Aa
Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision
Senate Democrats are expediting legislation that would override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.
The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.
A Senate aide told HuffPost that the bill will be introduced Wednesday morning and will go directly to the Senate floor as early as next week, without being considered in committee.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services," Udall said in a statement. "My common-sense proposal will keep women's private health decisions out of corporate board rooms, because your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what is best for you and your family."
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last week that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects closely held corporations like Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft supply stores, from having to cover birth control in their health insurance plans if they morally object to it. Hobby Lobby's evangelical owners object to covering four out of the 20 forms of contraception listed in the Affordable Care Act because they believe those methods are akin to abortion.
Murray and Udall's bill would override the Supreme Court's decision and state that no federal law, including RFRA, permits for-profit employers to refuse to comply with federal health coverage requirements. The senators worked with the Obama administration, other Democratic lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates to draft the legislation.
“Your health care decisions are not your boss’ business,” Murray said on Tuesday. “Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will.”
Even if the bill passes the Senate, it is unlikely to get a vote in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But Democrats hope it will at least make senators go on record supporting or opposing universal birth control coverage.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed to bring the measure up "sooner rather than later," and force opponents to vote on it before the current Senate work period ends in early August.
"This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous," Reid said Wednesday in a Capitol Hill news conference just off the Senate floor. "People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think they are going to be treated unfavorably come November with the elections."
UPDATE: 5:20 p.m. -- Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Diana Degette (D-Colo.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) will introduce the companion bill in the House.
“This bill will ensure that employee access to critical health services is not at the mercy of their bosses’ religious beliefs,” the lawmakers said in a statement. “Congress never intended to allow corporate employers to block employee access to critical preventive services like birth control."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/hobby-lobby-override_n_5568320.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.
A Senate aide told HuffPost that the bill will be introduced Wednesday morning and will go directly to the Senate floor as early as next week, without being considered in committee.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services," Udall said in a statement. "My common-sense proposal will keep women's private health decisions out of corporate board rooms, because your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what is best for you and your family."
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last week that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects closely held corporations like Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft supply stores, from having to cover birth control in their health insurance plans if they morally object to it. Hobby Lobby's evangelical owners object to covering four out of the 20 forms of contraception listed in the Affordable Care Act because they believe those methods are akin to abortion.
Murray and Udall's bill would override the Supreme Court's decision and state that no federal law, including RFRA, permits for-profit employers to refuse to comply with federal health coverage requirements. The senators worked with the Obama administration, other Democratic lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates to draft the legislation.
“Your health care decisions are not your boss’ business,” Murray said on Tuesday. “Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will.”
Even if the bill passes the Senate, it is unlikely to get a vote in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But Democrats hope it will at least make senators go on record supporting or opposing universal birth control coverage.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed to bring the measure up "sooner rather than later," and force opponents to vote on it before the current Senate work period ends in early August.
"This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous," Reid said Wednesday in a Capitol Hill news conference just off the Senate floor. "People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think they are going to be treated unfavorably come November with the elections."
UPDATE: 5:20 p.m. -- Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Diana Degette (D-Colo.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) will introduce the companion bill in the House.
“This bill will ensure that employee access to critical health services is not at the mercy of their bosses’ religious beliefs,” the lawmakers said in a statement. “Congress never intended to allow corporate employers to block employee access to critical preventive services like birth control."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/hobby-lobby-override_n_5568320.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed to bring the measure up "sooner rather than later," and force opponents to vote on it before the current Senate work period ends in early August.
It is looking like the Senate is up for grabs. If the Democrats want to keep control of it, they need to do everything they can to get their people elected/reelected. For some, distancing themselves from Obama is their only hope. This entire Bill is futile because it will never get passed the House.
“Even if the bill passes the Senate, it is unlikely to get a vote in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But Democrats hope it will at least make senators go on record supporting or opposing universal birth control coverage.”
Reid (who has not proved to me his elevator goes all the way to top, for quite some time now) will be forcing these Democrats to choose between their party or their career.
I don’t think the voters will be paying as much attention to enforcing ACA’s Birth Control as they will Obama’s thumbing his nose at this countries protocol. The American people are fed up with it. For the Democrats, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by introducing this Bill.
I can only come up with 2 explanations, “Are the Democrats trying to throw the Mid Term Elections?” or “Maybe this is a tactic of reverse psychology giving them the opportunity to vote against it. That will give the illusion for the weak-minded voters, that they don’t fully back this administration.”
It is looking like the Senate is up for grabs. If the Democrats want to keep control of it, they need to do everything they can to get their people elected/reelected. For some, distancing themselves from Obama is their only hope. This entire Bill is futile because it will never get passed the House.
“Even if the bill passes the Senate, it is unlikely to get a vote in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But Democrats hope it will at least make senators go on record supporting or opposing universal birth control coverage.”
Reid (who has not proved to me his elevator goes all the way to top, for quite some time now) will be forcing these Democrats to choose between their party or their career.
I don’t think the voters will be paying as much attention to enforcing ACA’s Birth Control as they will Obama’s thumbing his nose at this countries protocol. The American people are fed up with it. For the Democrats, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by introducing this Bill.
I can only come up with 2 explanations, “Are the Democrats trying to throw the Mid Term Elections?” or “Maybe this is a tactic of reverse psychology giving them the opportunity to vote against it. That will give the illusion for the weak-minded voters, that they don’t fully back this administration.”
Still feel the way I do on the off topic topic. And agree with Glass's point that there are people in politics (ie: democrats in politics) distancing themselves from Obama that praised him like crazy previously. Kind of nice to see.
If the point of the thread was, "Are the Democrats trying to throw the Mid Term Elections?" I think the answer is 'No'.
If the question is "Should Congress have some form of Checks and Balances to rein in an activist judiciary?" I think the answer is 'Yes'.
If the question is "Should Congress have some form of Checks and Balances to rein in an activist judiciary?" I think the answer is 'Yes'.
I think your point was made quite well... It would seem that there are simply those who choose to ignore it, in favor of declaring outrage that Hobby Lobby is going to get to determine what birth control their employees get to use.
I see more than a few Dems distancing themselves from Obama on more than just this point.
I see more than a few Dems distancing themselves from Obama on more than just this point.
I’m throwing the White Flag up on this thread and acknowledge it is my fault for not making my original post clear.
Barb, feel free to remove it if you desire, R Glass.
Barb, feel free to remove it if you desire, R Glass.
Good post. Had I seen it before I posted I wouldn't have.
Mike
Mike
"So, if I was a woman that needed to have my contraceptive paid for, Hobby Lobby wouldn't be the place for me...."
"At that time, up to 60% of all LNG-IUSs sold in Finland were used for heavy periods and not for contraception." This indicates that the primary use of this device in the 93,000 Finnish women between the ages of 30 and 49 was not contraception. So if you wanted to address an unusually heavy menstrual flow this approach would not be an option for you at Hobby....at least not on their policy.
"An owner of a private company should be able to have certain philosophies that they adhere to."
So if the owner of a closely held corporation was a Jehovah Witness could that owner then impose "certain philosophies" and refuse to cover any medical - even life saving - procedure that involved the transfusion of blood or blood products?
With regard to IUDs the Court held:
“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the [Obama administration’s contraception] mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions..."
Notice the Court didn't find that the 4 contraceptives were actually abortifacients but rather that Hobby's owners BELIEVED them to be abortifacients.
{Medical experts understand less clearly how the other methods of contraception act, because all of them have multiple effects on the egg, sperm and uterus. They can impede sperm mobility, change cervical mucus and modify uterine lining as well as slow the movement of an egg or prevent its release. Although researchers allow that IUDs could potentially interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg, studies indicate that the devices mainly impede pregnancy prefertilization. “With the IUD, the primary mechanism impacts ovulation and sperm behavior,” says Jeanne Conry, past president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)......
It’s unclear why the known medical science behind these contraceptives did not seem to bear on the Supreme Court’s decision. In the case of Plan B, it’s evident that the contraceptive does not violate Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs about abortion. Research also suggests that the other contraceptives don’t conflict with such religious beliefs either. This means that, at least in part, Hobby Lobby based its argument on scientific ignorance. Medical organizations such as the ACOG conveyed the science during the trial, but to no avail—at least for the justices rendering the majority opinion. “We made these points every step of the way,” Conry says, “but the Supreme Court decided on religion, not science.”
The scientific/medical community doesn't share that belief.}
This is what troubles me deeply about the decision. It's based on Hobby's sincerely held beliefs, irrespective of the validity of those beliefs. So, if sincere belief is all that is necessary how can we draw any lines anywhere. As a practical matter how could the Court rule against a Jehovah Witness who excluded coverage for blood products in its healthcare coverage? How could they rule against any closely held company who could demonstrate a sincerely held belief about anything? I don't agree with allowing religion to insinuate itself into our healthcare but to do it based not on science or facts but solely on whether the company had a sincere belief is just outrageous. It opens the door to a plethora of absurd results.
This decision is frighteningly and dangerously stupid.
"At that time, up to 60% of all LNG-IUSs sold in Finland were used for heavy periods and not for contraception." This indicates that the primary use of this device in the 93,000 Finnish women between the ages of 30 and 49 was not contraception. So if you wanted to address an unusually heavy menstrual flow this approach would not be an option for you at Hobby....at least not on their policy.
"An owner of a private company should be able to have certain philosophies that they adhere to."
So if the owner of a closely held corporation was a Jehovah Witness could that owner then impose "certain philosophies" and refuse to cover any medical - even life saving - procedure that involved the transfusion of blood or blood products?
With regard to IUDs the Court held:
“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the [Obama administration’s contraception] mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions..."
Notice the Court didn't find that the 4 contraceptives were actually abortifacients but rather that Hobby's owners BELIEVED them to be abortifacients.
{Medical experts understand less clearly how the other methods of contraception act, because all of them have multiple effects on the egg, sperm and uterus. They can impede sperm mobility, change cervical mucus and modify uterine lining as well as slow the movement of an egg or prevent its release. Although researchers allow that IUDs could potentially interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg, studies indicate that the devices mainly impede pregnancy prefertilization. “With the IUD, the primary mechanism impacts ovulation and sperm behavior,” says Jeanne Conry, past president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)......
It’s unclear why the known medical science behind these contraceptives did not seem to bear on the Supreme Court’s decision. In the case of Plan B, it’s evident that the contraceptive does not violate Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs about abortion. Research also suggests that the other contraceptives don’t conflict with such religious beliefs either. This means that, at least in part, Hobby Lobby based its argument on scientific ignorance. Medical organizations such as the ACOG conveyed the science during the trial, but to no avail—at least for the justices rendering the majority opinion. “We made these points every step of the way,” Conry says, “but the Supreme Court decided on religion, not science.”
The scientific/medical community doesn't share that belief.}
This is what troubles me deeply about the decision. It's based on Hobby's sincerely held beliefs, irrespective of the validity of those beliefs. So, if sincere belief is all that is necessary how can we draw any lines anywhere. As a practical matter how could the Court rule against a Jehovah Witness who excluded coverage for blood products in its healthcare coverage? How could they rule against any closely held company who could demonstrate a sincerely held belief about anything? I don't agree with allowing religion to insinuate itself into our healthcare but to do it based not on science or facts but solely on whether the company had a sincere belief is just outrageous. It opens the door to a plethora of absurd results.
This decision is frighteningly and dangerously stupid.
The perils of granting religion-based exemptions from the law
" The very idea that even a "closely held" corporation covered by this ruling could merit protection on religious grounds is plainly absurd. By definition, corporations are drawn to legally distinguish human beings from their business rights and obligations."
"...........Why the Hobby Lobby case amounts to special dispensation
In myriad past cases, the court proved resistant to religion-based exceptions to laws that apply to everyone else:
Social Security taxes (1982)
Where: Pennsylvania
The case: A sole proprietor engaged in farming and carpentry, a member of Old Order Amish, believed that withholding or paying Social Security taxes would violate the Amish faith.
The verdict: The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that while the Social Security system conflicted with his religious beliefs, his business must comply with tax laws. "When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice," the court observed, "the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."
Racial discrimination (1966)
Where: South Carolina
The case: Three African American residents sued Piggie Park restaurants because its owner maintained that his religious beliefs that compelled him to oppose "any integration of the races whatsoever" trumped the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The verdict: A federal district court rejected the owner's free exercise claim, asserting that he does not possess an "absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens."
Equal pay (1990)
Where: Virginia
The case: A private school operated by the Shenandoah Baptist Church paid its male teachers less than female teachers doing the same job, and paid its support personnel less than the minimum wage. It argued that federal wage laws violated its free exercise of religion.
The verdict: The courts found that Congress' desire to prevent employment discrimination and to ensure that workers receive a minimum wage justified application of those acts to private schools."
First part of full text:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/The-line-between-church-and-state-5599211.php
"The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority stepped into new and potentially treacherous territory last week by deciding that the owners of Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts stores and a Pennsylvania custom-cabinetry company had sincerely held and reasonable religion-based objections to the Affordable Care Act's requirement for contraceptive coverage.
They were allowed to opt out of providing their employees with coverage for certain emergency contraceptives they believe violated their religious principles.
Where might such reasoning lead us?
When the highest court in the land starts making value judgments about which religious objections merit accommodation - by for-profit corporations, no less - our government is in danger of losing a dedication to neutrality that is the foundation of freedom of religion.
In a blistering 35-page dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that never before had the high court granted a for-profit corporation a religious exemption from a "generally applicable law." The very idea that even a "closely held" corporation covered by this ruling could merit protection on religious grounds is plainly absurd. By definition, corporations are drawn to legally distinguish human beings from their business rights and obligations. Ginsburg quoted Chief Justice John Marshall from two centuries ago as describing a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law."
Ginsburg also rightly observed that religion-based concerns about modern medicine hardly begin and end with contraceptives: Some faiths eschew blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses), antidepressants (Scientologists), vaccines and other medications derived from pigs (certain Muslims, Jews and Hindus), and vaccinations (Christian Scientists).
The court's majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito insisted that it was limited to the contraceptive mandate. But a precedent is a precedent, and as Ginsburg asked in her dissent: "How does the court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not?"
Taken to its extreme, could an employer decide, on religious grounds, that certain women are not entitled to any health coverage at all?
This is not a hypothetical example, and it does not come from some remote corner of the Bible Belt.
In the 1980s, Fremont Christian School's policy of denying health benefits to married women was challenged by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The private school in Fremont, owned and operated by the Assembly of God Church, limited the health insurance benefit to "heads of household" - which, by the definition it cited from Ephesians 5:23, meant the husband in cases of marriage. Single women were covered, but once they got married, it was the husband's responsibility to provide for the household.
A district court ruled against Fremont Christian, and the judgment in favor of the compelling government interest to eradicate discrimination was upheld on appeal in February 1986.
Tricia Meyer, head of Fremont Christian, which now covers a 16-acre campus near Interstate 880, would not comment on the case ("no connection to the school or the administration today") or the Hobby Lobby ruling.
"We have no plans to alter our insurance coverages, only plans to continue our tradition of providing kids from the Bay Area and around the world with a great, faith inspired education," Meyer said in an e-mail.
Nevertheless, the implications of the Hobby Lobby ruling are potentially profound. A group of faith leaders urged President Obama in a letter a day after the ruling to include a religious exemption in its proposed order to ban federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
This nation has a long history of businesses seeking - and courts denying - religious exemptions to laws, from universities discriminating against African American students to gender-based pay inequities to objections to Social Security taxes to hiring policies based on church affiliation. In a curious twist, one of the conservative majority's suggested remedies in the Hobby Lobby case would be for the government to pick up the costs of the contraceptive coverage that the company's owners selectively refused to include. In other words, the rest of us would be bearing the cost of assuring equal treatment for the 13,000 employees of a for-profit corporation. In effect, Americans who may not share the owners' religious beliefs would be forced to subsidize their waiver from the law.
There are no end to the contortions that result when a government starts drawing judgments on the sincerity or reasonableness of religion-based appeals from secular endeavors. Neither religious freedom nor fundamental fairness is served when courts grant exceptions to laws based on a corporation's faith and conscience..............."
" The very idea that even a "closely held" corporation covered by this ruling could merit protection on religious grounds is plainly absurd. By definition, corporations are drawn to legally distinguish human beings from their business rights and obligations."
"...........Why the Hobby Lobby case amounts to special dispensation
In myriad past cases, the court proved resistant to religion-based exceptions to laws that apply to everyone else:
Social Security taxes (1982)
Where: Pennsylvania
The case: A sole proprietor engaged in farming and carpentry, a member of Old Order Amish, believed that withholding or paying Social Security taxes would violate the Amish faith.
The verdict: The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that while the Social Security system conflicted with his religious beliefs, his business must comply with tax laws. "When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice," the court observed, "the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."
Racial discrimination (1966)
Where: South Carolina
The case: Three African American residents sued Piggie Park restaurants because its owner maintained that his religious beliefs that compelled him to oppose "any integration of the races whatsoever" trumped the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The verdict: A federal district court rejected the owner's free exercise claim, asserting that he does not possess an "absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens."
Equal pay (1990)
Where: Virginia
The case: A private school operated by the Shenandoah Baptist Church paid its male teachers less than female teachers doing the same job, and paid its support personnel less than the minimum wage. It argued that federal wage laws violated its free exercise of religion.
The verdict: The courts found that Congress' desire to prevent employment discrimination and to ensure that workers receive a minimum wage justified application of those acts to private schools."
First part of full text:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/The-line-between-church-and-state-5599211.php
"The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority stepped into new and potentially treacherous territory last week by deciding that the owners of Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts stores and a Pennsylvania custom-cabinetry company had sincerely held and reasonable religion-based objections to the Affordable Care Act's requirement for contraceptive coverage.
They were allowed to opt out of providing their employees with coverage for certain emergency contraceptives they believe violated their religious principles.
Where might such reasoning lead us?
When the highest court in the land starts making value judgments about which religious objections merit accommodation - by for-profit corporations, no less - our government is in danger of losing a dedication to neutrality that is the foundation of freedom of religion.
In a blistering 35-page dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that never before had the high court granted a for-profit corporation a religious exemption from a "generally applicable law." The very idea that even a "closely held" corporation covered by this ruling could merit protection on religious grounds is plainly absurd. By definition, corporations are drawn to legally distinguish human beings from their business rights and obligations. Ginsburg quoted Chief Justice John Marshall from two centuries ago as describing a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law."
Ginsburg also rightly observed that religion-based concerns about modern medicine hardly begin and end with contraceptives: Some faiths eschew blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses), antidepressants (Scientologists), vaccines and other medications derived from pigs (certain Muslims, Jews and Hindus), and vaccinations (Christian Scientists).
The court's majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito insisted that it was limited to the contraceptive mandate. But a precedent is a precedent, and as Ginsburg asked in her dissent: "How does the court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not?"
Taken to its extreme, could an employer decide, on religious grounds, that certain women are not entitled to any health coverage at all?
This is not a hypothetical example, and it does not come from some remote corner of the Bible Belt.
In the 1980s, Fremont Christian School's policy of denying health benefits to married women was challenged by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The private school in Fremont, owned and operated by the Assembly of God Church, limited the health insurance benefit to "heads of household" - which, by the definition it cited from Ephesians 5:23, meant the husband in cases of marriage. Single women were covered, but once they got married, it was the husband's responsibility to provide for the household.
A district court ruled against Fremont Christian, and the judgment in favor of the compelling government interest to eradicate discrimination was upheld on appeal in February 1986.
Tricia Meyer, head of Fremont Christian, which now covers a 16-acre campus near Interstate 880, would not comment on the case ("no connection to the school or the administration today") or the Hobby Lobby ruling.
"We have no plans to alter our insurance coverages, only plans to continue our tradition of providing kids from the Bay Area and around the world with a great, faith inspired education," Meyer said in an e-mail.
Nevertheless, the implications of the Hobby Lobby ruling are potentially profound. A group of faith leaders urged President Obama in a letter a day after the ruling to include a religious exemption in its proposed order to ban federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
This nation has a long history of businesses seeking - and courts denying - religious exemptions to laws, from universities discriminating against African American students to gender-based pay inequities to objections to Social Security taxes to hiring policies based on church affiliation. In a curious twist, one of the conservative majority's suggested remedies in the Hobby Lobby case would be for the government to pick up the costs of the contraceptive coverage that the company's owners selectively refused to include. In other words, the rest of us would be bearing the cost of assuring equal treatment for the 13,000 employees of a for-profit corporation. In effect, Americans who may not share the owners' religious beliefs would be forced to subsidize their waiver from the law.
There are no end to the contortions that result when a government starts drawing judgments on the sincerity or reasonableness of religion-based appeals from secular endeavors. Neither religious freedom nor fundamental fairness is served when courts grant exceptions to laws based on a corporation's faith and conscience..............."
Healthcare is left to the Dr and patient, Hobby Lobby has no say in what a Dr and patient decide to do.
If I may, let me reiterate my statement because it appears we are getting off track from the point I apparently failed getting across.
There are some Congressman and Senators that are hoping to be elected or reelected and there only hope is to distance themselves from Obama.
Mary Landrieu is one of them. Maybe this is a tactic of reverse psychology giving them the opportunity to vote against it. That will give the illusion for the weak-minded voters, that they don’t fully back this administration. For some of them like Mary, voting for it could be her final nail in the coffin to regain her seat.
There are some Congressman and Senators that are hoping to be elected or reelected and there only hope is to distance themselves from Obama.
Mary Landrieu is one of them. Maybe this is a tactic of reverse psychology giving them the opportunity to vote against it. That will give the illusion for the weak-minded voters, that they don’t fully back this administration. For some of them like Mary, voting for it could be her final nail in the coffin to regain her seat.
Corporations are not people and do not have religious beliefs. They may be owned and operated by people who have religious beliefs.
Health care decisions should be left to a patient and his or her doctor.
Should the employer be consulted with whether they agree with the decision to use certain meds, or procedures for particular health care needs ? No.
And if the company is opposed to birth control, then hire all men who don't use condoms or have vasectomies.
Hey, better yet, just hire only gay men or post menopausal women, end of problem with birth control !
Health care decisions should be left to a patient and his or her doctor.
Should the employer be consulted with whether they agree with the decision to use certain meds, or procedures for particular health care needs ? No.
And if the company is opposed to birth control, then hire all men who don't use condoms or have vasectomies.
Hey, better yet, just hire only gay men or post menopausal women, end of problem with birth control !
I waffle on this issue all of the time. Here's what gets me. If you're going to provide insurance (which is somewhat mandated now) you provide it without any personal attachments. Personally, if I were an employer and had to provide insurance, I would not let any of my personal beliefs get in the way of what could be provided to you....
On the other hand, if your employer is going to be picky and select what they will and will not provide coverage for, maybe you are not in the best spot professionally if you feel insurance is part of your wage.
Now with the advent of the ACA you can pick and choose which plan best suits you. Of course there is an out of pocket expense, but I also feel that ones health care is part of their personal business... not necessarily a professional matter. If there is a cost, suck it up and pay it.
With that being said, I don't like that my office visit co-pay went up $10 bucks this last 7 months, but I feel pretty fortunate that I do have insurance that better allows me to take care of the health issues I do have to address. (Monthly meds are $47 a month.... one of them used to be $47 a month until the patent wore out.)
The more I talk, the more I waffle.... I could go on, but whats the use?
On the other hand, if your employer is going to be picky and select what they will and will not provide coverage for, maybe you are not in the best spot professionally if you feel insurance is part of your wage.
Now with the advent of the ACA you can pick and choose which plan best suits you. Of course there is an out of pocket expense, but I also feel that ones health care is part of their personal business... not necessarily a professional matter. If there is a cost, suck it up and pay it.
With that being said, I don't like that my office visit co-pay went up $10 bucks this last 7 months, but I feel pretty fortunate that I do have insurance that better allows me to take care of the health issues I do have to address. (Monthly meds are $47 a month.... one of them used to be $47 a month until the patent wore out.)
The more I talk, the more I waffle.... I could go on, but whats the use?
PS: I am okay with the fact that I know we don't all share the same opinion. I respect how others feel about it.
I believe that if someone doesn't like the policies of a private company, they should seek employment elsewhere. I mean, isn't that part of job seeking. Making a match? Kind of like picking a partner . . . you have certain things that are important to you and you seek the best match to fit your needs.
So, if I was a woman that needed to have my contraceptive paid for, Hobby Lobby wouldn't be the place for me. OR, I'd work them and rely on my spouse's/partner's insurance. OR, I'd go to one of any number of clinics available these days. Or I'd use condoms.
An owner of a private company should be able to have certain philosophies that they adhere to. Just because someone needs more hours for work, should Hobby Lobby be forced to open on Sundays?
I hope Hobby Lobby prevails and am rooting for them.
So, if I was a woman that needed to have my contraceptive paid for, Hobby Lobby wouldn't be the place for me. OR, I'd work them and rely on my spouse's/partner's insurance. OR, I'd go to one of any number of clinics available these days. Or I'd use condoms.
An owner of a private company should be able to have certain philosophies that they adhere to. Just because someone needs more hours for work, should Hobby Lobby be forced to open on Sundays?
I hope Hobby Lobby prevails and am rooting for them.
It's not like the ruling forbid any type of birth control. If you don't like it then don't work for them.
Plan B costs $50, an IUD is $500-$1000 but lasts 12 years. Just like you have co-pays and deductibles. So if you have unprotected sex and need Plan B then pay for it. If you want an IUD for birth control and don't want to take the other available methods then you have to pay for it.
The co-pay for the medicine to treat the neuropathy in my feet is $1.50 a pill. Without insurance it would be over $5 a tablet and I couldn't afford it. So to me, whether something is covered by insurance or not is more than academic. Some of us can't afford to just pay full price for something that our insurance doesn't cover.
I know you always say how tough you are and maybe, physically, you really are that tough. And that could explain your bullying personality here. The trouble you have here is that intellectually you're not tough at all and your juvenile protestations of victory and your impotent insults just make you look foolish.
The Hobby-Lobby case was all about religion or didn't you understand that facet of the case?
The Hobby-Lobby case was all about religion or didn't you understand that facet of the case?
It's not a religious...WOMEN CAN STILL GET AN IUD. Why are you people so brain dead about that? Nothing has been denied to women.
IUD may carry higher risk for breast cancer in certain women
By Val Willingham, CNN
updated 10:16 AM EDT, Wed July 9, 2014
{....The study followed more than 93,000 Finnish women between the ages of 30 and 49. All of the subjects were using the hormone-releasing IUD to treat their heavy periods from 1994 to 2007. At that time, up to 60% of all LNG-IUSs sold in Finland were used for heavy periods and not for contraception.
Investigators found that over time, the device did not significantly raise the risk of uterine cancer or ovarian, pancreatic and lung cancers. But researchers did see a spike in the number of breast cancer cases, especially in women between the ages of 45-49, compared to women in the general population who were not using this particular IUD.
"The number of diagnosed new breast cancer cases among Finnish women who used LNG-IUS for menorrhagia was 19% higher than in Finnish general population," said Dr. Tuuli Soini, the lead author of the study.
However, the research does not say that this type of IUD causes breast cancer. Soini also adds "one limitation of our study was that women suffering from heavy menstruation may in fact represent a selected group of women who may have other risk factors for cancer, such as factors related to lifestyle, genetic factors, just to name a few."
According to Soini, this study is the first linking premenopausal LNG-IUS use and breast cancer.
Two earlier studies did not reveal an increased cancer risk, according to the study.
For physicians, this research is a new piece of information they can pass on to those patients.
"It's a great reminder that we need to weigh the benefits of some of these methods against the risks," said Dr. Angela Marshall, director of Comprehensive Women's Health in Silver Spring, Maryland. "We need to educate our patients, because many of these therapies may work, but some could have serious side effects. Women need to be told. Then it's up to the patient, along with a doctor's guidance, to make the decision."
The study authors agree.
"LNG-IUS use seemed to protect against endometrial cancer, which is a common cancer type steadily increasing in the population," said Soini. "We are still convinced LNG-IUS is the best treatment modality for heavy menstrual bleeding, a common health problem affecting the quality of life of a large proportion of female population overall. We certainly hesitate to recommend any change of the clinical menorrhagia management guidelines."
Soini also stressed, "However, health benefits and health risks should be carefully taken into account while counseling menorrhagia patients, in relation to any hormonal or surgical therapy."}
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/08/health/iud-cancer-risk/
There does seem to be evidence that "LNG-IUS use seemed to protect against endometrial cancer, which is a common cancer type steadily increasing in the population,"
Another interesting point is that according to the study "At that time, up to 60% of all LNG-IUSs sold in Finland were used for heavy periods and not for contraception." This indicates that the primary use of this device was not contraception.
The bottom line is that IUD use is a medical decision which should never have been distorted into a religious one.
By Val Willingham, CNN
updated 10:16 AM EDT, Wed July 9, 2014
{....The study followed more than 93,000 Finnish women between the ages of 30 and 49. All of the subjects were using the hormone-releasing IUD to treat their heavy periods from 1994 to 2007. At that time, up to 60% of all LNG-IUSs sold in Finland were used for heavy periods and not for contraception.
Investigators found that over time, the device did not significantly raise the risk of uterine cancer or ovarian, pancreatic and lung cancers. But researchers did see a spike in the number of breast cancer cases, especially in women between the ages of 45-49, compared to women in the general population who were not using this particular IUD.
"The number of diagnosed new breast cancer cases among Finnish women who used LNG-IUS for menorrhagia was 19% higher than in Finnish general population," said Dr. Tuuli Soini, the lead author of the study.
However, the research does not say that this type of IUD causes breast cancer. Soini also adds "one limitation of our study was that women suffering from heavy menstruation may in fact represent a selected group of women who may have other risk factors for cancer, such as factors related to lifestyle, genetic factors, just to name a few."
According to Soini, this study is the first linking premenopausal LNG-IUS use and breast cancer.
Two earlier studies did not reveal an increased cancer risk, according to the study.
For physicians, this research is a new piece of information they can pass on to those patients.
"It's a great reminder that we need to weigh the benefits of some of these methods against the risks," said Dr. Angela Marshall, director of Comprehensive Women's Health in Silver Spring, Maryland. "We need to educate our patients, because many of these therapies may work, but some could have serious side effects. Women need to be told. Then it's up to the patient, along with a doctor's guidance, to make the decision."
The study authors agree.
"LNG-IUS use seemed to protect against endometrial cancer, which is a common cancer type steadily increasing in the population," said Soini. "We are still convinced LNG-IUS is the best treatment modality for heavy menstrual bleeding, a common health problem affecting the quality of life of a large proportion of female population overall. We certainly hesitate to recommend any change of the clinical menorrhagia management guidelines."
Soini also stressed, "However, health benefits and health risks should be carefully taken into account while counseling menorrhagia patients, in relation to any hormonal or surgical therapy."}
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/08/health/iud-cancer-risk/
There does seem to be evidence that "LNG-IUS use seemed to protect against endometrial cancer, which is a common cancer type steadily increasing in the population,"
Another interesting point is that according to the study "At that time, up to 60% of all LNG-IUSs sold in Finland were used for heavy periods and not for contraception." This indicates that the primary use of this device was not contraception.
The bottom line is that IUD use is a medical decision which should never have been distorted into a religious one.
You lost the argument simple as that and you grasp at straws to save some face but you have nothing to stand on.
Hobby Lobby is not deciding what treatment a Dr is. Just because someone has to pay for something does not equal denial of treatment.
And again it is not recommended by Dr's to get an IUD to prevent cancer.
Hobby Lobby is not deciding what treatment a Dr is. Just because someone has to pay for something does not equal denial of treatment.
And again it is not recommended by Dr's to get an IUD to prevent cancer.
Those 8,400+ women who will die this year will be happy to know that you and Hobby Lobby felt competent to decide what type of treatment was available to them.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/endometrialcancer/detailedguide/endometrial-uterine-cancer-key-statistics
What are the key statistics about endometrial cancer?
In the United States, cancer of the endometrium is the most common cancer of the female reproductive organs. The American Cancer Society estimates for cancer of the uterus in the United States for 2014 are:
About 52,630 new cases of cancer of the body of the uterus (uterine body or corpus) will be diagnosed.
About 8,590 women will die from cancers of the uterine body.
These estimates include both endometrial cancers and uterine sarcomas. About 2% of uterine body cancers are sarcomas, so the actual numbers for endometrial cancer cases and deaths are slightly lower than these estimates.
Endometrial cancer is rare in women under the age of 45. Most (about 3 out of 4) cases are found in women aged 55 and over The average chance of a woman being diagnosed with this cancer during her lifetime is about one in 37. There are over 600,000 women who are survivors of this cancer. This cancer is slightly more common in white women, but black women are more likely to die from it.
People do not get IUD's for cancer prevention. Never heard of a Dr recommending that and can't find anything online where that is a recommendation.
#Winning
What are the key statistics about endometrial cancer?
In the United States, cancer of the endometrium is the most common cancer of the female reproductive organs. The American Cancer Society estimates for cancer of the uterus in the United States for 2014 are:
About 52,630 new cases of cancer of the body of the uterus (uterine body or corpus) will be diagnosed.
About 8,590 women will die from cancers of the uterine body.
These estimates include both endometrial cancers and uterine sarcomas. About 2% of uterine body cancers are sarcomas, so the actual numbers for endometrial cancer cases and deaths are slightly lower than these estimates.
Endometrial cancer is rare in women under the age of 45. Most (about 3 out of 4) cases are found in women aged 55 and over The average chance of a woman being diagnosed with this cancer during her lifetime is about one in 37. There are over 600,000 women who are survivors of this cancer. This cancer is slightly more common in white women, but black women are more likely to die from it.
People do not get IUD's for cancer prevention. Never heard of a Dr recommending that and can't find anything online where that is a recommendation.
#Winning
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/106614.php
"The intrauterine device (IUD) isn't just an effective contraceptive, it also provides some protection against endometrial cancer.........."
So, as a result of the owners of Hobby Lobby not understanding the science behind contraception, their employees are also denied access to therapy that could reduce their risk of cancer.
"The intrauterine device (IUD) isn't just an effective contraceptive, it also provides some protection against endometrial cancer.........."
So, as a result of the owners of Hobby Lobby not understanding the science behind contraception, their employees are also denied access to therapy that could reduce their risk of cancer.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
