posted
My employers religious views should not be allowed to impact my healthcare, or my medical choices. End of discussion.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your employer's religious beliefs don't affect your healthcare or medical decisions unless you ask them to pay for it. Asking someone else to pay for a procedure they find immoral sets a dangerous precendant.
Say the tide turns, and Starbucks is ordered by the federal government, under the penalty of a hefty daily fine of 15 million dollors, to include homosexual recovery therapy in their health insurance coverage for their employees. Does Starbucks have the moral right to refuse to offer that coverage?
The best thing for birth control, I believe, is to make it OTC, instead of requiring a doctor's prescription. Making someone else pay for it doesn't solve the problem.
As for Plan B, is that because the average dose is too weak for women who are heavier? I wonder if the formula can be changed to include women who don't fall under that weight.
posted
They are going to end up paying for something they don't like eventually. Either through taxes to pay for singlepayer or through providing healthcare.
For as long as they exist to make money they can't discriminate based on religious beliefs.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your employer's religious beliefs don't affect your healthcare or medical decisions unless you ask them to pay for it. Asking someone else to pay for a procedure they find immoral sets a dangerous precendant.
Except it's none of their damn business. My daughter requires a birth control medicine to keep her from having debilitating cramps. Should Hobby Lobby be able to say she can't have that medicine or, possibly worse, should they be able to determine whether or not she can get a certain medicine depending on how she intends to use it?
quote:Say the tide turns, and Starbucks is ordered by the federal government, under the penalty of a hefty daily fine of 15 million dollors, to include homosexual recovery therapy in their health insurance coverage for their employees. Does Starbucks have the moral right to refuse to offer that coverage?
If the medical establishment determines that it's safe & effective and it's voluntary and only available through consultation between the doctor and patient? No.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or the national health care system could make sure that every woman could have access to the type of birth control that best met her health and lifestyle needs, free at the point of access.
Oh wait. Sorry. Can't have that. It would be ridiculous, impossible, and way too much like what plenty of other countries provide their citizens. The US must stay exceptional, after all.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Say the tide turns, and Starbucks is ordered by the federal government, under the penalty of a hefty daily fine of 15 million dollors, to include homosexual recovery therapy in their health insurance coverage for their employees. Does Starbucks have the moral right to refuse to offer that coverage?
As useless and harmful at those particular therapies are, presumably receiving that treatment requires consent of the "patient". It will be news and a problem when the government rounds up gay people and makes 'em go.
Of course, homosexual recovery therapy is well-known not to actually work. Presumably, health insurance only likes paying for things that work.
On the other hand, birth control is something an individual chooses for herself, or it's recommended for treatment of a number of conditions (PCOS, legally required to be joint with accutane, severe menstrual cramps). And it's known to actually work.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wary of going with my instincts on this issue. On the one hand, I'm uncertain about the ethics of abortion or procedures which terminate even seconds-post-conception life. I'm also uncertain about the ethics of restricting such procedures!
But then I'm also wary of government creep on personal-conscience style choices-so I worry about the reality of anyone (not just government) telling private citizens what they must do with respect to their religious beliefs. I'm worried about that even though the trend right now is more or less going my way.
But, I tend to let's just say not be a fan of people who start to lobby and agitate to restrict access to birth control or contraception. I tend to 'not be a fan' of theirs even in light of my uncertainty, so my bias wishes old-fashioned holy rollers would just get with the program as they've spent generations insisting everyone else must do for them. Part of that dislike is focused on what seems to me to be a large amount of ignorance on the part of opponents as to the whole 'birth control isn't just for contraception!' valid argument. Should Hobby Lobby be able to tell Joan Doe her health insurance won't cover medically necessary bc pills because they think Jane Doe wants to avoid or end pregnancy? All of my uncertainties feed into that, but I end up often not liking what I hear when the Hobby Lobbys have to say about why, since it often ends up sounding less about high-minded concern for sanctity of life and closer to (if only relatively speaking) Rush Limbaugh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm wary of going with my instincts on this issue. On the one hand, I'm uncertain about the ethics of abortion or procedures which terminate even seconds-post-conception life.
I'm not. My understanding is that only 25% of fertilized eggs manage to pull off implantation anyway. Who cares if it's a little more than that 25%? Also, it hasn't even reached the stage where it's a sea monkey from hell with a tail. Monty Python has a song that the people who worry about blastocysts and pharmaceutically slippery uteri might love.
Miscarriages before 12 weeks are also an unfortunately common occurrence. Anecdatally, EVERY single person I told about my sister's miscarriage* responded with one in their immediate family. At this point, it's probably my mother as the only person in the world who hasn't lost a pregnancy. Personally, if we stop obsessing over embryos as people, it will be a lot better for the collective mental health of people trying to conceive.
Hobby Lobby claims they are okay with methods that don't prevent implantation. Barriers are okay. Of course, like many pro-life groups, they claim that certain methods that only prevent ovulation may destroy fertilized eggs.
*Actual baby born last week. I get to see him Friday. Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except it's none of their damn business. My daughter requires a birth control medicine to keep her from having debilitating cramps. Should Hobby Lobby be able to say she can't have that medicine or, possibly worse, should they be able to determine whether or not she can get a certain medicine depending on how she intends to use it?
No, they absolutely should not. That's why health insurance should not come through your employer.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: [QB] Your employer's religious beliefs don't affect your healthcare or medical decisions unless you ask them to pay for it.
But they're not paying for it, they are paying for insurance, then the employee is choosing to use that insurance for the contraceptive. How is that different than the employer paying a salary and the employee then choosing to use that salary to pay for contraceptive? It's the same thing, except the latter costs the employee a lot more.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't an argument about the merits of birth control or gay therapy. I'm personally in favor of birth control and use it myself. I also pay for it myself. And maybe this is just me and my silly issues with being an independent woman, but I'd be insulted if the government made it "free" for me. It's my choice and my responsibility. And you can't have one without the other. I also wish other women would stop the pretense of helplessness when it comes to this issue.
There is a difference between paying someone for a job (who may use that pay for anything they want) and being told by the federal government the type of insurance you must offer your employees, even if that insurance covers procedures you're opposed to.
If Starbucks were forced to offer health insurance with the option for elective gay therapy, and they felt that gay therapy was immoral, would it be okay for the government to force them to carry that insurance anyway?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I mean it's a horrible example, because it's such an extreme, being that gay reversion therapy has no medical credibility whatsoever and I know of no insurance that would cover it. But, assuming that wasn't the case, and there was an insurance company out there, and a consenting adult wanted it in their policy, then yes, Starbucks should not be allowed to deny it based on their moral beliefs.
Insurance is just another form of compensation, so I really do not see the moral difference between providing one type of compensation that their employee decides to use for contraceptives vs. providing the other?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if we were to look at another extreme?
Let's say a company with a Jehovah's Witness CEO decided they didn't want to provide employer insurance that would cover any surgery or procedure that required a blood transfusion?
Would this still be an argument over whether or not a for-profit company had a right to make medical decisions based on the religious beliefs of a few individuals?
What is a corporation didn't want to cover certain medications because they increased thoughts of suicide, which they consider immoral? Is it up to them to decide whether or not an employee has the right to use such medication under observation from their doctor?
As the joke goes, I'm waiting for a female CEO to step up and declare they will no longer cover Viagra. Its a pretty equivocal comparison especially for woman who take birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with pregnancy prevention. A female classmate in college took Viagra while waiting for a heart transplant.
My doctor put me on Valtrex while trying to lower the active Epstein-Barr virus in my system. Now that was an embarrassing prescription to fill. Thank goodness my employer doesn't get on some high horse about not covering medications for sexually transmitted diseases (you know those loose women deserve it /end sarcasm).
At the end of the day, I really don't want any corporation having the power to cherry-pick what medications or treatments they will cover. I'd rather leave that up to actual medical professionals.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I'm personally in favor of birth control and use it myself. I also pay for it myself. And maybe this is just me and my silly issues with being an independent woman, but I'd be insulted if the government made it "free" for me. It's my choice and my responsibility.
Everything that your body does is your responsibility, excepting injury caused by some other individual.
When your own cells start replicating out of control, will you use insurance to cover your surgery and chemo, or would that be too insulting?
When you're corning in your own mucus because your immune system wasn't up to the task of fighting off some bacteria, are you going to pony up the costs of your hospitalization and treatment out of pocket so that you can be proud of your own independence?
The idea that you're somehow denigrated by having your health insurance cover your health issues is just.... Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they should, because it is a therapy that is proscribed, and has NOTHING to do with my job performance.
My employer offers insurance as a way to make sure I want to work for them, They have NO say in my care. That's why I have doctors.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Churches can restrict access to birth control, and in return they lose their not for profit status and have to start paying taxes. That tax money goes into a fund that provides universal birth control for all women.
Really though, I agree with Blackblade that this is just one more sign that employer healthcare is an historical quirk that turned into a monster that needs to being undone. We tend to treat it, in politics and the media as if it's the best idea ever. In truth it's a terrible idea that stifles economic mobility for poorer workers and saddles businesses with ever ballooning costs they have little power to control. It's a beast too big for private companies to tame.
I also agree with dansigal. Healthcare is a form of compensation. Your employer has no right to tell you what you can do with your money. That's the governments job.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't all teenagers get birth control from Planned Parenthood anyways?
I think it should be like the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Employees of companies with less than 15 employees are not covered by the act. In my opinion that is how it should be. A company that small is typically run by a single person who has the right to believe and act based on his religion or other beliefs.
Anything larger and laws should be in place protecting the employees.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are in complete agreement that the whole idea of health care through one's employer is demonstrably broken in yet another way, so.
But as long as luddites keep that system going for us, putting some obligation on the companies in regards to that is fine
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not arguing against health insurance. I'm arguing against the government telling private businesses that they must provide health insurance, and it must be the kind the federal government has approved.
Shanna,
If a company run by Jehovah Witnesses didn't want to offer health insurance that could potentially cover all the random things that freak them out, that's within their right in my opinion. Just as the Jehovah Witness CEO can't tell his receptionist not to spend her paycheck on a blood transfusion, Uncle Sam can't tell Mr. Ceo that he has to pay for health insurance that would cover her blood transfusion.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: tertiaryadjunct,
I'm not arguing against health insurance. I'm arguing against the government telling private businesses that they must provide health insurance, and it must be the kind the federal government has approved.
Shanna,
If a company run by Jehovah Witnesses didn't want to offer health insurance that could potentially cover all the random things that freak them out, that's within their right in my opinion. Just as the Jehovah Witness CEO can't tell his receptionist not to spend her paycheck on a blood transfusion, Uncle Sam can't tell Mr. Ceo that he has to pay for health insurance that would cover her blood transfusion.
I don't see a problem with the idea that, while the government cannot force employers to provide health insurance, they can regulate insurance if you choose to do so.
The government does not force anyone to provide insurance. So if they want to provide it, they have to follow the rules.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'ld argue that if the gov't tells you to provide insurance they can also tell you how to provide it, just how they define what exactly is legally allowed to be sold as a "car" in the United States, they can define just what is "insurance".
What if a Car CEO held the DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF that a car MUST NOT have seatbelts? That seatbelts let people drive more recklessly because now they can survive crashes better?
Surely if the government can regular what is allowed to be sold as a car, as medicine, as food, why not health insurance?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government does not force anyone to provide insurance.
I think you'll find that, under Obamacare, it does.
I suppose that depends on how you view the penalty they impose if you are a larger business and you cancel coverage. You don't have to provide insurance, but if you're larger to an fifty employees, then you have to pay a fine.
Is that really much different than the role companies play in social security or corporate taxes?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Let us suppose that someone feels that corporations shouldn't have to provide insurance plans that cover whatever that infringes on their 'deeply held religious beliefs'.
Would that someone also agree with said corporation if their solution was to pay in walmart gift cards instead of cash? Because cash can be used to purchase immoral things?
Does that sound right?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is that the corporation has to buy the insurance, which is like buying a mutual fund, but with services instead of stock. And they don't want to buy a mutual fund with stock in a company they find reprehensible. Personally I agree with the consensus that this is just another way our current health-care system sucks. We've forced ourselves into a no-win situation here, and while I think mandating certain things be covered (birth control included) is the best solution, I can't deny that this is at least a partial infringement on the rights of others.
A. Hobby Lobby and Mardel Are "Persons Exercising Religion" Under RFRA
RFRA provides, as a general rule, that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(a) (emphasis added). The parties dispute whether for-profit corporations, such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel, are persons exercising religion for purposes of RFRA. We thus turn to the question of whether Hobby Lobby, as a family owned business furthering its religious mission, and Mardel, as a Christian bookstore, can take advantage of RFRA's protections.
The government makes two arguments for why this is not the case. First, it cites to civil rights statutes and labor laws that create an exemption for religious organizations. It then references case law suggesting that non-profit status is an objective criterion for determining whether an entity is a religious organization for purposes of these civil rights statutes and labor laws. The government therefore argues that, as a matter of statutory [**11] interpretation, RFRA should be read to carry forward the supposedly preexisting distinction [*1129] between non-profit, religious corporations and for-profit, secular corporations. Second, the government asserts that the for-profit/non-profit distinction is rooted in the Free Exercise Clause. It suggests Congress did not intend RFRA to expand the scope of the Free Exercise Clause. The government therefore concludes RFRA does not extend to for-profit corporations.
We reject both of these arguments. First, we hold as a matter of statutory interpretation that Congress did not exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA's protections. Such corporations can be "persons" exercising religion for purposes of the statute.[fn5] Second, as a matter of constitutional law, Free Exercise rights may extend to some for-profit organizations.
If this is upheld its opening pandora's box in which a religios for profit is now exempt from labour laws the same way a non profit is.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: The difference is that the corporation has to buy the insurance, which is like buying a mutual fund, but with services instead of stock. And they don't want to buy a mutual fund with stock in a company they find reprehensible. Personally I agree with the consensus that this is just another way our current health-care system sucks. We've forced ourselves into a no-win situation here, and while I think mandating certain things be covered (birth control included) is the best solution, I can't deny that this is at least a partial infringement on the rights of others.
Hobbes
What about Scientology? They won't support paying for mental health services.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the federal government said that employers MUST provide insurance that only has prescription coverage via Wal-Mart stores? Would everyone be okay with that? You can get any meds you need, but you have to visit Wal-Mart to pick them up.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: What if the federal government said that employers MUST provide insurance that only has prescription coverage via Wal-Mart stores? Would everyone be okay with that? You can get any meds you need, but you have to visit Wal-Mart to pick them up.
I don't quite understand. The idea of 'getting paid in giftcards' is bad because its like the return to company script which restricts upwards mobility.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the similarity: the owners of Hobby Lobby feel like the government is compelling them to provide insurance with a restriction that they disagree with on a moral basis.
Some people are morally opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart because it is a large corporation. If the government compelled the employer/employees to do business with a large corporation, some employers would find it morally offensive.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some people are morally opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart because it is a large corporation. If the government compelled the employer/employees to do business with a large corporation, some employers would find it morally offensive.
The government already does this routinely, if not directly. The government engages in business with virtually every large corporation, including Walmart. The government compels you to pay taxes and those taxes are used for all of the purposes of government, including dealings with business entities that you may find offensive.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
If a company run by Jehovah Witnesses didn't want to offer health insurance that could potentially cover all the random things that freak them out, that's within their right in my opinion. Just as the Jehovah Witness CEO can't tell his receptionist not to spend her paycheck on a blood transfusion, Uncle Sam can't tell Mr. Ceo that he has to pay for health insurance that would cover her blood transfusion.
Health insurance is another benefit of a job, like a paycheck. Just like the CEO can't tell the receptionist what to do with her paycheck, she shouldn't be able to tell the receptionist what to do with her healthcare.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Here's the similarity: the owners of Hobby Lobby feel like the government is compelling them to provide insurance with a restriction that they disagree with on a moral basis.
Some people are morally opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart because it is a large corporation. If the government compelled the employer/employees to do business with a large corporation, some employers would find it morally offensive.
No, because the original concern is regarding employee compensation so your counter(?) example is a bit of a non-sequitor.
Why would the gov't even have an interest in having insurance only be through 'Walmart' (or some, more realistically speaking, kind of HMO) when it'ld just be cheaper to have the government directly provide it?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Here's the similarity: the owners of Hobby Lobby feel like the government is compelling them to provide insurance with a restriction that they disagree with on a moral basis.
Well, darn. If Hobby Lobby was owned by the jehovas witnesses and they pulled the same stunt to say they didn't have to cover emergency blood transfusion because religion, it would be just as asinine a piecemeal justification.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Personally, though, I feel that if you want to incorporate and receive the government benefits of that incorporation, you should also expect to give up some autonomy. By ceding some of the responsibility for the corporation's actions, you also cede some of the rights to control of the corporation's actions. I'm not sure whether this falls in the realm of "things a corporation just needs to suck up if it wants to be a corporation" or not, but I think it probably does. But then, I also don't find birth control morally offensive.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Alternative health care isn't health care, it is religion.
In my opinion this goes back to the arguments of Title VII. Those arguing that employers should not be forced to offer health care that provides birth control because of their personal religious views, would have been in favor of allowing employers to hire and fire based on sex, religion, and race back in the 60s.
Libertarians would be OK with that.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Alternative health care isn't health care, it is religion.
Kind of the point. You would find such a requirement morally wrong on some level, because in your judgement such "healthcare" is not fit for consumption. Probably (projecting here) you feel it's fine if people want to do it, but you shouldn't be forced to subsidize it. And if the government told you you had to provide it to your employees you'd be somewhat outraged. If you further had a belief that performing immoral acts resulted in eternal consequences, your aversion would likely be significantly heightened. Hence, Hobby Lobby.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A better "what if" than Dusin's "Walmart Meds" might be to ask what if companies were required to provide health insurance that covered any form of alternative health care, like chakra alignments, sweat lodges, and meetings with faith healers. I could understand a committed secularist finding such a provision offensive. If you compound that with a religious belief in eternal consequences of moral actions, you get a sense for why it's a touchy issue.
Alternative health care isn't health care, it is religion.
Kind of the point. You would find such a requirement morally wrong on some level, because in your judgement such "healthcare" is not fit for consumption. Probably (projecting here) you feel it's fine if people want to do it, but you shouldn't be forced to subsidize it. And if the government told you you had to provide it to your employees you'd be somewhat outraged. If you further had a belief that performing immoral acts resulted in eternal consequences, your aversion would likely be significantly heightened. Hence, Hobby Lobby.
The problem with alternative medicine is that it doesn't work. If faith healers' work could be shown to produce outcomes significantly better than placebo, than that would be a whole different story.
Requiring things to pass a double blind study is independent of religion.
No one on either side believes that birth control pills don't do their job (weight thing aside).
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Kind of the point. You would find such a requirement morally wrong on some level, because in your judgement such "healthcare" is not fit for consumption. Probably (projecting here) you feel it's fine if people want to do it, but you shouldn't be forced to subsidize it. And if the government told you you had to provide it to your employees you'd be somewhat outraged. If you further had a belief that performing immoral acts resulted in eternal consequences, your aversion would likely be significantly heightened. Hence, Hobby Lobby.
So then let us just repeal Title VII. Any employer can make any and all employment decisions based solely on their imaginary friends in the sky.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephan, I think you're pretty uncharitable there.
Senoj, I quite agree with your second paragraph. Since the whole point of incorporating (particularly as a for-profit) is to limit personal liability, then it seems like you ought to expect limited personal direction, particularly in non-business decisions.
I could see a (weak to me) argument if the addition of the birth control requirement was onerous from a business profitability standpoint.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., the first federal court to consider the issue of employer’s duty under Title VII to provide contraceptive coverage after the EEOC ruling, held that an employer offering otherwise comprehensive health insurance to its employees, but failing to cover prescription contraceptives, was in violation of Title VII. The court found that women disproportionately bear the “adverse economic and social consequences of unintended pregnancies,” rendering the defendant’s exclusion of prescription contraceptives from the health plan while including a range of other preventive drugs discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. There has been limited case law directly addressing the issue ever since, with the majority of cases finding that the exclusion of contraception from an otherwise comprehensive health insurance plan that includes preventive services constitutes impermissible sex discrimination.
In Cooley v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 281 F.Supp.2d 979 (E.D. Mo. 2003), the court held that the exclusion of prescription contraceptives from the employee insurance plan, while “seemingly neutral” placed a burden on women since only they have the capacity to become pregnant and the only prescription contraceptives available were for women. In Mauldin v. Wal-Mart, 89 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1600, 2002 WL 2022334 (N.D. Ga. 2002), the court certified the plaintiff class of women who use contraceptives and cited Erickson favorably. The case ultimately settled with the provision of contraceptives to Wal-Mart employees.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I could see a (weak to me) argument if the addition of the birth control requirement was onerous from a business profitability standpoint.
I am not going to hunt down descriptions of people who stop taking bc when they lose insurance, or because money is tight, even the copay is too much, but this isn't uncommon, and it's been mentioned at least once on Hatrack.
It saves massive amounts of money for everyone involved, simply due to the externalities of having a baby.
One uncomplicated vaginal birth costs $10,000, plus the additional money for prenatal care, and having the child on insurance for 26 years. Add in the cost of maternity care, whatever meager leave Hobby Lobby gives, or the cost to the company of training additional employees.
Roughly 50% of pregnancies in the US are unplanned.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
theamazereeaz, birth control is actually really affordable. What isn't affordable to some is the cost of going to the doctor, getting the required examinations, and getting a prescription for birth control.
Why are we fighting--not for affordable, easy-to-access birth control--but for Hobby Lobby to have to provide health insurance that covers birth control?
Unless, of course, the object has more to do with forcing Hobby Lobby to update its moral principals to match that of the current culture than actually making birth control widely accessible.
(Edited to fix a grammatical mistake)
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless, of course, the object has more to do with forcing Hobby Lobby to update its moral principals to match that of the current culture than actually making birth control widely accessible.
The object has to do with what fight is easier and more expedient. I would absolutely like to see birth control available over the counter. And until that is available and while employers are the means by which people obtain healthcare they should not be able to cite religious reasons for not providing comprehensive healthcare services.
It's like the whole "let's just get government out of marriage" SSM position. Yes, let's do that. But until that happens, the government-recognized institution of marriage should not be discriminatory.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Birth control *is* available over the counter. Condoms are easy to get. In fact, Planned Parenthood will give them to you for free. So will lots of other organizations.
And condoms aren't the only choice available to everyone.
It's true that not ALL forms of birth control are available OTC, but that's not what you said.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
