LA Times columnist compares HHS Mandate objections to 1960s racism
The Supreme Court is expected to decide in the next week or so whether to take up the question of whether a for-profit company can deny its female employees contraception coverage in employer-provided health plans because the company owner has a religious objection.
We’re not talking about religious institutions here. We’re talking about a secular national retailer, in this case the Hobby Lobby crafts store chain, whose owner thinks he should be able to dictate the terms of his employees’ insurance coverage because of his religious convictions.
Back in the mid-1960s, a popular South Carolina barbecue franchise called Piggie Park was sued after it refused to serve black customers for religious reasons. Its owner claimed that God taught him the races should be separate.
A federal district court wholeheartedly embraced the man’s right to practice the religion of his choice. But it said he could not use those beliefs to deny the constitutional rights of others. The Supreme Court agreed.
Will the court stand up for fairness again? At this point, that’s anyone’s guess.
~ Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times, November 20
[Photo via blacksnob.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I hate it when these newspaper writers can’t get the basic facts right. The owners of Hobby Lobby are content to include contraception in their employee insurance plan. They are suing the HHS Mandate that requires them to provide “emergency contraception,” which is a euphemism for abortifacient drugs that are taken after sex has occurred.
But there are many employers who understand that contraception is bad for women, marriages, and our culture. Some of us know this by our religion, and can therefore rightfully ask that we should be exempt from paying for contraception.
What the knucklehead reporter fails to see is this: It doesn’t matter whether we collect the women’s insurance premiums, and then hand the money back to them to buy contraception — or if we just let them pay for their own contraception. It’s the same cost, either way. Maybe even cheaper, if we skip the insurance company and their profit margin entire.
The report seems to think that covered services are the equivalent of “free stuff.” She has not yet realized that everyone’s premiums have increased more than we can bear, and it would have been cheaper to just pay for her own contraception.
Solution to all this, get a single payer healthcare plan in this country. You guys don’t have to face the horror of your employees getting meds you don’t like, and we can all pay for affordable healthcare. Win/win.
Saw on article about this on freerepublic.com. It said that applying this logic of paying for your birth control to the 2nd amendment means that everyone should be given a gun by their employer. Wouldn’t that also mean all governments even though those governments are trying to force gun control? Does the employer have to pay for the “pursuit of happiness” no matter what makes the employee happy? Thinking … thinking … thinking … and thinking again!
BTW your ACCESS to insurance does not mean that anything and everything will be covered at a price you are willing to pay.
“Birth control is a human right.”
So is food, but I don’t expect someone else to buy it for me.
Actually the comparison isn’t too far of in terms of legal rights, though far off in terms of how we treat other people. People don’t have a right to other people’s property. The court was wrong in the Piggie Park case; stupidity isn’t unconstitutional. See, once you break that barrier and start to force people to act in a certain way, it becomes much easier to force them to act in any way. We see this in this example. In the case of Piggie Park, the court forced the owner to operate his business in the same manner towards every person. In the grand scheme of things, not a big deal, we can all say the business owner was being immoral, but a customer doesn’t have a right to Mr. Piggie Park’s supply of beef until they mutually agree to sell him some. Now government claims the right to force people to purchase a product from another person against his or her will, and in this case to compel a business to provide a product they otherwise would never provide. A hobby business does not exist to provide birth control to people or even medical care, it exists to supply arts and crafts and pay wages to its employees. Hobby Lobby is asserting their right not to be forced to marginalize a class of human beings by killing them, where Mr. Piggie Park wanted to use his right to marginalize a class of human beings. We’ve come full circle. Now we have a legal system in our society where if enough people screamed loudly about it we could force vegan restaurants to supply beef or a kosher deli to sell meat lasagna. Now there is no justifiable ethical barrier when it comes to individual rights; your rights only exist if a majority sees fit to recognize it. If the majority needs to infringe on the true rights of a minority, they can do so with the blessing of the courts. Abortion is a prime example. Gone are the spheres of private and public action and the concept of rule of law, we just have a bureaucratic monstrosity that lurches from crisis to crisis and treats people as cogs in the machinery of state. The best analogy here would be the government forcing Mr. Piggie Park to refuse service to people (the unborn).
birth control is a matter of taking drugs for a desired lifestyle. they do not prevent disease, like vaccinations do, and they do not treat disease, like an appendectomy or heart bypass does.
birth control is taken for the purpose of being able to have sex in a certain style – when you want and without having to worry so much about the likelihood of pregnancy being a result. you can live very well without birth control pills. they have only been available since 1960, and somehow we survived up to 1960.
humans of all socio-economic classes get the money to do a range of things for aesthetic and cosmetic purposes including hair color, make-up, tattoos, and cosmetic surgery. that is what we value, and what we do. nose jobs, buttock lifts, fake pecs, and all.
just because cosmetic surgery is done in a hospital with scalpels does not make it healthcare.
just because birth control pills get prescribed by a doc does not make it healthcare. healthcare is to prevent and treat illness and disability.
the birth control advocates have a line of research devoted to figuring out how birth is a health risk. they study how more frequent deliveries raises the risk for other health problems.
they need talking points like this to claim a medical reason for birth control. this is because they know it is a losing battle to argue that birth control is healthcare.
right now, everybody believes it is, and smart people are willing to let this falsehood carry on.
“So is food, but I don’t expect someone else to buy it for me. ”
I think people don’t understand what rights are if they think that birth control is a right, or at least they are defining rights differently. I consider things that sustain life a right, and that in a civilized, well-off society like ours there is no need for someone to go without if something unfortunate happens We SHOULD feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for those who cannot afford it.
But I don’t understand why birth control would be a “right” in anyone’s mind, on the level of necessities? Condoms you can get free all over the US at county health clinics and other non-profits. People who need birth control for medical reasons should have access to it, but for the vast majority it’s a choice. I am fine with birth control being made accessible and affordable, but it’s not a “right”.
I suppose I’d question what is reasonable.
If somebody who doesnt’ believe in blood transfusions owns a business, can they deny their employees that?
What if a business owner is very anti population growth, and says that the company shouldn’t have to cover maternity/birth coverage.
One more reason we need to get employers out of health care quite frankly. Kills the competitiveness of American companies – hurts employee raises – just a mess.
Birth control is your right that legally no one else has to support. I will compare it to a car. Is it my right to have a car so that I can get places? Most of you will tell me to catch a bus I am sure.
Insurance plans are there to cover life-threatening conditions and medical treatment to that end. Pregnancy is not a life-threatening condition. Is there any insurarance plan that will cover sex without consequences? Imagine those premiums, haha. This is a no brainer for the SCOTUS.
Yikes Thomas – so you don’t think maternity care should be covered?
Birth control Ex or did I write that in Cyrillic? I guess you have not yet gotten used to the way I express myself. I blame it all on my Eastern European roots. :)
Sorry Thomas – when you said Pregnancy is not life-threatening, and medical insurance is for life-threatening things, I thought that logically you were saying pregnancy shouldn’t be covered.
Good call in bailing on that other thread – when you start arguing that health care reform will go away when it doesn’t get renewed…well, that’s a good time to bail on the conversation!
I never bail-out Ex, I just get caught up in life. But anyway – As I said before I am always a proponent of the message and not the way it is delivered. You seem to get hung up on the choice of words I use instead of the simple fact that O and his minions have dismissed the voice of the American people. BTW, have you noticed lately that I am using the phrase “the American people” as often on this blog as O himself during various public speeches of his? The only question is who is more genuine, but the polls should give you a clue…
Thomas –
Ha – I literally laughed out loud. That’s great:
Thomas: Obamacare willl go away.
Me: Really? I mean, how do you see that happening given Obama is in office until 2016, and repealing a law in place will mean taking away the popular items
Thomas: It will just expire and not be renewed?
Me: Seriously, did you know that it doesn’t expire so that isnt an option?
Thomas: It really isn’t my words that count – see, it is just the feeling of it all. So when I say that it will go away, I just mean that people don’t like it.
Lovely Thomas – post of the day. Post of the week even. Maybe post of the month. Can I use that one?
“It’s not really what I say – I don’t feel the need to back it up with anything practical, but let me just talk about something somewhat related”.
That’s awesome.
Jack: Solution to all this, get a single payer healthcare plan in this country.
Totally agree, Jack. I shudder to think about the cost of healthcare in the future, and that’s a deal that has worked well in some other places.
I appreciate your support Ex, thanks. I reserve laughing the loudest in 2016 however. I have most confidence in the power of the people Ex, something you will learn to appreciate as well…
Yes Thomas – there will be an election in 2016 – and those same questions I posted earlier will remain – how will the GOP approach repealing a law in which they don’t have a credible alternative? Will they just repeal it and turn millions of people into uninsured Americans? Will they call it the “let’s bring back pre-existing conditions act”?
But let’s not worry about logic, facts, and plans – I mean, you go with ‘feelings’!
I guess we won’t put you in the column of folks able to criticize Americans for getting swept up in the Hope and Change rhetoric – that vagueness seems right up your ally!
Last I checked individuals who will have grandfathered insurance plans can be refused for pre-existing conditions. The exception only refers to employer-covered and ACA. So those that choose to maintain their own are without luck.
And how many enrolled thus far in ACA vs. how many chose to remain with their own plan since that “you can keep your doctor” promise backfired? The numbers of enrollees are so low, the government will go broke on this “investment” Ex. What’s more the pre-existing condition clause will not go away for those Americans.
The alternative was always there. In case you have not paid attention, the premiums under ACA are comparable. Do you think that those who were not able to afford insurance before the ACA, will be able to afford the ACA alternative now. Oh but I forgot, O directed the IRS to penalize you nonetheless.
Thomas R – Should I answer specifically, or vaguely? I answer specifically – I’ll leave the fluffy nothing answers to you:
Pre-existing conditions and grandfathered plans – There was a grace period for grandfathered plans – but that ends in the next year i believe. That’s a bit of weird question though – if a person already has insurance, they can’t be denied buying insurance for a pre-existing condition. I think what you mean is, that grandfathered plans exist that people with pre-existing conditions can’t sign up for. That’s true, but ending – and all new group plans have to allow those with pre-existing conditions.
I’ve answered question number 1 for you – so I’ll ask you one directly – if health care reform is repealed, as you wish, do you feel the GOP must replace it with a plan that deals with pre-existing conditions, or are you okay with that discrimination coming back?
Question 2- I don’t work in a job that gives me all of the figures or anything. It sounds like enrollment is following what happened in Romneycare, which is a slow trickle that is starting to grow. The ‘death spiral’, which you speak about – has existed for years and the hope is that enough young people will jump on board to spread out costs. You are wrong in a couple of things. The government won’t go broke – health insurance prices will just rise faster than people hope – the government doesn’t fund a guarantee of profit or anything like that. On your statement on pre-existing conditions – again, what are you contending? That people with pre-existing conditions already are on plans and could get kicked off? I don’t understand what you are contending here.
I’ll tie your last statement to my second question – what alternative do you support? What specific plan would like you to stick up for?
But yes, many, many people who couldn’t afford insurance can afford it now. Have you seen how low the prices are for some Americans? And the medicaid expansion covers millions more.
As it is insurance plans have been accepting pre-existing conditions for some years now. There was a change for HMO and PPO some years back. The only difference is that these individuals have been paying higher premiums than your average Joe. Do you think that those that have pre-existing conditions need to pay the same premiums as those who do not have any? How many providers would be able to ensure quality healthcare on the cheap. I doubt that pre-existing conditions will end up being afforded the same status under ACA that you seem to think they deserve..
Oh yes Ex, I forgot to address medicaid expansion. It is not mandatory for any doctor to accept medicaid patients and they do not due to the severe mismanagement and low reimbursement for which the wait time varies anywhere btw 5 - 9 months.
Also clicking on the link below will answer some of the concerns you avoided to ask me about:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/11/25/when-will-the-government-start-forcing-doctors-to-see-obamacare-patients/
In particular I like this line:
“Why are doctors increasingly rejecting Medicare and Medicaid patients? Low government reimbursement rates. And that is where Obamacare comes in. News stories are already emerging that doctors will be paid significantly less for treating Obamacare patients than they would make from non-Obamacare private insurance, and perhaps even Medicare.”
First of all, I feel a bit rude answering questions before you’ve gotten to the direct questions I’ve asked – but I’ll make an exception this once, and wait on your replies.
Many people with pre-existing conditions have had insurance, yes. But many have been denied insurance and not been covered. I believe they should not have to pay a higher premium (that is the answer to your direct question). Now could you get to my question on pre-existing conditions? I also wonder, should they pay more? For instance, if a married couple find out their child is going to be born with down syndrome, do you think that families rates should automatically hike once the baby is born?
On your second post. What questions did I avoid? Please let me know. Anyway – yes, some doctors don’t accept medicaid patients. Some don’t accept new patients at all. I suppose I’m wondering what your point is? You seemed to be making the case that more people weren’t insured – are you now saying that more people have health care, they just don’t have a guarantee of a doctor? Is that your case? Or that we pay doctors too little for medicaid, and we should raise rates? Is that your point?
As I stated Ex, pre-existing conditions can be considered as part of any plan but I do think that somewhat of a higher premium is in order. Medical groups are going bankrupt all over the country due to, you know, costs up and reimbursement down.
As far as using down syndrome as an example, is misplaced. Would it be more appropriate for you to use, say – congenital heart defects? A pre-born baby with down syndrome develops just fine into a baby that has absolutely nothing wrong with him/her, on the other hand a pre-born with CHD requires highly-skilled and specialized prenatal care and monitoring that continues after birth. Comparing the costs is in order.