Supremes to decide on contraceptive coverage

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hea ... nance.html

What do you think will be the Supreme Court's decision?

Companies are required to offer the option of a healthcare plan that covers contraception, but are also allowed to offer (in addition) as many plans that do not as they want to.

As a public for-profit company, I don't think any of them should be allowed to take exemption on religious grounds.

In general, the price of contraception isn't really that high, so a lot of people could probably make do without coverage.

However, contraception is likely to be especially relevant for students (who have limited income) and the poor (who may not be able to afford even the low costs of contraceptives).

Furthermore, there is some evidence that making contraception more available will reduce the number of abortions (which is a much riskier way of avoiding pregnancy).

And finally, the use of contraception has public health benefits that likely vastly outweigh the costs of funding contraceptives.

I wonder if I am the only one who seriously thought the topic title referred to the singing group.

Yeah, I got an image of Diana Ross approving legislation with a diamond encrusted hand and red talons.

^^^^

Does there really need to be a huge human population explosion? Cover it.

Government does not have the authority to demand this.

If you like the welfare state then you do

Many businesses require their employees to bend over and take it; so the least they can do is provide contraception.

Whey you said "Supremes," I thought you meant the band.

Pardon? I do not understand your reply to my post. If I like the welfare state I like what, exactly?

What I do find incredibly ironic, btw, is people who tend to be really conservative, despise the welfare state, are vehemently against any kind of birth control or abortion. Well, where do they think the welfare state comes from? Poor people who do not have the means having too many kids they wouldn't be having if they had unlimited access to birth control.

The west absolutely needs a population boom in order for the welfare state to survive, yes. The fertility rates in most of these countries are way below replacement level, only the US is close to it. A declining population puts more and more stress on younger generations to pay for the previous one. This is also why immigration is so important to these countries.

I have no issues with contraceptives, I prefer not to have to pay for them but I also don't want to pay for a lot of things. I don't think employers or insurers should be required to cover it if it offends their religious sensibilities or whatever reason. I don't believe they should be mandated to do anything that isn't set out in the constitution. This is an issue of personal responsibility, its very easy to not get pregnant. The unfortunate thing is that regardless of whatever insurance coverage these employers give, they still have to pay taxes and if you do that you're already paying for contraceptives and abortion.

By welfare state I am not referring to older people who have worked most of their lives paying what's called a "social security tax" under the pretext they will receive benefits after a certain age. That is not welfare. That is simply taking something and then giving it back later. Welfare is when the working population pays taxes only to have a portion of it given to people who do not pay any taxes because they have no jobs or they don't make enough money to tax. This is welfare and it's mostly poor people who have too many kids, more than they can take care of. For each kid they get more money from the state yet the amount they earn doesn't seem to increase, just what they take. Give them some birth control, it's cheaper than paying for each kid.

As for the government mismanaging the social security fund, that's not exactly t he tax payer's fault. I think it should be split up into three taxes, social security, medicare and then a separate military tax used specifically to pay the military instead of using social security to pay for everything like they do now.

I'm Australian, so this is a point of interest only for me.

Why does the government have any say at all on personnel matters, like contraception?
And is it enforceable? That scares me.

In the case of Reynolds v. United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

the Supreme Court determined that the Mormons had the right to advocate polygyny, but did not have the right to practise what they preached.

I would expect the Supreme Court similarly to decide that if the law mandates contraceptive coverage, then being Catholic won't be a valid excuse for refusing to obey the law.

But, I would also expect the 4 weenies who voted against Obamacare also to vote against the contraception mandate.

Last edited by ArrantPariah on 27 Nov 2013, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.