Judge: Feds Can’t Make Domino’s Founder Offer Birth Control

Also, birth control pills do more than just prevent pregnancy; they can regulate cycles, reduce ovarian cysts, reduce the symptoms of PMDD (severe PMS), and even clear up acne. There are so many other medical uses that I don't think it's right to deny the employees access.

reply to post by daryllyn

No one is denying anyone access. The issue here is that people that believe that the abortive pill is murder do not want to be forced to pay for it. Since when does it say anywhere in the Constitution that I must PAY for someone else to have something that they want, and can get for pennies a day anyway. This entire issue is just another step in the direction of having the government control every aspect of their lives.
People like you just can't understand that people like me do not want any part of government paid murder services.
This is also another of a long series of attacks on religious freedom in this country. You want pills? Pay for them yourself, and forgo a cup of coffee or a soda once a week, and you have your pills, or better yet practice birth control, and save the pills for the occasion that the birth control doesn't work, but don't expect me to pay for your immoral or careless actions.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
As far as expense goes the employer will pay less for having a plan that provides contraception than a plan that excludes it so the argument that an employer will have to pay for additional coverage is null and void. If anything the employer gets a better deal for providing it.

The argument of whether or not employers should be made to provide medical coverage at all something different altogether.

Look man, personally, I think it's stupid. I never said what he's doing was right in the sense that I thought it was a good idea I'm saying it's right because the Constitution allows him to make that decision for himself. Nobody is forcing that person to work there. Nobody should force the business owner to pay for something the employee takes at will to change the outcome of sexual intercourse. It just doesn't make sense regardless of what I think.

I'm arguing his Constitutional and logical right to do this, not my own personal feeling that what he is doing is what I would do too in the same circumstance. Id be passing the stuff out like candy.

reply to post by Grimpachi

actually, it is your argument that is false as Scientologists are already EXEMPT from Obamacare provisions, all of them.

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld


Rastafarian's smoke pot as part of their religion but im pretty damn sure that's not covered by any kind of insurance program in the nation so in at least the example i used yep they can deny people coverage for certian prescriptions dispite religious belifs being brought into as a factor and granted this is probably the most extreme example i could find but it matches your level of well employers will just deny services

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Woah. Settle down there, Sir.

My main point with that post was that there are many other medical uses for the birth control pill aside from the obvious use of pregnancy prevention. Ovarian cysts, for example, can be treated with short term use of the pill.

Nowhere did I advocate the use of the 'abortion pill'.

People like you just can't understand that people like me do not want any part of government paid murder services.

Hormonal birth control pills are not the same as the morning after pill.

You want pills? Pay for them yourself, and forgo a cup of coffee or a soda once a week, and you have your pills, or better yet practice birth control, and save the pills for the occasion that the birth control doesn't work, but don't expect me to pay for your immoral or careless actions.

I don't want pills. I take enough pills for other things, thank you. It's nice that you assume my actions are immoral and irresponsible and that I would want you to pay for them.

I already stated in at least one other post in this thread, that I would have no issue paying out of pocket or going to a clinic to get my pills if I wanted/needed them and they were not covered by my insurance plan.

reply to post by Raist



Scientology and psychiatry


en.wikipedia.org...



Jehovah's Witnesses

won't allow blood transfusions

Christian Science believes in spiritual healing. No medicine, doctors, hospitals etc.


These churches and movements have religious beliefs against some or most forms of medical care:
■Followers of Christ
■Faith Assembly
■Church of the Firstborn
■Christian Science
■Faith Tabernacle
■End Time Ministries
■The Believers’ Fellowship
■Jehovah’s Witnesses
■Church of God of the Union Assembly
■Church of God (certain congregations)
■First Century Gospel Church
■Full Gospel Deliverance Church
■Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God
■Jesus through Jon and Judy
■Christ Miracle Healing Center
■Northeast Kingdom Community Church
■Christ Assembly
■The Source
■“No Name” Fellowship
■The Body
■1 Mind Ministries
■Twelve Tribes
■Born in Zion Ministry

Since 1980 children have died in these sects without medical attention for:
■pneumonia
■meningitis
■diabetes
■diphtheria
■appendicitis
■measles
■gangrene
■dehydration
■blood poisoning
■Wilm’s tumor and other cancers
■perinatal suffocation or strangulation
■diarrhea
■respiratory infections
■kidney infections
■Rocky Mountain spotted fever

Do you believe all of these should have a say in what your doctor can prescibe or treat.

reply to post by Helious

Look man, personally, I think it's stupid. I never said what he's doing was right in the sense that I thought it was a good idea I'm saying it's right because the Constitution allows him to make that decision for himself.

I'm glad you put it that way. I feel just about the same, to describe it. Not that anyone has asked or cares, but on a personal level? I think the guy is being a bit of a jerk. Personally, if my wife were working full time as a location or district manager, I'd think it rather cheesy that she have a full Government plan of everything ...except Norplant or The Pill.

As you also note though, this isn't about what we both appear to feel about the same toward. Having principles is a lonely and unpopular place to sit sometimes, isn't it?

In another very well known example, I rather think the American Nazi Party are hateful trolls the Earth should swallow whole and don't burp anything back after.. On the other hand....I think the Courts were 100% right to protect their Constitutional Right to spread their message of hate down the Main Street of Skokie, Illinois. in 1977.

I wish more saw it so clearly. Rights are Rights and it's when we dislike the protected activity the most that it requires the greatest protection.

reply to post by kaylaluv

oh please, additional compensation is NEVER 'benefits', get a clue.
and, that 'additional compensation' is not provided by the employER, is it ??

again, minimum wage is not "health insurance" or healthcare, is it ?

besides, employers like McDonald's are reducing staff so they can qualify as exempt, so what's your point, exactly ??

Companies with less than 50 employees are usually really struggling just to get by

not in this region.

why not complain ??
isn't healthCARE a right for ALL ???
oh that's right, Obamacare isn't about healthCARE

you can think what you want, many of those companies have hundreds and thousands of employees, i've checked.

Which was my whole point on it being none of the employer's business what that healthcare insurance compensation is spent on, including birth control and abortion

which is why your point is moot.
EmployERS have always had the option to decide which health insurance plans they will offer employees.

reply to post by Grimpachi

exaggerate much ??

It isn’t a matter of whether they provide coverage it is a matter of whether the employer can dictate what medical prescriptions can be prescribed.

BS, employers don't prescribe drugs, pharmaceudicals or therapies, EVER ... not even within Obamacare.

reply to post by Honor93


This has nothing to do with birth control.

The basis of the case is can the government force a business to do something that is against the business owners religion.

It's not about birth control

reply to post by Grimpachi

If anything the employer gets a better deal for providing it.

and that will eventually be argued under the provision prohibiting religious persecution.

reply to post by Honor93


Either you missed my other posts or you are taking my statement completely out of context on purpose. I am not going to repost what I said because you refuse to read 2 pages back.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

If anything the employer gets a better deal for providing it.

and that will eventually be argued under the provision prohibiting religious persecution.

No. As I have already stated it is a cost benifit decission. The cost of paying for a pregnancy is far more than paying for birth control. They have nothing to argue.

reply to post by Raist

I think your points would be valid if he had set the business up as a disregarded entity; in a disregarded entity the business entity has one owner that is not recognized for tax purposes as an entity separate from its owner. To suggest that a secular for profit entity such as a corporation has religious rights is dangerous .

reply to post by Grimpachi

Do you believe all of these should have a say in what your doctor can prescibe or treat

it doesn't matter what WE think ... if i or you choose to follow that particular religious dogma, then yes, it is our decision to make, not yours, not the government's, not the neighbor's, not the doctor's or any of the o'so passionate activist's/lobbyist's.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Honor93

 

This has nothing to do with birth control.

The basis of the case is can the government force a business to do something that is against the business owners religion.

It's not about birth control

yeah so ??
the case hinges on BC ... just because you choose to whitewash it doesn't eliminate it from the discussion.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Honor93

 

This has nothing to do with birth control.

The basis of the case is can the government force a business to do something that is against the business owners religion.

It's not about birth control

....and not merely 'The Government', but can the federal government reach down to the daily life of every business in the nation and tell them to do something in offering compensation that is against their belief system.

The 10th left, quite literally, an infinite degree of power to the States as individual ruling bodies by saying 'all things not other wise stated are left to.....' and basically left the States as their own masters within a framework of common Federal defense and overall policy development.

I think what we're seeing is nothing short of the Federal level and specifically the Executive side of it more than Legislative, assume those powers left to the States by default. It would be fine, I suppose, if the States went along with it. Fortunately, a good many like mine are not going along and that pretty well Check-Mate's the President on this as the Super Court already decided.

The close to 2014 and full implementation will be a wild ride.

reply to post by Honor93


You choose to focus on birth control rather than what the judge made a decision about.

Have fun.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Honor93

 

Either you missed my other posts or you are taking my statement completely out of context on purpose. I am not going to repost what I said because you refuse to read 2 pages back.

i've read all your posts ... and, there is this neat little link under your avatar that permits me to view those i may have missed.

guess what ? i haven't missed any of them but you keep insisting that employer's are PRESCRIBING medication and that is wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

so, carry on, you'll be as wrong 10 posts from now as you were the first time you said it.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

If anything the employer gets a better deal for providing it.

and that will eventually be argued under the provision prohibiting religious persecution.

No. As I have already stated it is a cost benifit decission. The cost of paying for a pregnancy is far more than paying for birth control. They have nothing to argue.

correction, assigning PENALITIES for not providing said benefit based on religious preference is PERSECUTION worthy of a legal battle and it's coming now that this decision stands firm.