being compelled to provide birth control contrary to personal conscience (say Foster Friess* being forced to provide it to his personal driver), from what I understand that would be clearly illegal due to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (assuming the RFRA itself isn't unconstitutional). The question is whether the same holds for corporations.
*I don't know if Foster Friess actually has a moral objection to birth control, or if he has a personal driver. He's just the best example I could come up who was both socially conservative and rich enough to potentially have personal employees.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: To begin with, it's my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object to hormonal birth control (the pill) or true contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms. They take issue with post-conception forms of birth control like the morning-after pill and IUDs.
The morning-after pill IS hormonal birth control, and neither the morning-after pill nor IUDs are "post-conception" birth control. They prevent ovulation and/or fertilization of the egg.
Post-conception birth control (aka "the abortion pill") like RU486, is not required to be covered.
I know. I grouped the methods according to objectionable/non-objectionable, not strictly by mechanism. I used hormonal birth control to mean the common COC pill. It's my fault for not being more clear.
Regarding your second point, after further research I found that you are mostly correct. It seems most research concludes that the morning-after pill delays ovulation but according to the Plan B website, it may also work "by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)." And according to WebMD, hormonal IUDs can prevent implantation (and are thus objectionable). I gather that Hobby Lobby refuses to provide coverage for these types of birth control because they might act by stopping implantation, not because they always do.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Prevention of implantation is a potential side-effect with IUDs, but should be rare (given that when used correctly it should generally prevent fertilization to begin with).
There are a myriad drugs where miscarriage is a potential side-effect. Hell, there are plenty of drugs where the death of the patient is a potential side effect. Those are issues to be examined on an individual case-by-case basis by doctor and/or patient, not by the patient's employer.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Isn't it cheaper for the insurance companies to provide contraception than to provide maternity benefits? If the contraception isn't coming from your insurance won't there be an increase in maternity costs which means that the costs of insurance that includes contraception should be less than the cost of the same insurance without contraception.
So isn't Hobby Lobby saying, "How dare the government force me to save money by allowing my employees to use contraception if they choose."
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Because it isn't and has never been about preventing abortion, but punishing women for sex.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Because it isn't and has never been about preventing abortion, but punishing women for sex.
ETA: Feel free to back up your claim with some evidence and logic.
(I removed my original comment due to its disparaging nature.)
[ December 10, 2013, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: capaxinfiniti ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Because it isn't and has never been about preventing abortion, but punishing women for sex.
It's amazing you believe bullshit like this, let alone post it and thus broadcast your self-delusion.
ETA: Feel free to back up your claim with some evidence and logic.
Well, the Catholic church believes that all sex that is not intended to result in the conception of a child is a Sin. As they told us in a very special CCD session. Thus, birth control is also a sin. Because Sex is only okay if you are getting pregnant from it. FYI, 98% of Catholics have admitted to having sex with some form of birth control.
About 50% of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. A very large percentage of that didn't even bother with birth control AT ALL. Some of these people do get abortions.
Face it, humans are animals, and asking animals to keep their legs closed isn't going to happen anytime soon. Some will abstain if you tell them sex is bad, but
If it were truly about preventing abortions, birth control would be near-universal as soon as a girl hits menarche. Not to encourage young sex, but to prevent abortion in the case of rape. And sex on purpose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Elison's claim is, it should come as little surprise, sweeping and absurd in its overreach, capax.
That said, though, surely you'll acknowledge that there is a substantial element (though I would hesitate before saying 'primary' much less the only) of 'disincentivize 'adulterous' sex, with a strong focus on women that isn't only because of biology, right?
Because if not...well, the post immediately beneath yours addresses that pretty handily. So while it's not nearly as much of an overreach to claim Elison's statement is without logic or evidence, it is still an overreach, right?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Because it isn't and has never been about preventing abortion, but punishing women for sex.
ETA: Feel free to back up your claim with some evidence and logic.
(I removed my original comment due to its disparaging nature.)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)