Supreme Court Rules with Hobby Lobby on Contraception

I'm putting this in Life/Sexuality because of the Contraception issue, but if my other mod-brethren feel it's better suited for Politics, feel free to move it.

Supreme Court rulings 2014: SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control - POLITICO.com

So this happened. Today. I'm pissed. At the moment, I'm too angry to write a full dissent on this. Basically, I'm sorry the main reason I take birth control is to prevent the complications that come with PCOS. I'm sorry that that goes against your "religious beliefs". Yes, you have freedom of religion, but you have no right to force it on me.

What scares me most is the implications that this could have on even more serious conflicts. Blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses), antidepressants (Scientology), medication derived from pigs, IV fluids, pills coated with gelatin (Muslims, Jews).

I'm so mad.

Here are some great RBG quotes from the official dissent:
The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision | Mother Jones

I am mad. Be mad with me. Or have a civil discussion about why I'm wrong.

 

Not surprising, but still equally infuriating.



Fuck you, Hobby Lobby.

 

You don't have a right to birth control. Simple as that. Tri-Sprintec 28 is $9.00 a month at Walmart, Sams, Target, and Kroger for starters.

 

I have a right to medication that greatly improves my health and quality of life. I don't use birth control for contraception. I use hormonal birth control to control many of my hormone issues and to help prevent my elevated risks of ovarian and cervical cancer.

And since vasectomies, ED medication, and even penile implants are covered by most insurances, then I would say yeah, I have the right to medication that actually serves a preventative and health purpose.

 

This was not the issue. And the Court certainly didnt address it in this narrow decision. The Court had already affirmed that the government has the authority to regulate minimum preventive services required by all health insurance plans.

In fact, Hobby Lobby was not opposed to offering birth control, but only those methods of birth control that they believe (ignorantly) induce abortion (IUD and morning after pill), based on the owners opposition to abortion.

And this was not a First Amendment religious freedom issue. Alito made it clear that Hobby Lobby had no First Amendment protections, but only statutory protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And it only applies to "closely held" (family controlled) corporations, not publicly traded corporations.

I imagine at some point, women will probably sue claiming a 14th amendment equal protection issue.

But in the meantime, both Aliato and Kennedy suggested in their opinions that a remedy already exists -- that which is is applied to religious non-profits - the insurance company will bear the full cost of contraception when those non-profit religious groups object on religious grounds.

It is a bad precedent but it could have been a lot worse.

 

ED is a medical condition apples and oranges.
Here is the funny part, vasectomies are not covered under Obama care.

As a side note hormonal contraception show an increase in cervical cancer, but that may be due to increased numbers of sex partners.
The Pill Raises Cervical Cancer Risk

Looking into it, Hobby lobby was opposed only to BC that could result in pregnancy termination, aka an abortion. In fact birth control pills are covered.

Here's Why Hobby Lobby Thinks IUDs Are Like Abortions - Olga Khazan - The Atlantic

So you can work for Hobby Lobby, your issues are in fact covered. So what was this about again? IUD's (which actually when implanted after pregancy are known to cause termination) and the morning after pill?

When the government starts to mandate what you have to pay for these conflicts will happen. This is about abortion, and while I don't care, I can't blame a believer in the afterlife for caring.

 

1. I'm stating that birth control has more uses than contraception, so fighting them for religious reasons does way more harm than good. In addition, fighting against any birth control based on religious reasons sets a dangerous precedent for other medications as I previously stated.

2. To obtain an IUD, the prescribing doctor performs a pregnancy test, and does a thorough check up prior to insertion to prevent that. There are no real reasons to be against an IUD if the doctor is doing his job correctly.

3. The morning after pill is NOT an abortion pill. The morning after pill prevents implantation in the uterus. If a fertilized egg has already been implanted in the uterus, the pregnancy will continue.

 

I agree that it is ignorant that the conservatives on the Court bought the Hobby Lobby argument that "four contraceptive methods are abortifacient."

And I worry about the precedent, especially with this Court.

 

This is why I won't touch this board on politics again.

1- But you get you are covered if you work for hobby lobby?

2- My wife has a copper IUD and its a piece of shit for a couple of reasons but in my research on it, I came across numerous sources that recommended it as a form of morning after.

3- Now thats a semantics game, especially when you realize that many Christians believe life begins at conception.

Personally I think most people attacking this don't have a clue what it was about.

BC pills are covered, its not about BC pills.

 

Only "closely controlled" family owned business....like WalMart and Koch Industries and others that have no real religious issues but oppose the ACA on political grounds and now have cover to take a shot at the ACA.