It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: windword
That's not really true, IUD's can cost as much a month's salary for some women. But, that's not the point. Hobby Lobby et al are exempt from the entire contraception mandate. Some religious employers can pick and choose and others can choose no contraception at all. This ruling affects tens of thousands of women, not just Hobby Lobby employees.
It also affects tax payers, as the burden for paying for what Hobby Lobby, et al, will not pay for falls on the tax payers. Because, while Hobby Lobby, et al, can exercise religious beliefs the government may not. These women are still entitled to "Equal Protection" under the law.
IUDs are the most expensive form of up front birth control... 200 to 1000 depending on what is needed, after the initial cost it gets very cheap... About 10% of those who use contraception use IUDs... Poor women can get IUDs in many places for free, as with other forms of birth control. If a woman (and her partner) can not afford this than there are many other types.
I guess my point is you seem to base your who argument on IUDs, and though I personally do not see this as an issue there is a dark path to this when the Government gets to the point that everyone must accept everything no matter what. That is where I see this leading if everyone has the right of choice removed by the Government.
The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.
I hate to say it, it all falls on the tax payer under Obamacare... You also assume that "Equal Protection" under the law means you get what ever you want even if you can not afford it...
I use Celebrex for joint pain. I find that it works extremely well for me, and though my insurance is the best I pay a hefty price for it out of pocket because it is very expensive, and insurance companies want to use other drugs instead. My cost is much more than any contraception plan per year. I use it because I can afford it, if I couldn't then I would use something else that is cheaper...Is this also ""Equal Protection" under the law" for me because it is what I personally choose?
As the Court makes clear, this is not a case where it can be established that it is difficult to accommodate the government’s interest, and in fact the mechanism for doing so is already in place.
originally posted by: windword
Their objection to having these methods available to their employees wasn't based on cost concerns, but on their beliefs.
The case was based on the beliefs that providing these contraception methods to their employees allows their employees to make choices that Hobby Lobby owners think they should not make. SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby, et al, have the right to exercise those religious practices.
This ruling opened the margin of for profit corportaions able to claim religious exemption of the entire contraception mandate of the ACA, not just four methods. This is where Equal Protection comes in. The law of the land, the ACA stipulates that any women, who has an health insurance policy, is entitled to access to ALL contraception methods, at no extra cost, regardless of their employers beliefs. It's not about getting free stuff.
So, again. This isn't about free stuff or people getting stuff they can't afford. It's about women, who are working and paying their insurance premiums, having their rights burdened on account of their employers religious belief.