SCOTUS and birth control

You're missing the game behind the game, though. Like I said, it's not about birth control and never was. It's about externalizing one person's costs onto another person (or company). It's saying "I want x, but I don't want to pay for x personally. I want someone else to pay for x, for my benefit." This is about entitlement and feeling entitled to someone else's property- namely money. There are a lot of things that are "good for you" or "can be good for you" that employers don't directly pay for. Are you this disappointed that most employers don't provide prune juice or omega 3 acid supplements too? You want to talk slippery slope. What about a car? Most people who don't live in the North East region of the United States need a car if they're to get to work. Should employers pay for those as well? How about a house? Because without a house, it's hard to get a good night sleep, meaning you won't be well rested at work and your performance will suffer. And this is where the anime collection comes in. Once the employer is forced into covering the necessities, why not have them cover the extemporaneous too? Where do you draw the line in forcing companies to provide things for their employers? I'm not saying companies paying for birth control is a bad thing. Hobby Lobby isn't inherently saying that either, they're covering 16 of 20 types listed in the ACA. I think companies should be able to provide whatever services /they/ want since /they/ are the ones paying for it. It's their money, it's their benefits package. Let them decide how to organize it and what they want to support. As with most problems of this nature, the best solution is to vote with your feet. If you want to work for them, fine. If you want to patronize them, fine. If not, ok. I wasn't going to Hobby Lobby before or after the court case. I'm not a business owner, but if I was, I'd have the company set up a budget to provide Starfleet uniforms (which matching department colors and rank pips) to all of my employees, and strongly encourage "Friday Trek." But if you want to be a Romulan, Klingon, Ferengi, Borg, Jem'Hadar or Bajoran uniform you're on your own.

If it weren't for the massive hormonal disruption, I wouldn't mind having my balls removed, they are really annoying anyway.

@isaac Joule This is health insurance, not a car, not a house, not your anime collection. I honestly cannot follow your logic in that because really? It is no where near the same thing. This isn't because it's "good for you" or "can be good for you". So on that note, I'm gonna change my claim since it's not really what you're arguing about. Because yeah, that's human biology and you're not really actually responding to my original claim anyways.... Contraceptives are being covered. Government will cover where the employers leave off, but I'm saying it's a slippery slope because now we have religious businesses refusing to even let that happen. They're challenging the SCOTUS decision because now that the courts have given them legitimacy to establish religious rights for companies, they're claiming that even just signing the paper to allow an employee to receive contraceptives from the government is against their religion. That's my issue with the court decision.

But it sounds like we're just not discussing the same issue really. I originally came from a healthcare view and how they're denying healthcare but you're not and we're just arguing in circles about different things... hahaha

And when you go back to that, I go back to the ACA itself being bad law. This wouldn't be a factor if ACA wasn't passed. Now we're stuck in a post-ACA world and wouldn't you know it it sucks. Which is exactly what conservatives and republicans and libertarians and tea partiers and every economist worth their wait in salt said was going to happen. This MIGHT not have happened if the Republicans showed some backbone back in 2009 and early 2010. But instead, we had Republican Senator, and professional turtle, Mitch McConnell arguing from the stance of "We're opposed to healthcare reform because it was proposed by a Democrat and we're Republicans." all the while his fellow Republicans were trying to offer their input into ACA to make it suck less, but they were stifled. It was always going to suck though. The entire ACA only treated the symptoms and never treated the causes. I'm still opposed to the Government paying for things employers won't. Because I'm opposed to the government paying for things some people consider important but other people don't see it as important. Frankly, you've got a hard sell if you're going to try convincing me that birth control, of any type for any reason, or ED treatment, of any type, for any reason, or even asprin of any type for any reason, is of equal or greater significance or value to... anything else, really. I like using anime because it's something I personally consume. But if you're into steins or art work or cars, you can supplant that instead. It goes back to the starting point of - why can't one pay for it oneself? Why does that person have to externalize their expenses on to other people? And where does it end? What should and shouldn't be subsidized?

I mean, I really can't supplant anything else in there because like I said, hobbies don't really have an affect on irregular menses or endometriosis so maybe that's where we're getting that kind of issue. I know exactly how contraceptives, which is women's health, affects women's bodies in ways that no, you can't tell me that somehow hobbies will do the same thing. You claim you won't use the mammogram, but actually breast cancer happens in men too. Health insurances still cover prostate exams which we women don't have. This is exactly like if someone who has a chronic illness can't afford their meds, even with working and no one will help cover them. You can't exactly expect that if you can't pay for your medical treatments that you're left to your own devices. If you do then I really hope that you don't ever have any kind of medical issue because it'd be really hypocritical if you were to expect treatment you can't afford.

@Maverick It's an interesting case because in effect Isaac is right in that it's not mostly about birth control. The main outcome of the case that I'm worried about is that this is just another stamp of legitimacy that somehow companies have become able of having religious views that may not be that of the people who actually comprise of the company. According to Judge Alito's write up, he stated that religious companies would fall under the same exemption that already exists in healthcare where the government would cover the cost of contraceptions if the employer doesn't want to. Which kinda chaffs but ok, compromise. But in allowing the idea that these groups are actually individual people, they've now opened the door for these "people" to challenge the wording of the law. As such as ... I forget the name of the college, I wanna say Waller, but that's probably wrong, college to say that they refuse to even sign the forms that allow the federal (and supposedly secular) government to step in, thus effectively denying it's employees important medical services. And if it might not even just stop there at birth control (which doesn't even make sense because some of the contraceptives the sperm won't even see an egg so I don't know how that could be "life".), but also for things like vaccinations, blood transfusions, and so forth.