Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says (Page 5)

For cancer patients they already are.

only breast cancer patients.  discrimination!

I can live with that.  Get basic health insurance out of having anything to do with employers or employment (where it makes no sense) and make it single payer.  Think Medicare for all.  Companies get to lower costs so they can be more competitive with their inernational-based competition and not deal with something that has nothing to do with their "business".  

Issue solved!

I think birth control should be free for everyone. And someone who makes more money than me should pay for it.

Once upon a time, insurance was to protect you from the financial hardship of a catastrophic event - something that would bankrupt you or at least cause great hardship. Now people want everything to be covered.

Simple economics: health insurance companies are going to make a profit, or they won't stay in business. If they have to cover the cost of a medication, they will raise their premiums to offset that cost. So if you want health insurance to cover routine maintenance drugs, like birth control, your premiums will go up by the cost of the drug. Actually, a little more, due to the adminstrative costs of processing the claim.

Alternatively, forcing employers to pick up the tab means they have to pay lower salaries.

My point is that someone has to pay for it - why should it be anyone other than the person using it?

PCOS CAN be life threatening if you develop lots of ovarian cysts and they rupture.

Just because we've put up with the pain doesn't mean people should have to.  People lived with cancer, too.  Does that mean we shouldn't bother treating it?

I get that you don't want to use BC.  That's fine. But you are presenting wrong information to say that the ONLY reason to use BC is to not get pregnant.  That's not true.  One wouldn't have to treat these conditions in using BC, but they often are.

True why shouldn't a skin cancer person not be able to get some fake un's

Here's the text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here's the part that pertains to this issue (my bold):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The freedom of religion is more than the right to pray privately in one's home or church/synagogue/mosque. It extends as well out into the world.  

It is unjust to force a Catholic hospital or University for example to provide contraception and abortion, since it is clearly a violation of the conscience of Catholics who come together and form these institutions.

It is unjust to force an individual Quaker to take up arms when it is clearly a violation of their religiously formed conscience.

From the OP linked article:

"It is in the best interest of the public that Monaghan not be compelled to act in conflict with his religious beliefs," Zatkoff wrote.

Monaghan is a Roman Catholic and said in his suit that he considers contraception a "gravely immoral" practice. He offers employees health insurance that excludes coverage for contraception and abortion.

Even if you don't agree with these teachings on contraception, and I know most of you don't, please stand up and support the 1st amendment especially as it regards religious freedom.  This issue isn't going away. It will continue to come up.

Yeah, I do know.  I had a doctor suggest I have the surgery for endometriosis because my periods are so bad.  He also pushed and pushed for me to take BC and I flat out refused. 

My problem with people saying you can use BC for "medical reasons" is that 99.9% of the people who "say" they are taking it for medical reasons are really taking it for convenience.  Are there going to be the handful of people that aren't using it to prevent pregnancy and have 3-4 week long periods or endometriosis that could benefit from it?  Yes.  There are.  But unfortunately the other 99.9% of the population is taking it for convenience because they can't handle a "normal" period and want none or extremely light.  And they'll use that as an excuse to get it for what they ACTUALLY probably want it for...to prevent pregnancy (i.e. Get all the perks and none of the consequences).

I'm sorry, are you a woman and/or do you have periods?
If not, I don't think you're qualified to comment and your opinions have zero value.

/not sure this should be in sarc font

Well said. :D  I'm tired of people trying to use the first amendment to squash religion...

Understandable.  I totally understand (and agree with) Don's point about protecting the First Amendment whether or not agree with what's being done.  I would prefer if it were covered, but I understand that they have a right not to.

According to the logic in the other thread, not a chance.

I'm with Artemis. Luckily BC can be found fairly low cost for those who want it.

I just wonder how your own religious views that become company policy will affect the company.  I get your right to believe it - it just might not make competitive sense if the groups you hope to employ see these as valuable benefits and might choose other opportunities or leave as a result. I am constantly hearing about skilled labour shortages, demographic shifts - especially with women being now such a high percentage of college and advanced degree graduates with said skills.  While it may not be a huge cost people often move jobs for better benefits or even the perception of it.  

Though i posted this earlier and i think it's worth repeating - Us Canadians had a prime minister who put it very well many moons ago: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation " (Pierre Trudeau) and I think employers would go a long way if they adopted that attitude too. 

And I'm tired of people trying to use the cry of "religious liberty" to push their beliefs on others.  You don't want to use it, that's fine, but why are you so bothered if other people who do not share your beliefs want to choose differently.  Where is the protection of their "religious liberty" to believe in something different than you?

I don't care if people use it as long as they are paying for it themselves so that the premiums of people morally opposed to it do not increase because of it.  Knock yourselves out, use it all day long...just don't force me to help pay for it.  I am merely pointing out that the "it can be used for other medical conditions" is 99.9% abused as an argument.

The argument of "Well, then, I shouldn't have to pay for it" is ridiculous.

I've never had cancer, broken a bone, had any kind of surgery (appendix removal, etc), or suffered health effects from smoking, poor diet, etc.    I probably average 1 trip to the doctor/year beyond my normal health exam, usually for something like acne (go biannually) or something like a bladder infection, which has a really simple test and resolution.    So, why do I have to pay for everyone else's...  (pregnancies, broken bones, bypass surgeries, etc)?  Because that's how group insurance works.

Also, there should be an allowance for different uses of a drug.   This is in place for other things.  In order to fill my Rx for an acne medication, the doctor must confirm the use is for acne.   It can be used cosmetically for wrinkles and the insurance plans will not pay for that.   A kind Christian person should understand that someone may need a drug for medical reasons.  If they object to birth control, fine, but there should be allowances for those needing it for other reasons.

I don't think it's crazy to except someone would want a drug to improve the quality of their life.  Would you deny me acne medication?  Not really "necessary", but no one argues me filling that Rx with my affordable insurance copay.

Just a few thoughts.  Again, I don't object to a company owner making some decisions about how the insurance health care dollars should be spent.   It's the silly arguments I object to.

Take the case of the Quaker CO again.

Let's say there is a war that requires a draft.  It's legitimate for the federal government to draft and compel citizens to take up arms.

I doubt a Catholic could persuasively argue for CO status citing religious beliefs. It's not supported by our teaching.

A Quaker however can. Right or wrong, it is a deeply held belief supported by a long history of sober consideration within Quakerism.

In that case, the Quaker is not contributing to what the rest of us would probably agree is the legitimate national defense.  Therefore, is he imposing his religion on the rest of us?  

EXCELLENT POST

Would you have gotten CO status except that the Quaker stepped in and said it was against his religious beliefs to give it to you?