Employers allowed to refuse birth control insurance, says Supreme Court

[TheUnknown]

. . . if those businesses are run by a small group of people, like Hobby Lobby.

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-cant-employers-cover-contraception-141923713--finance.html

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices' 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.

And the comments are just precious:

If you employ someone then insurance is part of their compensation, you as an employer shouldn't be able to decide what coverage they get. Employees should be able to opt in or out of whatever coverage they want and if they want abortion solutions to be covered then that's their choice.

The company is their property. Not yours. So I should be able to tell you what you can and cannot do with your property. That is what you said. See you do not get it. It is your choice if you want to work their or not. If you do not like it. go someplace else.

You have to have the woman to have intercourse in the first place. Takes two to tango. It is called be responsible in the first place and don't have intercourse. That is being responsible. Meanwhile I get a big laugh out of you as you put down males who make such a Statement and say they are low lifes . Your arguing to be just like them. LMAO. You want others to pay for you to have sex. No Responsibility on your part. Gotta Love your argument.

Not "exactly" the same at all. Artificial birth control is available over the counter, without a prescription, and provided free of charge at various clinics. Women who don't get it for free from their employers can buy it directly, or they can buy a policy that covers all forms of artificial birth control. The ruling, therefore, causes inconvenience but not harm. Blood transfusions are life saving, medically necessary, and can only be administerd by a licensed professional in a medical facility. Withholding a blood transfusion would cause actual harm.

You don't know how birth control works, do you?

Yes, and people then have the choice to refuse to work for them, see how that works?

Where are these people living where the economy isn't shit and people aren't scraping the bottom of the barrel for work?

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm conflicted on how big a deal this is.  On one hand, analysts say most working women won't be affected.  On the other, this sets a dangerous precedent.

[I am lizard]

I'm conflicted on how big a deal this is.  On one hand, analysts say most working women won't be affected.  On the other, this sets a dangerous precedent.

So? there would still be lots of women who would be affected, primarily lower class women.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm conflicted on how big a deal this is.  On one hand, analysts say most working women won't be affected.  On the other, this sets a dangerous precedent.

So? there would still be lots of women who would be affected, primarily lower class women.

I never said it wasn't a problem.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Old Viking]

What is at issue financially?  Perhaps another way to ask it is, what does birth control coverage include, and at what cost?  Are we talking prophylactics, physical barriers, pills?  Would the expense per year be a problem for some women?  I've been wondering all along what the fuss is about.

[I am lizard]

I'm conflicted on how big a deal this is.  On one hand, analysts say most working women won't be affected.  On the other, this sets a dangerous precedent.

So? there would still be lots of women who would be affected, primarily lower class women.

I never said it wasn't a problem.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh, when you stated most women won't be affected it sounded like you were saying that you weren't worried about that aspect.
Sorry for assuming.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm conflicted on how big a deal this is.  On one hand, analysts say most working women won't be affected.  On the other, this sets a dangerous precedent.

So? there would still be lots of women who would be affected, primarily lower class women.

I never said it wasn't a problem.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh, when you stated most women won't be affected it sounded like you were saying that you weren't worried about that aspect.
Sorry for assuming.

It's okay.

[Ironchew]

Well, fuck. So the SCOTUS is saying employers can force their individual religious mandates on employees? In a corporation like Hobby Lobby it's not the employer's responsibility to provide insurance -- it's the corporation's. Strange that employers want to be responsible as individuals here, but with liabilities they prefer to deflect responsibility to the organization as a whole (can we sue individual shareholders in a corporation yet?) They can't have it both ways.

[TheUnknown]

What is at issue financially?  Perhaps another way to ask it is, what does birth control coverage include, and at what cost?  Are we talking prophylactics, physical barriers, pills?  Would the expense per year be a problem for some women?  I've been wondering all along what the fuss is about.

I'm not sure of all the details, but I do know that when it comes to pills, women in general can't just grab over-the-counter pills and call it a day; the effects of the pill vary depending on the body of each specific woman, so if you want to have the most effective birth control possible, you'll probably need to see a doctor to get a specific medication prescribed.  And that's not even going into those who need the pill for medical conditions.  And as the article points out, one of the most effective birth control devices available right now can run up to $1000.  Female birth control, if you want something that's actually effective, can get expensive.

[Meshakhad]

Well, fuck. So the SCOTUS is saying employers can force their individual religious mandates on employees? In a corporation like Hobby Lobby it's not the employer's responsibility to provide insurance -- it's the corporation's. Strange that employers want to be responsible as individuals here, but with liabilities they prefer to deflect responsibility to the organization as a whole (can we sue individual shareholders in a corporation yet?) They can't have it both ways.

I'm confused. What is the difference between the employer and the corporation?

[Ironchew]

Well, fuck. So the SCOTUS is saying employers can force their individual religious mandates on employees? In a corporation like Hobby Lobby it's not the employer's responsibility to provide insurance -- it's the corporation's. Strange that employers want to be responsible as individuals here, but with liabilities they prefer to deflect responsibility to the organization as a whole (can we sue individual shareholders in a corporation yet?) They can't have it both ways.

I'm confused. What is the difference between the employer and the corporation?

Perhaps "owner" or "shareholder" was a less ambiguous term. I meant individuals versus the "corporate individual" nonsense.

[Meshakhad]

Well, fuck. So the SCOTUS is saying employers can force their individual religious mandates on employees? In a corporation like Hobby Lobby it's not the employer's responsibility to provide insurance -- it's the corporation's. Strange that employers want to be responsible as individuals here, but with liabilities they prefer to deflect responsibility to the organization as a whole (can we sue individual shareholders in a corporation yet?) They can't have it both ways.

I'm confused. What is the difference between the employer and the corporation?

Perhaps "owner" or "shareholder" was a less ambiguous term. I meant individuals versus the "corporate individual" nonsense.

Ah. Well, I believe the ruling is written to only apply to corporations that are majority owned by an individual or family.

[Id82]

Whos to say it will start there though? This is probably a slippery slope argument, but whos to say that it can't escalate to bigger owned corporations?

[Cloud3514]

At this point, I'd EXPECT it to escalate. Hobby Lobby's already a pretty big company with 23,000 employees, so it sets a precedent.

[ironbite]

Oh I can't wait for a company that's primarily controlled by Jehovah's Witnesses denying an employee life-saving medical treatment because part of the treatment involves blood transfusions, citing this case, and having it all blow up in their faces.

Ironbite-I can't wait!