Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby...

WHOOOSSSH

the sound of the point of this ruling/thread going WAAY over your head.

It wasn't a comment about the thread it was about her comment that somehow not providing free contraception for some individuals somehow violates their rights.

Because we have an employer-based health care system.

So should all companies also be required to provide insurance for abortion, assisted suicide, boob jobs, sex changes, etc. Employer based health care has always had a range of things that it did and did not provide. Simply because it's employer based doesn't mean that a persons rights are somehow being trampled upon simply because they don't get a specific thing covered. Hell birth control isn't even healthcare. It doesn't fix anything. It doesn't heal, in fact by definition, accurately it should be called anti-healthcare. It takes a perfectly normal working bodily system and it causes it to work in a way that isn't normal. Doesn't sound like it should be covered simply on definition.

Uh you are wrong. In the US...the working class is the middle class.

this has absolutely nothing to do with religion, this is a proxy by the right in chipping away at the Affordable Care Act

Crony Capitalism grrr

So again I ask you, If an employer has a moral obligation to smoking, than they should be able to deny coverage for cancer?

You do know how Insurance works right?

Even if you get insurance through an employer, you are still paying for part of the Premium.

At no point is it "Free"

Birth control isn't even healthcare? In all seriousness that might be the most ridiculous arrangement of words in a sentence that I've ever seen. Never mind the array of health benefits that certain birth control methods provide, and never mind the various health benefits of engaging in sexual intercourse, but birth control means something much more fundamental to women, that being an unprecedented freedom from the animal cycle that is fertility.

This is the common sense approach to the issue, but we all know that Washington DC doesn't have much of that, just like we all know that Christians in the U.S. love to say they're persecuted.

Seriously, anyone on this^

He's Catholic.

Don't bother m8

So religous people can impose on other people's rights and medical health... That's always nice

Yes, I just have no desire to discuss it with that people on this site, so I am not going to.

The government with an opinion on something religious? Wut?

The owners of Hobby Lobby aren't catholic. They support all birth controls except those that abort a fertilized egg.

Holy quotes Batman!

lol

Catholicism, where splitting the red sea is the only biblically approved form of birth control

So why can companies deny women contraception?

I'm proud that the Church takes a stand against birth control. You definitely don't agree and no internet forum is going to change that. There's a higher beauty in sex and nature and the church tries to maintain that. If you want to know why the Church opposes birth control read Theology of the Body, it's quite extensive. It most likely won't change your mind but it will give you an understanding as to why some Catholics fight for it so fundamentally.

So the Supreme Court says that employers can opt out of the contraception coverage due to religious reasons... while this is a valid and otherwise acceptable reason for the unconstitutionality of that section of Obamacare, if not the entire law itself. The thing I question is: how is birth control even remotely related to healthcare or expanding coverage to those uninsured? I'd imagine that with contraception being so unrelated to even lowly preventative healthcare plans that employers should even have to provide contraception coverage at all.

@AmazonTreeBoa: I doubt you have any deep views given your unwillingness to engage anyone on them

According to the ruling they can, what about vaccines, blood transfusions, etc? Several religions might have something to say about that

Calling birth control medication is a perversion of the term medication. Medication implies that it is necessary to eliminate or diminish a medical condition. Pregnancy isn't a medical condition and if anything birth control is an optional supplement.

Some women actually need it because it helps them medically, just because you don't get that means you should be able to deny them

Yeah, nothing more beautiful than father McCarthy molesting little Jimmy then having the entire organization covering it up.

Why the hell would anyone listen to what a bunch of virgin men have to say about sex?

But why should someone with no scientific evidence or even logic be able to say what he is willing to pay for. It's absurd.

Okay, then it applies for those women who may have medical conditions that require birth control but for those that do not have a condition that necessitates the use of birth control are not qualified for the supplemental pills.

Anyway, if employers do have religious reasons for not wanting to cover birth control, what's stopping the employees who "need" these pills from working somewhere else that offers insurance plans that cover birth control? It's a free market economy, nothing is keeping these women at these jobs or buying the product themselves.

Really that's where you want to take it? Pathetic.

What's pathetic about it? The Catholic Church is run by a bunch of virgins who have systematically covered up the abuse of young boys for ages. If these are the type of men you want to take sex advice from, well its speaks volumes about you.

Statistically church is one of the safest place for children, not only catholic churches but any church. A majority of sexual abuse occurs within households, by NON-virgin parents. Not to mention the sexual abuse in schools, scouts, and hospitals. To abandon one's beliefs because of the horrendous mistakes of a few is idiotic. I still go to hospitals, I was still a boy scout and I still trust the things I was taught in school despite the fact that these places have also statistically been havens of sexual abusers. Never once have I taken sexual advice from a pedophile or from someone who protected pedophiles. If you don't want to focus on the beliefs and issues fine, but take your personal completely off topic attacks elsewhere because it's pathetic.

"There's a higher beauty in sex and nature and the church tries to maintain that".

Well it certainly seems like you're taking their word on what sex SHOULD be. You're essentially telling me the Catholic Church is an authority on sex. Keep in mind that they're forming their opinions on the matter with out ever have engaged in the act and quoting a book written thousands of years ago by sheep herders.

And if you seriously think that the Catholic Church isn't filled with members who have engaged or helped protect pedophiles, then you're even more delusional than I thought. Again we're talking about doctrine from the top down.

Folly logic, what if they can't get work anywhere else? In this economy it isn't exactlt booming with work. Not everyone has the luxury of switching work because of kids, geography, etc. It's a fucking stupid ruling. You're basicly putting religion over freedom/free spech

1) You are assuming that the bishops and teaching authority of the Church come up with their views on sex without consulting anyone. Of course they work in tandem with people who have had sex, with laity, and with doctors who know far more on the subject then they ever will. You make it sound like there's a bunch of virgins sitting in a room coming up with rules about sex. It's has never been that way and it isn't that way. It's a bunch of beliefs that have evolved and grown throughout the centuries via the input of thousands of individuals not only virgin bishops. Let's also not forget that not all priests, bishops and theologians are virgins or unmarried. I personally know 2 married catholic priests and several married deacons. In the east basically every Catholic priest is married.

2) I know probably a thousand people that are Catholic and none of them engage in or help protect pedophiles. Are there individuals in the Church who have at one time either engaged in or helped protect those who are pedophiles, absolutely and it's a horrible travesty, I never claimed the contrary. Is the Church filled with them, hardly. It's a very small segment of the Church and it's one that has been mostly eradicated thank god. Let us hope individuals and groups within the church continue to combat these people and protect children. On that at least I hope we can agree.

There's nothing keeping the women from buying the pills themselves.

And whatever the discussion is about the catholic church going on in this thread enough. It's not relevant.

methods like plan b do not kill a fertilized egg. they help prevent implantation. w/o implantation the woman is not pregnant. if the woman is not pregnant "abortion" cannot occur so this whole thing ends up being ridiculous anyway even on a pseudo-religious-scientific basis.

No it doesn't bar them from getting birth control, it just limits their access. I'm sure Hobby Lobby pays their staff minimum wage. Without healthcare or copay or some other form of support, uninsured birth control pills can cost $50 a MONTH. If you're working full time at $8 an hour, that's a lot, and it's every month (which could be the line between getting welfare and staying afloat, if we're being honest). There are free condoms available pretty much everywhere, but all types of hormonal birth control are still extremely expensive.

If you're going to say why should a company pay for birth control, then why not say why pay for viagra, why pay for cancer medication, why pay for anything, really? What makes anything good enough to have your health plan pay for it?

And actually, you're completely wrong about what birth control does. Birth control pills, the patch, etc. contain hormones that do more than just prevent pregnancy. They're also used to treat certain kinds of illnesses like PCOS and endometriosis or cysts by regulating hormones, regulate heavy or extremely debilitating periods, help with acne, normalize irregular periods, and a host of other things. It's not always simply contraception, there are multiple uses for it. You are completely fucking incorrect and ignorant on the uses of birth control outside of pregnancy prevention.

How much sense does it really make if a company is allowed to exclude birth control from things they pay for simply because of ONE of its' uses and completely ignore all the other valid uses for it, because "nonononono jesus says..."?

This video pretty much sums up why this is bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20w0C2fZ874

I agree with all your other points except for the highlight. Some forms of Birth Control can be expensive, but it can also be as little as $10 a month depending on brandname v generic and whether it is Monophase or Triphase.

But let's ignore the fact that over 60% of women prescribed Birth Control take it to regulate erratic and potentially dangerous Cycles, not to mention to control Endometriosis and other female reproductive ailments, rather than simply as a controceptive.

Which brings me to the question.

What is more Fiscally Responsible, Paying $10-$50 a month for birth control, or paying for the healthcare of a child born from an unplanned pregnancy for 18 years, which can range as high as the hundreds of thousands?

Well you have an opinion. Good for you.

You be an adult and use google you lazy ass.