Off the cuff? My first thought would be that, if it were a strong point for the prosecution, it would have been one of the points that was brought before the court.
My 2nd question would be to which section of the 5 or phrase of the 14th is he referring?
Wasn't there a group of people saying that if they signed that form they are essentially consenting to someone receiving medical treatment they don't agree with, therefor they even refused to sign the form? Some sisters group or something like that?
5 cycles of "TTC" - 3 intentional, 2 not so intentional. 5 BFPs. My rainbow arrived 10/15/14. TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
Although the First Amendment has been brought up often in arguing against this, the opinion of the court stated that it didn't make the decision based on the 1st Amendment, but instead on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 2 main parts of that are that if the government is going to require a burden on someone's religious belief (in this case, requiring contraceptive coverage), it needs to be 1. the least restrictive means of doing so 2. and needs to be on a topic in which the government has a compelling interest.
The overall main reason in the opinion for their decision is that the government has at its disposal, other ways to provide the contraceptive coverage at no or low cost to the consumer instead of placing an unnecessary burden on the religious beliefs of these owners. Basically, the government has expressed that providing contraceptives to women is extremely important so, instead of requiring that this company goes against their strongly held beliefs about abortifacients, the government can easily take responsibility for providing it in the "least restrictive means" aspect.
And that's why the government said that insurance companies would be paying for it instead of the company. Seems strange that the company could make that argument to not provide something they wouldn't even be paying for.
In the Court's opinion, they said:
1. If these companies choose to provide an insurance plan that does not cover the controversial contraceptives, the fines would equal $33 million and $15 million for the 2 corporations - a substantial financial burden in the eyes of the court.
2. The other option would be to not provide insurance at all (in order to avoid providing those instead of the above); the fines for that would be $26 million and $1.8 million. Still a substantial amount according to the court.
Putting this financial burden, etc., on these companies is not the least restrictive way of ensuring that the owners can still keep their religious beliefs while also allowing the government to provide these 4 contraceptives at an affordable cost to women.
Well by all means, if the company's are going to be out money then let's just give them what they want. The people (actual people, not the corporation) that this affects don't matter.
I'm wondering about the logistics of how the contraceptives will be paid for, since I believed they said the government would cover it. Do you have to pay OOP and then submit a claim to the US goverment, because that just seems weird.
I think the point is that the RFRA which was passed to protect religious freedom prevents the government from forcing these owners to provide coverage for those. Whether or not everyone agrees with it, that's the current law and is also what the case was about.
It was decided that, in accordance with RFRA, the government can create a way for all women to have the contraceptives without forcing the owners to provide the coverage for it in their insurance plans.
So why is a corporation's religious beliefs more important than someone's else's medical treatment?
It's not; that's not what was decided. It was decided that the best solution, while considering both the strong convictions of the owner as well as the needs of all women (both are important!), that the government can't mandate this since it is has other means at it's disposal to provide for women.
While highly controversial, the owners firmly believe that providing these 4 kinds of contraceptives would allow women to kill their babies.PLEASE forgive the strong language, but also try to understand that, since they strongly and truly believe human life begins at conception, using contraceptives that destroy embryos is equal to killing a child. To them, it's not just about birth control; requiring them to provide this is, to them, requiring them to provide the means to murder a baby. So, while you would say that it's putting the religious beliefs above the needs of women, they would probably reply that the needs of women are equal to the needs of the baby inside them since that baby is also a person (religious belief).
Therefore, it's important the decision BOTH allow the owners to not provide a way for a person to "destroy the embryo" (their religious beliefs) while also giving all women a way to exercise their legal right to use them. Again, the government has as its disposal the resources to do both <- court's decision.
This isn't the first company to have a philosophy many don't agree with. In an earlier example, it was mentioned that "what if HL was the closest place to work and working elsewhere would create an unnecessary financial burden" but take Hooters, for example. They have a philosophy that pro actively dressed waitresses sell lots of beer and wings. What if that was the closest place to work for that mom? Right next to a daycare and only a block from her residence? And she loved waitressing but didn't personally agree with dressing that way? Perhaps her belief is women need to be in a burka? Would hooters have to change their philosophy for this person? Allow her to not wear the uniform? Everyone knows hooters for the barely dressed waitresses! That's why many love them and many hate them. Does she go against her beliefs or does she take the bus across town to Applebee's and work there? Obviously hooters isn't a religion (maybe to some? ;-) ) But they are defined in a manner that may keep many from choosing not to work there?! Can the government force them to change their philosophy?
Are you seriously trying to compare imposing tiny uniforms to withholding access to specific medications/procedures?
5 cycles of "TTC" - 3 intentional, 2 not so intentional. 5 BFPs. My rainbow arrived 10/15/14. TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
This isn't the first company to have a philosophy many don't agree with. In an earlier example, it was mentioned that "what if HL was the closest place to work and working elsewhere would create an unnecessary financial burden" but take Hooters, for example. They have a philosophy that pro actively dressed waitresses sell lots of beer and wings. What if that was the closest place to work for that mom? Right next to a daycare and only a block from her residence? And she loved waitressing but didn't personally agree with dressing that way? Perhaps her belief is women need to be in a burka? Would hooters have to change their philosophy for this person? Allow her to not wear the uniform? Everyone knows hooters for the barely dressed waitresses! That's why many love them and many hate them. Does she go against her beliefs or does she take the bus across town to Applebee's and work there? Obviously hooters isn't a religion (maybe to some? ;-) ) But they are defined in a manner that may keep many from choosing not to work there?! Can the government force them to change their philosophy?
Sure, why not. Were you looking for outrage?
I'm sure there are many legal arguments that say it actually is ok for hooters to do this but I really don't care if they are forced to let waitresses wear a hijab/burka/habit/magic underpants.
I think this was addressed when the Borgata imposed weight restrictions on their waitresses. The finding was that the waitresses knew this when they accepted the position and signed their employment contracts so it was acceptable.
I still think this is an apples & oranges debate though.
5 cycles of "TTC" - 3 intentional, 2 not so intentional. 5 BFPs. My rainbow arrived 10/15/14. TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
Off the cuff? My first thought would be that, if it were a strong point for the prosecution, it would have been one of the points that was brought before the court.
My 2nd question would be to which section of the 5 or phrase of the 14th is he referring?
Equal protection.
Eta No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Because most citizens get birth control but these citizens don't.
I would need to research further, but I *think* its use in courts as an argument has only applied to state laws. <- weak argument, but nonetheless lol
I think the overall point would be that the 14th Amendment could work for both sides in this case (maybe this is why neither side used it as an argument?)
1. There could be an argument that ACA mandates all insurance has to provide these things so equal protection...
2. HL and friends could argue that they can act in accordance with their religious beliefs under the RFRA so equal protection... Since RFRA explains in which cases the government can't force a law (ACA). It's quite convoluted when typing it lol. 14th amendment says equal protection for laws but the laws don't apply if it's in circumstances.
They actually said in their opinion that it's not their job to rule on the validity of the beliefs - who knows if they even agree. Their decision had to be based on what the laws stated, specifically RFRA (who woulda thought i'd say that 5 million times today). I understand the outrage on both sides, but the more I read, the more I think that their reasoning was correct even if the outcome is controversial. Then again, SCOTUS does seem to have an uncanny ability to make people angry regardless...
So oral contraceptives are ok in their book, correct? What if the employee doesn't respond well to hormonal birth control? What happens then?! They are forced to use the rhythm method, or a condom? It just doesn't seem right to me that a company can determine what a persons birth control method be when that is such a personal choice, and one that has to be made with medical exceptions at times.
@ClaireFraser - I don't think there is anything wrong with the IUD. I know that doesn't mean a lot coming from me but, and I know we are getting gravely close to a pro life/pro choice debate, I didn't want you to feel bad. An IUD prevents a fertilized egg from embedding and growing. It doesn't remove an embedded embryo. (Ask the many moms who have got knocked up with an IUD ;-) ) There are many debates about when life starts but if the fertilized egg has no means to grow - which happens naturally all the time - I don't think that counts. Obviously, I'm not a doctor or a scientist. This is just my opinion. :-/
Isn't this the exact same way Plan B works? So what's everyone's problem with that?
C&P from WebMD:
How Does Plan B One-Step Work?
Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:
It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.
Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.
------------------------------- *lurking on this thread*
I don't know. That's a good question. Plan B will not abort a fetus. I took it so I wouldn't get pregnant with DS. He is a healthy 4 year old.
@ClaireFraser - I don't think there is anything wrong with the IUD. I know that doesn't mean a lot coming from me but, and I know we are getting gravely close to a pro life/pro choice debate, I didn't want you to feel bad. An IUD prevents a fertilized egg from embedding and growing. It doesn't remove an embedded embryo. (Ask the many moms who have got knocked up with an IUD ;-) ) There are many debates about when life starts but if the fertilized egg has no means to grow - which happens naturally all the time - I don't think that counts. Obviously, I'm not a doctor or a scientist. This is just my opinion. :-/
Isn't this the exact same way Plan B works? So what's everyone's problem with that?
C&P from WebMD:
How Does Plan B One-Step Work?
Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:
It
is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents
implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.
Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the
uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.
-------------------------------
*lurking on this thread*
I don't know. That's a good question. Plan B will not abort a fetus. I took it so I wouldn't get pregnant with DS. He is a healthy 4 year old.
I forget my embryology, but I think that, assuming fertilization occurs immediately upon ejaculation (which we all know doesn't happen, but I'm trying to use a really aggressive timeline here), the largest structure you can possibly have within 72 hours is a morula, which is far from a fetus.
If anyone is better versed in embryology, please correct me!
5 cycles of "TTC" - 3 intentional, 2 not so intentional. 5 BFPs. My rainbow arrived 10/15/14. TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
@ClaireFraser - I don't think there is anything wrong with the IUD. I know that doesn't mean a lot coming from me but, and I know we are getting gravely close to a pro life/pro choice debate, I didn't want you to feel bad. An IUD prevents a fertilized egg from embedding and growing. It doesn't remove an embedded embryo. (Ask the many moms who have got knocked up with an IUD ;-) ) There are many debates about when life starts but if the fertilized egg has no means to grow - which happens naturally all the time - I don't think that counts. Obviously, I'm not a doctor or a scientist. This is just my opinion. :-/
Isn't this the exact same way Plan B works? So what's everyone's problem with that?
C&P from WebMD:
How Does Plan B One-Step Work?
Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:
It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.
Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.
------------------------------- *lurking on this thread*
I don't know. That's a good question. Plan B will not abort a fetus. I took it so I wouldn't get pregnant with DS. He is a healthy 4 year old.
I forget my embryology, but I think that, assuming fertilization occurs immediately upon ejaculation (which we all know doesn't happen, but I'm trying to use a really aggressive timeline here), the largest structure you can possibly have within 72 hours is a morula, which is far from a fetus.
If anyone is better versed in embryology, please correct me!
Seriously? You had to correct my terminology? Sorry for using the word fetus. What I meant was baby. #:-S
I didn't say I had issue with the IUD or plan B. But that's not to say others do or don't. Those few seconds that change an embryo to a baby upon embedding have been up for interpretation for years. Some people believe life begins at fertilization - others feel it doesn't exist until the fertilized eggs embeds into your lining - furthermore others feel it is when the heart beats or when the baby is born.
When did anyone infer that you may have issues with IUD or Plan B? HL has issues with these things, that is why they are being discussed in this thread.
Also, we all know there are various schools of thought on when life begins. Not sure why you are suddenly lecturing us on the topic.
5 cycles of "TTC" - 3 intentional, 2 not so intentional. 5 BFPs. My rainbow arrived 10/15/14. TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
Sorry for posting this and running, I have the day off and went out with the family.
I have a really hard time believing that the right-wing masses have visceral, morally pressing reactions to certain forms of birth control as abortifacients; rather, I see this as a political backpedal towards efforts for further "pro-life" legislation. As someone that was raised entrenched in Right To Life Catholic groups in the 80's and 90's, I really don't remember the intricacies of various birth control methods being a big part of the front-and-center argument.
This isn't something that many folks feel emotional about; it's a loose thread to tug.
Why don't these same people picket IVF clinics? Don't they regularly dispose of extra embryos, as well as facilitate multiple pregnancies that can lead to medically suggested selected abortion?
I can't believe we still have to worry (for a myriad of reasons) about access to reproductive healthcare in this country. Grosser than gross.
Re: Healthcare vs religion?
TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
C&P from WebMD:
How Does Plan B One-Step Work?
Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:
It
is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents
implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.
Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the
-------------------------------uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.
*lurking on this thread*
I don't know. That's a good question. Plan B will not abort a fetus. I took it so I wouldn't get pregnant with DS. He is a healthy 4 year old.
TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.
correct me!
Seriously? You had to correct my terminology? Sorry for using the word fetus. What I meant was baby. #:-S
TFMC 08.02.13 at 19+ weeks. Everyday I grieve for my little Olive.