Hobby Lobby

rosesandpetals

I couldn't help it, I got sucked into an argument about it. And now someone is talking to me like I'm a 4 year old to explain how BCP cause abortions.


Gahhh. And I am just so angry at the Supreme Court. I hope Hobby Lobby goes under. But I know they won't.

rosesandpetals

MrsMuq said:

rosesandpetals said:

I couldn't help it, I got sucked into an argument about it. And now someone is talking to me like I'm a 4 year old to explain how BCP cause abortions.


Gahhh. And I am just so angry at the Supreme Court. I hope Hobby Lobby goes under. But I know they won't.

On TB, on FB, or IRL?

Facebook, of course. It's where all stupid arguments happen. My friend and I were talking about it and some of her friends jumped in.

magentawarped

I've been pissed off at it all day. I am so livid at the Supreme Court.

Andrewsgal

I am livid and absolutely can't believe that some people actually think this has anything to do with religious freedom. It is amazing how many people have be snowed by the religious right.

Cherryblossoms07

DH and I were discussing this earlier. I have had a few people on my fb feed express support for Hobby Lobby. I really want to say something, but I have stayed out of it for now.

Andrewsgal

I also think those that think it's so wonderful won't be so happy when their insurance stops paying for vaccinations, blood transfusions or certain other prescriptions.

rosesandpetals

Andrewsgal said:

I also think those that think it's so wonderful won't be so happy when their insurance stops paying for vaccinations, blood transfusions or certain other prescriptions.

Seriously, we are going to hear "vaccines cause autism, I don't want to cover them".

rosesandpetals

Oh, and I was wondering, how does this affect IF coverage? There is a whole thing about disposing of embryos, so will they not have to cover IVF? IUI? The Catholic church doesn't support IF treatment at all so does a Catholic employer not need to cover IF treatment? Will they cover vasectomies? This is going to snow ball quickly.

magentawarped

Oh, but they still cover Viagra. Apparently, if you get knocked up, that's God's will, but if you can't get it up, it's science FTW!

penguingrrl

I am so thankful that my FB feed has only been filled with anger at SCOTUS today. I would not have patience for some idiot who felt otherwise and would let them have it. I still can't believe Hobby Lobby won. I've never been the the store because between this and their antisemitism I never would, but I'm contemplating standing outside protesting and handing out coupons to Michaels this weekend.

notkateanymore

My husband has a whole explanation about how the ruling makes sense from a legal standpoint. He doesn't necessarily agree with it and is not a fan of their reasons for wanting to do it {HL} but he doesn't disagree with the ruling.

rosesandpetals

@kate Obama exempted religious non profits awhile ago (at least that is my understanding) and that left the door open for something like this. Still, I'd rather see no one get exemptions. 

JMC11511

CnAmom said:

Erin KM said:

uteri? uterudes?

Uterude sounds like a uterus with an attitude problem.

I'm going to use this the next time I have cramps.

myatala

I'm pissed off, too. What's to stop a company owned by Scientologists from denying coverage for psychiatric medications and treatments? And you know people would actually care if a company run by persons whose faith prohibits putting pork products into one's body denied coverage for pig-derived insulin to diabetics and porcine valves to employees needing valve replacements (artificial and bovine valves aren't ideal in many cases).

A couple of my FB friends disagree with me on this issue. They say employees don't have to work for that company and/or could get other coverage or pay out of pocket. Because "just get another job" is such an easy solution in the real world. Ugh.

Those friends and I aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this today and I feel I've stated my position to them so I'm not going to get dragged into a fight on FB to have the last word.

notkateanymore

rosesandpetals said:

@kate Obama exempted religious non profits awhile ago (at least that is my understanding) and that left the door open for something like this. Still, I'd rather see no one get exemptions. 

Oh I agree, but the damn lawyer in him isn't as pissed off as I'd like him to be. With his logic and shit. 

magentawarped

Because corporations are people, but women aren't.

Also, while I'm glad that my SIL and SMIL are pissed about the ruling, I'm smh that they have no idea exactly why they're pissed. For some reason, they think this now means that people will have to declare their religion on job applications. Sigh.

AprilLVE

I have lots of UO's on this, but I'll just say that this situation along with comments above completely reinforces for me the idea that what we really need is a robust, free, individual insurance market.  The employer provided model is so rife with conflicts and market distortions.  If I could just wave a wand and start from scratch, medical insurance would be purchased just like other types of insurance...by an individual or family to fit with their specific needs and wants.  

MesmrEwe

Yes, I've gotten sucked into a few too - Ugh -  Ultimately though - I think reading the actual ruling has been elusive to FAR FAR too many people - on BOTH sides!!!  The worst is those that haven't figured out this doesn't change ACCESS, you can still get those meds, you can still have your MD prescribe them, just it's an OOP...  There are TONS of medications and procedures already that are far less controversial that insurance doesn't cover.  Routine foot care for example that requires a trip to the MD to have done - not covered by most plans...  Meds for sedation during a colonoscopy - several aren't covered...  About 15+ years ago, the BCP wasn't covered at all, yet now the cost w/o insurance is so minimal compared to what it used to be then...

IMO, the interesting case will be when someone in a closely held corporation with the beliefs of the religions that don't believe in medical interventions challenge the entire requirement to even purchase/provide insurance because they don't feel they should be forced to purchase the product in general they don't believe in.  The heck with cherry-picking, but the overall requirement to purchase insurance for a product they refuse to need/use...

rosesandpetals

MesmrEwe said:

Yes, I've gotten sucked into a few too - Ugh -  Ultimately though - I think reading the actual ruling has been elusive to FAR FAR too many people - on BOTH sides!!!  The worst is those that haven't figured out this doesn't change ACCESS, you can still get those meds, you can still have your MD prescribe them, just it's an OOP...  There are TONS of medications and procedures already that are far less controversial that insurance doesn't cover.  Routine foot care for example that requires a trip to the MD to have done - not covered by most plans...  Meds for sedation during a colonoscopy - several aren't covered...  About 15+ years ago, the BCP wasn't covered at all, yet now the cost w/o insurance is so minimal compared to what it used to be then...

IMO, the interesting case will be when someone in a closely held corporation with the beliefs of the religions that don't believe in medical interventions challenge the entire requirement to even purchase/provide insurance because they don't feel they should be forced to purchase the product in general they don't believe in.  The heck with cherry-picking, but the overall requirement to purchase insurance for a product they refuse to need/use...

For a lot of people, having them not covered by insurance makes them cost prohibitive. They may as well be unavailable. Like the type of people who make crap hourly wages working for Hobby Lobby.

andthatmakes4

@rosesandpetals‌ -- I'm not sure how accurate this is but from what I've read HL doesn't pay the crap hourly wages that other companies do. I think full time workers get $14/hr which isn't a lot obviously but is considerably more than minimum wage.

penguingrrl

lmlorenz12 said:

@rosesandpetals‌ -- I'm not sure how accurate this is but from what I've read HL doesn't pay the crap hourly wages that other companies do. I think full time workers get $14/hr which isn't a lot obviously but is considerably more than minimum wage.

Even if they are paying close to $14/hr (which I've never heard, although I've avoided them due to this lawsuit as well as antisemitism), between stagnant wages and increasing COL that still leaves little wiggle room in a budget to pay for medications if you're already paying a high amount for your health insurance premium (and I know when DH was making about that we were paying over $10K/year is insurance premiums; extra medical costs over and above that would have sunk us).

And one of the kinds they most object to is not affordable OOP. It's the paraguard IUD, which is one of the few very effective non-hormonal options (it's efficacy rate is actually slightly higher than tubal ligation). Given that I'm latex allergic and have a medical condition that precludes hormonal BC that pretty much was my only option. I had that between kids 2 and 3 and was thankful I had access to it through insurance because the device itself plus insertion was on the order of $800 that had to be paid in advance. At $14/hour if you're first paying rent, utilities, health insurance and food, how quickly do you think you can save up $800 for contraception?

AprilLVE

auroraloo said:

AprilLVE said:

I have lots of UO's on this, but I'll just say that this situation along with comments above completely reinforces for me the idea that what we really need is a robust, free, individual insurance market.  The employer provided model is so rife with conflicts and market distortions.  If I could just wave a wand and start from scratch, medical insurance would be purchased just like other types of insurance...by an individual or family to fit with their specific needs and wants.  

I'll agree that the employer-provided model is ridiculous, but do you mean "free" as in without cost to the people, or "free" as in freedom of choice? For profit healthcare?

The latter.  No such thing as a free lunch.  And I realize there would have to be govt intervention such as high risk pools, premium support for low income people, etc.  

penguingrrl

AprilLVE said:

auroraloo said:

AprilLVE said:

I have lots of UO's on this, but I'll just say that this situation along with comments above completely reinforces for me the idea that what we really need is a robust, free, individual insurance market.  The employer provided model is so rife with conflicts and market distortions.  If I could just wave a wand and start from scratch, medical insurance would be purchased just like other types of insurance...by an individual or family to fit with their specific needs and wants.  

I'll agree that the employer-provided model is ridiculous, but do you mean "free" as in without cost to the people, or "free" as in freedom of choice? For profit healthcare?

The latter.  No such thing as a free lunch.  And I realize there would have to be govt intervention such as high risk pools, premium support for low income people, etc.  

So you trust private, for-profit companies to make the best decision regarding your healthcare? Interesting. I never trust a for-profit company to do anything that might affect their own bottom line for a second based on what I've seen. 

rosesandpetals

lmlorenz12 said:

@rosesandpetals‌ -- I'm not sure how accurate this is but from what I've read HL doesn't pay the crap hourly wages that other companies do. I think full time workers get $14/hr which isn't a lot obviously but is considerably more than minimum wage.

$14/hour is more than minimum wage but everyone knows minimum wage isn't an amount you can actually survive on. $14/hour * 40 hours a week * 50 weeks a year is 28k/year.... before taxes. So Hobby Lobby offers 28k/year pre taxes and in addition to that, their employees need to pay for BC because Hobby Lobby has a moral objection to providing birth control but not to investing in BC companies.

"Yup, Hobby Lobby has about $73 million invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill, another that makes a copper IUD, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs and health companies that cover surgical abortions."
Link

And @marblerye HL may be planning to cover those BC types but the ruling will allow any company to opt out if they have a moral objection to them. It will also extend to IF treatments and any other reproductive moral objections. Several other companies have all ready said they are planning to withdraw coverage.

Gahh, this whole thing makes me so mad.

AprilLVE

penguingrrl said:

AprilLVE said:

auroraloo said:

AprilLVE said:

I have lots of UO's on this, but I'll just say that this situation along with comments above completely reinforces for me the idea that what we really need is a robust, free, individual insurance market.  The employer provided model is so rife with conflicts and market distortions.  If I could just wave a wand and start from scratch, medical insurance would be purchased just like other types of insurance...by an individual or family to fit with their specific needs and wants.  

I'll agree that the employer-provided model is ridiculous, but do you mean "free" as in without cost to the people, or "free" as in freedom of choice? For profit healthcare?

The latter.  No such thing as a free lunch.  And I realize there would have to be govt intervention such as high risk pools, premium support for low income people, etc.  

So you trust private, for-profit companies to make the best decision regarding your healthcare? Interesting. I never trust a for-profit company to do anything that might affect their own bottom line for a second based on what I've seen. 

I trust the govt less.  A private company must compete for customers.  I think one problem with the current employer based system, is that in most cases the individual can't take their money elsewhere, even if they want to, when the insurance company doesn't perform.

penguingrrl

AprilLVE said:

penguingrrl said:

AprilLVE said:

auroraloo said:

AprilLVE said:

I have lots of UO's on this, but I'll just say that this situation along with comments above completely reinforces for me the idea that what we really need is a robust, free, individual insurance market.  The employer provided model is so rife with conflicts and market distortions.  If I could just wave a wand and start from scratch, medical insurance would be purchased just like other types of insurance...by an individual or family to fit with their specific needs and wants.  

I'll agree that the employer-provided model is ridiculous, but do you mean "free" as in without cost to the people, or "free" as in freedom of choice? For profit healthcare?

The latter.  No such thing as a free lunch.  And I realize there would have to be govt intervention such as high risk pools, premium support for low income people, etc.  

So you trust private, for-profit companies to make the best decision regarding your healthcare? Interesting. I never trust a for-profit company to do anything that might affect their own bottom line for a second based on what I've seen. 

I trust the govt less.  A private company must compete for customers.  I think one problem with the current employer based system, is that in most cases the individual can't take their money elsewhere, even if they want to, when the insurance company doesn't perform.

I disagree. In my experience unfettered private industry is an absolute race to the bottom for all involved. The CEO's personal salary and a nice tidy sum to give shareholders is all that matters and big companies have been able to push everyone else out of the marketplace in all industries. I don't see health insurance going any better. The free market theory sounds nice in concept but doesn't account for human selfishness.

TexasGal2008

marblerye said:

Is there any truth to Target offering $10 generics of BCP? 

Also- correct me if I am wrong but HL covers like 16 types BC, there are four types they refuse to cover. It isn't regular BCPs, which are used for things other than contraception. 

This is the list I found online: 

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

You are correct. They are covering the BCP and other forms of BC. They are not covering Plan B and IUD. The facts are not always being presented on this subject.

penguingrrl

TexasGal2008 said:

marblerye said:

Is there any truth to Target offering $10 generics of BCP? 

Also- correct me if I am wrong but HL covers like 16 types BC, there are four types they refuse to cover. It isn't regular BCPs, which are used for things other than contraception. 

This is the list I found online: 

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

You are correct. They are covering the BCP and other forms of BC. They are not covering Plan B and IUD. The facts are not always being presented on this subject.

Yes, it is correct that it is only 4 methods they won't cover. However, one of them was the single method available to me personally (and I know I'm not alone) that had an effectiveness rating of over 90%. I couldn't take a 10%+ risk of getting pregnant at that time. So it really is an issue that affects women even if it seems like there are other great options. I cannot use hormonal BC nor can I use latex. The single effective option for me was a paraguard IUD. Without insurance the device and insertion is more money than a minimum wage worker would earn in a month. That's not reasonable.

Add to it that their stocks are in mutual funds that include the companies that manufacture these products and you really have to say hmm. If they are that opposed why were they okay investing in the manufacture of these products?

Also, the IUD and plan B do not work as abortifacients as the lawsuit claims. A study was released last year (I don't have a copy of it; it was discussed at length on the politics board) that proved that if you have already ovulated plan B will not be effective. It is only effective if you take it prior to ovulation.

Also, this issue isn't just about BC even though that's the part the law suit addressed. It has open the path for Muslim or Jewish employers to deny procine valve replacements because they feel that sacrificing a pig is a sin or for fundamentalist Christians who oppose vaccines to say they want an insurance plan that doesn't cover vaccines. This is a sweeping case with major consequences that stretch well beyond birth control.

Andrewsgal

TexasGal2008 said:

marblerye said:

Is there any truth to Target offering $10 generics of BCP? 

Also- correct me if I am wrong but HL covers like 16 types BC, there are four types they refuse to cover. It isn't regular BCPs, which are used for things other than contraception. 

This is the list I found online: 

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

You are correct. They are covering the BCP and other forms of BC. They are not covering Plan B and IUD. The facts are not always being presented on this subject.

TexasGal2008 said:

marblerye said:

Is there any truth to Target offering $10 generics of BCP? 

Also- correct me if I am wrong but HL covers like 16 types BC, there are four types they refuse to cover. It isn't regular BCPs, which are used for things other than contraception. 

This is the list I found online: 

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

You are correct. They are covering the BCP and other forms of BC. They are not covering Plan B and IUD. The facts are not always being presented on this subject.

you are so right, lest talk facts. It totes cool that a company gets to limit a women's choice. I don't see that going bad at all. See how it doesn't matter what they are or are not offering? It's about a medical choice for my body that is made by a large company not me or a doctor

rosesandpetals

TexasGal2008 said:

marblerye said:

Is there any truth to Target offering $10 generics of BCP? 

Also- correct me if I am wrong but HL covers like 16 types BC, there are four types they refuse to cover. It isn't regular BCPs, which are used for things other than contraception. 

This is the list I found online: 

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

You are correct. They are covering the BCP and other forms of BC. They are not covering Plan B and IUD. The facts are not always being presented on this subject.

Lol, no they're not. You know who knows lots of things about medicine and its effectiveness? Doctors. They should talk to their patients about what medicine is best with absolutely zero input from the patient's boss's religion. "Oh, but they can pay OOP." Yeah, do you know how much an IUD costs OOP? Way more than someone making $14/hour can afford.

I just can't get over the hypocrisy of it. If they're going to opt out of covering these medicines they shouldn't be allowed to invest in the companies that make them, either. "It's wrong... unless it makes me money then it's totes okay." ffs.

andthatmakes4

penguingrrl said:

lmlorenz12 said:

@rosesandpetals‌ -- I'm not sure how accurate this is but from what I've read HL doesn't pay the crap hourly wages that other companies do. I think full time workers get $14/hr which isn't a lot obviously but is considerably more than minimum wage.

Even if they are paying close to $14/hr (which I've never heard, although I've avoided them due to this lawsuit as well as antisemitism), between stagnant wages and increasing COL that still leaves little wiggle room in a budget to pay for medications if you're already paying a high amount for your health insurance premium (and I know when DH was making about that we were paying over $10K/year is insurance premiums; extra medical costs over and above that would have sunk us).

And one of the kinds they most object to is not affordable OOP. It's the paraguard IUD, which is one of the few very effective non-hormonal options (it's efficacy rate is actually slightly higher than tubal ligation). Given that I'm latex allergic and have a medical condition that precludes hormonal BC that pretty much was my only option. I had that between kids 2 and 3 and was thankful I had access to it through insurance because the device itself plus insertion was on the order of $800 that had to be paid in advance. At $14/hour if you're first paying rent, utilities, health insurance and food, how quickly do you think you can save up $800 for contraception?

As I said, "it isn't a lot obviously." However, they are paying more than some other places for the same type work.

rosesandpetals

Yeah, plan b is just high dose bcp.

What really.bothers me is some people being okay with them deciding what medicine is okay for.you to take and what medicine isn't, especially since they have a financial incentive to not cover any expensive medications. If there are 2 options they will just opt out of the expensive one and if that's the one you need then too bad so sad, you're stuck paying oop. They're not doctors, they shouldn't get to pick our medicine.

dizzycooks

I am going to risk stepping into this debate.  I understand Penguin's point and think it sucks when the one thing that will work for you isn't covered. Totally agree!!  However, bc isn't the only thing where the 'needed' medication isn't covered by an insurance plan.  Plenty of autism/cancer/etc. drugs or treatment plans are only available oop.  This ruling should be focused on more than bc.  Ultimately that is not the point that is going to cause us trouble.  

My personal example (because we are all special snowflakes yo!).  The bc I was prescribed, the one that didn't give me tons of sideeffects, was not available as a generic and so my insurance said I should be on something else and wanted to charge something like $100/mo for it.  That's ridiculous imo, but I know there are plenty of other things are not covered.  I also would have needed to pay for my iui oop with my insurance at the time. We've all discussed how different our birth costs are covered which by itself should be a debate.

penguingrrl

dizzycooks said:

I am going to risk stepping into this debate.  I understand Penguin's point and think it sucks when the one thing that will work for you isn't covered. Totally agree!!  However, bc isn't the only thing where the 'needed' medication isn't covered by an insurance plan.  Plenty of autism/cancer/etc. drugs or treatment plans are only available oop.  This ruling should be focused on more than bc.  Ultimately that is not the point that is going to cause us trouble.  

My personal example (because we are all special snowflakes yo!).  The bc I was prescribed, the one that didn't give me tons of sideeffects, was not available as a generic and so my insurance said I should be on something else and wanted to charge something like $100/mo for it.  That's ridiculous imo, but I know there are plenty of other things are not covered.  I also would have needed to pay for my iui oop with my insurance at the time. We've all discussed how different our birth costs are covered which by itself should be a debate.

Oh, I think it's disgusting that we're the only industrialized nation in the world whose citizens deal with massive medical debt. I consider medical care a right, not a privilege and necessary to the right to life guaranteed in our Constitution. This particular case is about contraception, which is why that's the part being discussed, but make no mistake that I think if an MD says a patient needs a drug cost should never be a barrier. Doesn't matter if it's contraception or psychotropic drugs or chemo drugs or antibiotics. A patient's ability to pay shouldn't factor in at all. And a boss's personal religious beliefs should have no bearing on medical treatments.

AprilLVE

A couple of posters mentioned not liking that a company can pick and choose or make decisions for it's employees based on the HL case.  But this already happens way before we get down to the nitty gritty of which forms of birth control are or are not covered!  First a company chooses an insurance carrier.  Right off the bat this limits choices because some service providers and hospitals will be in-network and others out-of-network. Then they choose a plan...HMO, PPO, etc.  This further constricts employees' options.  The prescription drug coverage picked by the company has a formulary; this is basically a list of which drugs are covered and which aren't.  So, again restricting choices.

I mean, I get what others are saying, but let's not pretend that the world was our health care oyster and now thanks to the HL ruling that has all come crashing down.

AprilLVE

amy052006 said:

AprilLVE said:

A couple of posters mentioned not liking that a company can pick and choose or make decisions for it's employees based on the HL case.  But this already happens way before we get down to the nitty gritty of which forms of birth control are or are not covered!  First a company chooses an insurance carrier.  Right off the bat this limits choices because some service providers and hospitals will be in-network and others out-of-network. Then they choose a plan...HMO, PPO, etc.  This further constricts employees' options.  The prescription drug coverage picked by the company has a formulary; this is basically a list of which drugs are covered and which aren't.  So, again restricting choices.

I mean, I get what others are saying, but let's not pretend that the world was our health care oyster and now thanks to the HL ruling that has all come crashing down.

It's almost as if private, for profit business shouldn't be involved in our healthcare.

Sure.  Then we wouldn't have to argue about Plan B or the Paraguard IUD at all because they wouldn't exist.

rosesandpetals

AprilLVE said:

A couple of posters mentioned not liking that a company can pick and choose or make decisions for it's employees based on the HL case.  But this already happens way before we get down to the nitty gritty of which forms of birth control are or are not covered!  First a company chooses an insurance carrier.  Right off the bat this limits choices because some service providers and hospitals will be in-network and others out-of-network. Then they choose a plan...HMO, PPO, etc.  This further constricts employees' options.  The prescription drug coverage picked by the company has a formulary; this is basically a list of which drugs are covered and which aren't.  So, again restricting choices.

I mean, I get what others are saying, but let's not pretend that the world was our health care oyster and now thanks to the HL ruling that has all come crashing down.

They all ready have way too much control so we should give them even more. 

magentawarped

For those who still think that the anger following this ruling is all about not being able to pick your birth control:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

We have created a slippery slope that nutbags will just coast down like skiing in Aspen. Welcome to the bleak and depressing world of consequences.

penguingrrl

magentawarped said:

For those who still think that the anger following this ruling is all about not being able to pick your birth control: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby We have created a slippery slope that nutbags will just coast down like skiing in Aspen. Welcome to the bleak and depressing world of consequences.

I saw that earlier and it's so depressing. I hope people enjoy being subjected to their employers religious beliefs regardless of whether they agree because that's what's happening now.