Today,in a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) requirement that employers insurance must provide all forms of birth control.
First, to be clear, this does not restrict ACCESS to contraception at all. This decision doesn't mean there will be police barriers in front of pharmacies so that only women who work in certain companies can buy the Pill. Any woman who wants to buy birth control can buy birth control.
First, to be clear, this does not restrict ACCESS to contraception at all. This decision doesn't mean there will be police barriers in front of pharmacies so that only women who work in certain companies can buy the Pill. Any woman who wants to buy birth control can buy birth control.
Second, this ruling does not apply to ALL businesses. The decision is limited to privately held companies whose religious convictions are part of the fabric of their corporate culture. Major corporations which are publicly held are not covered under this exemption.
Third, this does not mean female employees of Hobby Lobby, or any other "exempt" privately held business will not have any birth control methods included in their healthcare insurance.
What it does mean is that some businesses do not have to cover the FOUR of the TWENTY forms of birth control approved by the FDA which are known to cause abortion or disrupt implantation after fertilization.
In this case, the owners of Hobby Lobby (as well as most fundamental Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jews), hold the religious belief that life begins at conception and must be defended from that moment forward until natural death. Some birth control methods (not all) cause the lining of the uterus to become "hostile" to a fertilized egg, so a newly fertilized egg can't implant. Other methods cause the body to reject even an implanted embryo. In effect, theses methods force the new life out like an unwelcome tenant.
You don't have to agree that life begins at conception to acknowledgesome people believe it does. Even if you believe that pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation (which is what medical textbooks say) or that a woman should have an unrestricted right to abortion at any time up until birth (which is the official Pro-Choice position), you could still think there is something wrong with requiring a person who believes life begins at conception shouldn't have to PAY for someone else's abortion.
Maybe taking out the religious doctrine will help. Try this example: You don't have to agree that a Vegan lifestyle leads to better health to acknowledge that some people believe it does. So, imagine the government passes legislation which requires all children to have meat in their lunch at school, and every single person, including Vegans, will be required to pay a "meat tax" to provide for it.
Vegans file a lawsuit saying the Meat Tax violates their strongly held beliefs. The Meat People argue "Every child needs a daily serving of protein." Vegans counter with, "They can get protein from lentils and peanut butter!"
The Meat People accuse the Vegans of not caring about poor children with food-insecurity. Vegans say, "We don't object to feeding them -- just notmeat!!"
A lower court rules Vegans have to put meat in their child's lunch pail and pay the meat tax to share the financial burden of providing meat to less fortunate children.
It goes all the way to the Supreme Court. But SCOTUS rules that Vegans (but not vegetarians who eat dairy & fish) still have to pay the Meat Tax, but they don't have to put meat in their child's lunch because it would violate their beliefs.
See? By such a ruling, no child would be denied access to a daily protein. No one would be forced to eat meat if they don't want to.
But the opposition to today's ruling on the contraception mandate want you to believe that unless EVERY EMPLOYER pays for ALL forms of birth control including abortion inducing drugs, then somehow "women are being denied access to healthcare."
Don't fall for it... its not true.
Third, this does not mean female employees of Hobby Lobby, or any other "exempt" privately held business will not have any birth control methods included in their healthcare insurance.
What it does mean is that some businesses do not have to cover the FOUR of the TWENTY forms of birth control approved by the FDA which are known to cause abortion or disrupt implantation after fertilization.
In this case, the owners of Hobby Lobby (as well as most fundamental Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jews), hold the religious belief that life begins at conception and must be defended from that moment forward until natural death. Some birth control methods (not all) cause the lining of the uterus to become "hostile" to a fertilized egg, so a newly fertilized egg can't implant. Other methods cause the body to reject even an implanted embryo. In effect, theses methods force the new life out like an unwelcome tenant.
You don't have to agree that life begins at conception to acknowledgesome people believe it does. Even if you believe that pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation (which is what medical textbooks say) or that a woman should have an unrestricted right to abortion at any time up until birth (which is the official Pro-Choice position), you could still think there is something wrong with requiring a person who believes life begins at conception shouldn't have to PAY for someone else's abortion.
Maybe taking out the religious doctrine will help. Try this example: You don't have to agree that a Vegan lifestyle leads to better health to acknowledge that some people believe it does. So, imagine the government passes legislation which requires all children to have meat in their lunch at school, and every single person, including Vegans, will be required to pay a "meat tax" to provide for it.
Vegans file a lawsuit saying the Meat Tax violates their strongly held beliefs. The Meat People argue "Every child needs a daily serving of protein." Vegans counter with, "They can get protein from lentils and peanut butter!"
The Meat People accuse the Vegans of not caring about poor children with food-insecurity. Vegans say, "We don't object to feeding them -- just notmeat!!"
A lower court rules Vegans have to put meat in their child's lunch pail and pay the meat tax to share the financial burden of providing meat to less fortunate children.
It goes all the way to the Supreme Court. But SCOTUS rules that Vegans (but not vegetarians who eat dairy & fish) still have to pay the Meat Tax, but they don't have to put meat in their child's lunch because it would violate their beliefs.
See? By such a ruling, no child would be denied access to a daily protein. No one would be forced to eat meat if they don't want to.
But the opposition to today's ruling on the contraception mandate want you to believe that unless EVERY EMPLOYER pays for ALL forms of birth control including abortion inducing drugs, then somehow "women are being denied access to healthcare."
Don't fall for it... its not true.
RSS Feed
