I honestly can't imagine it getting to "we don't provide trichinosis treatment because it's against our religion." It may end up as an open can of worms, but it's one I'm confident we can shut if it gets that far. And I was not aware Viagra was also provided. That's just ridiculous IMO. I as a company official would not want to be forced to include that either.
So saying that there are other uses to Viagra, ergo, it should be covered isn't hypocritical? Also, I would rather pay for someone who wants to have safe sexual habits and have them covered on insurance, than to have them uninsured and not have those things. The government has inherent power and can use it to protect individuals if they feel it's necessary to do so. Making sure a company insures their employees is an example of that. ---------- Post added 30th Jun 2014 at 01:34 PM ---------- The only thing stronger than a SCOTUS ruling is a Constitutional Amendment.
Yes, but that doesn't mean companies won't suffer in public relations if they abuse such a ruling. Unless it's something like Wal-Mart or Monsanto, because apparently they do what they want with little care for the backlash.
98%? I highly doubt it. I've gone in there and while they had a couple Christian-themed decorations (and I mean like one endcap's worth), most of it was regular arts and crafts stuff. They must pull in a more diverse clientele at least depending on location. Not to mention I don't think pulling birth control is unreasonable anyway.
Do you not realize what you're saying? These corporations can now just say, "It's against our religion for you to use birth control." You have to conform to their religious beliefs. That's not "religious freedom," that's religious oppression.
I realize they have not said that, but instead can now not pay for something they shouldn't be forced to pay for. Maybe I'm seeing it too practically instead of in light of the religious freedom argument, but in this particular case, calling it "oppression" is insane. Don't get me wrong; I'm for real freedom as much as can be. In this case, Hobby Lobby gained some and the people have not lost a freedom because of it, but a perhaps unjustified benefit. BryanM, I didn't pay attention to the music, so I've no reason to doubt you there. That sucks >.<
They're not even being forced to pay for it. They provided health insurance in the first place, and all the law did was say that all insurance plans have to cover birth control at zero co-pay. They weren't being directly forced to buy anything. Their main thing was the disproven idea that somehow a contraceptive that prevents pregnancy is magically an "abortion pill." That's the problem with this idiocy.
A bunch of you have just outright ignored my last post, claiming that 'at least viagra has other uses' and 'birth control is not a necessity'. No. Just no. I'm going to repeat myself: Half the women using birth control don't use it to avoid getting pregnant but actually use it for medical reasons such as period regulation, pain reduction, and hormone control (among many many others) that affect their daily lives. And I can't help but see that the majority of people in this thread that are saying that birth control isn't needed / shouldn't be paid for are all by men. Unless you grow a womb, have unpredictable and often heavy and painful periods, or PMS even when you're not on your period because your hormones are way out of wack, you have no say in whether or not a woman should be taking these pills. Taxes used shouldn't just cater to men and what they need but also women. And if the women use it for safe sex, then good for them. That's their business, not yours.
It's this kind of "all-or-nothing" mentality that I really dislike about politics. The alternative is not great, but including things with other things leads to lots of problems. And if the Hobby Lobby suit was brought about because they think of birth control as "abortion pills" then that is idiocy. I don't disagree with you here. However, as long as bc pills are marketed as such and not primarily intended as medicine for period/hormone regulation, I must tentatively stand by my opinion. If sex lube had a side effect of improving lung function in asthmatics, they shouldn't continue to sell it with the general public opinion that it's not super important.
So your basically saying since it's marketed as primarily used for birth control, even very well knowing that it helps just as many people for other medical reasons, you will not support it even for their sake? That sounds incredibly biased. And you do know that the women who use it have no say in how it's marketed, right? Don't punish them for how others decide to spread incomplete, if not false, information.
Let's sit back and watch this blow up in their faces. It's great to know people can tell people they can't get married or eat in locations on the grounds of religion--now you can't get medication. Welcome to good ol' redneck America; where we love the Bible and guns more than we care about women and minorities.
That's the only reason that the anti-abortion crowd was involved. Pro-lifers think that the Pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting "ENDING A HUMAN LIFE BEFORE IT EVER HAD A CHANCE!!!!!!" Not true. The pill uses hormones to trick the body into thinking it's pregnant and so therefore, she doesn't ovulate and in simpler terms for our younger readers, her body does not release another egg. If there's no egg, than pregnancy is impossible. So because the pill is in their world an "abortifacient contraceptive" (whatever that means) it's an "abortion pill" and against their religion and so they brought this suit and here we are.
I do know the latter, but there's a chance for a can to open up the other way in that anybody can use anything and claim it's for medical purposes. I understand that birth control's benefits are well-known, but as long as it is seen as "abortion pills" and not much needed treatment for menstrual effects, nothing's going to change.
And the best part (sarcasm) is, nobody is telling Hobby Lobby you have to buy your employees BC pills...it's insane to me and I don't care if this is seen as an 'extreme' position but it's just further assault on women Viagra...no problem BC...problem We aren't asking Hobby Lobby to hand out BC pills to people, it's just a request that it be covered. 1. It CAN and IS used by many women for serious health reasons. My partner included. Yes we have sex but our actual form of BC was my snippy snippy...which btw my insurance paid for...(see the problem here folks?) but the BC she takes is for her intense, frequent and painful period problems 2. Even if it WAS for sex in the majority of the cases, why can we cover Viagra and vasectomies which (guess what!) are for sex! I mean I had my vasectomy, and short of protecting myself from diseases, I can have sex all day long and never worry about pregnancy. This is totally ok but when a woman wants BC...for whatever reason...it's out of their beliefs. It's pathetic....100% pathetic...
So now you're saying that since other people see them as 'abortion pills' that's how you'd prefer to see them? Even though I have repeatedly said, and it's been repeatedly proven, that about half the women use birth control for pregnancy prevention? Regardless if it's for medical purposes or not, it isn't your business. You may not like those women who use it in such a way, but you should certainly not brush all the other women under the rug simply because other people say they don't exist or that there are few and far between, which is completely false. And regardless if you disapprove of the women who use birth control for it's originally intended purpose, you still have no right to say that they can't get it for free- it's not your body that's being affected by the birth control, it's theirs. Just because the media and politicians see birth control one way doesn't mean you should follow suit and do the same. You know the facts, you just stated you did, and yet you're basing your decision on views that you know are lacking knowledge on birth control. Your decision is by no means anywhere near logical.
There are a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic in there about me; I'm not immune either (heaven knows I don't have all the facts ) but I'd ask that you don't make straw man arguments please. My own view of bc is almost negligible-- you said right up there that males aren't nearly so affected by any decision on the issue. However, this part-- "you still have no right to say that they can't get it for free-" shows a much bigger philosophical divide. I don't expect to get things for free, and while it would be nice to have free health services, there is no such thing. Others shouldn't feel that it is a right either. And I didn't mean to imply that I agree with the media and politicians, both of which are grotesque and terrible distortions of the groups they represent. I just meant to say that if people's misunderstanding of their use continues to be accepted, we'll have more goofy legal battles like this one rather than everyone tacitly agreeing that women deserve equal attention to their health that men get. At the risk of this sort of debate getting out of hand, I would not support the idea that corporations as a whole have religious rights. I hope that doesn't simplify it too much, but that would mean I am against the ruling in principle.
