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

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Becoming

 

In some cases oral contraception does provide a health benefit in women who suffer from ovarian cysts

www.aafp.org...

The authors conclude that current OC use is associated with a modest decline in the risk of development of functional ovarian cysts,

It doesn't prevent ovarian cysts. But it helps to lessen formation of cysts.

Thats why I said IF it doesn't provide any form of medical purpose other than preventing pregnancy then the employer shouldn't be held responsible.

Of course if it provides a valid medical use other than pregnancy then it should be covered under current medical insurance.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by luciddream

 

A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.

Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

Source

I sincerely wish you the best with that Health Care System in Canada. Same with what the UK has. Best wishes are important, given the downsides of the systems in both places. Although it's what you apparently live with and consider workable. That's fine.... I considered what we had here pretty decent before Pelosi and Obama tore it to pieces and left us with this nightmare.

I'd never ask to go to Canada's system though. It's just not what would work here. Unfortunately we don't have a President who seems to comprehend the idea that solutions can't be *MADE* to work, regardless of circumstance.

WooHoo!! Cherry Picking cases. Can I play?

But for 58-year-old Michael Herrara of Dallas help never came. He died of a heart attack last week an estimated 19 hours after he arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital's emergency room waiting room complaining of severe stomach pains, according to reports from WFAA News in Dallas.

ER Death Points to Growing Wait-Time Problem

Anyone would think the ER is being used for general Doctor visits. Maybe there were too many Pizza Delivery girls asking for the pill?

reply to post by Becoming


And that's the point I'm trying to get across.
It's not just for birth control.

There are reasons that people may need it.

But in any case it shouldn't matter.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Okay let's say your taxes were paying for my healthcare (they aren't) or you were my employer and I bought insurance through your oh so generous and kind benefits package, do you care if I'm prescribed antibiotics? Pain medications? Heart medications? Is it any of your goddamn business? What if I need Birth Control to regulate my period or I have a condition that causes extremely painful periods? Is it your business? Do I need to go to you to beg to let me have a medication that will ease my pain? It's my personal, private, medical business and not yours, even if you were paying my insurance...

I don't want pigminded individuals driving down roads I pay for but I don't have much choice about that, and you don't have the choice to regulate a damn thing that concerns MY body.

reply to post by Kali74


Some people and religion get kick out of controlling women's womb. As you can see in the not so long comments by politicians.

If the government wants to provide free birth control for the masses, why don't they just make it free for everyone.

Why impose this cost on businesses?

reply to post by Wildbob77


Why are you okay with someone getting Advil for their headache? whats so interesting and special about contraceptive?

reply to post by grey580


It does matter, which is my point.

If a doctor tells a woman taking the pill will benefit her medically then it is a medical purpose and should be covered under current medical insurance.

But we all know that is not what this is about. The government is making it to where it is covered for everyone mainly for the purpose of pregnancy prevention.

reply to post by luciddream


As I've said before, I don't share the conviction of the business owner.

But I don't think that the government should force someone to violate their religious belief to stay in business.

Also, I would advocate free distribution of birth control in impoverished communities.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Kali74

 

Some people and religion get kick out of controlling women's womb. As you can see in the not so long comments by politicians.

These buisnesses dont give a crap what women do with their wombs. They just perfer not to be told to pay for a womans choice in what the woman prefers to do with her own womb.

reply to post by luciddream


Better yet, if companies are having so many religious issues... why don't employers add the value of their share of the benefits package to their employees wages and let the employees buy their own!

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

Why are you okay with someone getting Advil for their headache? whats so interesting and special about contraceptive?

Advil is for medical purposes.

Contraceptives for the most part are not.

reply to post by DarthMuerte

Great. Pay for it yourself or go work for someone else who does not object. Simple, and much better than continuing to defecate on the Constitution.

You got passion I'll tell you that.

However in this case I don't agree.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Conversely any written laws can not support any one religious view or belief.
Laws must treat everyone fairly no matter of belief, race or sex.

If we believe in the constitution. We must also believe that it should not just apply to the government. But to the people as well.

I can't in good judgement support a religious belief or point of view that would deny someone else to access to something that is given to them under law.

reply to post by Becoming


I don't disagree.

However we have laws that deal with patient doctor privacy.

So it shouldn't matter what we think.

reply to post by grey580


I have worked in a hospital and dealt with HIPPA for 8 years. I know all about it.

HIPPA doesnt have anything to do with it.

reply to post by Becoming


What I'm trying to say is that.

Whatever the reason someone goes to the doctor. It's none of our business.

reply to post by buster2010

this case is forcing other people to follow the owners religion and that is wrong.

how in the world do you come up with that ??
where, in the case filings, does it insist that all Domino employees be devout Catholics ??

reply to post by grey580


Nope it isn't.

Still don't see what that has to do with the topic.

reply to post by buster2010

He is forcing his employees to go by what his religion says. That is how he is violating other peoples civil rights.

again, how do you figure that ?
there is no mention of being fired if you take/consume birth control.
there is no mention of punishment for seeking birth control.
and, there is no mention of Domino's insistance that their employees be Catholic, so, how in the world can you justify your statement above ??

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Here's what worries me. The oral contraceptive is part of the law. Under law you have access to them.

So we now have one company not wanting to offer the contraceptive for "Religious Reasons".

But even not offering for some women that may need to be on the medicine for medical reasons.

So what happens when another company wants to deny their employees, for "Religious Reasons", access to a medication or surgical procedure. Because it conflicts with their viewpoint?

Sure I'm for personal freedoms of every American. But your personal freedoms shouldn't keep someone else from receiving a medication if you have a medical condition.

edit on 15-3-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)

EXACTLY!!! This whole discussion is NOT about birth control but more about control itself. And that can be defined as 'Since I live by certain beliefs you can either follow what I believe or get out'.

What is troubling me the most is that employers feel then can act like medical professionals and state that as part of your insurance package you are not entitled to the medications prescribed by your doctor.

Again, if these particular employers are offended by this type of medication, what then about those who do not participate in modern medicine because of their beliefs (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witness)? If you are in an accident as lose massive amounts of blood, do Jehovahs' Witness business owners not have to pay for blood transfusion?