The SCOTUS birth control debate

[iris lilies]

And yet employers end up paying far more for employees having kids than they'll ever pay for birth control....

yep agreed. Which is why the sincere belief behind denying specific methods of birth on insurance IS an expression of sincere belief, not a decision of commerce. And swimming against the stream.

I personally can afford between $500-$1000 out of pocket for my IUD. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine that not everyone may be as privileged in that regard as me?

Planned Parenthood and other clinics charge on a sliding scale of ability to pay, an option for all. They will determine who is "privileged."

If those who are so outraged about this Hobby Lobby deal stopped typing on their computer, here and on every other website, and sent $5 to Planned Parenthood, that would go a long way toward supplying birth control for those who may need help. Typing on a computer is easy--real action, not so much.

[peggy]

Did you know that the principle of separation of church and state is one of the key reasons churches enjoy exemption from taxes? You are in favor of keeping them separate aren't you?

Along the same vein, tax laws are structured to benefit secular non-profits and charitable institutions as well under the principle of the more you tax something, the less of it you get. Would you also like to negate their favored status?

oh bs! i want them to be treated like everyone else! that is a total bs way to explain why they want to make a special exception for a certain group.
what your trying to say is by creating this special treatment for this group it's really fair to us all? and you actually expect thinking people to believe that? what a load of horsesh*t! you might be able to peddle that to 'certain' voters, but not many thinking people buy that! lol

i think churches should apply and go through the process of tax exemption, just like every non profit. each and every one and no blanket religion wide application. when people get exemption from the laws of the land, then yeah, that's special consideration.

[Alan]

i think churches should apply and go through the process of tax exemption, just like every non profit. each a, nd every one and no blanket religion wide application. when people get exemption from the laws of the land, then yeah, that's special consideration.

Would you consider it an exemption to "the laws of the land" for Congress, or any other governmental agency to ignore their instruction to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" without an appropriate financial expense?

Would it violate the principle of separation of Church and State if the State charged the Church for its existence? Traditionally, our government and law makers have thought so.

[JaneV2.0]

...
Planned Parenthood and other clinics charge on a sliding scale of ability to pay, an option for all. They will determine who is "privileged."

If those who are so outraged about this Hobby Lobby deal stopped typing on their computer, here and on every other website, and sent $5 to Planned Parenthood, that would go a long way toward supplying birth control for those who may need help. Typing on a computer is easy--real action, not so much.

Thanks for bringing up Planned Parenthood; it's one of those organizations that just slogs along--against massive resistance--doing good work. I contribute regularly to them--one of the few human charities I do--so I guess I can carry on whinging.

[iris lilies]

...-so I guess I can carry on whinging.

why yes. yes you can!

[bae]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

[Lainey]

Medicare paying $38M a year for penis pumps:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare...r-span-report/

What a ridiculous world we live in.

[RosieTR]

I like my original idea of not having employers involved in providing my health care.

I wouldn't want my company to select my housing, or my food, or my clothes, or the classes I take, or who my ISP is, or the car I drive. I just want them to pay me for my work, and let me make my own choices with my own $$$ and time.

Nice sentiment, but currently far from reality for a vast number of people. I'd be for this too, if a better system were in place (examples of which abound in every single other developed country). Until that point, why do some corps get to pick and choose some benefits? Like I said, blood transfusions can't be refused coverage even if a small group of JWs closely hold a majority of a "public" company. So the standards are being applied non-uniformly since the Court is basically saying that if your religious beliefs include denying certain contraception those beliefs have merit, but those beliefs are not sincere if they provide any other guide about health care, when applied to people outside your particular religion.

As for the benefits statements outlining reproductive services when considering positions, will the corps who plan not to cover IUDs have to specifically outline that on their benefit lists? I don't think the benefit plan of the place I'm currently considering gets all that specific. It just says "wellness checks", "outpatient visits", "mental health services" etc. with various in- vs out-of-network rates and copays and such.

[bae]

Until that point, why do some corps get to pick and choose some benefits?

Because nobody read the Affordable Care Act before they passed it?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Like I said, blood transfusions can't be refused coverage even if a small group of JWs closely hold a majority of a "public" company.

We may be being unfair to Jehovah's Witnesses. Some have argued JWs don't regard it as their problem whether those who aren't JWs get blood transfusions. If so they wouldn't even be interested in this kind of suit. So maybe they shouldn't be lumped in with this craziness. Though I'm still pretending I'm not home