First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Supreme Court limits birth control on religious grounds
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14

BlueOni wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I agree. I can't control what my employee buys or where their wages go. But as an owner of a business I can make my employee aware of the benefits I will pay for and what I won't. I'm not forcing them to do anything they don't want to do. If they feel I must provide it I'll argue I'm the one they are trying to control. You can still abort your embryo and work for me, it just doesn't show up in my record books because I don't believe in it.

All medical plans are different so if you want to argue I'm charging the same for medical benefits but providing less coverage I'll say go find a place that suits your needs better. You don't have to be on the company plan if you don't want to. You'll get to keep whatever you'd have to pay for the company plan in your check and do what you want with it. I won't be forced to do anything I don't want to do. Just like I won't force you to do anything you don't want to do.


Is yours among the firms which provides its own insurance, or do your employees receive their coverage from a third party? That makes a significant difference for how I am to respond to this.



Let's say both apply. I don't actually own a business, just playing devil's advocate.
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14

MysticGon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.
You do realize that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill right? http://youtu.be/jZIGw4zKR98?t=43s


It's used to prevent birth, but after the egg may have been fertilized... That's my basic understanding of it. I know the human body sometimes rejects these fertilized eggs on their own, but I don't think as an employer I should play any part in that process.


From what I know, It's basically a much larger dosage of the monthly birth control pill, and acts to thicken the mucus layer in order to prevent fertilization of the egg. But, it doesn't abort a fetus. Plan B cannot help you if you are already pregnant.

There is this magic ulcer medication that does that (abortion) though, and it's combined with another medication when it is perscribed.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/14

MopZ wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.
You do realize that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill right? http://youtu.be/jZIGw4zKR98?t=43s


It's used to prevent birth, but after the egg may have been fertilized... That's my basic understanding of it. I know the human body sometimes rejects these fertilized eggs on their own, but I don't think as an employer I should play any part in that process.


From what I know, It's basically a much larger dosage of the monthly birth control pill, and acts to thicken the mucus layer in order to prevent fertilization of the egg. But, it doesn't abort a fetus. Plan B cannot help you if you are already pregnant.

There is this magic ulcer medication that does that, and it's combined with another medication when it is perscribed.


That's it's primary function but according to that WebMD post I link a few comments back can stop a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus wall. The headline I take away is that, among all of it's other functions, has the potential to stop a fertilized egg from taking the next step.
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14
I pretty much have the opposite opinion of the court's decision because 1. I believe in secularism and 2. i'm pro-choice.

this is another failure of the legal system. so because a company is religious... that means if you are a non-religious employee, you'll have to suffer because of their religious beliefs? it's clearly religious oppression masked by the phrase, "religious liberty"... it's nothing more than a mask to oppress other people's non-belief.

if they wanted it to be fair, they would have said, employees have the choice to choose whether they want to be covered by contraceptives or not. so that way, non-religious employees aren't discriminated. and religious employees and employers can still choose to live by their religious standards.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/6/14

MysticGon wrote:

Let's say both apply. I don't actually own a business, just playing devil's advocate.


If a third party is contracted to provide your hypothetical employees' benefits, you have that third party come in and discuss coverage options with your employees individually based on what the third party is offering. You as the hypothetical employer do not decide your employees' individual coverages within that group plan, and you make your contribution to an undifferentiated funding pool for the whole group.

If, however, an employer is also the insurer, those coverage options are negotiated between the employees and their employer. You would have a dog in that race since you would be deciding which coverage options you will offer. Such an arrangement is unnecessary, so I'm not particularly sympathetic to the argument that these firms' owners and managers' religious freedom is violated by requiring that contraception be among the available coverage options. Just get a third party plan and use an undifferentiated pool, no one is forcing you to offer in-house insurance. And if you insist on having in-house insurance, find a way to make peace with the fact that contraception is among the coverage options you'll have to offer.
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14

MysticGon wrote:


MopZ wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I agree with the verdict. I'm paying for my employee's medical, I'm covering the majority of the preventive contraceptives, I'm just saying no to what I believe is murder. They can use their salary I'm also paying them and snuff out as many lives as they want, just leave me out if it.
You do realize that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill right? http://youtu.be/jZIGw4zKR98?t=43s


It's used to prevent birth, but after the egg may have been fertilized... That's my basic understanding of it. I know the human body sometimes rejects these fertilized eggs on their own, but I don't think as an employer I should play any part in that process.


From what I know, It's basically a much larger dosage of the monthly birth control pill, and acts to thicken the mucus layer in order to prevent fertilization of the egg. But, it doesn't abort a fetus. Plan B cannot help you if you are already pregnant.

There is this magic ulcer medication that does that, and it's combined with another medication when it is perscribed.


That's it's primary function but according to that WebMD post I link a few comments back can stop a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus wall. The headline I take away is that, among all of it's other functions, has the potential to stop a fertilized egg from taking the next step.


Well, the only other bit of information I can remember is that it can take up the three days to take that step, and even if plan b is not taken it is not unknown for even a fertilized egg to fail implantation into the womb. I can't remember the frequency of how often that really happens though.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14

BlueOni wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Let's say both apply. I don't actually own a business, just playing devil's advocate.


If a third party is contracted to provide your hypothetical employees' benefits, you have that third party come in and discuss coverage options with your employees individually based on what the third party is offering. You as the hypothetical employer do not decide your employees' individual coverages within that group plan, and you make your contribution to an undifferentiated funding pool for the whole group.

If, however, an employer is also the insurer, those coverage options are negotiated between the employees and their employer. You would have a dog in that race since you would be deciding which coverage options you will offer. Such an arrangement is unnecessary, so I'm not particularly sympathetic to the argument that these firms' owners and managers' religious freedom is violated by requiring that contraception be among the available coverage options. Just get a third party plan and use an undifferentiated pool, no one is forcing you to offer in-house insurance. And if you insist on having in-house insurance, find a way to make peace with the fact that contraception is among the coverage options you'll have to offer.


The easy answer would be to find like-minded third parties. The issue is over perceived moral standing. Putting my money into a plan that provides Plan B is like providing it myself. It's not as simple as "pay for it anyway and just look the other way." The employer has a choice as does the employee. If employers were forced to provide Plan B you'd simply be taking away their choice. An employee having to choose between the company plan or a private plan may not be something they want to do but the option is there, it's not withheld from them.

The argument could work the other way if you work for a company that has a group plan that provides Plan B and you don't like the idea that your money is helping your co-worker, you can opt out and get a private plan. No one is forcing you to pay into it.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14

MopZ wrote:


Bear with me I'm about to get a little silly to illustrate a point. Let's say I'm a company that has religious standing against clogging toilets. I know it happens naturally and fairly often. Even though I have that knowledge I still refuse to pay for my employee's chocolax because I don't want to play a role in the toilet clogging... I hope that makes sense.
5574 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/6/14
Wow...so many folks getting confused about contraception and "day after" pills. While neither link is wrong, they are not talking about the same medications. There are multiple types of medicines and multiple medicines in each of those types which may be used for the POSSIBLE prevention of pregnancy. There are also many medications which increase the chance of pregnancy occurring as a side effect.

Birth control, condoms, plan b; they all decrease the chance of a pregnancy happening for those women who are sexually active. The only 100% method to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex.

Now that the often stated but rarely listened to statement has been made...

BlueOni wrote:
If a third party is contracted to provide your hypothetical employees' benefits, you have that third party come in and discuss coverage options with your employees individually based on what the third party is offering. You as the hypothetical employer do not decide your employees' individual coverages within that group plan, and you make your contribution to an undifferentiated funding pool for the whole group.

If, however, an employer is also the insurer, those coverage options are negotiated between the employees and their employer. You would have a dog in that race since you would be deciding which coverage options you will offer. Such an arrangement is unnecessary, so I'm not particularly sympathetic to the argument that these firms' owners and managers' religious freedom is violated by requiring that contraception be among the available coverage options. Just get a third party plan and use an undifferentiated pool, no one is forcing you to offer in-house insurance. And if you insist on having in-house insurance, find a way to make peace with the fact that contraception is among the coverage options you'll have to offer.

This seems to me to be the brunt of the argument. If an undifferentiated fund is used to support birth control measures which the payee feels is a violation of their rights, are they required to contribute to it? There is no disagreement at all about how direct coverage can be limited, because that is an individualized negotiation. However, with the case of generalized funds, how far can that go? I'm going to get a bit ridiculous here, but this is just an extreme of where the arguments presented so far could go;

John Q Taxpayer pays his taxes on time and for the proper amount. He also happens to belong to a religious organization that says violence is a sin, killing anyone is unacceptable, and a widow or widower should sever all ties to the deceased after 7 days of mourning. John Q Taxpayer can now state that his taxes should never be used to pay for nor support military endeavors, the military's members, military training, the purchase of weapons, the costs associated with death row trials, the wages of any judge or public prosecutor that touches a death sentence case, welfare continuation for a spouse, Social Security where the surviving spouse collects the amount earmarked for the deceased instead of their own, etc. Why? Taxes paid at state and federal levels all help pay for these, and John Q Taxpayer doesn't agree with any of this on religious principles. Is this even possible? Could John Q Taxpayer keep from paying his taxes because there is no way to state which cent will go to which expense?

The same can be said when paying for medical insurance when the plans offered include contraceptives. The employer is now stating that they need not pay because they disagree on religious grounds. The employee is saying it is their right to freedom which allows them to choose to use contraceptives. Whom is in the right and whom is in the wrong?
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/6/14

MysticGon wrote:

The easy answer would be to find like-minded third parties. The issue is over perceived moral standing. Putting my money into a plan that provides Plan B is like providing it myself. It's not as simple as "pay for it anyway and just look the other way." The employer has a choice as does the employee. If employers were forced to provide Plan B you'd simply be taking away their choice. An employee having to choose between the company plan or a private plan may not be something they want to do but the option is there, it's not withheld from them.

The argument could work the other way if you work for a company that has a group plan that provides Plan B and you don't like the idea that your money is helping your co-worker, you can opt out and get a private plan. No one is forcing you to pay into it.


If you honestly consider paying a percentage of a group premium which offers contraceptive coverage as an option you have no role in compelling others to take, play no role in funding specifically, and do not compel anyone to use, then I suppose you must also consider yourself personally responsible for every government initiative you've ever opposed since your sales tax, property tax, and income tax has in all likelihood been directed toward one or another at some point, by someone.

It's not a particularly convincing stance to argue that you're personally responsible for those things, but that's your logic taken to its conclusion. You're personally responsible for every single government initiative you ever opposed simply because you paid taxes at some point, and employers are personally responsible for the purchase of contraception if anyone else ever directs money from a pooled fund toward contraception even if they never compelled or guided anyone to use their part of the funding for that purpose.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14

BlueOni wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

The easy answer would be to find like-minded third parties. The issue is over perceived moral standing. Putting my money into a plan that provides Plan B is like providing it myself. It's not as simple as "pay for it anyway and just look the other way." The employer has a choice as does the employee. If employers were forced to provide Plan B you'd simply be taking away their choice. An employee having to choose between the company plan or a private plan may not be something they want to do but the option is there, it's not withheld from them.

The argument could work the other way if you work for a company that has a group plan that provides Plan B and you don't like the idea that your money is helping your co-worker, you can opt out and get a private plan. No one is forcing you to pay into it.


If you honestly consider paying a percentage of a group premium which offers contraceptive coverage as an option you have no role in compelling others to take, play no role in funding specifically, and do not compel anyone to use, then I suppose you must also consider yourself personally responsible for every government initiative you've ever opposed since your sales tax, property tax, and income tax has in all likelihood been directed toward one or another at some point, by someone.

It's not a particularly convincing stance to argue that you're personally responsible for those things, but that's your logic taken to its conclusion. You're personally responsible for every single government initiative you ever opposed simply because you paid taxes at some point, and employers are personally responsible for the purchase of contraception if anyone else ever directs money from a pooled fund toward contraception even if they never compelled or guided anyone to use their part of the funding for that purpose.


True I can't control what happens to my taxes, or what my employees buy with their own salary. But I can differentiate the funds I have control over and the funds I don't have control over. At that point I can do with the money what I please. Edit: Regardless of what my motivations are and as long as it is legal.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/6/14

MysticGon wrote:

True I can't control what happens to my taxes, or what my employees buy with their own salary. But I can differentiate the funds I have control over and the funds I don't have control over. At that point I can do with the money what I please. Edit: Regardless of what my motivations are and as long as it is legal.


But that's just it: your money wouldn't be directed toward contraception. Once it's added to the pool the insurer uses to cover things it's not your money anymore. Your personal responsibility for what is drawn from that pool begins and ends with what coverages you specifically purchase for yourself and your beneficiaries. Unless you purchase contraceptive coverage from that insurer, you've no personal responsibility for any contraception purchased using that pool. Not one dime of your money is being directed toward contraceptives even if coverage for contraceptives is offered.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/14

BlueOni wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

True I can't control what happens to my taxes, or what my employees buy with their own salary. But I can differentiate the funds I have control over and the funds I don't have control over. At that point I can do with the money what I please. Edit: Regardless of what my motivations are and as long as it is legal.


But that's just it: your money wouldn't be directed toward contraception. Once it's added to the pool the insurer uses to cover things it's not your money anymore. Your personal responsibility for what is drawn from that pool begins and ends with what coverages you specifically purchase for yourself and your beneficiaries. Unless you purchase contraceptive coverage from that insurer, you've no personal responsibility for any contraception purchased using that pool. Not one dime of your money is being directed toward contraceptives even if coverage for contraceptives is offered.


Like I said, ideologically it's the same as using your company to pay for it and looking the other way. Prior to it getting to that point you as the employer have control of where the funds go and thus have a decision to make, based on your views. Just as your employee will have to make a decision, based on their views.
5574 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/6/14 , edited 7/6/14
MysticGon, I think you are missing the entire point being made by BlueOni. You pay an insurance company for a medical plan whose terms and services you are aware of, then you are do have say over the terms and conditions. If you use Insurance Company ABC, pay into a general fund which is used to offset the cost of whatever plan the employee picks, then you have no control over the insurance terms and conditions. This latter example is how some companies function when they do not self-insure.

When a company says to Insurance Company ABC "We want plans 1, 2, and 3 to be available to our employees," then they have direct control over what is offered and what is not. In the current US system, contraceptives were required to be a part of those plans without exception when the company doing the choice held no legal connection to a religion. That has changed with this Supreme Court ruling.

As to what the two of you are talking about, it is similar to the state insurance systems. The state you live in has a contract with Insurance Company ABC to offer coverage to consumers who meet a minimum and maximum requirement. The state will pay Insurance Company ABC a set amount of money per person and then that person may pick from any plan offered by Insurance Company ABC. The state has no input on what is offered and what is not offered. At this point, they have paid into a general fund and relinquished all control over the terms and conditions of coverage. Some companies have a similar agreement with one or more insurance company.

*Edited to fix grammar*
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/6/14

Bullbound wrote:

MysticGon, I think you are missing the entire point being made by BlueOni. You pay an insurance company for a medical plan whose terms and services you are aware of, then you are do have say over the terms and conditions. If you use Insurance Company ABC, pay into a general fund which is used to offset the cost of whatever plan the employee picks, then you have no control over the insurance terms and conditions. This latter example is how some companies function when they do not self-insure.

When a company says to Insurance Company ABC "We want plans 1, 2, and 3 to be available to our employees," then they have direct control over what is offered and what is not. In the current US system, contraceptives were required to be a part of those plans without exception when the company doing the choice held no legal connection to a religion. That has changed with this Supreme Court ruling.

As to what the two of you are talking about, it is similar to the state insurance systems. The state you live in has a contract with Insurance Company ABC to offer coverage to consumers who meet a minimum and maximum requirement. The state will pay Insurance Company ABC a set amount of money per person and then that person may pick from any plan offered by Insurance Company ABC. The state has no input on what is offered and what is not offered. At this point, they have paid into a general fund and relinquished all control over the terms and conditions of coverage. Some companies have a similar agreement with one or more insurance company.

*Edited to fix grammar*


Aye, yup!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.