Insurance discount price yes but why single out women?
This could be your wife or girl friend or sister or daughter. Do you think it is fair for them to pay full boat so their lover doesn't get them pregnant? Maybe the guy should pay for the pills!

1. A woman's prescription is treated different than a man's and
2. Your employer has a say so in your medical decisions is worse than a constitutional crisis.
It is forcing ideology down people's throats. That leads to more abuse.
So you have a very narrow view of this.

As I noted before employees of HL were able to purchase BC prior to the mandate.

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost?

We did a survey of cash or self-pay birth control prices at New York area pharmacies in late April, in connection with a project about prices of birth control pills and mammograms, and here’s what we found:

Aviane, cash prices ranging from $20 to $45 for a monthly pack
Gianvi, $45 to $74
Loestrin 24FE, $48 to $116
Lutera, $19 to $40
Ocella, $40 to $80
Ortho-Tri-Cyclen Lo 28, $37 to $162
Tri-Nessa 28, $16 to $49
Tri-Sprintec 28, $12 to $49
Yasmin-28, $80 to $105
Yaz-28, $65 to $130

But, again, employees of HL could use BC prior to the mandate. This has not changed. They still can.

Ironically, so many here want to drive HL out of business. Then, not only will the employees not have BC they also won't have insurance for their other concerns or a paycheck to purchase medications, BC related or otherwise.

It sort of is, but the reality is that anti-abortion legislation keeps making the process more expensive and more of a hassle to obtain, to the point where it's virtually impossible for many poor women to get an abortion.

As far as we know, HL employees won't be fired for using BC, but their insurance won't pay for it. And we're not just talking about $18 a month for pills, but hundreds of dollars for an IUD. Coverage isn't being denied for any medical reason, but for a religious one. What will HL decide it's against their religion for their employees to have next?

Being open on Sundays. Arguably, that takes potential earnings out of the employee's paycheck. Probably enough to pay for an IUD. But abstractions aren't a compelling state interest.

But guess those don't matter.

It is in society's interest to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I don't see why that's such a hard frickin' concept for so many.

Unless those organizations suddenly evaporated this is a red herring.

And would never seek to defund them or shut down. Oh, wait...

funding continues to this day. "Somebody doesn't like something" isn't really an answer.

They don't hate Planned Parenthood because they're fighting against alliteration.

used to people not liking what you like. Some of them even consider their opinions a moral imperative. The fact we live in a democracy is evidence of that fact.

They just disagree! That's all! End of story!

Sorry, but that's what one's argument is reduced to when they don't have facts. And I also got you to reveal what your objection is really about, to boot. Your veneer isn't as thick as you think it is.

Lots of other stores will jump on this ruling and use it to deny employees bc.

they pay for 16 of the 20 Rx's.

as medical care she is shit out of luck because the employer is a rw nutjob?
Not acceptable.

And I don't want to get into a pissing contest over this so I'll just leave it at that.

Why not disagree and attempt to reason and form some semblance of a rhetorical construct? Because others may disagree?

despite my beliefs.

They just disagree! That's that.

To hear some describe it, there were once piles of dead women stacked like cord wood in the middle of town for lack of BC. Before 2012 this never was an issue. Not only was mandatory BC not discussed during the debate on the ACA the Stupak bloc of Democratic lawmakers argued for guarantees that "abortificient" medications not be mandated.

Then the mandate came along and -- while I'm sympathetic to defending the President's (more sound) policies -- if people were truly honest they would admit this is nothing more than a partisan fight for both sides. This isn't about a crisis in BC healthcare, because there wasn't one before, this is about the RWers sticking their thumb in our eye and us sticking our thumb in theirs.

But you knew that.

It's telling that you counter that "hyperbole" with the argument that it's okay because there aren't piles of dead bodies.

I stated there was no BC healthcare crisis discussed during the debate of the ACA. On the contrary, assurances were made that abortion and similar services would not be mandated. Regardless of how foolish that seem from our standpoint, if the BC issue was as dramatic as is being pretended the debate would have been had then and there. It wasn't. All the people acting as if the end of the world has come upon us were silent back in 2010. This is merely a partisan rearguard fight for a battle that has already been lost.

For another, you can repeat over and over again that there isn't and wasn't a "BC healthcare crisis" till you're blue in the face and it doesn't make you right. But as long as the bodies aren't stacked like wood, right? If that's your bar, then it explains your misguided opinion about the lack of a crisis. I indeed address it in your context. You make your context quite clear.

and who now will have to come up with several hundred dollars up front or do without. I hope you will reconsider your cynical dismissal of the very real impact this has on actual lives, and your blithe and clueless assertion elsewhere in the thread that Planned Parenthood is an option for everyone who can't afford private healthcare. Just because this apparently does not (yet) affect you personally, does not mean that it is not a significant problem for others. It's also an obvious wedge issue, and you are naive if you think this is where this sort of corporate intrusion into privacy will end.

As for a hormonal IUD, I'm not even sure that's on the HL grievance list as it acts prior to fertilization.

And I'll repeat my assertion that it was never an issue until after HL objected. There was no BC crisis prior to the employer mandate. Now suddenly it's a thing.

for a particular patient is irrelevant and presumptuous. And you have your "facts" on this backwards. Hobby Lobby never had an issue with contraceptive coverage until it was part of the ACA. That is when they "reviewed" their policies and clutched their pearls.

And it worked great for a while, but eventually my body reacted poorly to it, which meant going back to a choice between sterilization and barrier methods.

I repeat -- What percentage of women can ONLY use an IUD? What percentage of those women medically NEED an IUD? What percentage of those women work for HL? What percentage of those women have no other recourse to obtain an IUD?

Where is the compelling state interest?

but I respect their conclusion that climate change is a reality. I am also not an expert on the particulars of any given Hobby Lobby employee's medical and social situation, which is why I think her healthcare choices should be worked out between the woman and her physician, not by people like you and Liberty University megamillion dollar donor David Green. I don't know or care "what percentage" can ONLY use an IUD. That is not the point. I do not think you are interested in empathic understanding of other people's situations, at least in this regard.

without interference from the state, her boss, you, me, etc. It's none of our business. For your information, I am an advocate of universal national health insurance, so I don't see where I am "laying the groundwork" for whatever it is you are suggesting. Hobby Lobby workers have to deal with their present reality, however, regardless of what you may envision "several years down the road."

So you say but the mandate seems to have done the exact opposite. You want employers out of the loop when once before they never were so you put employers into the loop and now they have won in the highest court in the land. In sports that's called an, "own goal."

"out of the loop" prior to ACA? From your participation in the thread below, you know well that is not true. They were providing the very services they now object to, and their pension funds continue to invest in the pharma companies that manufacture the products that they claim to find objectionable. You are on the regressive side of this issue and are simply trying to obfuscate.

If other sources of BC were acceptable to these voices then there wouldn't be an argument; they'd just say, "Oh, okay. We'll just move on to Plan B for getting our Plan B."

But that's not what they're saying. They want the employer hide-bound to BC. Well, congratulations; in their minds they have succeeded and now that they have lost at the USSC they are inconsolable.

The advocates for this policy decided to they just had to bet the farm before rolling the dice. If the stories everyone is running around telling themselves to whip-up such an emotional frenzy are even half true then the mandate was a stupid idea to push with a conservative majority on the bench. Don't we pay people to think this shit through?

If the thing you do leaves you further behind then when you began it becomes manifestly clear that, no matter how strongly you want it, it was a bad idea. For that reason and that reason alone I have the right to speak the truth that the BC mandate was a bad idea.

I also repeat: this mandate -- which so many seem to consider the equivalent of a Papal Bull -- is merely a bureaucrat's mandate. It is not a law. It assuaged no grave healthcare crisis, it was a political effort to shore up support for the law at a time when it was wildly unpopular. Even if the mandate was upheld it can be reversed unilaterally by the first president that disfavors it. Congress can do nothing to stop that. The USSC can do nothing to reverse that.

I yield the rest of the thread. I knew this would be a flame job but my intent was not to argue in favor of the court's decision but to point out the panic button reaction is overblown. There is no crisis because there never was a crisis. All those who claim this allows religion to trump personal liberty have only themselves to blame. They picked this fight at this time and they lost.

I'm out.

*drops mic*

PP has been branded an "abortion mill" by the anti-choice fanatics, despite the fact that only about 5% of their services involve pregnancy terminations.

PP and other family planning clinics are routinely blockaded by religious nuts not-so-gently "counseling" women they think might be pregnant. That is, screaming at and swarming them.

PP and other family planning clinics in many areas have had to become fortresses, at great cost, and still are threatened with violence. Violence includes stalking of staffers and their children, bombs, arson, gunfire, and murder.

"Planned Parenthood and other family planning services" HAVE evaporated because of terroristic violence and changes in state laws, to the point that in most rural areas of the US there is NO abortion or family planning provider available at all.

I've been a PP supporter for over 40 years -- they don't operate in a vacuum. Their mission is to provide low-cost health care services, but that means they need broadly based and generous donations in order to support that mission. They CAN'T pick up the slack for an entire nation.

I wonder if she's relatively young and insulated by an excellent employer's benefits plan.

If that is the case, we have a lot of work to do with the younger generation, Somehow I don't think how far the RW has already gone will sink in until too late.

That poster isn't representative of the younger generation. Hers is representative of a point of view that would have to be very carefully stated on DU, though that's sadly becoming less the case.

and of course it's couched as an 'honest question'.

For many rural and poor women, that isn't even an option. Join the real world.

came up in 2010. Never once did any proponent of the ACA campaign on behalf of the bill saying access to BC was a crisis and the ACA would compel employers to provide BC to alleviate that crisis. The idea that this is some grave existential threat only arose after HL objected. That tells me this isn't about BC so much as it's about HL.

Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue or need a remedial health class. Birth control is not one size fits all and not one pill formulation works for everybody.

"The very cheapest formulations are around $20/mo"
This is not true and I provided proof. Clearly you have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Especially because there's plenty of other factors involved.

For example, I'd have to pay around $5/mo at WalMart, but that's because my health insurance pays for most of the cost.

PDF proof: http://i.walmartimages.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/customer_list.pdf

I can't
Some women have to take BC pills that are stronger or that have less side effects. The $4 pills are weaker - not as effective - and have a ton of side effects. But that's OK - I have to deal with it I'm a woman. I can't have the pill that is easy on my stomach. Or that can actually take care of my Fibroids. Nope I have to take the $4 WalMart pills because that's all I can afford!!!

Thanks I appreciate that

1. I never said these pills could be taken by every woman. The only thing I said was you can get pills at Walmart for $9, which is less than half of what you claimed was the cheapest at $20. What you said was not true at all, so I corrected you.
2. Walmart doesn't have 2 choices for $4. According to their website they have 9 choices for $9. These are standard BC pills that you get at any pharmacy. They aren't 'weaker'. Actually, seeing you don't know how much they cost and how many drugs are available, you obviously don't even know what drugs are available. Instead of admitting your ignorance you just call them 'weaker'. Very poor debate skills. 0/10

You said $4, not $9
I never claimed any cost
I said I could not take those pills
And yes they are weaker
Because you have no idea what BC pills are you think someone else has poor debate skills. There is no such thing as standard BC pills. So your "skills" are beyond lacking and you FAIL.
So seeing you don't know how much they actually cost, please stop with your silly theories on how stong one pill is to another.

Oh and are you a doctor?? If you aren't then you have no right to tell any woman she has to take a particular drug. Heck you have no right to tell anyone what drug to take.

AGAIN YOU FAIL!

I said $9. Not $4. LEARN TO READ.
And Walmart doesn't make weaker pills so they can sell them cheaper. They sell the same popular generic BC that every other pharmacy does. I couldn't care less what you take and I never told any woman that she has to take a particular drug. You can stop with your ridiculous straw men. They aren't getting you anywhere. I responded to the LIE that the cheapest BC pills are $20. You have proven that you don't know what the hell your talking about, can only argue with strawmen, and you have a hard time reading numbers. FAIL FAIL FAIL

You aren't a doctor, so please stop playing one on the internet

Thank you

Apparently you think 'playing doctor' is telling someone who claims the cheapest BC pills are $20 that you can get them at Walmart for $9. LOL. If you want to argue with that imaginary strawman playing a doctor online just do it in your head. It will save you the embarrassment of not knowing the difference between 4 and 9.

struck the BC completely. But the courts have long recognized that religious institutions do have a degree of autonomy, absent a compelling state interest, i.e. parochial schools can insist teachers share the denomination's faith/doctrine as a condition of employment whereas such conditions would be unacceptable in secular society.

compelling state interest.

employees on their insurance coverage?

The original sub-thread topic was there should not be separate laws/regulations. This is demonstrably not the case.

Healthcare is available to purchase anyway. What is the point of health insurance then?

Hmmm

insurance is generally for catastrophic events, i.e. the home is destroyed in a disaster, the car is wrecked, a family member passes away.

But I think you knew that.

for certain types of BC such as the morning after pill, IUDs, and any other form of BC that their employer feels is an "abortifacient".

Or maybe it's just the childish thing of not doing something if someone MAKES you do it. (Though otherwise, you're perfectly happy to do it.) That is the attitude of a 14-year-old.

They only conveniently developed a conscience when Obama became president and enacted policy.

"abortificients." Near as I can see -- and my search is admittedly not exhaustive -- they have never covered such contraceptive methods. If someone has something that states otherwise I'm open to discussing that.

Right?

posters who think everyone should stfu because "16 of 20 types of birth control are covered" are happy to ignore this, and the impact of today's decision on those women for whom the IUD is the method of choice or necessity.

They give you migraines? You've got a bleeding disorder that contraindicates hormonal BC. For those posters they're just out of luck. Less effective BC for them. It also totally ignores the whole point that they shouldn't have the ability to force their religious beliefs on others.

Seriously? I'm starting to think this is performance art on your part. Apparently you don't see the problem of having to come up with that kind of money UP FRONT, which is the reality of the situation.

What percentage of those women work for HL? What percentage of those women have no other recourse to obtain an IUD?

HL is also closed on Sundays -- out of religious observance. According to PayScale HL generally pays 10% above market rate for similar jobs in their areas. Shooting for a rounded median of $10 an hour that means every full day an employee cannot work is $80, which is $320 a month. A person could just as easily argue 3 months pay would cover the out-of-pocket cost of an IUD that lasts 5 to 7 years so we'll just demand HL open on Sundays.

There's no end to the possible abstractions but there is a limit to practical matters. You may not like it, but we live in a nation that protects matters of conscience. That's actually a good thing at the end of the day. Unless a compelling state interest can be demonstrated matters of conscience ought to be protected. It works for us as well as the RWers. In some places in America you cannot buy alcohol. Sometimes this is because alcohol is a serious health issue within the community and sometimes its a matter of conscience but both laws are legitimate and in effect.

There is no BC crisis. This was never an issue until after HL objected. This is nothing more than political theater from both sides.

a company deciding to carry certain products, or setting business hours, and a company forcing it's employees to follow the CEO's religion.

no bearing to reality.

Please show us in the HL employee manual where employees, as a condition of employment, are required to forego IUDs or Plan B methods of contraception or can be terminated for having an abortion.

So it's not in there, yet.

While Alito desperately tried to claim the decision is only about 4 forms of birth control and the subsidies thereof, that's not how SCOTUS precedents work. For example, Bush v Gore has been cited many times, despite the decision saying it only counts for that case.

Ruling that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to cover those 4 birth control methods because of the CEO's religion opens the door for Hobby Lobby or other corporations to stop following other laws based on their religion.

So until yesterday, Hobby Lobby could not ban use of birth control as a condition of employment. Today, they can.

You have no basis for such nonsense.

Despite Alito's attempt at damage control, the precedent is that a company does not have to follow laws if they conflict with the boss's religion.

So the boss can fire women for using birth control. The boss can fire people for not going to his church. A Christian boss can fire workers for not observing the sabbath on Sunday, A Jewish boss can fire workers for not observing the sabbath on Saturday, and a Muslim boss can fire workers for not observing the sabbath on Friday.

If any of those fired workers sue, lower courts have to follow the new SCOTUS precedent. The SCOTUS could create a new precedent if those workers appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS. Or not.

Like I said, where are the Jehovah's Witnesses demanding blood transfusions not be covered? And similarly, none of these companies/organizations seem to have a problem with covering Viagra prescriptions.

This is about a health plan the employees pay for out of their paycheck. Excluding contraceptives from the plan amounts to HL imposing their religion on their employees.

claims to be so concerned about.

Now they have to pay additional money for something that insurance companies routinely cover. If they can't afford whatever the price is then they have to go with a cheaper form of BC (perhaps less effective or more medically risky for them) or none at all. Also, what about those who are prescribed BC pills for reasons other then BC? Should they need to implore their employer to allow their health insurance to cover it?

This isn't about religion, this is about controlling women. The best way to oppress women is to take away their ability to control when and if they have a child.

Just about everyone around here is ignoring that. Not arguing that it's right or wrong for HL to object to the four that they object to, but the fact still remains that they are willing to cover most forms of birth control and if the employees avail themselves of those and follow the directions, there should be little need for the four that won't be covered.

Not satisfied with how unfortunate the actual facts are, the mindset is that we need to portray what's happened as being worse than it actually is. Personally, I don't subscribe to that mindset.

But you're free to ascribe to any political viewpoint you wish, of course. Just don't think it will be looked at positively on a board that's meant for the opposite one. It's why I don't go to RW boards.

.......just because I don’t subscribe to the “If we didn’t get everything, that means that we got nothing” mindset that is often prevalent around here, that means that I must be a “winger” by your definition?

The OP asked if anything is different for the women of Hobby Lobby now than it was before the contraception mandate and I responded, correctly, that yes, now there are 16 birth control methods that they can get paid for in full under the Hobby Lobby insurance plan that they didn’t have before.

I happen to be a “glass half full”, or in this particular case, 80% full, kind of girl. I’m willing to take what I can get for the moment and, if it’s not all that I’d hoped for, work to make it even better. If that makes me right wing, then…….actually, it doesn’t make me right wing, even if you think so.

This isn't even remotely a we didn't get everything scenario. And all I'll say is the only people I see spewing these talking points at the same time they profess to be liberals is here on DU, where you can be banned if you aren't one. What a coincidence.

........to read things that aren't there into mine.

I'm done with you. Have a pleasant day!

If a woman and her doctor decide that she needs a Long Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC) as is increasingly the case for young women in particular (and there's evidence that the shift to LARCs from OCs is a big part of the falling abortion rate) then she should be able to get one. She paid for her health care with her labor, and all of the contraceptive methods approved by the FDA are health care.

Statistically even if they used them perfectly some of them would not. That's what failure rates are about.

If the Greens want to prevent abortions they should cover LARCs. Their employees (poor women, young women) are precisely the women who benefit from them most and who have the highest failure rates with oral contraceptives and barrier methods.

today, insurance policies within the ACA had to cover them without copay or deductible. If an employee is paid minimum wage, $1000 is a large portion of their monthly income.

before this decision, HL employees had their birth control covered - all of them.
After the decision, only the ones that Mr. and Mrs. Green approve of will be covered and for those women who need the other options, they will have to pay cash in full. Please note - ACA did not dictate that Mrs. Green get an IUD - just that as an employer, she offer what is required under the ACA to her employees who may have a wide variety of beliefs.

More corporations and churches will follow, likely expanding their list of disapprovals to all 20 options and what else?

It has put into law that women and their health decisions can be affected by the personal beliefs of their employers. As we know, where there is not insurance coverage, often there is no treatment. For the upfront costs of an IUD, clinics will probably require cash up front - too much for minimum wage employees.

Men and women have sex and only the woman gets pregnant. If she is an employee of HL, Mr. and Mrs. Green want to participate in that woman's decision on how best to prevent unwanted pregnancies. A few of those considerations include health, pre-exisitng health issues, cost, convenience, is the man willing to responsibly participate in barrier methods, etc.

Yes - a lot has changed and the status of women has sunk lower in the eyes of the law. Also - the true intent of this suit was to make the ACA ala carte law.

This is about ODS, not BC.

offered plans that covered what some claim are "abortion-inducing" contraceptives, i.e. anything that would have an effect after fertilization. I've asked for citations that would settle the issue one way or the other but none have been provided.