Skip to main content

Doctor sitting by the table and consulting a patient in her office.
If that's a discussion about birth control, Hobby Lobby says pay for it yourself.
The Supreme Court is supposedly immune to public opinion polling, but just in case any of the justices are paying attention ahead of their consideration next week of the Hobby Lobby contraception case, there's this: the majority of people think that employers should not be able to opt out of providing insurance coverage for family planning. That's according to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll.
Fifty-three percent say employers should not be exempt from the requirement that their health plans offer birth control and other contraceptives even if they have religious objections, while 41 percent say they should be exempt.
Perhaps not surprisingly, seniors who are either no longer working or needing contraception think it would be just fine for an employer to dictate that, 49 percent-to-40 percent. The 18-34 group, however, rejects the idea 62 -33.

That's one of the issues raised in the Hobby Lobby case against the Obamacare provision that requires coverage of contraception. It's the part of the case that's gotten the most attention, but the other part of the Hobby Lobby challenge is just as radical. It's essentially a physician gag rule: the company is also asserting it shouldn't have to pay for insurance covering doctors appointments in which family planning is even discussed. That's basically asserting that your employer dictates what you discuss with your doctor.

These right-wing fanatics don't just want your employer in your medicine cabinet, they want your employer in the doctor's exam room with you.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (47+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:11:55 PM PDT

  •  doctor's office, bedroom, (10+ / 0-)

    voting booth,

    PTA meetings,

    church pew,

    the list

    goes

    on

    and

    on!!!

    "when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"

    by gravlax on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:17:38 PM PDT

  •  They ARE Paying For It Themselves. (19+ / 0-)

    Health care is part of the employee COMPENSATION.

    Hobby Lobby isn't providing health care to neighbors and customers.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:32:24 PM PDT

    •  Wish I could rec this a million times. (7+ / 0-)

      Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

      by Matt Z on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:42:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me too. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Judge Moonbox, nocynicism

        Also, if a female employee of Hobby Lobby takes the money from her paycheck and uses it for family planning healthcare or medically necessary hormonal contraception, it is no different than if that coverage is rolled into a health insurance policy.

        The money to pay for it -- whether via health insurance premiums or cash by paycheck -- came from the same frickin' place!

        "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

        by Technowitch on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:34:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  except the part of the (0+ / 0-)

      premium that the company subsidizes by paying directly to the insurance company. That money never passes through the hands of the employee.

      iirc, you owe no taxes on that part because the government does not count it as your income.

      •  Except the part where they only send it because (7+ / 0-)

        you worked for them. You earned it.

        Oh for crying out loud!

        by 4mygirls on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:59:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  who earned those dollars (0+ / 0-)

          is the question

          did the employee earn them by doing the work?

          or

          did the insurance company earn them by providing the service?

          At least from a taxing perspective, i think the government perceives it as the latter.

          If all the premium money went to the employee who then paid for 100% of the coverage, then the employer hands would be (to them) clean. It would not be 'their' money going for the icky thing.

      •  We own a small business, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AJayne, misslegalbeagle, Linda1961

        and the cafeteria plan we offer, while tax exempt, is most certainly employee compensation.  It is negotiated along with salary and is part of the total cost to us of having employees.  The fact that the employee doesn't income pay taxes does nothing to change it to something other than compensation.  That's like saying that the people who don't make enough to pay federal income tax should be subjected to their employers deciding how they should spend their salaries.  Just because something is tax exempt doesn't make it an employer giveaway.

        •  Technically (0+ / 0-)

          Cafeteria plan dollars are employer dollars, even when they are a voluntary salary reduction elected by the employee.

          The point about cafeteria plans, though, is that the health benefits purchased are subject to extensive government regulation, including, pursuant to the ACA, minimum benefit requirements.  The question does not turn on whose dollars they are, but the extent to which generally applicable laws will apply to employers.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:09:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's the Employees' Money. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anon004, dewtx, Santa Susanna Kid

            Picture the Company Store as the term was understood 100 years ago. If you worked in a company town, your boss was your landlord and your grocer. Now imagine that the boss is Jewish, and he declares that because the money to stock the company store goes straight from his pocket to the wholesaler, he should have the right to buy only kosher foods. Would his right outweigh the workers right to spend their hard-earned scrip on pork?

            Imagine that Notre Dame had a credit union, and they decided that religious freedom meant that they didn't have to honor checks a Protestant professor sent to Planned Parenthood. That would be corporate suicide. Are you saying that because health care is substantially harder to get outside of the Company Store, the rights involved shift to the employer's side?

            The first health insurance plans were instituted because the unions demanded them. They became widespread in World War II because wage controls forbade companies from offering higher salaries, so they turned to health insurance to attract workers.

            From this historical perspective, health insurance is not a charitable offering. It isn't a cost of doing business on the order of heating the buildings. It's a benefit earned by the workers.

            Freedom's just another word for not enough to eat. --Paul Krugman's characterization of conservative attitudes.

            by Judge Moonbox on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:43:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I guess I'm curious why you think (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MHB

            that cafeteria plans are regulated and that the payment of salary and wages aren't.  As an employer, it seems to me there are plenty of regulations involving wages, including some very basic things like the minimum an employer has to pay an employee per hour.

            •  I didn't say that (0+ / 0-)

              I said that health benefits are subject to extensive regulation; I don't say anything about salary or wages, which of course are also regulated.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:04:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How do you define "extensive" (0+ / 0-)

                and how would you quantify that health benefits regulations are more extensive than wage and salary regulations?

                •  I'm sorry (0+ / 0-)

                  Do you have a point?  Because so far you have made two replies that make no sense, since I haven't compared the regulatory schemes relating to health benefits, on the one hand, and wages and salary, on the other.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:34:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  One comment: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MHB

                    "The point about cafeteria plans, though, is that the health benefits purchased are subject to extensive government regulation, including, pursuant to the ACA, minimum benefit requirements."

                    Second comment:

                    "I said that health benefits are subject to extensive regulation; I don't say anything about salary or wages, which of course are also regulated."

                    In two instances, you seem to be making the argument that wages and salary is compensation, but cafeteria plans aren't because they are extensively regulated.  I merely pointed out that there are extensive regulations regarding both cafeteria plans and wages and salary, so this particular distinction doesn't seem to hold up.  In other words, you need another argument to support the your ocntention that cafeteria plans and wages are not both compensation.

                    •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                      You have so completely missed the point that it is not worth my time to try and reel you back.

                      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                      by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:58:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I started out my making the argument (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Judge Moonbox, MHB

                        that attempting to control how an employee uses a benefit is the same as attempting to control how an employee uses their salary, since they are both earned compensation.  YOU came in with the argument that they aren't the same because benefits are so extensively regulated.  I made the point that salary is extensively regulated as well, so that saying that they are different on that basis isn't valid.  That was the discussion we were having for a few rounds.  I'm not sure what you think we were talking about.

                        And, sorry, but your response sounds like, "I can't really counter this, so I'll pretend he/she didn't get what I was saying."  It would be better to admit that your argument doesn't work, and that you need a new one, although you tried that with the taxation argument, and that didn't work, either.

                        Better yet, be even more honest and admit there is no difference between benefits and salary when it comes to employee compensation, and that allowing an employer to control one on religious grounds gives the employer the right to control the other on religious grounds.  Better hope you never wind up working for a Mormon, or no more Starbucks for you!

      •  Hobby Lobby is self-insured (0+ / 0-)

        so that argument fails.

        The broader principle that should apply is that generally applicable laws do not violate anyone's (human, corporation, association, etc.) free exercise rights. That was the holding in Smith v. Employment Division--for which Scalia wrote the majority decision.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:03:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The kicker would be (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassandra Waites, dewtx, nocynicism

          if they've been offering health care in states where contraception coverage was required by STATE law.

          My bet is they have been, and for years. Catholic hospitals certainly have been.

          So how come it's OK when the state says you have to cover it, but not OK when the feds say so?

          If it's against your religion, did your religion change? Or are you just mad because it was a black man that managed to get it passed?

          •  That is absolutely true and an excellent point (0+ / 0-)

            It may be that states regulate the minimum benefits offered under health insurance policies, but not under self-insured plans.

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:07:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  It would be interesting to ask a different but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fb, Lepanto

    similar and simpler question, namely - "Should the government require your employer pay for your birth control?"

    I would be uncertain as to the validity with complex wording of questions using words like "exempt" and complex phrases like "should not be exempt from the requirement"

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:41:28 PM PDT

    •  I think the question should read more like this: (7+ / 0-)

      "Should your employer be allowed to tell you how you can spend the money you earn while employed by them, including  medications your doctor prescribes for you, to be included in insurance coverage that is part of your wages?"
      There is zero reason to separate birth control medications and procedures from the myriad other medications and procedures that are also covered without a co-pay.

      Oh for crying out loud!

      by 4mygirls on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:58:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Under ACA, there is no copay for birth control (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        viral

        (except for catastrophic plans), so ACA treats birth control more favorably than most every other medication.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:11:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Medications defined as preventive that qualify: (5+ / 0-)
          Affordable Care Act Preferred Preventive Drug List
          $0 Copays
          Under health care reform, certain categories of drugs and other products were identified as preventive and are available at no cost.

          *Aspirin Drugs   
          for:
          Men and women who are 45 and over and who are at risk for cardiovascular disease

          *FDA Approved Contraceptives   
          for:
          Females ages 10-65 years

          *Folic Acid Drugs   
          for:
          Women planning to become, or capable of becoming pregnant

          *Iron Supplementation Drugs    Eligibility Criteria
          for:
          Children 6 years old or younger whose primary water source is deficient in fluoride

          *Smoking Cessation Products
          for:
          Tobacco users who want to quit smoking

          *Vitamin D Drugs
          for:
          Adults over the age of 65

          It isn't just contraceptives.
        •  Funny, given your tag line, I would think (0+ / 0-)

          you would be a big booster of birth control.

          •  I am. It should be free to all. Even those (0+ / 0-)

            without insurance.

            I am also in favor in being as accurate as possible on public policy issues.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 05:07:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  here's the right question: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4mygirls, anon004

        are your wages yours or the company's you work for?

        If you earn the money -- or the benefits, including health insurance -- (and here's where IMO Hobby Lobby fails: Paul wrote to Timothy, and Jesus said to his disciples, "The laborer is worthy of his hire.") then that makes them YOUR property, with which you should be able to do as you need / wish.

        But if the money or benefits belong to the employer, THEY can dictate how it's used.

        Frame it that way and 99.95% of the American people will say, "You earned it. It's yours. Spend it as you need / want."

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:44:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it is entirely possible for that to be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1

          done with wages as well through the employment contract.  There is no reason why they couldn't say that you are not allowed to spend any of the money we pay you on contraceptives or even to do random blood tests for contraceptive drugs.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 04:46:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  @ which point the marketing dept has a big (3+ / 0-)

            problem 'cause they're a crafters' store -- and something like 70% of their customer base is female.

            The alternatives where I live are HL and MalWart. I buy yarn and hooks (for crochet). At MalWart. Sigh.

            LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 08:56:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The real question is: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anon004

      When writing law, does the government have the discretion to define terms?

      In the ACA, when "preventive drugs" were defined as qualifying for the "no co-pay" classification, did the government act within its rights?

      Because, of course, that is exactly what happened.

  •  Maybe (0+ / 0-)

    Companies should stop paying for insurance altogether. Then we can all pay for our own choices with our own money. Seems simple.

    You best believe it does

    by HangsLeft on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:43:56 PM PDT

  •  You mean, get corporate control out of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ET3117

    healthcare AND government? What a revolutionary idea!

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:45:57 PM PDT

  •  Actually they don;lt (0+ / 0-)

    They do not want to interfere with anything regarding you, your doctor, or contraception. They just do not want to be be forced to pay for it. That is a distinct difference.

    •  Who is being forced to pay for it? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, Cassandra Waites

      The individuals, personally, or the corporation?

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:54:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have to be kidding (10+ / 0-)

      No, what Hobby Lobby wants is a special 'sex/slut' tax on women who dare to exercise the right to appropriate and legal medical treatment related to our lady-parts.

      They're not asking to be exempt from paying for Viagra prescriptions. Or for vasectomies.

      They want to be allowed to buy health insurance for their employees that prohibits coverage for something that ONLY women need. And which, despite their and your misrepresentations, do not always have to do with sexual activity.

      The real difference is they are motivated by misogyny and religious patriarchist beliefs.

      "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

      by Technowitch on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:14:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nope (0+ / 0-)

        They're asking to to pay for something violates their religious beliefs. That's all. Period. Until they had to pay for it, they did not care.

        •  They were paying for it before - thru paycheck (5+ / 0-)

          They just want women to have to pay extra for our medically necessary healthcare.

          Why? Because they hate women.

          "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

          by Technowitch on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:36:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is quite silly (0+ / 0-)

            They gave them a check, the employees (men and women) can do what they want and the company did not care. But making the Company pay for services that are antithetical to their religion is the point- and a very big difference. That's quite a charge "they hate women". Maybe they could say you "hate their religion"? See what I did there?

            •  Not even close to 'silly' (4+ / 0-)

              And since Hobby Lobby has absolutely no moral objections to any healthcare treatment that only apply to men -- and there are more than a few -- and because they do not object to medical treatment for other 'immoral' things such as drug or alcohol treatment -- the conclusion is obvious.

              You can straw-man it all you like. They hate women.

              "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

              by Technowitch on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:48:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Care to prove that? (0+ / 0-)

                "And since Hobby Lobby has absolutely no moral objections to any healthcare treatment that only apply to men"

                Your def of Immoral may different than theirs?

                Again I would not be in their camp- bit I get their case. The gov is making them pay for things they find antithetical to their religious beliefs. And again, the ACA could have alleviated this at the outset. And once again, the cases of concern here are going to be quite small.

            •  To go beyond not paying for contraceptive (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Santa Susanna Kid, schnecke21

              coverage to say that they won't even pay for a doctor's visit where such things are discussed (even if the employee ends up paying for the contraception out of pocket) is ridiculous and potentially deadly. Much of women's health is tied up with their reproductive systems and their hormones. My mother almost bled to death shortly after I was born because of severe endometriosis -- she ended up with an emergency hysterectomy (my oldest sister and my dad did much of my early care; possibly one reason I never really bonded with my mother but that's another story). These days such cases can be treated with hormonal contraception -- but if a doctor can't even talk about it with the patient that's life threatening.

              You don't want to pay for it? Fine -- get insurance coverage that does or pay your employee the money so they can get the coverage if they so choose (or maybe they'll just pocket the money and no blame to anyone if they run into problems without coverage).

              There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

              by Cali Scribe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:49:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Why should THEIR beliefs be so special? (4+ / 0-)

          Pacifists have to pay war taxes.

          People who want to abolish the Death Penalty have to pay taxes for a procedure that, so far as can be determined only legitimates violence in the eyes of those who haven't outgrown the Monkey See, Monkey Do phase.

          Vegans have to pay for meat inspections to insure that a procedure fatal to animals isn't sickening to humans.

          I dare say that if you don't have to pay for a procedure that violates your religious conscience, it's because you have no moral qualms (although I'll admit that there's a one in a million chance that your views by sheer coincidence are the same as what the law permits).

          So why should their views take precedence?

          Freedom's just another word for not enough to eat. --Paul Krugman's characterization of conservative attitudes.

          by Judge Moonbox on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:14:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We all have to pay (0+ / 0-)

            taxes to fund the government. Period. but to demand that employers pay for health insurance coverage - not a tax levied on all citizens- is not the same .

            •  Picture a Notre Dame University Credit Union. (0+ / 0-)

              Would it violate their conscience if they had to honor checks to Planned Parenthood drawn on the accounts of Protestant professors? I should think that if they tried doing so, it would be corporate suicide.

              The difference with providing contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans is that it's far more difficult to get insurance outside the company store.

              Employers don't treat health insurance as a charitable contribution. It isn't a cost of doing business on the order of heating the buildings. It is a benefit earned by the employees; and unless you're going to pull the "Possession is 9/10ths of the Law" line, you're not dealing with the argument that "It's the Employees' Money!"

              Freedom's just another word for not enough to eat. --Paul Krugman's characterization of conservative attitudes.

              by Judge Moonbox on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:03:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  How does discussion of family planning (8+ / 0-)

      fit into this? If you think that because they "pay" for a doctor visit (which they don't really), they can provide a list of acceptable topics to talk about and not talk about regardless of your medical status, aren't they practicing medicine without a license? That's just obscene frankly.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:19:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You reckon Pailin would call those "birth panels"? (0+ / 0-)

        Not that I really give a blue moose knuckle what she thinks about anything -- I'd just like watching the jello mold between her ears jiggle trying to qualify how the government getting between you and your doctor is bad when an employer getting between you and your doctor isn't.

        Signature (this will be attached to your comments)

        by here4tehbeer on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:31:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  nope (0+ / 0-)

        but they do have some concerns over what they are forced to pay for that violate their protected religious convictions.

    •  Suppose an employer believes drinking alcohol is (3+ / 0-)

      against their moral principles, therefore, they don't want to pay for it with the salary they give you?  They're not interfering with your right to purchase alcohol -- after all, you can always use income from another job or from your investments to pay for it.  Do you really want to give an employer that kind of control?

      •  That is not an accurate comparison (0+ / 0-)

        It quite silly actually. You can purchase anything you wish with your paycheck- including contraception. The correct analogy would be making the employer (Let's say Islamic for point of reference) pay for an alcohol  purchase beyond your salary.

        •  Since your health insurance is part of your (5+ / 0-)

          compensation, just like your salary, the comparison is completely apt and not the least bit silly.

          •  nope (0+ / 0-)

            Your insurance is NOW something required by the government, not voluntary. Not apt at all. Which is why this was a non issue until the ACA.

            •  You mean paying someone a salary for performing (3+ / 0-)

              work is not a government requirement, say, under labor laws?  Did they bring back slavery and I wasn't aware of it?

              •  Of course it is (0+ / 0-)

                But paying for their health care provisions is a NEW policy that suddenly includes provisions that many find antithetical to their religious beliefs and doctrine. Apples and marbles comparison. They have to pay a wage. Now they also have to provide services that contravene their religious doctrine.

                •  There was a time when it was (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Judge Moonbox, Santa Susanna Kid

                  antithetical to slave owners' moral principles that they pay slaves any wages (the Bible certainly supports their position that slavery is part of God's plan), and then, there was a new policy and they had to pay wages and  that contravened their religious doctrine.

                  •  but slavery has been abolished (0+ / 0-)

                    with a constitutional amendment . Please… be serious.

                    •  Are you making the argument that (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Santa Susanna Kid, schnecke21

                      only Constitutional amendments matter,  and that laws and regulations don't?  Speaking of not serious.

                      In any case, you can't base law and policy in a secular republic solely upon personal religious belief, or exempt a company who claims a law violates their religious beliefs, even setting aside the fact that it's dubious a corporation could have a "religious belief."  Any employer could claim a religious belief against OHSA requirements or anti-pollution laws and not have to follow them.

                    •  Sorry, but you're the one saying (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Santa Susanna Kid

                      that something changed, so the employer shouldn't have to follow that change, like that's a valid argument.  Stuff changes all the time, including what's considered moral and what isn't.

                      For example, there was no ban on birth control or abortion in the Catholic Church until the nineteenth century.

                      •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                        I am saying that an employer - the person providing the benefits (paying for them) should not be compelled by the government to provide services that are antithetical to their religious beliefs. That is a s serious - and debatable- argument. "It's just like slavery" is not. And what religion has a central tenant "thou shall not be safe in the workplace"? C'mon.

                        •  "I am saying that an employer - (0+ / 0-)

                          the person providing the benefits (paying for them) should not be compelled by the government to provide services that are antithetical to their religious beliefs."

                          The employer is NOT providing or paying for birth control.  The employee is using her earned compensation to obtain birth control, just like if she bought it with the salary she earned.  No difference.

                          "That is a s serious - and debatable- argument. "It's just like slavery" is not. "

                          I never made that argument.  Go back and read what I actually wrote.  It all has to do with the employer's "rights" to control how an employee uses the compensation they earn.

                          "And what religion has a central tenant "thou shall not be safe in the workplace"? C'mon"

                          If being anti-birth control really a "central tenet" of Christianity?  How many times did Jesus actually mention birth control or abortion? Um, that would be zero.  As I said, the Catholic Church didn't find either to be sinful for the first 1,800 + years of its existence.  I'm not sure when the fundamentalist churches decided that birth control and abortion were sinful, but it also doesn't have a long pedigree since the current wave of fundamentalist Christianity didn't start until after Darwin's theories were published.
                          We could debate this all day, but that brings up the basic problem with using religious belief as a basis for determining what laws to follow.  What constitutes a valid religious belief and who determines that?  Since this is about following a federal law, does the federal executive branch make that determination?  Do we set up a federal Office of Validating True Religious Belief to arbitrate these things?  Does it wind up in the Courts?  

                          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                            Look, the employee can do whatever they wish with the money earn. In this case though the government IS compelling an employer to cover these services. You keep distorting what the situation is. I am not talking about Christianity in general but rather different religious faiths and denominations. As for religion as abases for what laws to follow, there already are laws that allow for indeed protect religious freedom.

                          •  The employee can do whatever they (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            schnecke21

                            want with the compensation they earn, and that compensation includes health insurance.  It's not the employers' business to determine acceptable treatments, nor to deny coverage of treatments based upon religious beliefs.  Would we even be having this discussion if it were employers who were Jehovah's Witnesses wanting to remove coverage of blood transfusions from their health care plans?  Or employers who were Scientologists removing mental health medication from coverage under their employees' prescription drug plans?  You are opening the door to every employer "exercising" his or her religion through their health care plans.

                            And the government compels employers to do a lot of things, which means that if we allow some employers to avoid government rules based upon religious beliefs, we have to allow all employers the same "rights."  And that brings us back to any employer deciding that anything the government compels him to do that is against his religion, he doesn't have to do.  Sorry, but that's the argument you are making, whether you like to admit it or not.

                            And let's be honest. Since the current issue involves birth control, which is about women having the possibility of enjoying -- gasp -- sex without worrying about an unwanted pregnancy, and otherwise being in control of their reproductive lives, then every right-wing male employer has to make sure to put the kibosh on that.  Everything is about freedom, unless of course we are talking about women, who shouldn't have any.  If you were me, a woman of a certain age, you'd understand this a little better.  "Freedom of religion" is nothing more than a smokescreen to keep women in their place -- barefoot and pregnant.  I've seen it all before, honey.  We fought these battles in the seventies, and we're fighting them again.

                          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                            we will have to agree to disagree. Just because an employer does not cover a specific procedure does not make it illegal or accessible. I've said all along the ACA and WH could have worked out a reasonable way to cover everyone who would be affected by religious concerns (I was thinking more about Plan B and Catholic orbs at the time) and this would no be an issue now.

                            I am not a women nor of a certain age, and I am sure it was an awful time in that regard, but Hobby Lobby can't overturn Roe or Griswald.  

                          •  Catholic religious organizations (0+ / 0-)

                            are exempt from providing coverage for birth control under the ACA.  And the last time I checked, Hobby Lobby wasn't a church, synagogue, mosque or temple.

                            Oh, and your mention of Plan B brings up an interesting point.  Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover Plan B because they "believe" it is an abortifacient.  Problem is, the science shows that it isn't.  So, the issue in this case is a for-profit, clearly non-religious business deciding they don't want to cover something based upon a "belief" that is factually incorrect.  If Hobby Lobby is upheld in doing this, then any employer can deny their employees coverage of any procedure based upon their "belief" that it does something they consider immoral, even when it doesn't do the thing they find immoral.  You just can't form public policy based upon faith and ignore facts.  It's why the country is as screwed up as it is right now.  GW "believed in his gut" there were WMDs, despite their being no evidence there were any.  And how many thousands of dead and mutilated American soldiers, dead and mutilated Iraqis and how many trillions in debt later we are still feeling the consequences of GW's fact-free opinions?

                            "Just because an employer does not cover a specific procedure does not make it illegal or accessible. "

                            So? That has nothing to do with this situation.  When you go to work for someone, they do not get the right to determine how you use the compensation you EARN working for them.  Period.  "I'm your employer, and I think drinking alcohol is a sin.  Therefore, you cannot use the salary I pay you to buy alcohol.  I'm not banning alcohol, but you have to use money from another job or investment income to pay for it."  That is this situation.  I'm assuming you're on this site because you're a liberal, and I just can't wrap my head around how a liberal couldn't see how much this impinges not on the employer's freedom, but the employee's freedom.  My husband and I own a business and we employ people.  I simply can't imagine thinking my religious beliefs should be substituted for their judgement in determining what health care they need.  You really need it think about this some more and not swallow the right-wing propaganda about "religious freedom."  That argument isn't any more valid in this case than it is in the case of saying that someone's religious freedom is impinged because they aren't allowed to discriminate against gays.  Your religous freedom only extends to the end of your nose.  It doesn't extend to the "right" to impose your views on others.  Otherwise, I'm going to think that men, regardless of their espoused political views, just don't get this.  Or won't get it until it's about a drug or a medical procedure they need.

                          •  No (0+ / 0-)

                            Many Catholic organizations (my wife works for one) are NOT exempt. Hospitals, Schools, Relief agencies, and Catholic Charities. Again this COULD have been handled much better.

                            And again as I keep saying, the heath insurance is not a WAGE you pay- wages can be spent on anything in any manner without an employer being involved. Your analogies keep going back to apples and marbles. It is the health benefits REQUIRED (new) by the government that are paid by the EMPLOYER that is the issue. It is a (new) government requirement that intervenes in one's religious beliefs to pay for things.  Your analogy is not apt because the employee pays, not the employer.  The employee's freedom is not being infringed upon. It wasn't the day before the ACA passed, so it isn't now. OTH the employer's have a new rule to follow that infringes on their religious beliefs. We are on Venus and Mars here I think.

                          •  Those "Catholic organizations"" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            schnecke21

                            aren't churches.  They should not be exempt.

                            In any case, Hobby Lobby isn't even "affiliated"with a church.  It's a for-profit business.  Speaking of apples and marbles.

                            Again, you refuse to understand that benefits are a part of compensation, just like salary.  No difference whatsoever.  If you can't tell an employee what to spend their salary on, your can't tell them how to use their health care benefits, either.  So, their freedom IS being infringed upon.  Employers get to choose the extent of your coverage they will pay for.  They do not get to choose which particular treatments you can receive.

                          •  No :-) (0+ / 0-)

                            I am grinning because we just cannot get on the same plane.

                            " benefits are a part of compensation, j" No they are not. it is a benefit not a wage. A benefit now required, with religious connotations in them. A HUGE difference. Wow, this is like a brick wall - and you prob feel the same.

                            No employers do not get to choose. They HAVE to provide the benefit as defined by the gov. Man.

                            And those Catholic orgs ARE Catholic. They even supported the ACA because they were promised a reasonable accommodation- and they totally believe in charity and providing for the less fortunate. Which is why so many are now fighting the law. Trust me, I know. First hand.

                          •  The Church can't get its own members (0+ / 0-)

                            to follow their rules on birth control, so they're trying to force those beliefs on the employees of their affiliated organizations.  Pathetic.

                            A benefit is compensation, just like a wage.  They are not different.  Trust me, other than collecting payroll taxes, when you pay for an employee's health insurance, it costs you money just like a salary.  My husband and I do it every pay period.

                            And, this idea that there are no or minimal rules for salary but employers are being "forced" on benefits is ridiculous.  Employers are required to pay a minimum wage, for crying out loud!  It couldn't be more restrictive.

                          •  We disagree (0+ / 0-)

                            but I'll say that s a practicing Catholic I might have bit more insight than you on the Church. The Church (or Hobby, or Catholic Charities) is not trying to force anything on anyone - just because they dpi not wish to PAY for it due to their religious beliefs, it is not FORCING anyone to do anything. How is not paying for something you are welcome to pay for yourself, forcing you to do something?

                            How much more clear can Put this. The benefit is just that-  a BENIFT. It is not a paycheck. it WAS optional but now the government  requires it- and defines it. And it does have religious practice infringements. Paying a wage has no religious infringement. The comparison is ridiculous. One has no harm to anyone, one makes an individual violate their religious convictions Sheesh. I gather we are done.

                          •  Benefits are negotiated as part of (0+ / 0-)

                            an employee compensation package, and denying coverage is the same thing as taking away part of your salary.  What is moral about taking away compensation for honest labor?

                            "but I'll say that s a practicing Catholic I might have bit more insight than you on the Church"

                            Ah, you have an agenda, then.  Your wife works for Catholic Charities or whatever, and you dutifully go to Church every Sunday and absorb their propaganda.  A secular employer trying to deny specific benefits for an employee is NOT a religious freedom issue and it never can be.  How many corporations are in attendance at Mass at your church every Sunday?  What is a matter of conscience to a company that sells glue guns and craft foam?  They obviously have no problem with slave labor in China.

                            Too bad you're an Opus Dei Catholic and not a Berrigan brothers Catholic.  The latter were awesome and the former are an embarrassment.

                          •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                            "enefits are negotiated as part of (0+ / 0-)
                            an employee compensation package,"

                            They are required by the ACA and defined as such. This isn't negotiated or optional and you know that.

                            as for your slander of my faith? Your agenda (not mine) is clear. Why does belonging to a Church make me have an agenda? Your disdain for Faith is clear. Your slander of people you don't know is clear. Sorry we cannot have an honest discussion. Later. And yes i'll pray for you :-)

                          •  Benefits are negotiated. (0+ / 0-)

                            Never run your own business and have no idea what you are talking about, eh?  And as far as salary is concerned, what is optional about a minimum wage?  It's total government dictate.

                            And I guess you missed the part about my saying that Berrigan Brothers Catholics (i.e., true liberals with a genuine social conscience who actually lived their lives caring about the poor and the oppressed) are awesome.   I knew a few back in the day when I still thought of myself as Catholic.  Some of the best people I have ever known.  Too bad there are so few that exist in the Church today, and they're scorned and silenced like the nuns on the bus.

                            Oh, and I'm an atheist.  Pray all you like, but it will have no impact on me.

                          •  eh? (0+ / 0-)

                            you are wrong about this:

                            Never run your own business and have no idea what you are talking about, eh?  And as far as salary is concerned, what is optional about a minimum wage?  It's total government dictate.

                            I was not speaking of minimum wage but THE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. Blue in the face I am.

                            Yes I have run my own business. you assume a heck of lot when you are ignorant of the facts BTW.

                            an as for this: "Pray all you like, but it will have no impact on me." You might be surprised. And I hope you are.  :-) Peace.

                          •  I can't believe you have actually run a business (0+ / 0-)

                            and are so unaware of all the rules and regulations.  The ones the ACA imposes about coverage of bc are merely another.  It isn't an attack on anyone's religion.

                            And anyone who would see women controlling their own bodies and reproductive lives as an attack on their religious beliefs has some serious issues of their own to deal with.  I become more and more convinced that most of the hierarchy of the Church is in dire need of immediate  psychiatric therapy and meds to deal with their sexual issues..  The celibate lifestyle is unnatural, and then this need to control the sexuality of everyone else, well, it's just scary.  And there's the decades-long, continent-wide cover up.  Not a healthy organization, to say the least.

                          •  I'll agree (0+ / 0-)

                            with this to a degree- esp the latter : " The celibate lifestyle is unnatural, and then this need to control the sexuality of everyone else, well, it's just scary.  And there's the decades-long, continent-wide cover up.  Not a healthy organization, to say the least."

                            But the rest is poppycock. My wife and many others in the family gave run their business. If a religious organization does not want to pay for contraception that violates their teachings how is that preventing anyone from controlling g their bodies. You conflate employer payment with individual scions and choices. Which is just illogical.

                          •  I still don't get how an employer's (0+ / 0-)

                            religious beliefs should have any impact whatsoever on the choices an employee makes in her own life.  Why does the employer get to say that the health care plan they set up will not pay for standard medical treatment?  Legally, the employer can't even control if the employee chooses to buy cocaine with his or her salary, also provided by the employer.  They can fire the employee for engaging in illegal behavior, but they can't tell the employee not to buy illegal substances.  So, why do they get to deny coverage of a legal drug?  And why should the employee have to use their salary when every health care plan in the country that covers prescriptions provides coverage for preventative medicines?  Speaking of illogical.

                            By the way, the change brought about by the ACA wasn't covering birth control.  It was full coverage with no co-pay.  So, does that mean that Hobby Lobby was okay with providing coverage for birth control but no co-pay violates their religious beliefs?

                            I would also point out that many states in which Hobby Lobby has stores, including New York, legally required no co-pay birth control coverage long before the ACA.  To my knowledge, there were no court challenges or cries of religious persecution then.  Is there something in the Bible that says it's okay for a state government to require full coverage of birth control, but when the federal government does it, it's religious persecution?

                            There are so many gaping holes in Hobby Lobby's claims, it's a wonder it wasn't thrown out of court at with the initial claim filing.

                          •  BECUAE they are the one (0+ / 0-)

                            PAYING for it. Sorry to yell. THEY purchase the healthcare services FOR the employee. And it isn't a choice then ACA says they HAVE to. That's why it is an infringement on the EMPLOYER WHO is FORCEd to pay. If the employer were NOT paying this would not be an issue what so ever. Sorry to yell but that is frustrating me. The person PAYING has no choice on WHAT they are APYING for. That is why.

                            You say "religious beliefs should (not) have any impact whatsoever on the choices an employee makes in her own life."
                            But that IS NOT what is taking place, the EMPLOYER is forced to make those choices. What you say is totally true and I agree. But that is not what is happening.
                            Why does the employer get to say that the health care plan they set up will not pay for standard medical treatment?
                            Because they are not "setting it up" the government is, and forcing to adopt those plans.

                            And yes the courts will decide this.

                          •  I work in the financial industry (0+ / 0-)

                            You have no idea the things the government compels you to do.  It's part of doing business.  If you don't want to do it, then find something else to do.  In Hobby Lobby's case, I'm sure the planet would hardly miss a store selling vast quantities of cheap crap made by slaves in China.  Speaking of morality, how come the owners of Hobby Lobby don't care about that?

                            And, what if an employer is a Jehovah's Witness, and decides their plan will not cover blood transfusions?  Or a Scientologist, who decides their plan will not cover medcation for psychiatric illnesses?  Or a Christian Scientist, who says diabetes should be managed solely through prayer?  Or a Muslim who decides that pig valve replacements will not be covered under their insurance?  Or a Hindu who decides not to cover the treatment of any illness that can be shown to be linked to red meat consumption, like colon cancer?  Or a Mormon or a Southern Baptist who won't pay for liver cirrhosis treatment?

                            I'm sure I could come up with more examples, but once you open the door, this is what you let yourself in for.

                          •  OR the door that opens (0+ / 0-)

                            when the government decides what the options are rather than employers, insurers, health providers, and employees. In you poor analogies above those are treating illnesses. This issue is not about withholding life saving or necessary, expensive, medical pretreatment . It is about providing inexpensive contraception. Apples and marbles. As I have said since this act was passed, the bill could easily have been written to avoid these types of challenges (indeed the WH promised that it would accommodate religious positions- but did not) and should have.

                          •  How inexpensive is effective birth (0+ / 0-)

                            control?  You've priced it out?  Including the doctors' visits, the prescription drugs, the follow-up visits, etc?  Please, give me the total cost and explain to me how affordable it is without health insurance coverage.

                            I doubt his could have been avoided.  Because, even if birth control were forbidden by law to be covered by any employer anywhere to punish the evil women who wanted to have wanton, slutty sex without the consequences of an unwanted welfare moocher child, these people would have found another way to challenge the ACA.  Hobby Lobby never made a peep covering birth control before the ACA.  Gosh, I wonder why, don't you?  Not to mention, the House Republicans have voted to overturn the law 50 times.  Yes, that's right, FIFTY fucking times.  And that's all about "religious freedom," right?

                            Oh, and by the way, birth control IS a lifesaving medication.  Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that can cause death.

                          •  Dude (0+ / 0-)

                            It is not as expensive as say cancer treatments or blood transfusions which was your earlier comparison..

                            The pill is about $15–$50 each month deadening on the brand etc.

                            Plan B between $30 to $65

                            $500 to $900 for IUD insertion

                             Are you saying that hobby provided Plan B contraception coverage before the ACA?

                            THIS could have been easily avoided with a better written law that provided a means for contraception coverage provided outside the employers. Very easy.

                            One other thing, you've argued that could lead to all sorts of scary "religious exemption" but I;d argue that is not the case. Remember this about the a right balance on a compelling government interest and least intrusive means of accommodation. Each case (contraception, blood transfusions, mental health, etc.) would all be treated individually based on their merits. It would not grant some blanket exemption for anything you wanted.

                            Plus since all of those things COULD have been denied in the past - but weren't it doesn't stand to reason they would suddenly be withheld.

        •  Oh, and your example is silly. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Judge Moonbox, Santa Susanna Kid

          No one is asking your employer to pay for birth control beyond your health care coverage.  The employer is asking that the coverage be removed from your health insurance.  My analogy better describes this situation.

    •  Okay, if this goes through (3+ / 0-)

      what would stop any employer from asserting these "rights"? And unless the employer is self-insuring, they're not paying for it, the insurance company is.

      Suppose you've got an employer who is a Scientologist, and they don't want to pay for mental health care, or to pay for insurance premiums that cover it. So if you're having issues with depression you couldn't even discuss that with your doctor, even if that depression might be causing other medical issues such as weight gain/loss, sleep disorders or other side effects. Would that be acceptable to you? Or would that be against your policies because that affects more than just women?

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:31:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  a few things (0+ / 0-)

        There is religious doctrine and personal beliefs. If your Religion doctrine states "no mental counseling" there is that. If it is not legally binding there is that. And at the heart of the matter all along is that if an employer is paying for the policy, they have (or used to) discretion in what they did or did not cover for a whole host of reasons. No one is trying to deny coverage. It is a matter os who pays. Period. It is very simple, and the ACA could have very easily accommodated this aspect.

    •  How are they being forced? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mister T

      Does hobby Lobby pay 100% of each employees premium?

      Of course, not. Therefore, I see no reason why an employee's birth control, or even an abortion (which I personally am against but I am MORE against the government being so intimately involved in my life) can't be considered as coming from the portion of the total premium that comes out of the employees paycheck, in other words, the portion that comes out of the employee's pocket pays for it. The employer can be considered the payer of treatments and medicines that does not offend his/her conscience.

      Obviously, in reality, specific dollars from a premium can't be allocated to specific claims, so employer and employee have to accept that the employee can pay for treatments, procedures, or medicines the employer find so offensive.

      In one respect, Hobby Lobby sacrifices profits to be closed on Sunday (that seems to automatically discriminate against the many religions for whom Sunday is NOT a holy day) due to their religious beliefs

      But to a greater extent, they are making profits from the labor of people in China who have for several decades been subject to the one child policy that required extensive use of birth control, and forced abortions even in the third trimester when almost all fetuses are viable outside the uterus. If they can make the rather extreme exception to their religious beliefs for the sake profits by buying from China (which, for all practical purposes, is the only choice they have), I see no reason why they can't simply agree that employees are paying for their own birth control out of their share of the insurance premium.

      Isn't this kind of a win-win? The employee has control of her own reproductive choices, and Hobby Lobby is not paying for it.

      •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

        The employer DOES pay for the healthcare coverage- otherwise this would not be an issue? They do pay, for services that are antithetical to their religious beliefs, and are forced to by the government. If the employees paid for their own plans then this would not be an issue at all.

        And how in the heck staying closed on Sunday discriminating? WHAT? Bizarre. Woukd you force all businesses to open on their holy days of observance?

  •  Geez. (6+ / 0-)
    Perhaps not surprisingly, seniors who are either no longer working or needing contraception think it would be just fine for an employer to dictate that, 49 percent-to-40 percent. The 18-34 group, however, rejects the idea 62 -33.
    Geez.  The get off my lawn,  just had hip replacement surgery at the expense of the tax payer need to adjust their sense of fairness.

    I can't believe that in the year 2014 we are even having this conversation.

    1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

    by alwaysquestion on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:43:34 PM PDT

  •  How do you baptize a corporation? (7+ / 0-)

    The idea that a corporations can have religious viewpoints protected by law is ridiculous. If you're for-profit, you're not a non-profit religious group. If you're a corporation, you have no personal religion to speak of -- abstract corporate bodies can't be baptized and can't take communion and can't interpret dogma. Make up your mind about what's important and stick to it.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:51:17 PM PDT

  •  where were these religious people when a false (7+ / 0-)

    war was started? when children die from starvation? When
    people die from no heat or air conditioning?

    amazes me how so many religious people can pick which parts of faith they want to follow, but women cant pick contraception

    •  That's why I refer to them (and you can too) as (3+ / 0-)

      "Evangelical Cafeteria Christians":  Pick and choose what you want to believe, and leave the other religious teachings behind.

      Hypocrisy is thy middle name, as the saying goes.

      “My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there." - Rumi

      by LamontCranston on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:20:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Their hatred of women consumes all else (4+ / 0-)

      It's pretty clear that's all this is. They got pretty far pretending that their anti-abortion crap was about "unborn" 'babies" but the whole war on contraception proves it's actually about turning back the clock hundreds of years on women's rights. That's pretty much all that matters to this crew.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:21:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "the company is also asserting it (6+ / 0-)

    shouldn't have to pay for insurance covering doctors appointments in which family planning is even discussed."

    Of course, women often discuss these issues during either their annual checkups or other visits to treat other conditions.  Many (most) OB/GYNs also discuss the resumption of the use of birth control while providing postpartum care.  So, this is Hobby Lobby contending it is within their rights to deny coverage for any reproductive care a woman receives.

    •  Or the doctors will have to have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nocynicism

      a timer in their office -- after they've discussed everything else, they'll have to hit the timer so the patient can be billed for the contraceptive care discussion.

      "Okay, it says here it was an hour appointment -- what percentage of the visit was for contraceptive care? If you can't be specific, we won't pay any of the bill and you'll have to bill our slutty employee directly."

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:35:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure of the exact wording of the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Judge Moonbox, schnecke21

        complaint, but the way it is described here, it doesn't seem to allow even the scenario you describe.  They contend they don't have to pay for any appointment where contraception is discussed, not that will only pay for the portion of the appointment in which it isn't discussed.  Yes, it's that pernicious.

  •  Overreach (10+ / 0-)

    That's the one detail giving me some hope here.

    Bad enough they cite phony -- and medically inaccurate -- reasons for declaring contraceptive medication to be 'immoral.'

    But wanting to deny coverage for any appointment in which family planning is discussed? I guess they might as well be saying, "No OB/GYN coverage, period."

    If a woman is suffering from endometriosis, or is prone to ectopic pregnancies, or has had several bad miscarriages, it is literally medical malpractice for a doctor not to bring up a recommendation for contraceptive use.

    This is pure misogyny dressed up as religious righteousness.

    "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

    by Technowitch on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:20:43 PM PDT

  •  An item I have not seen mentioned: (3+ / 0-)

    Hobby Lobby has the absolute right not to insure its employees.  They can pay the penalty and give the employees a raise so that they can be covered by ACA.

    The point being that they have an option if they are so dead set against providing birth control via health insurance.

    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

    by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:22:08 PM PDT

    •  What if a company tries to exercise (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Santa Susanna Kid, nocynicism

      other "religious" exemptions? What if they say that it's against their religion to pay women the same or more than men, because women are not supposed to have dominance over men, and salary equals dominance? What if a company says that their religion teaches the races should be kept separate and thus they can't be sued under equal employment laws when they have the white employees on the day shift and the minority employees on the night shift? Or maybe a landlord says that the races have to be kept separate so of course he can't rent an apartment to a black family because of all the white families who live there -- after all, if the family moves in of course the black kids are going to want to play with the white kids and that's against God's Law. We already know about the efforts to enshrine discrimination against LGBTs because God or something.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:41:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can make all the claims they want. (0+ / 0-)

        When they say they can't be sued under equal employment laws and anti-discrimination laws, I think they will find there is a terrestrial judge that both differs and matters.

        I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

        by beemerr90s on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 07:03:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  privacy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid

    right to privacy as long as it doesn't go against your dogma.  How many points can republicans be hypocrites on.

  •  I predict the Supreme Court (0+ / 0-)

    will rule in favor of birth control and contraceptive rights.  

    The reason is that here you have insurance companies who want employers to cover contraception pitted against mostly private companies like Hobby Lobby.  Which business interest is bigger?  The insurance industry of course.

    So strictly because the court is pro-business, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby.

  •  reproductive rights (0+ / 0-)

    Are Hobby Lobby's owners really asserting that whatever is discussed in a Dr. office is their business?  

    Are they asserting that the Dr. notes belong to Hobby Lobby's owners?  

    Are they  going to tape whatever is discussed between a woman an her Dr?

    Many women ONLY see an OB-GYN Dr. and no other.  
    Do Hobby Lobby's owners have the right to chose a woman's Dr?

    If a male employee of Hobby Lobby goes to his Dr to discuss impotence, do his employers have the right to know this?,  Do they have the right to deny him Viagra?

    Do they hae the right to dictate whether he can purchase condoms with the money he earns from them?

    Seems pretty straightforward to me, they want to dictate what their women employees can or cannor do regarding their reproductive health.

  •  Contraceptive Insurance Coverage (0+ / 0-)

    I Have A Question.  Here Is My Question:.......

    Do these employERS, who deny contraceptive insurance coverage to their own employEES, based on their own employER religious beliefs, -- do they practice their beliefs,
    and buy and sell, personally or business-wise, with other companies and businesses who do provide contraceptive coverage for their employEES through employER-provided Obamacare health insurance coverage????  

    Like...........

    Do they buy food from Kroger's?                            
    Do they buy cars from Toyota?  
    Do they buy food at Appleby's?  
    Do they Twitter through Google?  
    Do they buy computers from Hewlett Packard?
    Do they have computer/phone service with ATT U-Verse?
    Do they buy electricity through AEP - American Electric Power?
    Do they buy books from Amazon.Com?
    Do they buy & use Kleenex?

    Did they get that FREE Polio Vaccine when they were kids and waited in the hot Texas sun in long lines with their mothers and brothers and sisters and classmates and their moms?

    Did they get that FREE, mandatory TB/Tuberculosis test at school when they were in the 4th grade and 5th grade and 6th grade like I and all the rest of the kids in the  Southeast Texas School system?

    Do they fly with Delta Airlines on their annual vacations?

    If they do or did, they had better watch out, they might be aiding and abetting those employERS in crime who do provide contraceptive coverage through Obamacare for all their hardworking employEES!!!

    E.H.

       

  •  Arrrggghhh. This issue is so poorly framed. (0+ / 0-)

    Starting with the premise that the employer is "paying for my health insurance." The fact is, it's an expense the company incurs in exchange for the privilege of doing business with me. They are free to hire me or not. It's up to their accountants how much it's worth to them, in terms of total costs including payment and benefits, to have me work for them. They can use the cost of the benefits in setting my salary. In every sense that matters, I'm the one paying for the benefits that I earn. To pretend otherwise is just smoke and mirrors.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site