Aren't the discriminating by forcing their heathen non-beliefs on the business owner?
No one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives. They would have just been available to everyone who wants to use them. You know, equally available. For an individual woman and her doctor to decide upon. Personally.
I truly don't understand the whole scope of the SCOTUS decision, and how the tax structure of a company makes it closely held. However, here is my biggest concern. The medical classification and definition of a miscarriage is abortion. I truly worry about how this decision will affect future insurance coverage for people going through miscarriages. Particularly later losses where people already have issues getting access to medical care, in some cases.
Also ) at get a new job. I have switched jobs 3 times in the past five years. I consider myself so lucky that each of those times were on my terms and to further my career. But ) get out of here with just finding a new job.
Miscarriage mentioned below
I truly don't understand the whole scope of the SCOTUS decision, and how the tax structure of a company makes it closely held. However, here is my biggest concern. The medical classification and definition of a miscarriage is abortion. I truly worry about how this decision will affect future insurance coverage for people going through miscarriages. Particularly later losses where people already have issues getting access to medical care, in some cases.
Stop being so logical Mrads. Actions don't have consequences!
It is a very privileged view when you think that somebody should just go find another job because they want access to birth control (or any drug really). If somebody says that people who can't afford birth control shouldn't have sex my head might pop right off.
"I DO NOT love that you think so many things revolve around you. I know you're bitter. I get it. But I'm over your feelings." The best person on the internet ever!
Holy smokes! Sorry to have posted and ran! I'll have to read all of this on my lunch break... Very interested to see everyone's thoughts about this disappointing decision...
TTC since 3/2012
DH - 36; nml swimmers; Me - 36; almost no AMH (last 0.081), low AFC, nml FSH/LH
Here's my concern... Where do we draw the line? If a company is owned by a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't agree with blood transfusions, does that mean that they shouldn't be required to provide their employees coverage for that medically necessary treatment? Or what about Scientology who, in general, tend to avoid western medicine altogether? Or do we say this is okay because they are conservative Christians and only their religious beliefs matter with regards to what rights their employees have?
TTC since 3/2012
DH - 36; nml swimmers; Me - 36; almost no AMH (last 0.081), low AFC, nml FSH/LH
Here's my concern... Where do we draw the line? If a company is owned by a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't agree with blood transfusions, does that mean that they shouldn't be required to provide their employees coverage for that medically necessary treatment? Or what about Scientology who, in general, tend to avoid western medicine altogether? Or do we say this is okay because they are conservative Christians and only their religious beliefs matter with regards to what rights their employees have?
This decision is limited at this time to Christian corporations and these types of BC. I know, it's shocking coming from this Supreme Court.
Hobby Lobby isn't against "regular" birth control. They didn't want to cover 3-4 specific types of medication that is intended to abort a pregnancy.
Not believing in abortion isn't a "war on women".
Among the BC options they don't want to support are types that prevent implantation. I don't see the difference between preventing ovulation with one type of BC and preventing a fertilized egg from implanting (which can happen naturally anyway!) with another type of BC. Both prevent a viable pregnancy from ever even starting, so why fight so hard to not provide one type over another?
Sometimes, the ONLY option for a woman is the BC type that prevents implantation. Because not every woman can take the same formulations because of other health issues. HL is effectively telling some of its employees who can only use a certain kind of prevention that they won't provide that prevention. It's bordering on discrimination for health reasons.
No, Hobby Lobby isn't saying that their employees can't take it. They say that Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to PAY for it since it is against their beliefs.
Workers have the right to get a personal policy, pay out of pocket for the medication(s) they prefer, or find another job.
I didn't say HL said their employees couldn't shell out on their own to take it. I said they would not provide certain types of prevention under their insurance policies. If you're going to cover BC at all though, don't discriminate over the types of BC, because some people HAVE to take a certain type for medical reasons (certain e+p combinations are much more likely to cause clots in people with thrombotic disorders, so they should stick to progestin only, for example). Making someone pay out of pocket for one type of BC over another is ridiculous.
And yes, it's even more ridiculous since HL invests in some companies that make those BCs they don't want to provide.
TTC since July 2012
BFP #1: 11/9/13; spontaneous m/c at 6w2d, 11/25/13
Here's my concern... Where do we draw the line? If a company is owned by a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't agree with blood transfusions, does that mean that they shouldn't be required to provide their employees coverage for that medically necessary treatment? Or what about Scientology who, in general, tend to avoid western medicine altogether? Or do we say this is okay because they are conservative Christians and only their religious beliefs matter with regards to what rights their employees have?
This decision is limited at this time to Christian corporations and these types of BC. I know, it's shocking coming from this Supreme Court.
Exactly, so one religion gets the "rights" to decide what is in the best interest for their employees, but no other religion does (definitely not saying that I even remotely agree with this decision, but just another argument against it). I think @BruinsBabe33 absolutely hit the nail on the head.
TTC since 3/2012
DH - 36; nml swimmers; Me - 36; almost no AMH (last 0.081), low AFC, nml FSH/LH
BruinsBabe33 said:
Exactly, Lucky. When I started BC it wasn't because I was sexually active and needed to prevent pregnancy it was for health reasons.
If this were Viagra we were talking about it would be a whole other conversation and that's the problem.
If this were Viagra we were talking about, there wouldn't be a conversation because Christianity wants tiny Christians, and tiny Christians generally require erections and a lack of birth control to create.
This is just absolutely ridiculous and I feel really bad for any person, especially women, who are ignorant enough to think this is acceptable.
Ignorant is the key word, Xan. You're right on.
Cheering on all of my 3T ladies! DX with PCOS - 11/2012 DH S/A & HSG - Normal - Too many rounds of Clomid = BFNs - New RE 5/2014 - Repeat Testing - Losing 40lbs before injects/IUI
Exactly, Lucky. When I started BC it wasn't because I was sexually active and needed to prevent pregnancy it was for health reasons.
If this were Viagra we were talking about it would be a whole other conversation and that's the problem.
If this were Viagra we were talking about, there wouldn't be a conversation because Christianity wants tiny Christians, and tiny Christians generally require erections and a lack of birth control to create.
This decision is limited at this time to Christian corporations and these types of BC. I know, it's shocking coming from this Supreme Court.
Wait, what the actual fuck?
Edit: Nest screwed up my quotes
--------------- Actually the reason viagra is a non issue is because it is a heart and blood pressure drug. To discriminate between the use of one drug would break HIPPA guidelines. It has nothing to do with creating "baby Christians" or sexist religious beliefs.
---------------
Actually the reason viagra is a non issue is because it is a heart and blood pressure drug. To discriminate between the use of one drug would break HIPPA guidelines. It has nothing to do with creating "baby Christians" or sexist religious beliefs.
Umm... I am pretty sure that that is not the reason Viagra is a "non-issue". If you're using that logic then birth control in instances where it is used to alleviate symptoms of severe endometriosis should be a "non-issue". Right?
TTC since 3/2012
DH - 36; nml swimmers; Me - 36; almost no AMH (last 0.081), low AFC, nml FSH/LH
--------------- Actually the reason viagra is a non issue is because it is a heart and blood pressure drug. To discriminate between the use of one drug would break HIPPA guidelines. It has nothing to do with creating "baby Christians" or sexist religious beliefs.
Umm... I am pretty sure that that is not the reason Viagra is a "non-issue". If you're using that logic then birth control in instances where it is used to alleviate symptoms of severe endometriosis should be a "non-issue". Right? ------------
Actually it is. The primary use of viagra is to treat a life threatening condition. Just because marketing makes the public eye thinks it is for ED only doesn't mean that is true.
And the details for THIS lawsuit only excludes 4 drugs the leaders of HL believes causes abortions. They still offer coverage for all other forms of BC. Vasectomy AND tubal ligation included.
The thing I keep wondering is if Hobby Lobby is so morally concerned about paying for "abortion causing" treatments for its American employees, then why does the company continue to import the vast majority of its goods from China? You know, the place where abortions are considered common practice. A country where an estimated 13 million abortion procedures are conducted (compared to 750,000 in the U.S.) and 10 million abortion pills are sold annually. A woman's reproductive rights < a person/company's religious beliefs < MONEY.
Exactly, Lucky. When I started BC it wasn't because I was sexually active and needed to prevent pregnancy it was for health reasons.
If this were Viagra we were talking about it would be a whole other conversation and that's the problem.
If this were Viagra we were talking about, there wouldn't be a conversation because Christianity wants tiny Christians, and tiny Christians generally require erections and a lack of birth control to create.
This decision is limited at this time to Christian corporations and these types of BC. I know, it's shocking coming from this Supreme Court.
Wait, what the actual fuck?
Edit: Nest screwed up my quotes
--------------- Actually the reason viagra is a non issue is because it is a heart and blood pressure drug. To discriminate between the use of one drug would break HIPPA guidelines. It has nothing to do with creating "baby Christians" or sexist religious beliefs.
Viagra is indicated for erectile dysfunction. Revatio is indicated for pulmonary arterial hypertension. While both are the same drug, sildenafil, they are used in different doses and have different indications. Viagra's "primary use" is not for PAH nor is it for any life-threatening condition. It is for erectile dysfunction. While medications are prescribed for off-label uses all the time, in my six years as a retail pharmacist (plus five years of intern and tech experience), I have not once seen Viagra prescribed for an off label use. FYI.
Viagra is indicated for erectile dysfunction. Revatio is indicated for pulmonary arterial hypertension. While both are the same drug, sildenafil, they are used in different doses and have different indications. Viagra's "primary use" is not for PAH nor is it for any life-threatening condition. It is for erectile dysfunction. While medications are prescribed for off-label uses all the time, in my six years as a retail pharmacist (plus five years of intern and tech experience), I have not once seen Viagra prescribed for an off label use. FYI.
"I DO NOT love that you think so many things revolve around you. I know you're bitter. I get it. But I'm over your feelings." The best person on the internet ever!
All very true except for the fact that they cover a drug not a brand name. Sometimes they require generic version over brand name but it's still drug based. And HIPPA would not allow that differentiation for obvious privacy reasons.
Re: SCOTUS BC/Hobby Lobby decision
B Born 6.27.13
I truly don't understand the whole scope of the SCOTUS decision, and how the tax structure of a company makes it closely held. However, here is my biggest concern. The medical classification and definition of a miscarriage is abortion. I truly worry about how this decision will affect future insurance coverage for people going through miscarriages. Particularly later losses where people already have issues getting access to medical care, in some cases.
B Born 6.27.13
B Born 6.27.13
It is a very privileged view when you think that somebody should just go find another job because they want access to birth control (or any drug really). If somebody says that people who can't afford birth control shouldn't have sex my head might pop right off.
"I DO NOT love that you think so many things revolve around you. I know you're bitter. I get it. But I'm over your feelings." The best person on the internet ever!
To make you feel my love.
DE IVF ER - 12/2/2016 (17R/10F = 8 frosties); FET 1.0 (1/27/2017) - BFP 6dp5dt (EDD 10/16/2017)
http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/hobby-lobby-aint-church-its-profit-business
DE IVF ER - 12/2/2016 (17R/10F = 8 frosties); FET 1.0 (1/27/2017) - BFP 6dp5dt (EDD 10/16/2017)
TTC#2 4/14
A Parachute in an Oak Tree: A World of Love
B/w 1/8: betas 17,345, progesterone 25.6
Currently on Metformin and Synthroid
EDD: 6.15.15
DE IVF ER - 12/2/2016 (17R/10F = 8 frosties); FET 1.0 (1/27/2017) - BFP 6dp5dt (EDD 10/16/2017)
If this were Viagra we were talking about, there wouldn't be a conversation because Christianity wants tiny Christians, and tiny Christians generally require erections and a lack of birth control to create.
"You know you're in love when you don't want to fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams." - Dr. SeussI know, it's something else. Don't think about it too hard, though, let the men do that.
Created by MyFitnessPal - Nutrition Facts For Foods
If this were Viagra we were talking about, there wouldn't be a conversation because Christianity wants tiny Christians, and tiny Christians generally require erections and a lack of birth control to create.
lilliesandvino said:
This decision is limited at this time to Christian corporations and these types of BC. I know, it's shocking coming from this Supreme Court.
Wait, what the actual fuck?
---------------
Actually the reason viagra is a non issue is because it is a heart and blood pressure drug. To discriminate between the use of one drug would break HIPPA guidelines. It has nothing to do with creating "baby Christians" or sexist religious beliefs.
DE IVF ER - 12/2/2016 (17R/10F = 8 frosties); FET 1.0 (1/27/2017) - BFP 6dp5dt (EDD 10/16/2017)
------------
Actually it is. The primary use of viagra is to treat a life threatening condition. Just because marketing makes the public eye thinks it is for ED only doesn't mean that is true.
And the details for THIS lawsuit only excludes 4 drugs the leaders of HL believes causes abortions. They still offer coverage for all other forms of BC. Vasectomy AND tubal ligation included.
DE IVF ER - 12/2/2016 (17R/10F = 8 frosties); FET 1.0 (1/27/2017) - BFP 6dp5dt (EDD 10/16/2017)
If this were Viagra we were talking about, there wouldn't be a conversation because Christianity wants tiny Christians, and tiny Christians generally require erections and a lack of birth control to create.
lilliesandvino said:
This decision is limited at this time to Christian corporations and these types of BC. I know, it's shocking coming from this Supreme Court.
Wait, what the actual fuck?
---------------
Actually the reason viagra is a non issue is because it is a heart and blood pressure drug. To discriminate between the use of one drug would break HIPPA guidelines. It has nothing to do with creating "baby Christians" or sexist religious beliefs.
Sure
TTC#2 4/14
A Parachute in an Oak Tree: A World of Love
TTC#2 4/14
A Parachute in an Oak Tree: A World of Love
"I DO NOT love that you think so many things revolve around you. I know you're bitter. I get it. But I'm over your feelings." The best person on the internet ever!
To make you feel my love.