You're right. Here is his question:

 

"Has anyone brought a lawsuit forward yet regarding employers having to cover ED medications?"

 

My answer: I don't know.

 

Now perhaps we can move on and have an intelligent discussion about the disparity in health care plans based on gender.

 

The only reason I was pushing on you for an answer was because of your discussion of ED medications like Viagra - which for the record, I see no need for companies to cover, should they have a moral problem with them. I also would probably identify ED medications, as elective medical treatments. Fertility treatments are generally categorized as "elective", so I would consider ED meds along the same line.

 

Regardless, this case was specifically and explicitly brought to the courts about birth control. Not any other drugs - not blood transfusions, antidepressants, medications derived from pigs or any of the other items that Justice Ginsburg mentioned in her dissent as being objected to on religious grounds. Likewise, there was no mention of ED meds in this case. People who bring any other drugs or medical treatments into question in regards to this lawsuit are barking up the wrong tree. Once a lawsuit is brought forward about those drugs, then you can have that discussion.

Google the Union Pacific case that I referenced in post 138. The appellate court sided with the company, saying it was OK for the RR to pay for Viagra and Rogaine but not birth control. The reasoning was that since the RR didn't cover the cost of condoms, it didn't need to pay for birth control.

 

And Republicans wonder why the gender gap was 20 points in the '12 presidential election. Sheesh.

 

That decision seems sound on it's face. Would be interesting to see if the women's forms of Viagra are covered or not. Do you know? Other than your usually partisan bias, how do the Republican's get blamed for an Appellate court decision? What congressional action did the democrats bring forward in response to this decision?

The only reason I was pushing on you for an answer was because of your discussion of ED medications like Viagra - which for the record, I see no need for companies to cover, should they have a moral problem with them. I also would probably identify ED medications, as elective medical treatments. Fertility treatments are generally categorized as "elective", so I would consider ED meds along the same line.

 

Regardless, this case was specifically and explicitly brought to the courts about birth control. Not any other drugs - not blood transfusions, antidepressants, medications derived from pigs or any of the other items that Justice Ginsburg mentioned in her dissent as being objected to on religious grounds. Likewise, there was no mention of ED meds in this case. People who bring any other drugs or medical treatments into question in regards to this lawsuit are barking up the wrong tree. Once a lawsuit is brought forward about those drugs, then you can have that discussion.

So you don't believe there is value in the "slippery slope" argument regarding the doors that this decision has now opened?

So you don't believe there is value in the "slippery slope" argument regarding the doors that this decision has now opened?

 

Not particularly. The whole argument was about the morality of forcing employers to provide healthcare that supplies abortifacient drugs - drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The argument was based on the fact that there are religions that believe that life begins from the moment that egg is fertilized, and therefore, there is a life being ended when the fertilized egg is intentionally being prevented from implanting via a drug or IUD. For some Christians, it is literally an argument of being forced to provide a treatment that will intentionally end a life. There are relatively few medical treatments that come to mind that can be addressed in such a manner - even when you take into account the argument of morality.

These things are based on morality, not religion. People can be moral and not be religious.

 

HUGE religious debate there TBG. Matter of fact that might be a good topic to discuss in it's own thread. MANY religious people will say that no, you can't be truly moral without God, that morality comes from God and without him. Matter of fact I think I might post that question in it's own thread.

Not particularly. The whole argument was about the morality of forcing employers to provide healthcare that supplies abortifacient drugs - drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The argument was based on the fact that there are religions that believe that life begins from the moment that egg is fertilized, and therefore, there is a life being ended when the fertilized egg is intentionally being prevented from implanting via a drug or IUD. For some Christians, it is literally an argument of being forced to provide a treatment that will intentionally end a life. There are relatively few medical treatments that come to mind that can be addressed in such a manner - even when you take into account the argument of morality.

 

Some are holding fast to "but it only includes four medications, all of which are (perhaps) abortifacient drugs." But now the precedent has been set. If a business's religion (since evidently they can have a religion) is against all forms of birth control, why would they have to cover drugs that CAN be used as an oral contraceptive, but can also be used for a myriad of other issues? If a business's religion is against psychiatric drugs, why would they be forced to cover it? There are many other examples. To me, the slippery slope IS the issue.

Not particularly. The whole argument was about the morality of forcing employers to provide healthcare that supplies abortifacient drugs - drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The argument was based on the fact that there are religions that believe that life begins from the moment that egg is fertilized, and therefore, there is a life being ended when the fertilized egg is intentionally being prevented from implanting via a drug or IUD. For some Christians, it is literally an argument of being forced to provide a treatment that will intentionally end a life. There are relatively few medical treatments that come to mind that can be addressed in such a manner - even when you take into account the argument of morality.

While you have cited the narrowness of Alito's ruling, the court's five-man majority nevertheless has cracked the door open to more types of discrimination based on "religious freedom." (Let's be clear -- what Hobby Lobby is doing is a form of sanctioned discrimination given the fact that abortion is legal.) Some have speculated that the next round of challenges will focus on allowing discrimination of homosexuals based on "religious freedom." More fun also could come when non-Christian religions petition the court for exemptions from this or that.

Not particularly. The whole argument was about the morality of forcing employers to provide healthcare that supplies abortifacient drugs - drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The argument was based on the fact that there are religions that believe that life begins from the moment that egg is fertilized, and therefore, there is a life being ended when the fertilized egg is intentionally being prevented from implanting via a drug or IUD. For some Christians, it is literally an argument of being forced to provide a treatment that will intentionally end a life. There are relatively few medical treatments that come to mind that can be addressed in such a manner - even when you take into account the argument of morality.

 

I wonder how this will be incorporated into any future rulings related to abortion in general, vis-a-vis the SC establishment of when life does begin.

Some are holding fast to "but it only includes four medications, all of which are (perhaps) abortifacient drugs." But now the precedent has been set. If a business's religion (since evidently they can have a religion) is against all forms of birth control, why would they have to cover drugs that CAN be used as an oral contraceptive, but can also be used for a myriad of other issues? If a business's religion is against psychiatric drugs, why would they be forced to cover it? There are many other examples. To me, the slippery slope IS the issue.

 

I understand what you're saying, but again, I think it largely comes back to the belief that people are being forced to provide a treatment that will intentionally end an otherwise viable life. That argument can't be made about psychiatric drugs, etc.

I wonder how this will be incorporated into any future rulings related to abortion in general, vis-a-vis the SC establishment of when life does begin.

 

I agree. I think that is going to be established legally by the Supreme Court before too long.

I agree. I think that is going to be established legally by the Supreme Court before too long.

 

I mean, I am seeing that right, aren't I? It won't get to the SC early on — a few people will test-run it at select courts before making a big, broad challenge. Then it's gonna get weird and ugly.

Do all/most/some insurances pay for abortions?

I disagree strongly with the decision. However, I think the Dems may be able to use this in future elections. I look for them to contuinue pointing out Conservatives disregard for women's health issues. It cost them the White House in '14 and it likely will again in '16.

Do all/most/some insurances pay for abortions?

 

I believe, excepting some particular cases like ectopic pregnancy, that abortion is generally considered to be elective and is not covered by insurance. Medicaid currently covers abortions in cases of rape and incest.

Socratic Q and A doesn't work on this board. Best to make a point and end your sentences with periods, not question marks.

 

By the way, Hobby Lobby does cover Viagra, so my vis-a-vis comparison is accurate. Hobby Lobby also covers vasectomies.

 

Men's health is well covered if you work for Hobby Lobby.

Translation: "I don't have an answer".

 

Hobby Lobby covers women's health, it's obtuse to think otherwise.