The Supreme Court's 5 to 4 Ruling, on birth control.

I know. And what's to stop these companies from inflicting other nonstandard beliefs from their religion on employees? Where does it all stop? This is a bad trend.

 

If you want to make the argument about human sacrifices then can't an argument be made for people to marry animals with the ruling on gay marriage?

This ruling is fine, why should anyone have to provide coverage? Obamacare does not cover condoms, is that not BC? So men are discriminated against in Obamacrae.

 

Why would it even matter if someone wanted to marry an animal?

 

It's nice of them to provide viagra for the male employees though. It's mentioned in the bible , I think. "thou shalt endeavor to enlarge thy monkey and last an inordinate amount of time."

I've read, but cannot confirm, that the HL invests in companies that make birth control. Like the evangelicals that I worked for ( very short time) who delighted in getting one over on others-----" but that's just business."

 

No the logic breaks down when same-sex marriage is used to justify relations with animals.

The differing factor, is that in same-sex marriage, you are the same species, but what you are implying goes beyond the legal precedent if you want to argue for human-animal intimate relations.

It just won't fly, and those who have postulated the idea of that slippery-slope, demonstrate not to know this logical fallacy, hence anyone who tries to argue against same-sex marriage, sounds really uneducated.


Because healthcare coverage is part of what the employees are getting in trade for their labor to the employer, and this ruling puts conditions on that.

There is a degree of separation, between the employer's actions and beliefs, and the employee's actions and beliefs and this ruling begins to blur the two giving the employer (aka: the boss) more power legally than their employee.

 

There are health, and microbiological reasons, why it should remain outlawed.

 

@Melai and Karen


It's totally a bad trend, because what's to stop an established faith recognized by the USA government, to move the goal posts on what "they believe".

Sure as they believe it now "life begins at conception" so anything that the religious-political right FEELS violates their belief now has legal standing.

Who is to stop a pastor/father/bishop/pope or any other religious figure (from other faiths who don't agree with various methods of birth control) from interpreting scripture a different way to say something else regarding sex life and reproduction or even marriage, and then project that onto their employees?

The Abrahamic religions are WAY to nosy in American politics, but specifically Christianity since that is the main one that influences our laws at this time in history.

---

Birth Control for women, can be as expensive as $1000-$3000 dollars a year, that isn't affordable if you are only getting $9 an hour, on top of real life expenses like the rising cost of food, shelter, electricity, gas and water + repairs on cars, car payments, the home, that statistically you are likely to experience in one's life.

 

That's not even relevant. The question is....does a company have the right to opt out of laws that it feels violate the owners religious principles? It's that simple. The court said the company does have that right. While some people want to make the point that you're making, they should be careful because this just opened a flood gate and this ruling might one day affect you or your family in a way that has nothing to do with birth control or the health care law.

 

So a religious reason is used to disobey/ignore a law. Doesn't sound like separation of church and state to me. Do I now get to choose which laws I can disobey/ignore if I say I'm against it because of a religious belief? What if I choose to believe I can use any psychedelic drug I want because it's part of my religion? Can. Worms. Open.

 

How dare anyone try and tell a woman what to do with her body. If u want me to work for u u need to provide me with medical insurance that fits my needs if I wanna have an abortion with my medical insurance that most assuredly is my business

 

Its also not a great idea from an economical standpoint, as in how much money a company loses due to sick time during pregnancy, maternity leave, hiring temp workers, higher insurance premiums due to expensive hospital births., etc

Preventing unwanted pregnancies saves everyone money

 

I could be wrong about this but I don't think most insurance plans cover abortions to begin with. They probably should because from a profit viewpoint....an abortion is a cheaper claim that a pregnancy and birth.

 

If I were a business owner, I'd put you on maternity leave, then fire you much later for some other reason once I am in the clear of legal issues for the premise of getting rid of you because of pregnancy or child rearing.

I'd then hire part-time workers, whom yes I will have to train, but won't necessarily have to pay ANY healthcare benefits for.


^LOOPHOLE FOR BUSINESSES. Nice try Melai, but no in practice it is not a burden for businesses.


(i.e. I wonder if I should practice law as a career)


----

It's bad from a macro society and thus a federal and state budget standpoint though.

Because it does mean poor populations will increase, and that disease will probably increase and thus spread to everybody, increasing demand on medical drugs and supplies which then ripple into the cost for medical hospital treatment for everybody.

And also what Wizard said on this thread, and on the counterpart thread in the BC subforum.

 

I'd also like to add that the State of Michigan, has "Rape Insurance" and without having it you might not have an abortion procedure covered.

It was passed in December of 2013, and also there is a catch 22, because even though it is law now, the insurance itself cannot be sold.


The whole concept is so insulting, because it's basically telling women the should think ahead, as if to anticipate being raped and impregnated, in order to get their healthcare.

Combine that with the Supreme Court's ruling, you can see where this is all snowballing.

 

Oh I wouldn't know either but whatever if I want one I will get one. Lol

 

True, I've amended the original post.


But I stick by my claim that the Bishop's statement is still a lie in the general sense because of the significant amount of people who cannot use the methods of birth control from convenience stores like 7-11.

Therefore his general statement is a lie, as effectively for those people with latex and bad reactions to hormonal birth control, they don't have access to birth control.

 

Sorry, This pair of threads... Its been merged..

 

I don't blame ya. It's not up to me to judge anyone.

 

I feel like a lot of people think of it as a decision people make lightly and I don't think it is. It's not something I think anyone wants to do but because of life it's something that needs to be done. I don't think it should be anyone's right to be able to tell someone they need to have a child. And it's wrong for a child to grow up unloved and unwanted. If it's not covered by health insurance it should be.

 

During the merger did we lose posts or were you able to preserve all posts in the merger?


I kinda want politics to see this as it is a legal proceeding as well.