Menu

Update: I’ve been informed that the ruling did not rule out the coverage of contraceptive. Instead, lawmakers found a way to make folks on both sides of the fence happy. One way or another, contraceptives are still covered for employees, whether by the company or the government. That is, in my opinion, the more important thing to accomplish, no matter what you believe. We all have to share this place, let’s make it tolerable for everyone. Thank you brittdyer77, for the clarification!

I’m gonna say this and I’ll probably get slammed, but I’m gonna say it anyway; if the government sees fit to financially support children whose parents have a low income, then why do they have a problem supporting women who want to prevent pregnancy in the first place? From a business standpoint, it seems like supporting contraceptives would be a smart move, especially when so many of our country’s citizens are helping to financially support (via taxes turned welfare) so many of our country’s children, whether they are theirs or not. Why are America’s lawmakers dead set against encouraging responsibility? Who’s looking at the big picture?

Having said that, whether I want to have kids or take contraceptive to prevent pregnancy, the first responsibility of paying for my kids or my meds falls to me. I won’t count on anyone else to help me pay for either, but I still don’t see why contraceptives shouldn’t be covered under health care insurance.

Okay, toss your rocks.

0 Comments for "Update I've been informed that the ruling did…"

  • Karen

    As I agree with you I cannot throw any stones, Jess.
    In many parts of the world, contraception is still considered a sin. Less children would suffer (be it due to neglect, poverty, illness, etc.) if contraceptives were covered by health care insurance.

    Reply
    • Jess West

      I’m hoping folks will hold the stones whether they agree or not, and if they do disagree that they feel free to do so in a civil manner. Alas, this is teh internetz. šŸ™‚

      You’ve hit the nail on the head, Karen. I get that it goes against certain religious beliefs, but American lawmakers aren’t running a church, they’re running a country. In the long run, encouraging the use of contraceptives would do exactly as you suggest, result in fewer children born and left to suffer from neglect, poverty, illness, etc. If faith makes a person blind to reason, as in this case, then I can do without.

      Thanks for weighing in, Karen!

      Reply
  • darkenwulfbytes

    No rocks being tossed here. In the minds of a supposedly tried and true previous generation of sex being meant to procreate children, who were by tradition God believers, ethics of religion meant everything. Common sense and personal freedom are lip service. Anything else is atheism and demonic in their minds.

    Reply
    • Jess West

      I’ll reiterate my previous sentiment because I agree with you wholeheartedly. If faith makes a person blind to reason, as in this case, then I can do without. I understand that there was a time when procreation was a priority, but with Earth’s population growing exponentially every day, that argument is no longer valid. Religious constraints are the weakest argument I’ve heard as yet against contraceptives.

      Thanks for stopping by and weighing in!

      Reply
  • Britt

    No rock tossing here.

    I think many folks are missing what happened. It was much narrower and less impactful than both sides of the argument choose or recognize to admit. Someone, either the insurance company or the government, will continue to pay for those benefits as they are currently required by law. The ruling didn’t remove the coverage, just clarified where the payment for that would come from.

    ‘Closely held companies’ that have these strong religious beliefs are merely not required to fit the contraception cost and can’t be compelled to. That said, most will cover the standard preventative contraception (as most have up to this point anyway). Most had an issue with contraception that could be construed as ‘Morning After’ and beyond.

    Companies will continue to cover it in the overwhelming majority, and can use it as a competitive advantage if needed when competing for a potential employee. Regardless, since the coverage is required, it will remain, just the ‘bill to’ will be different.

    People that claim this is a war on women or the government making attacks on reproductive rights aren’t reading the whole decision. Women continue to get their coverage, but a company that is driven by it’s religious beliefs (not open on Sunday etc), and is primarily privately owned based on the ‘closely held company’ definition keep their rights protected.

    So all in all it’s a win for both sides – coverage intact…any possible religious conflicts avoided. It was a fair verdict based on law and the Constitution when you look carefully at it. Unfortunately media and pundits, right and left, don’t do that and just scream their talking points further muddying an already messy topic.

    Reply
    • Jess West

      Thanks for clarifying! There is so much information tossed around from so many sources, and any original sources can be difficult to translate into lay terms. I’ll admit that I’ve tried going to official government web sites in search of the true nature of specific laws and got completely lost. If they had someone who writes as well (and concisely) as you do, then perhaps this confusion could be avoided. Thanks again for clearing up the matter for me. I’m happy to hear that the decision worked in favor of both parties – the companies who do not wish to pay for contraceptives for their employees and those employees who wish to use contraceptives – regardless of whether or not I agree.

      Reply
      • Britt

        Correct. It’s still very narrow as to who can ‘opt out’ if you will. It is reserved on religious grounds it seems – as relevant to first amendment – and only for those companies who falls into that ‘closely held company’ definition. For example, IBM can’t get out of it or Microsoft.

        I avoid anything official because you are right, without 300 law degrees we’d never ‘get’ it. It’s tough to parse through even the media reports, but get through enough and you can see, eventually, what the real meat is.

        Thank you for the compliment in regards to how I phrased it. I can be long-winded.

        I just hate when right and left hyper-politicize, both media and slimy politicians, something like this. Each trying to fire up their ‘base’. But you’re right, regardless what we all believe we should be thankful that rule of law was executed…mainly for future rulings.

        It does however make for an interesting Twitter day watching the people who don’t know the full story regarding the true impact of the ruling. Your original post was well put too by the way. The responsibility does first fall on us to provide for ourselves, once we depend on any institution, be it govt or buisness, to provide something like health care, their voice will eventually be heard and be an influence. Whoever fits the bill, has a voice – whether we like it or not.

        Ugh, political talk over…lol. Not sure I can take this much seriousness in one day. Time to watch cat videos on YouTube. šŸ™‚

        Reply
  • Anonymous

    The thing I don’t get is religious companies. Freedom of religion is supposed to go both ways. If a company can claim religion then I don’t think any religious people can be offended by an outright atheist company who only supports atheists beliefs. I support two way streets. Yet, that’s seen as “discrimination.” Time for people to pick a side. I can’t stand people who think everything should benefit them and their way.

    Reply
    • Jess West

      The way atheists are treated by some “fair-minded” individuals and companies is atrocious. I’m not an atheist myself, but if someone doesn’t bow their head over meals because they don’t believe in God, I’m not offended. They are living their lives how they choose and that does not impact me at all. In any way. I definitely agree with your two-way street stance. If a catholic priest and an atheist are having dinner and one of them prays while the other does not, neither of them has the right to force the other to bend to his/her will. Long ago humans in general (not all) lost the knowledge necessary that would enable them to discern opinion from fact, and the wisdom to understand that what’s best for one person, or one group of people, is not necessarily best for all.

      Reply
      • Britt

        I think every belief system has individuals who are extreme and outspoken and in essence, give the ‘normal’ majority a bad rap. Also I think the media dramatizes and over-emphasizes the minority to make it appear more rampant than it really is.

        Jess, I agree, I’m not offended by any other belief another person has as long it doesn’t infringe on the rights or beliefs of another individual. Personal liberty.

        If we can strip away our need for instant news and headline driven opinions, we will all see how – dare I say, normal – most of us are and how we are completely fine with our brothers and sisters of whatever belief structure. I’m not suggesting either that folks here are in that group of instant headline driven opinions.

        FYI – as an additional addendum to the ruling…it is even more narrow than I thought. It only applies to the chemical contraceptives that would be used after conception – morning after pill variety – not standard birth control – pills or implants etc. Again, the law will provide those benefits, but closely-held companies whose ownership have a religious conflict with those specific drugs don’t have to fit the bill.

        I think that the politicians, media, and individuals who are claiming an attack on women are off base either to push an agenda or innocent ignorance. Those who claim this as a sweeping judgement for religious freedom or a victory over the Obamacare law are equally as dense.

        Makes me want to move to a private island somewhere….who’s with me!

        Reply
      • Jess West

        I say that atheists are treated atrociously because of real life experience that I’ve seen first hand. I do understand that this type of behavior isn’t the norm everywhere, but it is predominant where I live. I’m so with you on that private island. I’m done with this place.

        Reply
  • Britt

    That’s unfortunate. šŸ™ Some of my best friends are atheists. I hate seeing anyone be ostracized because of their beliefs. Unless it’s an illegal belief or causes harm to others that is. šŸ™‚

    Private island is the way to go. Hyper partisanism is driving me batty. LOL

    Reply

Leave a Reply