HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Question about the SCOTUS...

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:35 AM

Question about the SCOTUS decision on Hobby Lobby

Does the court's ruling address, in any way, whether Hobby Lobby's employee insurance will cover vasectomy or Viagra? Or does the decision impact only female employees?

18 replies, 1448 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:35 AM

1. Only female employees I believe

Did the Hobby Lobby's insurance cover Vasectomy and viagra?

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:17 AM

13. And wives of male employees. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:26 AM

15. And female offspring that are still on parent's policy until age 26.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lars39 (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:32 AM

16. And is the group that needs coverage the most.

Avoiding pregnancy while finishing education or getting a career established is fundamental to avoiding greater risk for poverty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:34 AM

17. Indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:39 AM

2. Only female employees from everything I see

But then, why would they want to impact male employees? This is all about making women do what they want them to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:40 AM

3. My question: can a "Closely held" Buddhist company forbid any medical treatment tested on animals?

Get ready for a tidal wave of worms.

(from the open can)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:44 AM

7. Per Scotusblog

The decision is only for contaception and can't include other medical treatments. Very Bush v Gore. I wonder if /when that will be challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:44 AM

8. Appears not. They can only forbid stuff the SCOTUS doesn't like

From Scotus blog:

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014?Page=2#sthash.uEXdNi2n.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:15 AM

12. So anything that MEN might also

need is exempt. What a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:49 PM

18. Yeah, I noticed that. If anybody wonders what this is all about, that's

all you need to look at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:42 AM

4. Only female employees' contraception

It appears. Nothing discriminatory about that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:42 AM

5. No

but that is actually because there is no requirement to cover vasectomies in the ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:43 AM

6. Not answered in the case.

 

The idiots on the right either have no clue or simply do not care about the can of worms they just opened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:45 AM

9. Can the ACA somehow just provide birth control to anyone who wants it, outside of private

 

insurance? Maybe what is need is a beefed-up national network of free clinics for this sort of thing, staffed by doctors who can work off some of the student loans they carry, or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:23 AM

14. The decision appears to say so, but of course, congress will block it

One of the rationale, as I read the interpretation on SCOTUSblog, was that the government could pay for the contraception, thus making the mandate not the least restrictive way to provide it.

But that's irrelevant given this congress, who will block funding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:46 AM

10. Think woman need equal representation in Congress, or the court?

It appears to be heavily slanted into "We hate Woman" batsh* crazy decision file. Right next to the abortion one from last week. This is just a wow I can't believe they decided this book.

Democrats should RUN ON THIS ISSUE!!
The court hates woman, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:50 AM

11. If republicans want a free market fight

Lets not shop or buy from any company
that does not support women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread