June 30, 201412 yr 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. Believe me when I say that I have first hand, self-experience in these issues.
June 30, 201412 yr Right on queue.... RFRA comes under attack. (See earlier post on this prediction). Reid and company keep crossing or wanting to cross more Rubicons. Comical how a lot of people applauding this decision are terrified of Sharia law.
June 30, 201412 yr Interesting reading: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf Sorry but I can't put "interesting reading" with court decisions ever. Kind of like insurance policies.
June 30, 201412 yr Sorry but I can't put "interesting reading" with court decisions ever. Kind of like insurance policies. Hey, I work for an insurance company. I like reading declarations...everybody should or suffer the consequences!
June 30, 201412 yr 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. " Alito's opinion references contraception. From the New York Times: "Justice Alito said he accepted for the sake of argument that the government had a compelling interest in making sure women have access to contraception. But he said there were ways of doing that without violating the companies’ religious rights." We're talking about contraception -- the ability of a woman -- not her employer -- to decide.
June 30, 201412 yr Hey, I work for an insurance company. I like reading declarations...everybody should or suffer the consequences! Said they weren't interesting, didn't say I don't read them. I do taxes for a living, I know dull.
June 30, 201412 yr Said they weren't interesting, didn't say I don't read them. I do taxes for a living, I know dull. Well, now...THERE'S a titillating career.
June 30, 201412 yr Right on queue.... RFRA comes under attack. (See earlier post on this prediction). Reid and company keep crossing or wanting to cross more Rubicons. You must have missed the 20-point gender gap in the 2012 presidential election. Women for Obama by 12 percentage points. Men for Romney by 8 percentage points. Biggest gap in U.S. history. Only going to get bigger with decisions like this.
June 30, 201412 yr You must have missed the 20-point gender gap in the 2012 presidential election. Women for Obama by 12 percentage points. Men for Romney by 8 percentage points. Biggest gap in U.S. history. Only going to get bigger with decisions like this. "There is only the fight."
June 30, 201412 yr This ruling simply sides with Hobby Lobby's belief in not providing abortifacients, but it does not stop a woman from obtaining such pills on her own. She just has to pay for it herself. Is that correct? Seems to be a win for both sides, as no one's rights were trampled on. Health insurance is not a right, it is a benefit and no company should be forced to buy it for their employees, unless they want to. Some people just seem to think that individuals cannot provide for theirselves or make their own decisions, that government has to provide everything for them.
June 30, 201412 yr "There is only the fight." :lol2: As if the right are pacifists when it comes to politics.
June 30, 201412 yr Health insurance is not a right, it is a benefit and no company should be forced to buy it for their employees, unless they want to. The Affordable Care Act turned heath insurance into a right.
June 30, 201412 yr The Affordable Care Act turned heath insurance into a right. Not really. It just imposes taxes on failure to comply. Lots of people - more than before the law - do not have insurance. Or they have not paid for it which would the same. True natural "Rights" are in existence before a government exist. Hence why the original Bill of Rights is mostly about prevent government action - not enabling it. Governments history is to remove true rights. I found the discussion points of the ruling around "government interest" interesting. What is "government interest"? If we have a government "of the People, by the People and for the People" it seems government interest and Peoples interest should align. That just does not seem to be the case in so many things now-a-days.
June 30, 201412 yr Not really. It just imposes taxes on failure to comply. True natural "Rights" are in existence before a government exist. Fair enough, fair enough. At its heart, though, I feel that the ACA's biggest purpose is to try to turn health insurance into a right.
June 30, 201412 yr Fair enough, fair enough. At its heart, though, I feel that the ACA's biggest purpose is to try to turn health insurance into a right. What would be nice is if health CARE were a right. Unfortunately insurance does not translate into actual, proper or available care. I have no issue with the government mandating care be given when needed at an emergency room and would not have an issue with the government being the 'insurer of last resort' to ENSURE insurance is truly available. There are things of ACA that have value. But the mandating of plans and mandating of what is and is not covered through arbitrary HHS rules is simply scary.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.