Supreme Court strikes down contraception law

Hence, my question earlier, about where all these free clinics might be.

At that particular clinic, but it varies wildly from area to area, depending on how much state support and charitable donations a given clinic receives.

From Planned Parenthood of Indiana, on a page specifically about IUDs

Also, from an article about Planned Parenthood and IUDs that appears on thelawdictionary.org website

LINK

And here we come to the REAL issue. Some people think what they want should be paid for by others. If they don't want the employer involved then don't use the employer's insurance. Shop around.

Works for me. I doubt that any employers would object.

Just to stir the pot...

What if I'm a hippie, should my employer be forced to cover my "alternative medicine" treatments?

If you're a hippie, it's unlikely that you have an employer.

Place one (1) aspirin tablet between the knees and do NOT drop it. Cheap enough. What?

Off-topic and overly literal, but anyone who thinks keeping the knees together prevents sex isn't being imaginative enough.

Please someone tell me that loophole business isn't really something that people believe?

I'd like to set your mind at ease... but can't. It's a huge trend among the purity-ring set, in Christian schools especially.

And here I thought this stuff could no longer surprise me. Incredible.

Sadly, it is. I went to a Catholic high school, and this rationalization was not uncommon.

Another thing that concerns me is that we're basically allowing employers to dictate the terms of our compensation on religious grounds. Sure, the ACA dictates that they're required to offer healthcare after a certain amount of workers, but it's part of the overall pay package. As many libertarians on here are so fond of saying, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

http://www.princeton.edu/~reinhard/...MICS_OF_EMPLOYMENT-BASED_HEALTH_INSURANCE.pdf

As someone who went to a Jesuit college that was >60% female I can concur with the statement that this is real. HOWEVER, I must VEHEMENTLY disagree with the idea that such belief is 'sad'. In my learned opinion it is one of the most precious and beautiful thing to come from our Lord's revelation.

Here's the thing. This didn't have to happen like this.

If Obama & the ACA writers weren't so . . . well, take your pick. They can be idiots or they can be disrespectful incompetents. Take your pick. You're probably used to it by now. Anyway, they could easily have written a choice into the bill, rather than trying to steamroll this issue. You can either provide for contraceptives, or you can pay a certain amount per month above the going rate for that position in your industry (and I'm sure the government has that data at their fingertips). That amount is determined by going down to Walgreens and seeing how much, say, 60 condoms cost if we're trying to cover the hyper-hormonal college students. Someone has a moral objection to whatever subset of contraceptives, fine, put your money where your mouth is and pay your employees more. This costs the employer more because they have to do it for all their employees, so it won't be taken except by people who are serious. And all the employees win because they aren't being paid minimum wage for the work they're doing.

Individuals' religious freedom is respected: conservatives win and employees win. Workers get paid: employers win. Corporations cry: liberals win. It's easy and a shade more constitutional. So naturally they didn't go that route.

It's 'Murica

The requirement that companies that offer prescription drug coverage also cover birth control wasn't new to the Affordable Care Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided in 2000 that a company that offers prescription coverage but denies prescription birth control was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There are also 26 states that have their own mandates for prescription birth control coverage. The real problem here isn't in the wording of the ACA, but that the Supreme Court ruled that the RFRA could be construed to imbue corporations with the religious beliefs of their owners.

As employers, they're ethically free to dictate the terms of the compensation they offer on any grounds they want to. Don't like what they offer? Don't go to work for them. When they need employees more than they need an arbitrary rule, they'll ditch that arbitrary rule. That's how a market that is, in fact, free should work.

We have now the least free market we've ever had, and people are blaming the problems that causes on what little freedom is left in it. That's like blaming a rash on the unaffected skin around it.

I wonder if this could be a way to slip in some sort of religious test for employment in the future?

Ethically? Barring the existence of an absolute moral authority, ethics have no meaning. There is only the law, and the law doesn't allow compensation discrimination on grounds of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability.

So women that need pills to regulate their period are SOL if they work at Hobby Lobby?

I'm trying not to kneejerk, but it makes no sense why they would only offer coverage for 80 percent of contraceptives and not something as cheap as the pill (most users of which take it for something other than birth control) or IUD, which from an employer's perspective would be far cheaper than paying for a whole pregnancy plus maternity leave.

I think they do cover The Pill. It's morning after pills and IUDs they have a problem with. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. The 16/20ths coverage is vague in conservative blogs.

Yet they cover Viagra, Cialis, et al. without a quibble. Because male sexual dysfunction is a matter of life and death.

The morning after pill has been making fundies flip shit since forever, so I'm not surprised if that is the case. But IUDs more often than not are sought by women who are already mothers or ones that are certain they will never have kids and are just tired of all the other hoops and hurdles to prevent that.

Whores gonna whore regardless. All these measures do is push employees away.

Well we've yet to employ an openly atheist president, sounds like we already have one.

The ruling seems to be very narrow. I also think that as a nation, we need to be careful in how far our laws and regulations go. I also hope that the President doesn't try to get around the ruling by issuing some sort of an executive order.

Well, that "only the law" has spoken in this case, if you want to now pull out the "there's only the law" card.

/thread, then.

Does this reasoning work for other debts people wouldn't like to pay? "You've got enough money to cover your needs, and also, there are various kinds of charity that can help you"?