Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Monday, June 30, 2014 6:20pm

Four years after treating corporations as people and triggering a flood of unlimited political contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time Monday that some corporations can cite religious beliefs and avoid providing health insurance coverage for contraception. The court's 5-4 decision is as bad for women and their right to choose how and when they use birth control as the earlier court opinion was for the political system. It allows the owners of for-profit corporations to impose their religious views on their employees, and it opens the door for further discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.

More: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-discrimination-under-guise-of-religious-liberty/2186614

Actually all this does is it means that small/family business owners don't have to pay out of pocket for a $9-a-month pill that violates their religious liberty. The employees are in no way restricted from buying their own abortifacients, perhaps with the increase in wages they'll get from not having this covered under company health insurance. Or, the government could provide it for free from everyone's taxes (as suggested in the Court's ruling).

Folks get the facts in this case so very wrong so often - isn't it about time the opposition started at least stating the facts instead of a fabrication that better supports their case?

A state insurance regulation that says that ALL health insurance policies in the state must include this coverage does sort of put a pothole in this though. When the basic company does not have the requirement to provide the language of coverage in their health insurance policy, but the Insurance company must cover it by state law.....!!!!  SCOTUS did not enjoin the states from making those regulations from what I could see in this opinion.  I have not seen this company in my state by the way.

I see no problem with the facts being presented Zoe. In fact neither did one of the Judges who dissented and wrote something which quite specifically agrees with that.

Just because the ruling was stated as having no baring on other judgements, does not mean that it will have no other further implications. It sets a president, and that is important in law. It will likely not be long until others are using the legal president to challenge the provision of blood transfusions, or perhaps of any capsulised tablet at all.

Its not right to say that it violates their religious liberties anymore than a domestic abuser of his wife or man who sells his daughters into involuntary servitude could say that not being allowed to practice these violates their religious liberties.

I think it is very naive to suggest that they will raise wages because of this ruling and for those on their lowest pay rung, it will result in them foisting their religious beliefs on others.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 01, 2014, 11:19:56 AM
I see no problem with the facts being presented Zoe. In fact neither did one of the Judges who dissented and wrote something which quite specifically agrees with that.

Just because the ruling was stated as having no baring on other judgements, does not mean that it will have no other further implications. It sets a president, and that is important in law. It will likely not be long until others are using the legal president to challenge the provision of blood transfusions, or perhaps of any capsulised tablet at all.

Its not right to say that it violates their religious liberties anymore than a domestic abuser of his wife or man who sells his daughters into involuntary servitude could say that not being allowed to practice these violates their religious liberties.

I think it is very naive to suggest that they will raise wages because of this ruling and for those on their lowest pay rung, it will result in them foisting their religious beliefs on others.

Their lowest full time pay rung is twice minimum wage.
And I see no similarity between being forced to pay for abortifacients and slavery. The bar at which religious liberty is superseded is much higher than "being forced to provide free abortion drugs". (Never mind, of course, that Hobby Lobby already willingly paid for sixteen different types of contraceptive that don't kill fertilized embryos...)

The connection between the provision of contraceptives and restrictions on involuntary servitude is that they both go against certain religions and if one can be exempt from laws on the basis of religion, then there are conflicts between church and state in other places in which religious freedoms could be seen to be impinged and further exemptions can be made.  I don't envisage a situation where these things change, but where does one draw the line? Why not exempt the jewish businesses from allowing blood transfusions and the hindi businesses from providing capsulated medication?

Regarding the fact that there are contraceptives that they do find acceptable, it should not be for an employer to provide a list of health-care medicines or procedures that they approve of at all.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 01, 2014, 11:34:43 AM
The connection between the provision of contraceptives and restrictions on involuntary servitude is that they both go against certain religions and if one can be exempt from laws on the basis of religion, then there are conflicts between church and state in other places in which religious freedoms could be seen to be impinged and further exemptions can be made.  I don't envisage a situation where these things change, but where does one draw the line? Why not exempt the jewish businesses from allowing blood transfusions and the hindi businesses from providing capsulated medication?

Regarding the fact that there are contraceptives that they do find acceptable, it should not be for an employer to provide a list of health-care medicines or procedures that they approve of at all.

One of them is universally immoral. One of them is only considered immoral by half the country at best, and the opposition is unconstitutional to boot. (Seriously - a tax? >_> )

You draw the line where morality and freedom meet. That line is not here.

The way I see it is medical treatment is a subject that lies between the doctor and the patient, its a subject that an employer has no business interfering with. Medical professionals have a career in prescribing treatment because they are sufficiently informed on the subject of medical science. Employers however are not sufficiently informed in the field of medical science and therefore have no business imposing their views on their employees.

Disagreements with various medical practices should be debated over on the level of scientific research,  not on the level of treatment. Obstructing someone's right to free access to commonly accepted forms of treatment is discrimination and it affects the individuals freedom of choice and action.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 11:51:05 AM
The way I see it is medical treatment is a subject that lies between the doctor and the patient, its a subject that an employer has no business interfering with. Medical professionals have a career in prescribing treatment because they are sufficiently informed on the subject of medical science. Employers however are not sufficiently informed in the field of medical science and therefore have no business imposing their views on their employees.

By that logic anything medical a doctor asks for, the employer has an obligation to cover, no questions asked.
Which is unconstitutional.
The employer may not forbid any sort of treatment for his employees. But neither may he be compelled to pay for it.

Medical doctors have a code of practice that is governed by the scientific practice. If the medical scientific community concludes that a specific treatment is a humane effective treatment to solve a problem, it is indeed the duty of health insurance to cover the treatment.

As I said, any disagreements are to be fought for on the level of the scientific practice of research and experimentation.

The purpose of insurance is to fund treatment, not prescribe treatment.

If you have a moral objection of practices used, the correct pathway to make your view heard is by getting involved in the scientific profession that endlessly seeks to expand understanding, not to create roadblocks in the way of people accessing treatment.

Quote from: ZoeM on July 01, 2014, 11:40:06 AM
One of them is universally immoral. One of them is only considered immoral by half the country at best, and the opposition is unconstitutional to boot. (Seriously - a tax? >_> )

You draw the line where morality and freedom meet. That line is not here.

Sorry, but there is no universal immorality against involuntary servitude, otherwise it would not be being practiced and it is. The problem is morals are a personal thing and the government defines the moral stance of its people. It has and has decided that the contraceptives are OK may be bought sold and consumed.

There can be no 'meeting of morals and freedom' as there are too many people with different morals. The governments morals find these contraceptives, encapsulated medication, blood transfusions, etc. to be OK and slavery and domestic violence to be not OK. It is not the place of any individual, company or religion to redefine how law applies to it on the basis of what they find OK.

*That* is the point.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 12:00:28 PM
The purpose of insurance is to fund treatment, not prescribe treatment.

Exactly.

People forget this,

Yes you have personal freedom, however your personal freedom must not get in the way of anyone else's personal freedom. Freedom such as basic human rights to access to services, healthcare, education, sustenance and shelter.

As a service provider, you have a duty to provide services to human beings, not to discriminatiate against people you dont like. Such segregation is how situations like apartheid and Nazi Germany come to be, its a slippery slope to a very dark place.

Just as the bible has no place in scientific education, religious faith based beliefs have no place in the prescription and application of medical science. Unless there is something tangible that can be studied and assessed faith based beliefs and science are irreconcilable.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 12:10:06 PM
People forget this,

Yes you have personal freedom, however your personal freedom must not get in the way of anyone else's personal freedom. Freedom such as basic human rights to access to services, healthcare, education, sustenance and shelter.

How is any of this a basic human right? Food, housing, education, healthcare and "services", whatever those are. That's not a basic human right by any stretch of the imagination. Personal freedom, lmao. What does that mean when you expect me to provide all of those "basic human rights" at my expense? What else is a basic human right? Phones, Water, electricity, internet, computers, tv, etc.? Your entire argument is flawed. Your claim to "basic human rights that must not get in the way of anyone else freedom" is entirely fallible. The very premise is that I have no personal freedom because I must provide X amount of services to other people who won't/don't provide it for themselves. Ridiculous. These guaranteed freedoms are exactly what leeds to your slippery slope.

QuoteAs a service provider, you have a duty to provide services to human beings, not to discriminatiate against people you dont like. Such segregation is how situations like apartheid and Nazi Germany come to be, its a slippery slope to a very dark place.

Everyone knows you've lost the argument when you invoke Nazi's lol.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 01, 2014, 12:07:30 PM
Exactly.

Not really. The purpose of insurance is to protect against unknown variables. Like car insurance is to protect against liability and damages in case of an accident. Or home insurance in case of a fire. It's not to provide free oil changes, tire rotations and BBQ's.

A quote from the universal declaration of human rights

Quote
Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests


Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

...

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 12:00:28 PM
Medical doctors have a code of practice that is governed by the scientific practice. If the medical scientific community concludes that a specific treatment is a humane effective treatment to solve a problem, it is indeed the duty of health insurance to cover the treatment.

No they don't. Go read the Hippocratic Oath some time.

"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

The fact is that dr.'s have for centuries used their own personal and moral codes. They are not obligated or bound by whatever "duty" you assign to them. They are not machines or servants.

QuoteAs I said, any disagreements are to be fought for on the level of the scientific practice of research and experimentation.

That's not really for you to decide. I know you don't want to accept that, but it is the reality.

QuoteThe purpose of insurance is to fund treatment, not prescribe treatment.

If you have a moral objection of practices used, the correct pathway to make your view heard is by getting involved in the scientific profession that endlessly seeks to expand understanding, not to create roadblocks in the way of people accessing treatment.

If you have a moral objection of something, then you have a moral objection to something. Trying to twist science to meet your agenda only corrupts science. Here is my moral objection. Killing an innocent baby is immoral. Defending infanticide is immoral. Engaging recklessly in behavior that has known consequences is immoral. Expecting a right to have other people pay for your stuff is immoral. The 57,000,000 abortions since Roe V Wade is immoral. Using leaches, electroshock therapy and trepanning is immoral, even though "Science" at one point deemed it absolute. Get the point?

Regardless of your opinions, there are specific pathways established to make your point heard, and that is directly engaging in the scientific process of study, research and experimentation. And in extension to that, visiting conventions, debates to engage in the discussion of the various subjects that concern you.

The incorrect pathway to deal with it however is through directly interfering with peoples freedom of choice and self determination at the point of prescription.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 12:57:35 PM
A quote from the universal declaration of human rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I could die laughing right now. A typical useless, worthless and ridiculous document from of the UN.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 01:17:20 PM
Regardless of your opinions, there are specific pathways established to make your point heard, and that is directly engaging in the scientific process of study, research and experimentation.

No, it's not. You're just basically subscribing to a religion of science and blindly following it without any critical thought or analysis, and then substituting any principles or morality you might have for somebody else's because "science told me to."

I think this topic has gone far enough. Locked before this gets out of hand.