Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Court strikes down mandate for birth control in ObamaCare

page: 1
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Court strikes down mandate for birth control in ObamaCare

It looks like one more hole shot into ObamaCare.

The Watchington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down that part of PPACA mandating (employer) insurance coverage of birth control.

It looks like "religious grounds" played a part.

details in the article from The Hill website;


A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the birth control mandate in ObamaCare, concluding the requirement trammels religious freedom.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court — ruled 2-1 in favor of business owners who are fighting the requirement that they provide their employees with health insurance that covers birth control.

Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly.

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.


Court strikes down mandate for birth control in ObamaCare


2nd story; www.breitbart.com...


So much for Sandra Fluke




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Good.

I'm a male. I don't need "BC" in my healthcare policy.

Simple.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by justreleased
 


It still takes two.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MOMof3
 


I don't plan to have a child.

Why do I or should I pay for a policy addition aimed at females if I'm in a male replationship?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
so does this mean that all employers can get out of providing birth control or is this just for the company in question? or is it just companies with religious owners still a little confused about this one


+7 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

MOMof3
reply to post by justreleased
 


It still takes two.


And guys buy their own condoms with out government subsidies, not sure why females get the added benefit.

eta: I would even go a step farther an say that the Condom is a better medical device, as not only does it protect against unwanted pregnancy, but also protects both partners from spreading diseases.

Birth control does not do as much for "health" as the condom, so why is it subsidized?
edit on 1-11-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Viagra? Fertility treatments?

Fair is fair, right?

I mean if you're against stopping pregnancy via chemistry, you're then also against encouraging pregnancy via chemistry. If it is broke it shouldn't be fixed, right? Being all old timey and this is the way it is supposed to be. Right?

The puerile arguments against are just LAUGHABLE.

Don't forget, Universal Healthcare was the BRAINCHILD OF THE GOP. Odd how the GOP is against what they started.

Universal Healthcare.

EPA.

Seems like a case of schizophrenic comdey to me!


Derek



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Viesczy
Viagra? Fertility treatments?

Fair is fair, right?

I mean if you're against stopping pregnancy via chemistry, you're then also against encouraging pregnancy via chemistry. If it is broke it shouldn't be fixed, right? Being all old timey and this is the way it is supposed to be. Right?

The puerile arguments against are just LAUGHABLE.

Don't forget, Universal Healthcare was the BRAINCHILD OF THE GOP. Odd how the GOP is against what they started.

Universal Healthcare.

EPA.

Seems like a case of schizophrenic comdey to me!


Derek


Viagra shouldn't be subsidized as well, We shouldn't be subsidizing peoples hobbies...

Also Viagra and fertility treatments are not as universally covered as Birth control, but the point still stands.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Viesczy
 


As someone who's wife has had to go through fertility treatments, I just want to point out that they are NOT covered, and they are EXTREMELY expensive.

ETA- Just wanted to add that we have very good coverage, just about the best available.
edit on 1-11-2013 by jssaylor2007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
This is nothing. It's just a ploy to chip away at the conservative resistance to Obamacare. This is nothing the Obama people care too much about. And regardless. I doubt this decision is final. If Obama actually wants to contest it, he'll undoubtedly beat it in the long run just like with the inidvidual mandate.

Remember this. People tend to drop out of the protest the instant they are appeased. What happened to all the people protesting the actions of the Bush administration when Obama took over and started doing the same things? They disappeared because all they cared about was whether the people running the show were wearing a D or an R.
edit on 1-11-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by justreleased
 


LOL! Really, I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that statement. Unless you are sterile, then I would believe you had a legitimate point.

edit on 2-11-2013 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MOMof3
 


Ummmmm, in a male relationship. I believe he is saying he is gay. Can't get a guy pregnant last I checked, no matter how good your sperm count is.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Great news! The people who should be availing themselves of free BC, are already on social programs that provide it...yet, many of them choose not to use it. They get more government handouts for more babies.

Also, free government AKA tax payed BC, was a big issue pushed in the last election to gain the votes of Women...wonder how that will play out now.

Vote for Me...I'll give you FREE BC Forever!!!


Bwahahahahahahahahhahaaa......

Des



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

If this goes to the Supreme Court that could be quite a case and ruling. Personally I hope it's overturned, as citing birth control as against anyone's religion is really stretching the religious objection.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Being born into a staunch Catholic Family, I was first born to a litter of 6 kids. My Mother had 2, that I know of miscarriages...that would have made 8 kids had they lived. All of us were born while she was using the only BC allowed by the Catholic Church...the rhythm method, where the woman had to track her ovulation by a chart, and try to only have sex on *safe* days. I called it Vatican Roulette.

BC is a real issue for some religious sectors of our society. Catholics are a very strong voting block...remember Kennedy?

Des



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



Birth control does not do as much for "health" as the condom, so why is it subsidized?


Its prescribed for many other uses aside from pregnancy prevention; PCOS, other ovarian cysts, painful periods, severe acne, endometriosis, cycle regulation, hormone driven migraines... etc.

But.. I don't think it needs to be covered. Its widely available and inexpensive (depending on the brand).
edit on 2-11-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Kennedy, Kennedy, no, can't place the name. I totally understand that the Catholic Church has issued statements about birth control, and see it as a religious issue, but it's not like funding an abortion - which would be inside the circle of religious objection as it requires funding the taking of a life (like the U.S. military budget covers drone attacks) - it's a health issue. And I agree with the posters who say the plan should also cover condemns, which surely fall within the realm of birth control and preventative medicine. Hopefully the Supreme Court will take this question up, that would be quite a ruling and I'd love to read Scalia's opinion!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


What a bunch of bunk!

Small employers are exempt from having to provide health care insurance anyway, so that just leaves us with large employers and corporations. Can corporations have a religion?

What about a Muslim employer who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, can he deny access to insurance that would provide blood? How about vaccines?

Can a Christian Science employer deny medical coverage based on their beliefs?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Great news, there is absolutely no good reason birth control should be covered. Employers should not be mandated to provide coverage for their employees extracurricular activities. If you want birth control, buy it, it's not medically necessary. There are better, safer drugs for any ailment birth control is used to treat outside of avoiding pregnancy.

For the record, I also don't believe viagra should be covered either, the argument for vascular health notwithstanding.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I'm sorry. If you don't even know who Kennedy is, in the history of the United States....

I see no reason to continue this dialogue with you.

Des





new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join