SCOTUS BC/Hobby Lobby decision

NotMrsSmith11 · July 2014

brij2006 said:

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.

MRads · July 2014

OMG, birth control is not a heathen belief. I can't even with that.

MRads · July 2014

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.

MRads · July 2014

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.

seahorse01 · July 2014

MRads said:

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.

NotMrsSmith11 · July 2014

seahorse01 said:

If somebody says that people who can't afford birth control shouldn't have sex my head might pop right off.

You've got it all wrong. It's the people who can't afford CHILDREN who shouldn't have sex.

BackseatDriver · July 2014

Also where were HL's strongly held principles when they invested?

FutureMrsWright2012 · July 2014

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...

poppies717 · July 2014

George Takei sums up my feelings:

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/hobby-lobby-aint-church-its-profit-business

FutureMrsWright2012 · July 2014

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?

BruinsBabe33 · July 2014

@FutureMrsWright2012‌ well, how much do those religions donate to political parties?

lilliesandvino · July 2014

FutureMrsWright2012 said:
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.

LuckyAngel07 · July 2014

AprilH81 said:

LuckyAngel07 said:

AprilH81 said:

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.

OohSparkly13 · July 2014

This whole situation just seems so wrong to me. The more I read about it, the more upsetting it is.

FutureMrsWright2012 · July 2014

lilliesandvino said:

FutureMrsWright2012 said:
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.

Apollo11235 · July 2014

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.

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?

Edit: Nest screwed up my quotes

lilliesandvino · July 2014

@Apollo11235‌

I know, it's something else. Don't think about it too hard, though, let the men do that.

Xan921 · July 2014

This is just absolutely ridiculous and I feel really bad for any person, especially women, who are ignorant enough to think this is acceptable.

amandaf6383 · July 2014

Xan921 said:

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.

aggiebug · July 2014

Apollo11235 said:

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.

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?

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.

FutureMrsWright2012 · July 2014

aggiebug said:
--------------- 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?

aggiebug · July 2014

FutureMrsWright2012 said:

aggiebug said:

---------------
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.

FutureMrsWright2012 · July 2014

How do you define the "primary" use of a medication?

als1982 · July 2014

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.

BruinsBabe33 · July 2014

aggiebug said:

Apollo11235 said:

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.

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?

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.

Sure

spin25 · July 2014

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.

BruinsBabe33 · July 2014

spin25 said:
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.

@aggiebug‌ you've just been scienced.

seahorse01 · July 2014

I miss you Spin.

aggiebug · July 2014

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.

BackseatDriver · July 2014

Your insurer gets all your health info. Diagnostic codes and all. They can limit coverage of a drug based on the use and diagnosis.

SCOTUS BC/Hobby Lobby decision

Re: SCOTUS BC/Hobby Lobby decision

Choose Another Board

Search Boards