Hobby Lobby

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Dnpgopenguins

Except for medical conditions that require you to take BC, or it you have a dependent who wants to take BC maybe for a medical condition.

Exactly. I have a couple friends who were prescribed birth control for other conditions. One of them has an IUD for PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). Another was prescribed birth control pills for acne**. If the pill didn't cause extreme side effects for me, I would have continued taking them for just that reason; my skin had never looked better!

**I know that the Hobby Lobby case doesn't involve BC pills, but if this passes, you can bet other companies will probably try to exclude coverage for those as well.

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

It's pretty troubling that Hobby Lobby getting a lot of political sympathy in part because they're framing the disputed medications as abortifacients instead of contraceptives. OBGYNs say that they aren't abortifacients, but Hobby Lobby says that they can decide biochemical questions according to their religious faith. According to their argument, if an employer decided that ibuprofen is an abortifacient, motivated by sincerely held religious belief, then they can refuse to cover it.

I cannot wait for the case where an employer says they'll only cover maternity care for married women. It's coming.

Or the case where a company won't cover treatment for AIDS, because that's a "gay disease." The possibilities are endless… and outrageous.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm really interested in the turnout, though I am a bit worried as well. I think it's very dangerous to give corporations the right to exercise religious freedom. For one thing, who's beliefs are being applied? It allows potentially one person to discriminate against who knows how people, because the person with more money obviously has a greater interest in freedom of religion then those without.

This is what I keep wondering. Let's pretend it's the CEO. What happens when a new CEO takes over and they want to cover these forms of birth control? And let's say 10 years later, another CEO comes in and refuses to cover them all over again?

People can say, "speak with your feet," or whatever, but what happens when you go to a new company and they implement a similar restriction? Or maybe they win a case where they can refuse treatment for some other medication that you need?

If this passes, the court system is going to overflow with desired exceptions from companies.

[Dnpgopenguins]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Exactly. I have a couple friends who were prescribed birth control for other conditions. One of them has an IUD for PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). Another was prescribed birth control pills for acne**. If the pill didn't cause extreme side effects for me, I would have continued taking them for just that reason; my skin had never looked better!

**I know that the Hobby Lobby case doesn't involve BC pills, but if this passes, you can bet other companies will probably try to exclude coverage for those as well.

I actually just realized this. However, where I am from there are a lot of local businesses that are unwilling to pay for BC regardless of what it is used for, IE to prevent pregnancies or to treat PCOS. Have PCOS I am a little angry that I have to make choices where to work based on if i can afford my medical treatment. This is actually a concern that I am considering when thinking about transferring to a 4 yr school. IE if i stay in state my state health insurance is good to go, if i leave the state I am not sure if I will be able to afford my meds. Or i might just go to school in the UK and not have to worry about any of this.


Or the case where a company won't cover treatment for AIDS, because that's a "gay disease." The possibilities are endless… and outrageous.

When talking to people about this issue I like to bring up something that is relevant, like treatment of cancer. What if a company has to right to say, oh well Breast cancer is less likely in women who don't smoke, exercise regularly, ect. So, because of this it is my personal belief that women can control if they get cancer (yeah I know people who think this) so my company is not going to pay for breast cancer treatment. Well, I don't think a lot of people are going to like that. In my opinion it is the same thing. Companies should not be able to pick and choose which illnesses they pay for because of their own personal beliefs.

This is what I keep wondering. Let's pretend it's the CEO. What happens when a new CEO takes over and they want to cover these forms of birth control? And let's say 10 years later, another CEO comes in and refuses to cover them all over again?

People can say, "speak with your feet," or whatever, but what happens when you go to a new company and they implement a similar restriction? Or maybe they win a case where they can refuse treatment for some other medication that you need?

If this passes, the court system is going to overflow with desired exceptions from companies.

As other people have mentioned it all boils down to the ability to leave. Growing up in a small town it is very difficult to change jobs. I encountered the problem with the sentiment, "oh if you quite your current job to come work here, how do we know you are not going to quite this job to go work somewhere else?" Yeah, i was stuck in a job that i hated for too long because of this. I was lucky that I found a job in the a near by bigger city that was fine with me commuting, but it was not easy. I really don't understand why people have these thoughts. Is it cause their life is perfect and they have never had to deal with a situation like this?

IDK, I am just venting.
DNP