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

reply to post by wildcomet


I think corporations would have more trouble doing this. I am not sure how Hobby Lobby is ran but they are likely one of the few that could manage simply because they have always put up their religious standings all over their store.

Personally I have misgivings about Hobby Lobby at times. I have and do use them for a few things but I wonder about other merchandise they have. My misgivings are more along the lines of "Why would they sell that when they beliefs are this?" and nothing more really. not that I have seen anything that goes against their beliefs completely just stuff that makes me wonder.


Raist

Originally posted by daryllyn
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.

edit on 16-3-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)

I already stated my opinion, if needed for a medical emergency or condition, there is no argument. I don't have issue with people choosing to use birth control either. I have issue with it being a mandated coverage on an employer's insurance offering.
If the pill was needed for a woman's medical condition, it wouldn't be covered under the planned parenthood section of the insurance coverage, it would be an OB/Gyn or dermatologist's medical prescription for treatment of a condition.

The main reason for the pill however is birth control for pregnancy prevention, let's not play the fun with definitions game like they do in Washington.

edit: it is called "birth control pill" by gosh, not "acne control pill" or "menstrual regulation pill".

The government should pay for those who choose like in the UK, you can get free via the family planning clinic or get pill, morning after pill etc from the GP, but then America is not a country, its a business.

So if the owner had a moral disagreement on say antibiotics or cough medicine he won't have to have a health plan that includes it?

I was unaware that employers can pick and choose what is included in a health plan.

Originally posted by buster2010
What can be more immoral than forcing your religious delusions on your employees.

Employees aren't slaves owned by the company and forced to work there. Don't like the coverage or benefits offered, don't work there. I hate it when people go somewhere and then throw a tantrum that its not run the way they want so they try to change it. Don't go there or work there... either LEAVE or start your OWN business, place, etc.

Originally posted by Kali74

A health benefits package is part of your earnings as an employee....

Benefits were originally designed and offered by employers to sway potential employees to pick their business to work for rather than a competitor's. Benefits aren't mandatory, it just increases the chances that someone will pick that business. Now benefits are so common place that if a larger company didn't offer them, very few people would even consider working there. .... That being said though as unemployement shoots through the roof businesses won't have to worry about offering anything because people will be so desparate to have any job that they will begin to take jobs that offer nothing just to have some money coming in.

As far as healthcare insurance coverage, it's now mandatory if the business is over 50 employess and only for employees that are full time thanks to Obamacare. To avoid this argument without closing the business all a company would have to do is just knock everyone to part time status and dump them all on the government healthcare.
The employees would then get their "free" healthcare and the business wouldn't be bullied or punished to do things they don't want to by the Fed.

reply to post by primus2012


It is like some sort of broken record in here.

We have one side saying (and not every poster has said this but it is a combination of many posters): We need the BC pill for so many reasons, why are they keeping women from having BC, why are they pushing their religion on their employees by not letting them have BC. Then there was some random man hate for some reason added to the religious hate as well. Again not every poster on this side has said each of these things but it is the gist of that side.

Then we have this side: Keep the government out of private business, no one is keeping women from having BC for any reason they just have to buy it with their own money, why are the nonreligious trying to force the religious to pay for things for them that is counter to their beliefs. Along with some random bickering over the real point of the thread being about BC or government stepping into private business.



To sum it all up we should do this. Those who want the government in their business and are willing to pay for every health need of their employees should work together and open a business. While those who want government out of private business should open their own places. After that those of us who do not open a business can go and work for the side we support regardless of the pay or benefits.

Me personally though I say screw it. My job is not going to provide for my every need or desire. I have my own person al responsibility to make sure I use every bit of my money as wisely as I can and find the job that gives me the benefits I desire the most that fit into my life. After that I would like to do what I can to vote out all the corrupt politicians. Question though, how can I vote them all out and replace them with normal people?


Really though no matter the outcome and decision in the end I understand that not all will be happy about it. Someone will inevitably say though that you should just suck it up and live with it, unless of course it comes to something they want in which case they will complain about it. That really is the point though this is reality, no one will always be happy with the way things are working. We do have to learn to work together and learn to give and take. As I have said my wife and I are in the same boat exactly with this medication and insurance. We deal with it, there really are more important things to worry about. This whole thing is stupid really and would not be an issue if the government worked as it should. If they want full spread health care then they need to enact their own form and tax everyone more. Expecting individual companies (private business owners) to do the work for them when their values might be different is insane.

Raist

reply to post by primus2012

If the pill was needed for a woman's medical condition, it wouldn't be covered under the planned parenthood section of the insurance coverage, it would be an OB/Gyn or dermatologist's medical prescription for treatment of a condition.

This is exactly what my argument was from the beginning. It should be covered for these purposes under every insurance plan regardless of someone's preconceived notions on the use of the drug.

edit: it is called "birth control pill" by gosh, not "acne control pill" or "menstrual regulation pill".

This is beside the point as many, many drugs are used for things other than their original intended purpose.

Example: Antidepressants are sometimes used to relieve pain. Beta blockers and anti seizure medications are used to treat migraines. Propranolol can be used to treat anxiety associated with fear of flying or public speaking.

Originally posted by daryllyn
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 am a woman as well. Not all the women on ATS or in this thread are going to come down on the side of make my employer pay for it.

A month ago I had NO health insurance of any kind. I needed BC (I use the pill) so I went to Walgreens and asked what my pill would be for the generic with no insurance.. they told me $235.00 for one month!! That is crazy! Went to Walmart and they told me no insurance? that's ok, it's only $18 for one month. So I went with Walmart, but if it had of been expensive there too I would have gone to Planned Parenthood and gotten an exam from a random doctor there and then recieved free or very cheap pills.

It bothers me greatly that people seem to throw personal responsibility right out the window and expect everything to be given to them simply because they are breathing and have a pulse. I worked for a business that had no benefits of any kind offered (it was a small business). So I went and got my own private healthcare and paid for it. If I couldn't have afforded that my state also has its own health insurance you can sign up for if you are poor.

Everyone keeps trying to make this about religion, but at the end of the day it's about freedom and personal responsibility of everyone involved from employer to employees.

For your hypothetical scenario, she isn't paying for it. Her employer is paying the bulk of it so therefore has a say in what it is used for. Have you priced health insurance for yourself with no employer? It's expensive and those nice Cobra plans that are offered if you leave a job so you can continue to have your same insurance minus the employer? outrageous prices as well.

reply to post by daryllyn


That is where it goes back to the start of benefits though.

There is a company that pays better than the place I work now. The work is roughly the same, hours and all. The insurance where I work now is slightly better though. I am giving up more money for better insurance.


Granted there could be a separate insurance for women who want BC added to their insurance at a different cost, in the end though the women would still be paying for the full cost of the BC pill. Really though it is not just about the BC pill that is just a part of it.

Lets say that you had to start funding a portion into something you are completely against. How would you feel? Would you care what the other side desired if you were having to fund what you are apposed to? While the BC pill might work for other things there are also other medications and even herbal things that work as well for those same issues.

I say again I do not agree with his outlook, but I believe his right to run the business is there. Would it be better for his employees to shell the $4 out of pocket for the medication or better for him to shut the doors? If we say it is only about the BC pill that very likely could happen. I do not know the owners worth or his future plans. He might be well enough off that he says screw it and shuts the place down leaving everyone wondering why they were raising a fuss about the pill to start.

Raist

reply to post by FaithandArms

I hate it when people go somewhere and then throw a tantrum that its not run the way they want so they try to change it. Don't go there or work there... either LEAVE or start your OWN business, place, etc.

Same here I am with you on that. Thank goodness that isn’t the case here is it? This case is between the owner and the government no employees have made any statements on the matter.

Since we can agree that the employees have not tried to change the company in anyway now we can deal with issue of whether employers can dictate health coverage based of religious beliefs opening the door to every religious organization to limit coverage on multitudes of treatments such as anti-depressants, diabetes medication, blood transfusion, etc. etc.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Since we can agree that the employees have not tried to change the company in anyway now we can deal with issue of whether employers can dictate health coverage based of religious beliefs opening the door to every religious organization to limit coverage on multitudes of treatments such as anti-depressants, diabetes medication, blood transfusion, etc. etc.

Obviously someone, somewhere tried to change things, or else it wouldn't have seen the inside of a court room. I haven't read into this enough to know who that someone was.

I agree with your stance on the religious aspect of this. Where will the line be drawn? We could be heading down a dangerous path if others follow suit and start mandating medical coverage on the basis of faith.

reply to post by grey580

And again freedom of religion does not grant anyone the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do.

How is the business owner telling anyone else what they can or can not do? All he is saying is that he doesn't want to pay for a medication used to prevent child birth that is completely optional to take? He didn't say the employees can't take it, he said he is not paying for it because it violates his religious beliefs to do so and compromises the integrity his company was built upon.

You need to clarify this because as of right now, I am not completely sure you even understand the situation well enough to argue it as this quote above is completely devoid of even basic logic and doesn't even apply to the situation being discussed.

With your argument an employer who does not agree with homosexuality could deny to pay for hiv medication because it's not "mentioned in the bill of rights".

No sir. HIV medication is medically necessary, birth control is not. Had it been HIV medication the employer would have lost the court battle quite quickly. There is a big difference in medication that is needed and medication that is wanted. Get your head out of your Obama.

A boss who's a Jehovah's witness could refuse to pay for blood transfusions for their employees because it's against their religious beliefs.

So, your comparing life saving blood transfusions that are medically necessary to save a life to taking birth control. Ok, yeah, I can totally see that.

If you open the door with this ruling then you must allow others through the door as well who object because of "Religous Beliefs".

I'm sure you would like to use that argument and it hold any water to make it seem as if you are championing freedom but it's a sham and we both know it. This was denied under Constitutional challenge because the drug is taken voluntarily to effect the outcome of pregnancy due to sexual intercourse. This is obviously something that is unique in that it is not medicinally necessary and if it was, the outcome of this case and this conversation would be much different.

Please stop trying to make such a weak argument, deflecting to saying it's opening the door for something else is ridiculous and smacks of desperation to make a point that is completely invalid.

And you didn't read the bill of rights hard enough or didn't understand it. We have both Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion in this country. Also as a plus we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Which is a huge difference. We do not allow Tyranny of the People. The majority may not infringe upon the rights of minorities.

I could quote the bill of rights with a gun to my head blindfolded while having my head stepped on with an iron boot. Questioning by knowledge or comprehension of the bill of rights is not going to save you from any of the mal informed statements you have made thus far.

I am glad you agree that the majority may not infringe upon the right of minorities. Since you do, you may then understand why thousands of employees can't force one owner to give up his Constitutional right to freedom of Religion.

And btw. I'm a Moderate not a Liberal. If you're going to insult me then at least get it right.

Ok, so your a moderate with liberal views in this instance. I know of no other way to describe you view point on this issue, it would seem to defy logic, common sense and Constitutional rights, something only Liberals do so well.

reply to post by daryllyn


This is a federal mandate I am sure employees somewhere with some company had a hand in crafting the legislation at least with recommendations but I kind of doubt that the employees of dominoes had anything with writing the bill.

reply to post by Grimpachi


If no employees have complained then what is the governments and anyone else's problem that this business owner is not paying for it?

You said it best when you said no employees were talking about it. If they are not bothered enough to speak up then it must not be a problem. It might be many of them are like were my wife works (the catholic place that does not pay for the pill either) were most of them working there are catholic. My wife and I are not, Walmart has cheap BC so it is not a bother.

The government can screw off on this and mind/run (should be ruin) their own business because it is obvious by our economy that they do such a great job of it.


If the employees are not bothered enough about it why are the people on ATS so bothered that he choses to run his business the way he is?

Let him do his thing. If his employees do not like their benefits they can get additional or different insurance that will cover it, or they can even find a new job. That is how the real world used to work and how it should stay. Benefits are what attracts your best employees, without good employees a business suffers. A business that suffers will close.

Raist

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by FaithandArms

 

I hate it when people go somewhere and then throw a tantrum that its not run the way they want so they try to change it. Don't go there or work there... either LEAVE or start your OWN business, place, etc.

Same here I am with you on that. Thank goodness that isn’t the case here is it? This case is between the owner and the government no employees have made any statements on the matter.

Since we can agree that the employees have not tried to change the company in anyway now we can deal with issue of whether employers can dictate health coverage based of religious beliefs opening the door to every religious organization to limit coverage on multitudes of treatments such as anti-depressants, diabetes medication, blood transfusion, etc. etc.

That actually is a very good point. It would seem that simple fact that is most important to this issue has been largely overlooked in this debate, admittedly, even by myself.

That said, I find it even more disturbing that it is an internal debate and challenge between the government and the employer absent of employees considering it an issue and taking action.

This is clear over reaching from the federal government and was rightfully dialed back by the judicial branch. The fact the government makes a case for this at all is evidence of their ignorance of what government has been established to do in the first place.

reply to post by daryllyn


It might have been the owner was looking for exemption from that part of the Obamacare plan. That seems just as likely if not the most likely case.

But lets say it was an employee. They were not getting their BC covered before so why complain now. Either get a different job or pay for it at Walmart. Even if that is the only thing you use Walmart you can get them there cheaper than anyplace else, and there are Walmarts all over the place.

Raist

reply to post by FaithandArms


I see what you are saying, and I agree with parts.

It is my opinion, that religion should have zero bearing on what medications I can have access to, through the coverage that I pay for, through my employer. My medical business, is just that, MY medical business and someone else's (my employer or otherwise) religious notions have no place in my, or anyone else's, business for that matter.

And the hypothetical woman is still paying for it. She pays premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for her appointments, procedures, and medications, depending on her plan.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by primus2012

 

If the pill was needed for a woman's medical condition, it wouldn't be covered under the planned parenthood section of the insurance coverage, it would be an OB/Gyn or dermatologist's medical prescription for treatment of a condition.

This is exactly what my argument was from the beginning. It should be covered for these purposes under every insurance plan regardless of someone's preconceived notions on the use of the drug.

edit: it is called "birth control pill" by gosh, not "acne control pill" or "menstrual regulation pill".

This is beside the point as many, many drugs are used for things other than their original intended purpose.

Example: Antidepressants are sometimes used to relieve pain. Beta blockers and anti seizure medications are used to treat migraines. Propranolol can be used to treat anxiety associated with fear of flying or public speaking.

If antidepressants are being prescribed for pain, it's not from a psychiatrist.... It boils down to intent and you know it. Carte blanche approval of anything is irresponsible (putting it mildly).

A urologist is not writing prescriptions of Viagra to treat a man's hypertension.

reply to post by Helious

He didn't say the employees can't take it, he said he is not paying for it because it violates his religious beliefs

This needs to be clarified again. Insurance companies are NOT charging extra for BC coverage. Plans that have BC coverage cost the employer less because the INS companies realized that paying for BC costs them far less than paying for pregnancies. That extra savings he can either pocket or use it to expand his biasness. It is a win win situation financially for the employer.

No sir. HIV medication is medically necessary, birth control is not.

Incorrect again please look back in the thread there are a multitude of health reasons women require BC other than contraception.

So, your comparing life saving blood transfusions that are medically necessary to save a life to taking birth control. Ok, yeah, I can totally see that.

By this you are saying that only Christian/catholic beliefs should be considered because all those other people’s beliefs are just crazy right.

Please remove your head from your Santorum.

reply to post by Raist


It is a federal mandate which he believes he should not have to adhere to because of his faith. As I said before this is a slippery slope that opens the door for all religious groups to find exemptions on a multitude of treatments. Couple pages back I listed the various religious organizations some which reject all modern medicine and that was in no means all the different faiths that have a problem with medical procedures not even all the Christian based ones. Do you have any idea what the Muslim faith rejects or Hindu.

If this goes through it will set a precedent for all religious beliefs not just Catholicism.


edit to add

I will add this as well Dominoes is a publicly traded company he is not the sole proprietor there are shareholders who I am sure do not believe as he does.