I really don't understand how the majority tried to claim that this applies to only some religious beliefs but not others. Could someone more knowledgable than I (*cough*anitram*cough*) explain? Did the majority just say that without explanation? If so, it'll be interesting to see that be scrutinized in future cases.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
The wording of the decision seemed to suggest that this only covered Hobby Lobby and Co and it specifically states that this is
not in accordance with any other drugs/treatments/etc. EXCEPT for these four forms of birth control. They went out of their way to specificially state that this does not allow an employer to not cover blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc.
Iron Horse is not incorrect, as much as it pains me to say it (although as usual, his manner of posting makes me want to respond with sarcasm). His points about HL itself are correct. The Supreme Court's decision upholds the law that was in place. That doesn't mean that HL or the court/law are correct or okay. I think it's a shitty law, and I think it's shitty what HL are doing. I don't know what else to say about it other than heap scorn upon HL and the law itself.
And this is basically my point in the posts I'm making. It's not necessarily that I agree with the decision, or that I agree with Hobby Lobby (I'm still debating that within myself, but that's my battle). It's that, after reading the Supreme Court's ruling, I found myself realizing that, as far as I can tell, they acted in accordance with both the 1993 law and the practices that were already in place for non-profit corporations.
To me, it boils down to an employer inserting themselves into medical decisions, which is completely not okay. And like I said earlier in the thread, this is not like a self-insured employer not covering a procedure or drug that is not covered in general. It's not like these four birth control methods are not recognized as being "legit" (for lack of a better word) or cost effective and aren't covered by major medical plans.
I thought that at first, as well. But, when I look at the big picture, of this particular situation, it doesn't seem to me that Hobby Lobby is saying, no you can't have that, they're saying, "you can have it, the government can pay for it, like it's already doing for non-profits and then I don't have to have my hand in something that I feel morally abject towards." Let's face it, abortion is a very large, multi-faceted topic and while I realize that we're never all going to agree on it, I do think that a bit more understanding towards both parties on the topic would go along way to over-all peace in general. I just get more and more frustrated that people seem more keen to shout in each others faces than to just stop for a minute and listen. This seems like the only win-win agreement available. And that's only
IF the government is covering these four forms of birth control, mind you. Otherwise, I'm completely on board with everyone else, here: Someone has to provide it, because the Health Care Act made it a sanctioned medication that all women are meant to have, with health care coverage.
And I think the "what if" questions surrounding religious exemptions are entirely valid.
I agree that they're valid. What I don't like is that I feel like the media, my friends, others on the Internet are using the "What if" question as a scare tactic to make people see their point of view, instead of having a conversation about why this happened, what it means, and where should we go from here. I don't like what happened the day this happened. I don't like the way I was meant to feel that my employer could now tell me that I wasn't allowed my birth control pills. I don't like the way I was being told that this covered any corporation who might decide one day to, as Travis said, "put a cross up in the window" and decide they're not going to cover birth control pills any longer. I don't like the way a heap of scorn was thrown on men, by myself as well, and their ED medications as though they were just a playtoy (which, again, I did, in this thread, as you know, since you were the one who corrected me).
BUT, I realize that initial reactions to situations that are completely off-base with your belief system can cause a reaction of rage/anger/beyond disbelief. I felt that way, myself. Part of it was because of the posts on Facebook, news stories, etc that were thrown in my face all of that day, telling me how to feel, telling me to be angry, etc.
And so...
I don't have anything to add but scorn and frustration at this point. No, it's not productive, but sometimes you get pissed off and need to snipe about it somewhere. (Hey, internet! What's up?)
I completely understand this reaction. The reason why it ticks me off in here specifically is that there are SO many times when people complain about the lack of conversation in these threads and I sit at my computer and laugh because the reason there's no conversation is obvious. Most people in here agree with one another, so there's not much of a voice to counter that and actually cause discourse. I've been trying to be more of a voice, because I think conversation is a powerful tool that can help people understand one another better, and understand these situations better. What they mean today, what they mean down the road.
I'm more than willing to listen, I'm more than willing to discuss. Hell, I only started asking questions because I was curious and while it didn't change my opinion about the topic as a whole, it did lead me to the opinion that, regardless of how I feel about it, the Supreme Court did make the "right" decision.
I can introduce you to my lawyer brother on Facebook - he can give you all the discussion you aren't seeing here. But I don't like getting into it with him, so I vent and snipe here instead of on Facebook.
that's ok. No need to cause a family blow-out over it. I've basically said everything I need to say in this giant block of, probably non-sensical babble above. I hope I made myself clear and that others understand, but let me summarize:
1) I think the Supreme Court made the right decision, as the law from 93 and the Healthcare Reform Act works with non-profits, IF the government is going to provide the women with the four forms of birth control coverage, should they need it.
2) While the wording of the decision specifically lays out why this "isn't" a slippery slope, I agree that there's likely going to be a moment where someone tries this same thing with vaccinations/transfusions. At that point, I have faith that the courts will do the right thing and if I'm wrong, that'll be on my head for trusting in a government that I know good and well I shouldn't.
3) I love you all, GAF-style and I'm glad I have a place to have discussions like this that don't involve the (mostly) brick wall that is my incredibly conservative family. Even if we fight sometimes