Umm, it's "Hobby Lobby". There's one here.

Why can't women pay for their own contraception 100% out of pocket ? Is it really so expensive it must be included in a health insurance contract ?

The only drugs they're not covering are 4 plan B types that are specifically abortifacients (remove the embyro after it has attached itself to the uterine wall). They cover the normal birth control under their plan. And frankly, if Congress is so concerned about it, they can write a tax exemption for birth control into law, therefore no employer needs to cover it.

Thanks, Rad. My dad, I think, used to call it Lobby Hobby. Or that was how I remembered it.

Look, if HMOs are going to cover Viagra and other ED drugs, then they can damn sure cover birth control and rest of it!

Asshats.

Some facts that aren't being mentioned in the lame stream media:

• Hobby Lobby is just the largest of multiple companies in the lawsuit.
• None of the companies are objecting to the pill or the ring or whatever.
• The objection is to paying for abortifacient drugs, devices, or procedures such as RU-486 or a straight up abortion.

Think about this -- If Hobby Lobby loses then tha means you will still have the freedom to worship (or not) as you please. But once you leave that church, temple, mosque or whatever you will no longer have the right to make a decision on the morals your faith is based on. We're already starting to see this with the gay marriage and the providers of wedding services. Do you want to see that extended all over?

Such as Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby are both closed on Sundays. Their choice. Can you see a lawsuit about "You are violating my rights to your services because you are closed?"

I agree that the lawsuit is legally lame. But what's worse is, it misses the point. Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to dictate what's in anyone's insurance policy?

"Look, if HMOs are going to cover Viagra and other ED drugs, then they can damn sure cover birth control and rest of it! "

I'm on testosterone replacement therapy. My insurance does not cover it. And it's very expensive, far more than equivalent therapies for women.

"Look, if HMOs are going to cover Viagra and other ED drugs, then they can damn sure cover birth control and rest of it!" Flynne

except that the two things are in NO WAY CONNECTED, for a couple of reasons.

Viagra IS FOR SOMETHING BROKEN. Contraceptive pills ARE covered by insurance when they are used FOR SOMETHING BROKEN> In other words to correct a hormonal problem.

Using contraceptive to block birth, is to PREVENT A NATURAL ACTION FROM OCCURRING. This is ENTIRELY different than fixing what doesn't WORK.

This is the difference between using morphine to get high, and using morphine because your back is broken in 3 places. Insurance doesn't pay to get you high.

That would be a choice.

Oh, and let set your strawman aflame.

Who is paying for MY contraception?

Oh, yeah, NO ONE. Which would make this law ENTIRELY discriminatory against men's reproductive health.

So, when is every taxpayer going to provide me with 30 condoms a month?

I don't hear a hue and cry over that. That this mandate is being quietly acceded to by everyone else, is just further proof that most people and businesses just feel they can't fight city hall.

That means that the only people who feel they have standing to sue in this case are doing it one religious grounds, when the whole thing is bogus.

"She added, "It's not our bosses' business what we need for our health care. It should be left to a woman and her family." Celeste Robbins, Planned Parenthood.

It is their business WHEN THE ARE MADE TO PAY FOR IT. It's a trivial cost for the individual, BUY YOU OWN. If contraception is central to a woman's health, why is it not central to a man's?

Men can use a dirt cheap contraceptive method, that is only required when they are having sex, not every day, and has no side effects... and women can require this method to be used to protect themselves...

And this whole thing is an incredibly expensive f**king exercise in obfuscation, when the world is sliding to world war III, and there are a MILLION better things to spend time and money on.

And before you resurrect that strawman about poor women and prevention, do you actually believe they will take the trouble to take a little pill everyday without fail, when it has been shown that they often don't even care if they get preggers for various reasons?

/rant

Birth control is frequently used to treat real medical conditions. Trying to separate people who are using it for medical conditions from people who are using to prevent pregnancy is a clusterfuck I'm sure the insurance companies don't want any part of.

If contraception is central to a woman's health, why is it not central to a man's?

Because when a women gets pregnant, a man is not at greater risk for gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, circulation problems and death. Birth control is important for everyone, but it simply isn't as important to men's overall health.

Birth control DOES work as a preventative, even for poor people. Birth rates have gone down for all age groups except for women in their 40s.

I'd be all for giving companies the right to opt out of providing insurance for birth control if we could allow moral objections to other kinds of health care. Been eating doughnuts every day for breakfast? Fuck off if you have a heart attack. Get hit by a car because you were jaywalking? Bleed to death in the street, asshole.

"Because when a women gets pregnant" MonicaP
She doesn't HAVE TO, it's a CHOICE, that she can make, using the same contraception that men do, that isn't paid for by the government.

end of story.

"Birth control DOES work as a preventative, even for poor people." MonicaP

Yup, but where does it say the "birth control"= The Pill...

This is NOT health care, nor is it preventive maintenance... it's a PERK.

you want to separate those that actually need the hormonal therapy from those that don't?

Simple, just like Oxy, make it a SchedII drug. You know, the pain killers they make your life difficult to get, even if you have arthritis so bad, you are crippled?

There is no reason in the world for government or anyone else to foot the bill for a delusional contraceptive method that is expensive, has side effects, and isn't universally used anyway...

When the alternatives are out there, and available on every street corner, in every convenience store.

An insanely expensive, decisive boondoggle. Kinda like the old single guy that pays for maternity care too, like me. This is entirely naked wealth transfer... forcing me into paying for the full insurance pool, to cover other people.

When I was still married, I got to pay extra to have a spouse and children on my plan, to cover those costs... which makes sense.

Now I'm still paying for it, even though I don;t have use for that kind of insurance.

Oh, and Sandra Fluke's contraception, too... because she is better 'n me.

The only drugs they're not covering are 4 plan B types that are specifically abortifacients (remove the embyro after it has attached itself to the uterine wall).

Not so. You are confusing Plan B with RU-486.

Why can't women pay for their own contraception 100% out of pocket ? Is it really so expensive it must be included in a health insurance contract ?

Everyone's mileage may very, but the (generic) birth control I use cost $40 per month when I paid out of pocket. My workplace insurance is grandfathered (meaning I don't get the Obamacare no-copay deal), so I currently pay $10 co-pay for it. So, not super expensive for me. But a few of my friends require "fancier" BC (because they have bad reactions to other forms). And these can be about $90 a month if you pay out of pocket. This can be a hardship for those who have lower incomes and have to take BC for non-contraceptive purposes (or skip work 3 days a month due to debilitating pain). I have such a condition, and I'm happy that my body happens to like the $40 BC, in case I have to ever pay out-of-pocket again.

I think we need a new word to define the argument more lucidly.

How about contra-conception as the birth control that Hobby Lobby is willing to provide in their health plan. We already have abortifacient for the sort of birth control that prevents a conception from preceding from fertilized egg to embryo.

The argument is based on the legal debate of when life begins.

"Birth control is frequently used to treat real medical conditions. Trying to separate people who are using it for medical conditions from people who are using to prevent pregnancy is a clusterfuck I'm sure the insurance companies don't want any part of."

Not true. Over 30 years ago, at the age of 13, I needed the pill because my period was out of control. After a little paperwork, my parent's insurance company covered it, even though at that time they didn't cover the pill for birth control purposes. So it's really not that onerous, and insurance companies already have a process set up to get all sorts of drugs approved on an exception basis.

I find the modern trend to create rights that other people have to pay for infuriating and mind blowing. I completely agree that a woman has the right to use whatever birth control she desires, and even though I personally am against contraception, I would fight with you side-by-side if anyone tried to make it illegal. But to say a woman has a right to employer-funded birth control is like saying that since I have a right to free speech, my employer should pay for me to appear on TV.

"But to say a woman has a right to employer-funded birth control is like saying that since I have a right to free speech, my employer should pay for me to appear on TV."
True.

With the added the employer should pay even if your TV spot is attacking them.

I don't take birth control to not get pregnant.

If you want the regulatory cluster fuck (by having insurance classify it as a pill that has to be specifically stated to be taken for certain reasons in order to be covered go ahead.

But the other pills that I already take that have the same regulatory hoopla costs you my monthly doctors visit, plus an inordinate amount of forms and blood work.

I don't understand to me health insurance is the same as getting monetary compensation. If I wanna buy a bunch of rainbow dildos I have the right and my employer doesn't have the right to tell me I can't spend what I earned on it. They also pay for my vacation time can they tell me I can't go out to homosexual cruises?

The government can tell me I can't buy rainbow dildos if maybe they are made of toxic material. And the government can tell me what my doctor can and can't prescribe. But my employer can't tell me what medicine I can and can't take.

I don't need to divulge shit to them about medical conditions they might not believe in.

And yes I want insurance to be untied from the workplace but as of now it isn't so fuck them.

Birth control is frequently used to treat real medical conditions. Trying to separate people who are using it for medical conditions from people who are using to prevent pregnancy is a clusterfuck I'm sure the insurance companies don't want any part of.
_____________________________________

They certainly don't want to ask men asking for Viagra whether THEY'RE having sex outside of marriage or not. I wonder why that never gets talked about.
__________________________________

If contraception is central to a woman's health, why is it not central to a man's?

Posted by: MonicaP at March 26, 2014 9:11 AM
___________________________________

I don't think it's an idle question. Men often talk as if a woman's being on the Pill (or a diaphragm) doesn't benefit her man at all. Clearly, it does, assuming he knows about it and approves. One could also easily argue that birth control helps hold marriages together a lot more often than if it weren't used. Not to mention that, in theory, most women who use either of those two methods are in long-term relationships (since a lot of women don't care to add the expense and hassle of condoms if they don't have to).

Maybe if more women insisted on men's splitting the bill with them, men would be more enthusiastic about getting the Pill covered?

So where do post-menopausal women and women who cannot get pregnant (tubes tied, hysterectomy, etc.) fit into this? Should they also have to contribute to paying for birth control that they have no use for?

And: if we presume that at some point in the near future a male Pill will be developed, should insurance policies be forced to cover that?

(And I notice that no one has addressed my comment about male hormone replacement.)

It would seem like convering birth control might actually save companies money, since contraception tends to be less expensive than covering birth in an American hospital, then having an employee out for 6 weeks to 3 months. Of course, that has nothing to do with the religous argument.

Since we've brought up ED treatments... my (company) insurance considers Viagra a "lifestyle" drug, and only covers 50% of the cost. It's in the same category as Retin-A.

Maybe if more women insisted on men's splitting the bill with them, men would be more enthusiastic about getting the Pill covered? -- lenona at March 26, 2014 12:24 PM

And did you read any of the posts? This is not a case about covering the normal BC. This is a case about whether a nominally secular business have the religious right to not cover the abortive type drugs like RU-486. Effectively the fertilized ovum has implanted and is now growing into a fetus.

I don't know where people get the crazy idea that companies have or should have no say in your compensation.
Of course they do, and should. If you are forcing them to buy X then they have say over what X is. If you don't like it, then don't work there.

Hey, lemme throw some gasoline:

How is it that something that is 0% my business (your birth control) - 100% my financial responsibility?

"But my employer can't tell me what medicine I can and can't take."

I agree completely -- however, this is not the issue. The employer isn't trying to tell you what you can or can't take -- the government is trying to tell the employer what they must pay for.

And frankly, I don't think the government should be telling employers that they have to provide health insurance of any sort in the first place.

Obamacare is an abomination. It took the worst aspect of our current health-care system (that it is tied to employment) and not only enshrined it, but made it worse, both by making employer-provided health care mandatory and by increasing the threshold at which people buying individual coverage are allowed to deduct their premiums.

I'm with you CousinDave. This is not the federal governments business. The states have the power to regulate the insurance industry, not the feds.

I hope this is the decision reached by the Supreme Court, but apparently, they already have three shrieking liberal harpy votes , and one bone headed socialist, so the other five had better be solid, on the side of state's rights.

A few point/questions

Does the ACA require businesses to pay for BC, or does it require all insurance companies to offer BC in all their plans?

If business can deny BC on the grounds of religious freedom can they also deny blood transfusions and organ transplants? Can they refuse to pay taxes? Refuse to serve spics and niggers? What is the line at which religion can no longer refuse to obey the law?

Can an incorporated hospital owned by the catholic church, yet funded by governemnt grants and reimbursement stand by and let a woman die of an eptopic pregnancy because they will not preform an abortion?

Given we must now pay taxes on the monies our employers 'donate' to our medical plan purchases is it not in fact salary and not a 'gift'?

And if companies can dictate how we are allowed to spend our medical benefits portion of our salary, why can they not dictate how we are all owed to spend the paycheck portion of it as well?

@lujip
"Does the ACA require businesses to pay for BC"
Partially, that is what the Supreme Court is arguing about. Partially, no since a place can forgo insurance entirely, and not pay employees 1 cent more.

"does it require all insurance companies to offer BC in all their plans?"

Definitely not! Any individual, can pick and choose not to have it, also religious groups and non-profits do not. So insurance plans without bc do exist.

"If business can deny BC on the grounds of religious freedom can they also deny blood transfusions and organ transplants?"

Don't know, I don't believe they are part of Obamacare, organ transplants are not standard on many insurance plans, so I'd have to go with no.

Side diversions ignored.

"And if companies can dictate how we are allowed to spend our medical benefits portion of our salary"

This is of course laughably incorrect. WE ARE NOT SPENDING IT, THEY ARE. Therefore they have some say over how it is spent. I am not allowed to spend medical benifits on anything I want, say hookers, and booze, (for sexual healing) so nope we NEVER had say in it other than taking the job or not.

luj, make the distinction:

A specific exemption is being sought: insurance coverage, at cost to employers. Reasonably, this does not apply to race, and it would not even apply to gender if there were a birth control prescription available for men. Sex is a voluntary activity, biologically programmed to produce children. There is a ready alternative in ordinary human behavior, which does not depend on race.

I forsee no useful ruling whatsoever, and so far, all I have seen is the public's inability to distinguish this from defending apartheid, which it does not.

"She added, "It's not our bosses' business what we need for our health care. It should be left to a woman and her family." Celeste Robbins, Planned Parenthood."

Hah, I read that bit too and got a good chuckle. More of the same from the women's reproductive rights crowd. "My body, my choice!" Oh, and others should foot the bill for her choice.

Celeste dear, its not left to a woman or her family anymore, its left up to the state when they passed that unconstitutional law dubbed "affordable". The Federal Government owns your body darlin. You do what they say with their property. It is slavery and nothing less. Thus this whole debate is moot.

This is of course laughably incorrect. WE ARE NOT SPENDING IT, THEY ARE.

No, they are offering you extra money in the form of payment towards a heath care package. Money you have to pay taxes on.

Where that money goes should be up to you as it is yours.

Try again, luj. The employer-paid portion of your health insurance is NOT taxed like the rest of your compensation. Even if it were, anyone who doesn't like the benefits and compensation they offer is free to go work for someone else or start his or her own business.

Re: sometimes hormonal birth control is therapeutic, not contraceptive. Fine. There's already a different insurance code for a prescription that treats a diagnosed medical condition like PMDD or ovarian cysts. But...then it's not required to be free under the ACA. BC is "free" under the ACA as preventive medicine. Ooops. So that poor classmate of Sandra Fluke's whose tale of a ruptured ovarian cyst was all over her testimony? Yeah, she's as SOL as ever.

Re: insurance companies would make/save money by covering birth control. So? Hobby Lobby would make a killing by opening on Sundays. They would rather stick to their principles, as is their right. But, actually, I'm not even sure it's true that it would save insurers any money. For that to be true, you'd have to assume that women/couples wouldn't pay out of pocket for bc and that bc's side effects and complications didn't cost much. So I dunno. But, either way, even if it's a bad decision financially, it's their right.

It takes a considerable amount of legal education and sophistry to misunderstand "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You don't need to agree with it, or like it. The meaning is clear, and the document provides a method for changing the First Amendment that does not involve judges.

"I forsee no useful ruling whatsoever..."

And this is the story in a nutshell. Either the SCOTUS rules in favor of the government, reinforcing the goverment's unlimited powers over private sector commerce, or it rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, creating a precedent for religion-based legal privilege. From a libertarian standpoint, both outcomes are bad.

And this is the story in a nutshell. Either the SCOTUS rules in favor of the government, reinforcing the goverment's unlimited powers over private sector commerce, or it rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, creating a precedent for religion-based legal privilege. From a libertarian standpoint, both outcomes are bad.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 27, 2014 7:03 AM

Not necessarily. They could rule, that it is the business of the state, and not the federal government, what insurance policies have to cover, in any particular state, and evade the religious issue entirely.

Try again, luj. The employer-paid portion of your health insurance is NOT taxed like the rest of your compensation.

Maybe my analysis was mistaken, but I recall reading several articles claiming that one of the provisions of the ACA was to start charging income taxes on that compensation

"but I recall reading several articles claiming that one of the provisions of the ACA was to start charging income taxes on that compensation"

The ACA demands that "luxury" plans be taxed. AFAIK the IRS has not yet written the rules for what constitutes a "luxury" plan, but what everyone is afraid of is that any plan that provides any better benefits than the exchange plans will be considered "luxury".

"They could rule, that it is the business of the state, and not the federal government, what insurance policies have to cover, in any particular state, and evade the religious issue entirely. "

That would mean recognizing a significant limit on the federal government's Commerce Clause authority. No way in hell the current SCOTUS will go there.

That would mean recognizing a significant limit on the federal government's Commerce Clause authority. No way in hell the current SCOTUS will go there.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 27, 2014 5:36 PM

The entire insurance industry has been crafted to operate on a state basis, which is why there was such a problem creating the Obamacare exchanges.

Insurance still cannot be bought and sold across state lines.

Nothing in the commerce clause precludes this, or overrides this.

The last Obamacare Supreme court decision was a loser under the commerce clause, which is why John Roberts rightly called it a tax.

A better analysis of the arguments is laid out here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/27/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-the-hobby-lobby-arguments/