Hobby Lobby Decision

[True blue (and gold)]

....I didn't realize pregnancy was a disease.

No, but I used to have a medical condition that oral contraceptives were the best form of medication that I could take to control my symptoms. Too bad that similar women won't be able to choose this option. The alternatives are invasive surgeries, including a hysterectomy. But wouldn't that be a form of birth control, too?

[SportsGuy41017]

For those thinking this is a "win" for religious freedom, you can't be further from the truth. Some need to take the "Obama" factor out and really look at what is at stake.

 

Did you know that a Public Religion Research Institute survey conducted in early June found that a substantial majority of almost every major U.S. Christian group support the idea that publicly held corporations and privately owned corporations should be required to provide employees with healthcare plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost?

 

"Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections and liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.“

 

This would have prevented many abortions!

[Clyde]

No, but I used to have a medical condition that oral contraceptives were the best form of medication that I could take to control my symptoms. Too bad that similar women won't be able to choose this option. The alternatives are invasive surgeries, including a hysterectomy. But wouldn't that be a form of birth control, too?

 

Wasn't part of the reason for this ruling the fact that women can still get contraceptives from the government?

[Habib]

I don't sympathize with Hobby Lobby's motivations (i.e. their beliefs about female contraceptives), but am not troubled by the ruling.

 

Even though it's more technical than philosophical, Ginsburg's question in the dissent about how other religious beliefs might be used to justify exemptions is interesting. I thought the majority opinion was relatively narrow, but I think there are still questions about how it would be applied in other cases.

 

I think this case is an example of how the healthcare problems in this country aren't going to be solved by a piece of patchwork legislation largely designed to keep the existing system intact - and having insurance and access to care tied to employment is one aspect of the existing system I find very problematic.

[True blue (and gold)]

Wasn't part of the reason for this ruling the fact that women can still get contraceptives from the government?

I don't know. Too bad that the medical plan that women work for cannot cover medication for some serious gynecological problems.

 

Also, is a hysterectomy considered birth control?

[Clyde]

I don't know. Too bad that the medical plan that women work for cannot cover medication for some serious gynecological problems. Also' date=' is a hysterectomy considered birth control?[/quote']

 

To be clear the issue was not "birth control."

[Twotoplace]

Harry Reid says if the Supreme Court will not protect women's access to health care, then Democrats will.

 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid >> Reid Statement On Supreme Court Decision Denying Women The Right To Make Their Own Health Care Decisions

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

No, but I used to have a medical condition that oral contraceptives were the best form of medication that I could take to control my symptoms. Too bad that similar women won't be able to choose this option. The alternatives are invasive surgeries, including a hysterectomy. But wouldn't that be a form of birth control, too?

 

I understand your argument, and I wouldn't mind to see some sort of caveat written into the ruling to make an exception for situations like yours.

 

At the same time, I can tell you from the perspective of someone whose sister-in-law is a Catholic pharmacist as well as a NaPro certified medical professional, that for most situations where birth control pills are used as a simple means to control conditions varying from acne, to irregular menstruation cycles, to endometriosis, there are other very reasonable options for treating the condition by use of other hormone pills. It is the simple fact that birth control pills are already put together in one nice simple packaged pill that makes them so widely used in treatments like those. On a very basic level, birth control pills contain amounts of estrogen and progestin in amounts intended to control the cycle and prevent ovulation (although multiphasic birth control treatments are somewhat more complex). Regardless, birth control pills aren't the only pills containing estrogen and progestin. There are other medicines and treatments around that can very sufficiently provide those hormones to treat those other conditions...it's just that those other medicines and treatments aren't already pre-measured, combined and pre-packaged for use the way the birth control pills are.

[rockmom]

The Viagra / BC argument is interesting but irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

 

Unless Rome or other recognized religious institutions publish a stance on ED. Since they have not, this line of argument can be discussion fodder....but not related to the legal side.

 

And all I said was that it would be interesting...nothing more. From this female's perspective, that issues of the reproductive system in a female couldn't be covered, but erectile dysfunction could is ironic. Just my opinion. Down boys!

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

I don't know. Too bad that the medical plan that women work for cannot cover medication for some serious gynecological problems.

 

Also, is a hysterectomy considered birth control?

 

I can't speak for religions outside of Catholicism, but according to the Catholic Church, getting a tubal ligation and vasectomy as an elective procedure is considered to be a permanent means of birth control and both are considered immoral. I don't know of any women who have gone through a full hysterectomy as a purely elective means of preventing pregnancy, but were someone to do so on a completely elective basis, then yes, I would assume the Catholic Church would see that as an immoral means of birth control.

 

As for non-elective hysterectomies - such as treatment of uterine, cervical or ovarian cancers, or in cases of uterine prolapse - then the Catholic Church has no issue with the procedure. It would be looked at no differently from a man losing their testicles to testicular cancer.

[Watusi]

To be clear the issue was not "birth control."

 

Correct, the issue is more about abortion than contraception. HL objected to only the specific forms of birth control that facilitate the removal of an already fertilized egg. They called them "abortifacients"

 

 

 

From the article: "The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. "

[75center]

For those thinking this is a "win" for religious freedom, you can't be further from the truth. Some need to take the "Obama" factor out and really look at what is at stake.

 

Did you know that a Public Religion Research Institute survey conducted in early June found that a substantial majority of almost every major U.S. Christian group support the idea that publicly held corporations and privately owned corporations should be required to provide employees with healthcare plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost?

 

"Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections and liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.“

 

This would have prevented many abortions!

 

How in the world does your second paragraph support your statement in the first? What does surveys have to do with it?

[LIPTON BASH]

I'm glad common sense arose. Dangerous grounds for small business owners if this ruling didn't come down.

[Bluegrasscard]

Harry Reid says if the Supreme Court will not protect women's access to health care, then Democrats will.

 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid >> Reid Statement On Supreme Court Decision Denying Women The Right To Make Their Own Health Care Decisions

 

Right on queue....

 

RFRA comes under attack.

 

(See earlier post on this prediction).

 

Reid and company keep crossing or wanting to cross more Rubicons.

[rockmom]

Interesting reading:

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf