Posted on 08/29/2014 2:44:28 PM PDT by shepardspie33
The decision issued in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby did not change the access to free contraceptives; it merely shifted the cost burden. In their majority opinion, the Supreme Court stated that a less restrictive means of providing these services was already in place—an accommodation issued by Health and Human Services (HHS) for non-profit corporations with religious objections. The Court recommended that such a program be implemented for closely held for-profit corporations who object to providing these contraceptives for religious reasons. Instead of a for-profit company’s insurance premiums footing the bill for such access, the cost will be absorbed by the corporation’s insurance company or third party administrator.
Although this recommendation was explicitly issued in the Court’s decision and top legal minds appeared on various news programs stating that this was what would occur, many were still confused, thinking that Hobby Lobby and any other closely held corporations have the ability to deny their employees access to these services. Keri Parks, Director of External Affairs for Planned Parenthood failing to comprehend the ruling, stated, “We were deeply disappointed and troubled by this ruling because it means that some bosses will be able to interfere with their employees’ access to birth control.” In addition, during the course of the summer, the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice has issued Facebook posts condemning the Hobby Lobby decision on the basis that it will prevent women from accessing contraceptives. One of their latest posts was issued stated “Women need access to the FULL range of contraceptive methods – which is why we need to #FixHobbyLobby. SHARE if you agree!”
The uproar that has accompanied the decision in this case has mostly centered around the issue of women’s reproductive rights...if it truly is about women’s access to contraceptives, there is no argument to be made.
(Excerpt) Read more at reddirtreport.com ...
Oops, I re posted the title where the source was supposed to be inserted, sorry.
Are you sure? I thought it made all forms of contraception illegal and kicked a puppy, at least that’s what the media told me.
Although the employer does not specifically pay for these contraceptive and abortifacients methods, they will pay for them indirectly since the cost will be sequestered in the administrative portion of the premiums.
Abortion inducing drugs and devices ARE NOT CONTRACEPTIVES.
CONTRACEPTIVES act to counter or prevent conception.
If we cannot use words with respect for their meanings, how can we expect to communicate truthfully?
right, I mean I love how that this is considered a compromise, because its not like the insurance company is just going to absorb the cost out of the goodness of their heart they are going to find a way to recover the cost through another means charging more for some other service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.