<p>The hobby lobby decision doesn’t apply to birth control pills, just IUDs and a couple of other forms of contraception.</p>
<p>For now… when they figure out that a woman can get birth control pills and take enough of them at once to act as the morning after pill, then I bet they will come up with a religious objection. The woman who needs an IUD for any reason, is still out of luck (and out of money). </p>
<p>Hobby Lobby may be a nothingburger case compared to this one. Look for a decision in the coming days from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
<a href=“Op-Ed: Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare”>http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html</a></p>
<p>greenwitch… have you actually read what the case is about and what the rulings apply to?</p>
<p>Seems like you have not.</p>
<p>If the govt wants to pass out IUD’s they really don’t need Hobby Lobby to do it. That’s why they lost. No compelling interest. </p>
<p>Greenwitch, a year ago, mirena was list priced at our gyn at closer to 1k. I think the insurer’s negotiated price including the follow-up was $125. There’s a discrepancy, yeah.</p>
<p>“that Georgetown Law chick” strikes me, at least, as dismissive. I was assuming you are female, cat?</p>
<p>That you find it ‘dismissive’ might not be important to anyone other than yourself, LF. </p>
<p>
Why would my gender matter, btw?</p>
<p>
I’ll confess I haven’t followed it closely enough to be aware it was limited to abortifacients… thanks, CF.</p>
<p>Cat- and so has gone this entire thread. I am left to assume you find “chick” an acceptable term, perhaps you feel it informs us- of something or other. So be it.</p>
<p>Public service announcement: The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It works by preventing ovulation. That’s why a rape victim should take it right away; if she ovulates after the rape and before taking the drug, she’s probably going to get pregnant.</p>
<p>So if you know a young woman who has had unprotected sex and wants to prevent pregnancy, suggest that she get the morning-after pill RIGHT NOW.</p>
<p>IUD’s are not abortifacients either. </p>
<p>abortifacients was a poor choice of words, CF, but:
</p>
<p>And, yep - It’s always puzzled me that the off-label usage of birth control pills is still news to so many people.</p>
<p>If you’ll post a link to what you consider acceptable synonyms, lookingforward, I’ll promise to peruse it.</p>
<p>May very well save me from another scolding.</p>
<p>The key words are “according to their religious beliefs” so even if the scientific evidence is not conclusive, or even if it is conclusive that their religious beliefs are mistaken about these drugs and devices, they are still allowed to exclude them. </p>
<p>Along with the info on the morning after pill, there are several places online to find out specifically what to do if you forget to take one or more birth controls at different times. Could be important!</p>
<p>“If the govt wants to pass out IUD’s they really don’t need Hobby Lobby to do it.” </p>
<p>I am all for the gov’t paying for any of these contraceptives, as long as I don’t have to hear people whining that their tax dollars are paying for them. </p>
<p>Gosh, eb, that sounds an awful lot like the option which must not be named. </p>
<p>I haven’t read the ruling but I understand it contains the term “sincerely held religious belief.” If so, did the court give any guidance about how we are to determine that? </p>
<p>For Canada Day, I just want to celebrate the fact that GoldenPooch and I finally agree on something: decoupling insurance from employment entirely! Hear hear!</p>
<p>The Supreme Court ruling certainly gives rise to the argument. What I found most interesting was the shocked “Canada Day” commentary on my facebook roundup today, citing collective incredulity at the ruling 
I think it was good for my former compatriots to take a moment to be grateful for what they have!</p>
<p>If Hobby Lobby were not such a bastion of wage slaves to begin with, I’d love to see a longitudinal study of their healthcare costs over the next two decades. Those unwanted pregnancy bills and young family plans ought to create an interesting pool But hey, they’ll just drop those ones to part-time anyway…</p>
<p>LasMa. 
</p>
<p>“sincerely held religious belief.”</p>
<p>Definition: Anything that will save me money and screw my employees in the process. </p>
<p>Birth control wasn’t always covered by insurance.<br>
The religious arguments against bc that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting run far back.
And I think this ruling is full of holes.</p>
<p>“Birth control wasn’t always covered by insurance.”</p>
<p>That’s why it’s one of the mandated benefits under ACA. </p>
<p>NYTimes Editorial Board’s opinion piece:</p>
<p><a href=“Opinion | Limiting Rights: Imposing Religion on Workers - The New York Times”>Opinion | Limiting Rights: Imposing Religion on Workers - The New York Times;