Employers can deny birth control for women: religious grounds
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums β Politics
Lilith β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 05:51 PM)
WASHINGTON β The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Trump administration regulation that lets employers with religious objections limit womenβs access to free birth control under the Affordable Care Act.
As a consequence of the ruling, about 70,000 to 126,000 women could lose contraceptive coverage from their employers, according to government estimates.
The vote was 7 to 2, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.
Contraception coverage has emerged as a key battleground in the culture wars, one in which successive administrations have switched sides.
In the Obama years, the court heard two cases on whether religious groups could refuse to comply with regulations requiring contraceptive coverage. The new case presented the opposite question: Can the Trump administration allow all sorts of employers with religious or moral objections to contraception to opt out of the coverage requirement?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-lets-employers-opt-out-of-providing-free-birth-control/ar-BB16u7tV?ocid=spartanntp
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." β Warren Smith -
KingTrump β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 05:52 PM)
You're welcome and I look forward to your vote in NovemberπΊπ²
"When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total." β Donald Trump -
Lilith β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 06:10 PM)
WASHINGTON β The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to give the nation's employers more leeway in refusing to provide free birth control for their workers under the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, gives the government authority to create the religious and moral objections, said Justice Clarence Thomas for the court's 7-2 majority.
Up to 126,000 women nationwide would lose birth control coverage under President Donald Trump's plan, the government estimated. Planned Parenthood said nearly nine in 10 women seek contraceptive care of some kind during their lifetimes.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-win-for-trump-supreme-court-allows-plan-for-religious-limits-to-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage/ar-BB16u7jT?ocid=spartanntp
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." β Warren Smith -
-
Soul_Venom β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 09:12 PM)
No government should be able to force anyone to violate their own conscience.
enable religious zealots to police womenβs reproductive care
This is not what happened. Women are still just as free to seek reproductive healthcare as they were before Obama's mandate. But now government can not force others to pay that price.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
πΈππΎπΈπΆπ πππβπ«ππΎπΈπ
β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 09:20 PM)Conscience is a nice word for the sky fairies conservatives consistently use To justify bigotry but nice try.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Soul_Venom β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 09:28 PM)
Sky fairies eh?
So if I say to you "I demand that you start believing in God right now!" What would you say? Assuming you were willing could you do it? Even if you tried real hard?
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
Soul_Venom β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 09:35 PM)
Exactly. So if you find it so hard to change what you believe then who are you to place that burden on others. How you feel about their beliefs personally is irrelevant. You wouldn't put up with such a demand and neither will they.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
πΈππΎπΈπΆπ πππβπ«ππΎπΈπ
β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 06:37 PM)They donβt understand that Birth control is also used to alleviate excruciatingly painful periods. Now this decision allows employers to restrict access to them for women who canβt afford to buy it on their own.
This is what happens when old , Ignorant men run your entire government.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Lilith β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 08:19 PM)
It isn't just old, ignorant men. It's religious zealots of all ages. It takes both men and willing women to maintain the production of children:
When in doubt, look at the Quiverfull movement. The Christian movement is about having as many children as young as possible, regardless if you can provide for them, but the point is to start as young as possible, pop out lots of babies, no birth control. "God is your birth control will only give you as many children as you can handle." This is a very short video, but there are longer documentaries on it if you check it out. Also look into Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, etc.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." β Warren Smith -
πΈππΎπΈπΆπ πππβπ«ππΎπΈπ
β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 08:36 PM)It canβt become Law and effect my healthcare protections until government officials make it law. And the government is predominantly older, conservative, religious , white men who know nothing of womenβs reproductive health. And this is evidenced by widespread lack of understanding of the various utilities of birth control drugs
β
οΈ .
I stand by what I said .
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Lilith β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 08:53 PM)
Obamacare didn't cover birth control. You know that, right?
This was just a matter of upholding what Obamacare put in place.
Private companies are going to be able to make their own decisions on what insurance providers they align themselves with. If you work for a company that (a) isn't run by religious zealots, or (b) is willing to offer, among its options, a company that does cover it, you'll be fine.
One potential "problem" I guess (?) would be if company premiums would be lower for a carrier that doesn't cover birth control, that would be an incentive for a workplace to go with a cheaper insurance and the lack of BC coverage is collateral damage.
It's also a matter of remembering we're talking about
employers
making this decision, and
their
religious practices, and
their
choices of opting out of covering BC for their female employees.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." β Warren Smith -
πΈππΎπΈπΆπ πππβπ«ππΎπΈπ
β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 08:55 PM)Companies shouldnβt be discriminating based on their religious beliefs or βmoralsβ that have nothing to do with womenβs reproductive health. What about this is hard to grasp?
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Lilith β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 09:04 PM)
I agree with you! I'm livid with this decision. I've made several posts about how I find this appalling. What about that is so hard to grasp?
This tends to happen when I simply post articles that I find on the newsfeed, it doesn't mean I'm agreeing with them, it simply means I am posting them, and I am open to discussion.
I find it unethical that a company can be "protected" under "religious freedom" to project the company owners personal religious feelings onto all of their employees and thereby affect their individual health care. I don't think that's relevant to the work the employee does.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." β Warren Smith -
Soul_Venom β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 09:14 PM)
allows employers to restrict access
No. It just says we can't force the employer to pay for it. They are still as free as they were before Obamacare.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
πΈππΎπΈπΆπ πππβπ«ππΎπΈπ
β 5 years ago(July 08, 2020 09:17 PM)Itβs discriminatory based on religious belief no matter what lipstick on a pig semantics you want to add to make a restriction sound like itβs fair.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 