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

reply to post by daryllyn


I thought about mentioning the specifics, I'm glad you did but I chose not to because really even if it is just about preventing pregnancy, so what. That health benefit package is part of my compensation along with wages for the job I perform for an employer, it isn't their business what I use it for nor is it their prerogative to deem what is covered and what isn't.

No one is allowed to tell an employee how to spend their paycheck and where would it stop? If I get cancer will chemo be denied to me because my employer believes cancer is a punishment from God and to treat it is against God's will?

In reality this is just a new approach to trying to control women. "Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex." Some go as far as to say "keep your legs closed". Basically saying that we don't have the same sexual drive and needs as men or that isn't okay for women to have those needs and desires. Screw that!

I'm in a committed relationship and I love sex, I don't want another child. That doesn't make me a whore, it makes me human. Even if I wasn't in a relationship, I have the right to have as much sex as I want to. My employer isn't paying for my choices, I am EARNING a benefits package, it is MINE, the same as my wages are MINE.

reply to post by daryllyn


Im fully aware of this, why would it need to be treated separately from any other medical issue?

And why would a business have to front it, if theres national health care?

I dont get it.

reply to post by Honor93


Well I am glad you finally looked it up. If you found my comments insulting that happens when inadequacies are pointed out however my comments were in no way libelous.

as for the pending appeal (which hasn't been filed to date), we'll see ... but either way, you won't

What appeal nothing has gone to court.
Then there is this gem

yeppers, it's settled law (for now) ... just like i said before.
glad you noticed and good luck in the appeal process.

There is no way you understood the implications with comments like this.

actually, it's no longer an argument, it's settled law (for now) ... guess you should just accept it like you expect everyone else to do, right ?

Settled? In what universe? Under what legal system? You backtracked quite a bit but your prior statements are proof otherwise that you had zero understanding of the issue.

Well anyway I guess I should be glad that you at least educated yourself further on the matter. It has been funny you trying to tell me information that I told you to look up I guess you are just proud of your newfound knowledge.

BTW in a practical sense one of the condition that needs to be met before such an injunction can be issued is that a judge believes that the case would be likely to win however in reality sense that means absolutely nothing if you look at the history on the matter Roe vs. Wade faced the same challenge it didn’t work out so good for the right wing there.

FYI appeals happen after there has been a ruling in this case it hasn’t even gone to court yet. Never mind you understand that now. Anyway I am off to converse with someone who isn’t intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by jashn20002000
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I miss when America was the land of the free you remember when we all could choose are health care provider and not be forced into paying additional tax's if you do not subscribe to Obama care(which I might add dosent that sound a little conceded). Or even when we could choose are own fire arms for that matter, with the new law coming up we will not have the choose of over two thousand fire arms any longer included in that list are not only rifles(such as the name suggest) but also semi automatic hand guns!

I hear ya and I feel the same pain. I remember well when the question to ask was "Why SHOULD we" on Government doing something ...not "Why not? Go for it!". I recall, not that long ago, when personal freedom came with personal responsibility and people didn't see that as an unfair burden.

Now everyone comes secondary to the needs of the many and above that, the needs of the state. I feel like breaking out in a rousing rendition of the Soviet National Anthem. I always did like that tune too...despite where it came from.

Give this another generation and we'll be telling our kids about America the same way some today explain the 1960's to those like me who weren't there. You can learn about it...but you can never understand it, eh? How did we lose it all so quickly?

reply to post by Kali74


This thread is severely lacking in the 'female perspective' department, isn't it?

My opinion is that reproductive health is just as important as any other health issue. Preventing pregnancy, could also be considered a part of managing the health of our 'lady' parts.

Hypothetical example: A married woman has only one kidney. Her doctors have told her it would be dangerous to her and the unborn child should she get pregnant with her current state of health. Should anyone be able to tell her that she cannot prevent a pregnancy? Why shouldn't she be able to get the pill (or IUD, or the ring, or the shot, or the patch, or the implant) because, it offends someone's religious beliefs with insurance that she pays for?

I guess I am just failing to understand why these medications are classed differently than others and are subject to the beliefs of others when it is really no ones business.

reply to post by Biigs


I don't understand it either.

I am of the opinion that these things should be between the woman and her doctor. It really isn't any of the employer's business. Or at least is shouldn't be.

reply to post by daryllyn


Maybe that makes us radical, rabid feminists...

I would never expect to have all my needs cared for by my employer. I go to work, i work my shift, i go home. Now, if my employer wants to make sure im available to work (and the rest of the work force) and offers me health care options, fine, but it shouldn't be just expected.

Are employers going to be expected insure against any and all reasons not to be at work, or back to work faster after some leave?

Sounds more like some messed up form of slavery or pimping to me, making sure flocks are healthy and safe to make the money? Disturbing.

Is contraception related to health and medical? Yes it absolutely is. Should it be included in all medical insurances? Yes. Should a business be forced to provide it for all employees? In my opinion, No!

reply to post by daryllyn


No one is saying that women cannot take BC. No one is saying they cannot get it. Their doctor can prescribe it all day long to them without a problem. Their doctors visit will even be covered by the plan. The only thing being said is that their employer will not pay his part of their BC which he feels is him taking part in the murder of children.

I am not saying I agree with him or his beliefs. I do though have a problem with the government forcing him to take part in going against his religious beliefs.

No one is saying they have to go to the health department and be seen by a lot of people in a room. No one is saying they have to wait hours to get the pill at the health department.

Several posts back I mention that my wife works at a catholic business. Neither of us are catholic by the way. She take BC and we pay for it out of our own money (it is like $4 or so at Walmart). Also for the record not all medications are covered by my medical insurance either for one reason or another. If I need them I buy them, if I do not I don't. I get paid a wage for the work I do. Benefits which is what insurance should be is an extra that attracts employees. The better the insurance the more likely I am to want to work there.

The thing is not about BC in it entirety, but more about the government telling someone how to live within their religion. This is about the government overstepping into private business.

People can get insurance outside of work that will cover the pill, they may even get it cheaper. People can start looking for new job if they no longer like the benefits provided by the job. The money I make at a job is not the only thing at attracts me. The additional benefits attract me. I can find out ahead of time about their insurance plan just as I can ask about any other benefit, working hours, or such. Employment is a two way street, both parties need each other. If an employer is losing people right and left they are going to start looking at better ways of keeping employees. Getting insurance that provides for all medications might fall into that, but it should be their choice.

While I do not agree with the employer in this case or even with that of my wife I will say I understand him. If I were in his shoes with his belief I would shut the place down and everyone would be looking for a new job. I would rather have to work for someone else than risk my eternal soul going against my beliefs. Again I am not saying I agree with him, but I have my beliefs and I am willing to stand for them.

Raist

reply to post by Raist

I get paid a wage for the work I do. Benefits which is what insurance should be is an extra that attracts employees. The better the insurance the more likely I am to want to work there.

This is a misconception it isn't an extra, it is still compensation. Your boss doesn't spend money on you just to keep you there, it means your boss could pay you a lot more but designates part of your salary to benefits.

reply to post by Kali74


No insurance is a benefit. That is why some chose to not give it to employees prior to the Obamacare. That is why some employers still do not through exemptions.

The not having health insurance is why my sister just got a new job that offers it. It is a benefit that keeps employees around.

Raist

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
So if I were a Christian Scientist I would not have to pay for any type of medical treatment or prescriptions?

This is one of my top concerns for such a ruling. How long until all these major companies are being run by converted Christian Scientists who are religiously opposed to basically all forms of modern medicine? Do they get a free pass on providing insurance if they "believe" all medicine paid for by that insurance is immoral? I suspect the issue here is greed, not morality. They simply are looking for a way out of providing for their employees and some companies think they've found a winning argument.

My other worry is that these (Domino's at least) are publicly traded companies, so how can they have religious beliefs? It is not the founder's company or the CEO's, it belongs to all the shareholders. So perhaps at the next shareholder's meeting they should vote on which religion the corporation will follow? Because otherwise this is just one more powerful co-owner forcing his religious beliefs on thousands of other co-owners and infringing on their religious rights.

I could almost buy this type of argument for a private company owned by single person or small group of people, but unless it is approved by shareholders and included in the company charter, how can a publicly traded company be allowed to claim religious rights? Corporations are separate legal entities, the religious beliefs of a founder or CEO are irrelevant. This seems like another potential avenue to promote corporate person-hood to me; first they get free speech, then they get to believe in religions, what comes next?

tl;dr - religion can be a good cover for greed, and corporations are not people therefore they cannot hold religious beliefs.

reply to post by Raist


I understand what you are saying, and I even agree to a point.

I don't think (in this case) that the employer's religious beliefs should have any say in this since there are so many other medical uses for hormonal birth control, some of which, are a medical necessity for some women.

reply to post by wildcomet


A couple of things. First this is not Dominos the pizza place. Second you have the option of taking their insurance or getting your own that covers stuff. Third you can research the company before getting employment through them and if their beliefs differs so greatly from yours or their benefits are not to your liking you can find employment elsewhere.


This is a privately owned business and while I might not agree with his beliefs I do not wish to see the government step in and tell him how to run every part of his business (not including safety concerns or discrimination). If I were employed there and the benefits were not to my liking I would look for employment else where. If it were a business that you use and you do not like how they are treating their employees you can boycott them.

As I said before if I were this man with his beliefs the choice would be accept what I offer or I shut the place down. Not saying I agree with his beliefs just his right to run his business.

Raist

reply to post by daryllyn


She can get them though. All she has to do is go get the prescription filled and pay for it. That is what my wife does. I might not agree with the belief but I want the owner to be the one running the business.

I understand that there are other uses for it besides preventing childbirth (though it can fail had it happen personally). I understand there are several other uses. The main use and most common though is BC which is what his beliefs have a problem with. I also know several medications are not covered by my insurance for one reason or another. If I need them I will buy them if not I wont. I do not really agree with things such as Viagra being covered by insurance personally either. Not sure why it is needed except that maybe because of the 5 ejaculations a week can reduce prostate cancer by over 30% thing. But in many cases I think they are being used for other purposes than just helping with ED.

On a side note I can fully understand why the majority of the employees working where my wife does are catholic. They have found a place that suits them and they feel more comfortable. To my knowledge there are only a my wife and one other person working there that is not catholic.


Raist

reply to post by Raist


At this point, since we are only repeating ourselves, we should just agree to disagree.

We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by Xaphan

 

Oral contraceptives aren't necessarily all they are cracked up to be. They have been linked to cancer risks.

Name a drug that doesn't come with risks or side effects.

They are a medical necessity for some and there are medical benefits in many cases.

Ovarian cysts can be very painful. They can rupture or even cause the ovary to twist into a position where blood flow is cut off. In the event of ovarian torsion, emergency surgery is required to either re-position the ovary or, if blood flow was hindered for too long, the ovary will need to be removed. The pill is used to shrink and control the development of cysts.

Endometriosis is a chronic, painful condition where the tissue that is shed during a woman's monthly period grows outside of the uterus. It grows in response to hormone fluctuations and can spread through the abdomen. It can cause adhesions within the abdomen which can actually 'glue' internal structures together. The pill reduces hormone fluctuations which can reduce the activity of the disease.

The pill is used 99.99999999999999999% of the time for wonton sex with little risk of pregnancy. If needed for a serious medical condition, it would not be argued by anyone.

The pill and abortions are major suspects in the rise/cause of a common type of breast cancer. That's a risk you're willing to take for the sake of sex?

reply to post by Raist


After re-reading I will admit to being mistaken; I saw the mentions of Domino's Pizza and thought that the case involved them along with this Domino's Farms which I see is separate and privately owned, and I agree a company owner should have the right to run his private business as he wishes. My concerns with this issue are more about public corporations abusing this sort of exemption out of greed, and it's implications for corporate person-hood.

I disagree with his position on how to run his company but I will admit he should have the right to do it, even if it is ultimately bad for business (should the best employees choose to work for competitors instead of him leaving him at a disadvantage). That said I would hope that employees at least can get a cash value alternative to the insurance benefit if they choose not to take it so they can find something that is actually useful and covers all their medical needs; many other companies do already for employees not taking insurance.

reply to post by primus2012

The pill is used 99.99999999999999999% of the time for wonton sex with little risk of pregnancy. If needed for a serious medical condition, it would not be argued by anyone.

14% of pill users—more than 1.5 million women—rely on the method for only noncontraceptive purposes. • More than half of pill users, 58%, rely on the method at least in part for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thirty-one percent use it for cramps or menstrual pain, 28% for menstrual regulation, 14% for acne, 4% for endometriosis, and 11% for other unspecified reasons.

Please explain your position to the women who are suffering from endometriosis. I am sure they will appreciate that you don't take their condition as a serious one. Adhesions and infertility, are both caused by endo, and I can assure you, that they are both quite serious.

Source

The pill and abortions are major suspects in the rise/cause of a common type of breast cancer. That's a risk you're willing to take for the sake of sex?

You know what they say about assumptions.

I don't take the stuff.

Originally posted by wildcomet
reply to post by Raist

 

After re-reading I will admit to being mistaken; I saw the mentions of Domino's Pizza and thought that the case involved them along with this Domino's Farms which I see is separate and privately owned, and I agree a company owner should have the right to run his private business as he wishes. My concerns with this issue are more about public corporations abusing this sort of exemption out of greed, and it's implications for corporate person-hood.

I disagree with his position on how to run his company but I will admit he should have the right to do it, even if it is ultimately bad for business (should the best employees choose to work for competitors instead of him leaving him at a disadvantage). That said I would hope that employees at least can get a cash value alternative to the insurance benefit if they choose not to take it so they can find something that is actually useful and covers all their medical needs; many other companies do already for employees not taking insurance.

You nailed it. His right to run his business his way, and your right to not like it and to do your pizza ordering elsewhere. That's the beauty of rights, property rights and liberty in a nutshell.