Liz,
I respect you and also give value to your opinions a lot but iam sorry to say that you are looking gender biased on this issue.
First of all, both of the courts and the management of the corporations are supposed to be above the genders, so it is not the case of men deciding for women.
Secondly, what will be the reaction of the courts and corporations, if a newly converted Muslim would ask his employers to take the medical burden of his penis circumcision?
with love,
sanjay
Half the population of America has to take a drug every day in order to function ‘normally’.
What a world we live in. 
Haha. Yeah, it's the law. A gigantic clusterfuck of an unenforceable law- that's my point. Trying to force businesses to buy abortion pills for their employees is the part that created confusion and was ultimately unenforceable, not the Supreme Court acknowledging the obvious- that you can't force people with religious convictions to the contrary to do so. If you want to say something is created confusion and enforcements, blame the thing that changed- Obama trying to force people to provide a service they were never previously obligated to provide.
It takes two people to have a lawsuit. The people defending the ACA could have at any time conceded the point that it's a violation of religious freedom to force people to buy contraceptives/abortion pills/etc. At the very least, the U.S. Government could have chosen not to appeal the 10th Circuit's decision in favor of Hobby Lobby.
And it’s factual that those medications are easily affordable by anybody who has a job that would include health insurance.
Again, I feel like you have it backwards. The Affordable Care Act forcing people to buy contraception caused that widening. Obama had an unconstitutional provision in his law that violated people's religious rights. I don't see how you can blame polarization on [i]the court acknowledging this fact[/i] and not on Obama trying to do it in the first place!
Companies never had to provide contraception for their employees, and they still don’t have to. How can something not changing be a ‘giant step’ somewhere, forward or back?
Endometriosis and polycystic syndrome are treated with oral contraceptives, as well as various other ovarian cysts. First approach before surgery is always to prescribe oral contraceptive to try and stabilize hormone levels. Often that alone takes care of the problem and no surgery is required.
This is not about denying comfort. Doctors are going to continue to prescribe oral contraceptives because they are a medication, and people will pay for them out of pocket because their health depends on it.
I’ve been getting contraceptives using my employer provided insurance for years. I wouldn’t call that free since I pay my share of the insurance, but it does cover the cost of my contraceptive.
What I am waiting to see is how many insurance companies are going to declare themselves fundamental xtians now in order to cut cost. Anything for money.
I kind of want to punch people who argue for intelligent design sometimes. … specially during my pms, of course.
Equating not buying for them to denying it doesn’t work in this case only because full price oral contraceptives are noy ouy of someone’s reach.
Hypothetical situation:
If it was a more complicated condition… say pregnancy, failure to cover the cost would make it prohibitive. Wouldn’t that be the same as to deny a woman the right to have a child?
No. The government cannot fix all problems. It can stay out of the way of others attempts to fix those problems.
So if insurance companies, hypothetically, decide that they no longer cover pregnancy, since it is something you did to yourself after all, you don’t think a regulating entity should come to them and say that that’s… kind of not very nice?
I support the union ruling, but not the contraceptive one.
I like how in a single post, a page back, I already presented every argument and counter argument made since, and went further and discussed in detail the points everyone is slowly reaching for, uniting the argument it’s going to reach 5-7 pages from now when Unicsore and Krop finally narrowly come to a uneasy conclusion.
Yes, long post, but much shorter than pages of rehashed pages by not so original thinkers.
Go on, continue to ignore it and stumble half assed into arguments I already made, and take hours of your life scratching around for the conclusions I made too.
Philosophy is getting rather lame these days. Everything is plodding and slow moving, and too predictable. Like the doctor in The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind explaining half heartedly the situation to a hysterical patient for the 500 time.
But I don’t exist, I am invisible. If I found a cure for Earthquakes, AIDS, and Smelly Farts… doubt anyone would notice… they would just take decades to argue the points made in my paper’s abstraction, taking centuries to build to the nitty gritty of my conclusion. I’d just go senile, sitting frustrated on the beach at the slow response of the experts moving so damn sloooowwww.
Anyway… carry on. Has anyone here even read the constitution or have any clue how our court system works? Maybe someone jumping over my post here read the next four line post might subliminally absorb the word ‘precedent’ or ‘common law’ and the little hamster in their head might pump something out eventually using those vocabulary words.
I am going to go take some morning after pills now and see what all the fuss is about.
Well aren’t you special?
Do us all a favor and go into every thread where there are ongoing arguments, and post one single text block with your opinons, so that we can all stop arguing and go grab some brewskies.
In fact, why don’t you apply for congress? I’ll vote for you, since you can just go in there and give a speech and cast in your vote, then everyone can go home!
No. If by some weird chance insurance companies as a group, decide on such a thing, don’t get insurance. If the Insurance does not give you what you want, for the price you wish to pay don’t get it… Except now you can’t, you must pay for insurance, regardless of what they decide to charge you and what it costs. The government took control of insurance, and your healthcare. One of the problems is your healthcare is now a public issue.
I would do that in a heartbeat if I did not live in this messed up country. In fact, that’s what I did for the first 25 years of my life. A plain savings account for when health care is needed.
Back home I could easily go for a private option for prenatal and birth delivery without having to… sell my house or spend my retirement funds.
For comparison, a single prenatal ultrasound over there at a super fancy hospital costs like 100 USD. It would cost about 500 USD here. A single ultrasound.
I don’t understand why a common citizen would argue in favor of the insurance industry on this. Insurance is a scam to begin with. It’s pretty straightforward, you’re paid to provide health treatment, so provide health treatment. If you are receiving money from a client to provide a service, and then you come up with millions of fine print reasons of why you should keep the money and not provide the service, what does that make you?
My point being free market self regulating does not apply here, because nobody in their right mind would opt for a non-insurance option in this country, because that implies that you will go bankrupt if you get hit by a car and break a leg.
Sorry, I tend to only reply to people I disagree with. I cant account for why people who are saying the opposite of you are pretending you aren’t there.
I dunno if you guys have ever lived with or hung out with a chick who had the whole irregular period thing and needed birth control pills to regulate it. You know there’s like 4 weeks worth of pills in the pack, 1 week of them are like a placebo or something and that’s the week she’d be raggin. But sometimes you know guys I’m not a doctor, but they may skip one and just rag less often or who the fuck knows how all that shit works but the point I"m making is that “birth control” is just a word used to describe a medication that’s used for way more shit than just preventing pregnancy. Take a normal girl and start her on em, or take a crazy girl with mad periods and get her hooked up so straighten those things out and if you can’t see a plain difference in everything from the degree of discomfort they express to the blatant shift in their level of sanity then you guys just don’t know enough about the ladies.
Also, this was a retarded ruling. Not because of one outcome or another that we might choose to speculate about, but because it seems so broad that none of us can really say what the outcome on the ground is actually going to be. RIght and left need to fear this kind of activism, and endorsement of religion by the judicial branch.
Hi, sanjay, That’s probably because I am gender biased when it comes to health care for women. Courts and corporations are not supposed to be biased in any way, but they are. This is why women have had to fight so hard for every thing, from female suffrage to health care. To mention a specific, in 2012, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule called an all-male panel with no women representatives. The excuse was that there were no ordained women to call on. Who choose the panel?–men, of course. But I’m not here to discuss women’s rights, per se. I’m here to discuss the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision.
I don’t know much about male health care, but I would imagine infant and adult circumcision coverage would depend on the insurance provider. Some pay and some don’t. Those that do pay, pay if the adult circumcision is for medical reasons such as phimosis, where the foreskin cannot retract over the penis, or tearing of the foreskin. I don’t know if a religious reason for circumcision would be covered, but I doubt it.
Liz
To Eric and Uccisore, Since you’re the two most vocal conservatives, I’ve lumped you together and will try to answer both your objections in one reply. I hope you don’t mind.
I’m disappointed. I’ve tried to research the issue from both sides, but I can’t. The ‘liberal’ side is mostly explanation of the law, while the conservative ‘side’ is nothing but objection after objection with nothing to actually grasp–no data, just generalizations and opinion stated as fact.
But, to start, employers don’t pay for contraception or abortifacients. Employers buy into a health care plan for their employees; the employees share the cost. An employer is free to choose any plan s/he wants to choose–or no plan at all, depending on the size of the company. The ACA says that no person shall remain uninsured.
This was done because so many insurance providers had exclusions (preexisting conditions, for example) and/or charged women more in premium costs and/or out of pocket expenditures than men, because a woman must spend more on preventive health care than will a man. I’m referring here to yearly mammograms and PAP smears for cancer–among other things a woman needs to maintain her health. (Remember, there are more single mothers than there are single fathers.)
In saying that, the ACA, modeled on RomneyCare in Mass. and changed by the Republican party, established health insurance ‘markets’, subsidized by the Federal Government. The subsidies depend on money available to both the working and the nonworking poor. The only ‘force’ implied by the ACA falls under the no person shall remain uninsured clause, and applies to young people who remain uninsured because they feel it’s an unneeded expenditure. They’re fined for a period of time (I think it’s 3 years) in order to give them the opportunity to choose an employer provided group insurance plan and sign up for it. I believe the fine is around $150–rather negligible, imm, for a young working person.
I said I thought the timing of the decision was planned. I thing that not only because of the SCOTUS calendar but because preventive health care for women under the ACA is being phased in now. The SCOTUS is predominately male and conservative. It chooses it’s own docket and calendar. But, this is my opinion only.
Answer one thing and only one thing: Why do men seem to think women’s health care only involves her reproductive health?
Enjoy,
Liz.
Obviously women’s menstrual problems aren’t real medical needs 
Is that why any problems down below and the first solution is a hysterectomy? Do you know how many uneccessary hysterectomies are performed each year? too many!