<p>Emily - No, I think they are part of a coalition making a point about religious freedom which is a very real and interesting question. I mean, as you said they previously covered this stuff so it’s not as much about birth control as it is a reaction to what they see as a governmental over-reach. It’s a test. That’s just my opinion, but that’s what I think is going on here. And, I think it will be a very close call.</p>
<p>Gotcha, So Hobby Lobby’s reason - that it is against their religion - is just a ruse. </p>
<p>It’s a test of the principle of religious freedom. I doubt the Supreme Court would have even taken the case if they didn’t see it that way, as well. Nobody has mandated free blood transfusions for all but if that happens it would not be at all shocking to see JW objections.</p>
<p>Even IF there were 20 methods of birth control, not every type of birth control works for every woman. There are various reasons why women can’t use an IUD, an Implant, the pill, the patch, etc. </p>
<p>Every single option should be available to every single woman from every single doctor/hospital. </p>
<p>“It’s a test of the principle of religious freedom.”</p>
<p>LOL!</p>
<p>You mean the religious freedom of the company which said, “the religion of the corporation,” is so deeply held it prevents them from following the mandate for BC coverage, yet the “religion of the corporation” had no problem investing in or providing coverage for these same products prior to 2013? </p>
<p>I think some group, lets say for argument sake, The Becket Fund, went fishing for companies to bring suit and by gosh - Hobby Lobby looked like the perfect company to do it given the “religion of the corporation.” </p>
<p>It’s just a shame it took so long to expose them as the hypocrites they are. </p>
<p>Not sure about “mandating” blood transfusions, but many vaccines are covered at no co-pay under ACA. So is it okay for them to have their way about contraception not being covered but not okay if it something else? My health care decisions = private, not their business, whether it is a vaccination, transfusion, or birth control. </p>
<p>Nothing that is taxpayer funded is private. Unfortunately.</p>
<p>I pay health insurance premiums through work and have for years, didn’t need ACA, so I’m not seeing where taxpayer funding has anything to do with it. As far as I know, nothing about my health insurance is taxpayer funded. I would think that if an employer is legally allowed to choose what you’re covered for or not covered for based on their religious beliefs, it wouldn’t matter if it were partially tax funded or not. </p>
<p>Yeah, it’s complicated. But, ACA compliant plans must include free contraceptives. That’s new. I never had free contraceptives and a bunch of other prescriptions were also not covered. There is taxpayer money involved in most insurance plans at some level but it increases greatly under the ACA where so many are subsidized. Employers are subsidized, too. It’s a mess.</p>
<p>It seems to me the most equitable result would be this: Closely held corporations can choose to exempt themselves from offering the full healthcare services, and therefore they may choose not to include BC as mandated under the ACA law. In return, since they are exempting themselves on religious grounds, they should also not be allowed to take tax deductions for the amount they contribute to the health insurance for the employees. </p>
<p>That seems fair, right? If they’re structuring their benefit plans along religious grounds, why should I as a taxpayer subsidize them?</p>
<p>Private hospitals which dont qualify for tax write offs should be able to do what ever they want.
Otherwise, a taxwrite off means they are taxpayer funded.</p>
<p>MODERATOR NOTE:</p>
<p>Closing thread per CCs Terms of Service regarding Politics, Religion, etc.:</p>
<p><a href=“https://auth.collegeconfidential.com/module.php/hobsonspolicies/policy.php?policy=tos”>https://auth.collegeconfidential.com/module.php/hobsonspolicies/policy.php?policy=tos</a></p>