Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Doitsu-san]

You don't need it to prevent heart disease, you can buy vitamins. You don't need it to prevent pregnancy, you can just not have sex.

You can buy condoms to have sex, and please don't give me the rant about how "poor people can't afford condoms", if you can afford a fucking Happy Meal you can buy a box of condoms, fuck, even in the shithole of a town in Puerto Rico where my Grandfather lives there is a whole shop dedicated to condoms.

Sex isn't a need, sex is an optional risk. And no matter how long you rant you can never change that.

What vitamins are these? Are the proved to prevent heart disease. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of questions about the effectivness about vitamins:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-suppl ... tivitamins
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... to-tell-us
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/12-t ... g-you-more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -good.html
So there's that.
Average cost of condoms: 12pk: 10.99
Average cost of happy meal: 2.99
That's a big difference for poor people.
Besides, we're not talking about condoms, never were meant to. This thread is about other forms of contraception. The form that before today for-profit corporations were required to cover because the Obama Administration realizes that contraception coverage is a vital part of (not just cis) women's health coverage.

You claiming employers should cover contraception because of heart disease is just as ridiculous as Hobby Lobby claiming this whole debate is about religion. Contraception prevents heart disease, but it wasn't designed to do that, and that is not it's main purpose, nor what it is sold for. If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill. If people are somehow too poor to afford affordable contraception alternatives that cost $10 in a nation where the minimum wage is $7 AN HOUR, they'll just have to not have sex.

[Gauthier]

What vitamins are these? Are the proved to prevent heart disease. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of questions about the effectivness about vitamins:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-suppl ... tivitamins
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... to-tell-us
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/12-t ... g-you-more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -good.html
So there's that.
Average cost of condoms: 12pk: 10.99
Average cost of happy meal: 2.99
That's a big difference for poor people.
Besides, we're not talking about condoms, never were meant to. This thread is about other forms of contraception. The form that before today for-profit corporations were required to cover because the Obama Administration realizes that contraception coverage is a vital part of (not just cis) women's health coverage.

You claiming employers should cover contraception because of heart disease is just as ridiculous as Hobby Lobby claiming this whole debate is about religion. Contraception prevents heart disease, but it wasn't designed to do that, and that is not it's main purpose, nor what it is sold for. If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill. If people are somehow too poor to afford affordable contraception alternatives that cost $10 in a nation where the minimum wage is $7 AN HOUR, they'll just have to not have sex.

Thank you for sharing your superior medical knowledge, Dr. Oz.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

What vitamins are these? Are the proved to prevent heart disease. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of questions about the effectivness about vitamins:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-suppl ... tivitamins
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... to-tell-us
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/12-t ... g-you-more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -good.html
So there's that.
Average cost of condoms: 12pk: 10.99
Average cost of happy meal: 2.99
That's a big difference for poor people.
Besides, we're not talking about condoms, never were meant to. This thread is about other forms of contraception. The form that before today for-profit corporations were required to cover because the Obama Administration realizes that contraception coverage is a vital part of (not just cis) women's health coverage.

You claiming employers should cover contraception because of heart disease is just as ridiculous as Hobby Lobby claiming this whole debate is about religion. Contraception prevents heart disease, but it wasn't designed to do that, and that is not it's main purpose, nor what it is sold for. If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill. If people are somehow too poor to afford affordable contraception alternatives that cost $10 in a nation where the minimum wage is $7 AN HOUR, they'll just have to not have sex.

You were the one arguing that contraception isn't necessary because it's only for sex and sex isn't necessary? So are you conceding that that point is false? And that I proved you wrong? And if it's ridiculous that Hobby Lobby sued for religious reasons, than the Supreme Court shouldn't have made the decision it did, because it was 100% about religion and "religious freedom." And as I've also said: condoms don't work 100% of the time and you don't always have them. If you have an IUD or the pill, which as Justice Ginsburg said:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.", then you don't have to worry about using a condom to prevent pregnancy.

[Norstal]

What vitamins are these? Are the proved to prevent heart disease. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of questions about the effectivness about vitamins:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-suppl ... tivitamins
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... to-tell-us
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/12-t ... g-you-more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -good.html
So there's that.
Average cost of condoms: 12pk: 10.99
Average cost of happy meal: 2.99
That's a big difference for poor people.
Besides, we're not talking about condoms, never were meant to. This thread is about other forms of contraception. The form that before today for-profit corporations were required to cover because the Obama Administration realizes that contraception coverage is a vital part of (not just cis) women's health coverage.

You claiming employers should cover contraception because of heart disease is just as ridiculous as Hobby Lobby claiming this whole debate is about religion. Contraception prevents heart disease, but it wasn't designed to do that, and that is not it's main purpose, nor what it is sold for. If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill. If people are somehow too poor to afford affordable contraception alternatives that cost $10 in a nation where the minimum wage is $7 AN HOUR, they'll just have to not have sex.

$7 an hour isn't a lot. Unless you're a kid. Something tells me you haven't handled the responsibilities of an adult if you can make those kind of suggestions.

[Ashmoria]

You claiming employers should cover contraception because of heart disease is just as ridiculous as Hobby Lobby claiming this whole debate is about religion. Contraception prevents heart disease, but it wasn't designed to do that, and that is not it's main purpose, nor what it is sold for. If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill. If people are somehow too poor to afford affordable contraception alternatives that cost $10 in a nation where the minimum wage is $7 AN HOUR, they'll just have to not have sex.

You were the one arguing that contraception isn't necessary because it's only for sex and sex isn't necessary? So are you conceding that that point is false? And that I proved you wrong? And if it's ridiculous that Hobby Lobby sued for religious reasons, than the Supreme Court shouldn't have made the decision it did, because it was 100% about religion and "religious freedom." And as I've also said: condoms don't work 100% of the time and you don't always have them. If you have an IUD or the pill, which as Justice Ginsburg said:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.", then you don't have to worry about using a condom to prevent pregnancy.

don't you remember that story from the gospel when jesus looked at someone's insurance policy and declared that god hates contraceptive coverage? what else could the hobbylobby family DO when the bible is so clear on the subject?

[Gauthier]

You were the one arguing that contraception isn't necessary because it's only for sex and sex isn't necessary? So are you conceding that that point is false? And that I proved you wrong? And if it's ridiculous that Hobby Lobby sued for religious reasons, than the Supreme Court shouldn't have made the decision it did, because it was 100% about religion and "religious freedom." And as I've also said: condoms don't work 100% of the time and you don't always have them. If you have an IUD or the pill, which as Justice Ginsburg said:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.", then you don't have to worry about using a condom to prevent pregnancy.

don't you remember that story from the gospel when jesus looked at someone's insurance policy and declared that god hates contraceptive coverage? what else could the hobbylobby family DO when the bible is so clear on the subject?

Wasn't that the same gospel where Jesus said he made a mistake beating the shit out of the temple moneychangers?

[The Black Forrest]

Obviously the part about contraceptives preventing actual diseases and not just being for baby prevention flew over your head.

Contraception prevents diseases during sex, and sex is completely optional. It isn't an employer's responsibility to pay for an employee doing something that they could live without and isn't necessary to their health.

Seriously. You need to study the concept of contraception. This ruling isn't about condoms.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

don't you remember that story from the gospel when jesus looked at someone's insurance policy and declared that god hates contraceptive coverage? what else could the hobbylobby family DO when the bible is so clear on the subject?

Wasn't that the same gospel where Jesus said he made a mistake beating the shit out of the temple moneychangers?

Yeah, it was in book $$$.

[The Black Forrest]

But according to the ACA it is the employer's responsibility to pay for their employees health coverage at least in some way. Contraception is a vital piece of health care and health coverage. But sex is an everyday life thing? (for a lot of people, barring asexual people and the like) Contraception stops unwanted pregnancy from happening, disease spreading, etc.
Also, again to quote Justice Ginsburg:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
Contraception isn't cheap, and a lot of people cannot afford to pay for it on their own.

No, contraception is not a vital piece of health coverage. Contraception is covering an optional activity that has little benefit to human health.

With contraception being so pricey, employees can either choose not to have sex or buy a pack of condoms, which I recall cost about $10.

Pssst. It's not about condoms.

Also, why is viagra covered?

[Ashmoria]

don't you remember that story from the gospel when jesus looked at someone's insurance policy and declared that god hates contraceptive coverage? what else could the hobbylobby family DO when the bible is so clear on the subject?

Wasn't that the same gospel where Jesus said he made a mistake beating the shit out of the temple moneychangers?

ya ya it was right after he clarified that moneylenders are the true chosen people.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

No, contraception is not a vital piece of health coverage. Contraception is covering an optional activity that has little benefit to human health.

With contraception being so pricey, employees can either choose not to have sex or buy a pack of condoms, which I recall cost about $10.

Pssst. It's not about condoms.

Also, why is viagra covered?

BOOM

[Norstal]

Wasn't that the same gospel where Jesus said he made a mistake beating the shit out of the temple moneychangers?

ya ya it was right after he clarified that moneylenders are the true chosen people.

That's a terrible way of calling the Jews. Not all Jews are predatory loan sharks. yes I know it's a joke

[Gauthier]

No, contraception is not a vital piece of health coverage. Contraception is covering an optional activity that has little benefit to human health.

With contraception being so pricey, employees can either choose not to have sex or buy a pack of condoms, which I recall cost about $10.

Pssst. It's not about condoms.

Also, why is viagra covered?

And penis pumps.

[Ashmoria]

ya ya it was right after he clarified that moneylenders are the true chosen people.

That's a terrible way of calling the Jews. Not all Jews are predatory loan sharks. yes I know it's a joke

its funny because they were all jews.

[Farnhamia]

Pssst. It's not about condoms.

Also, why is viagra covered?

And penis pumps.

"Multiply and fill the earth ..."

[Trollzilla]

There is are two possible solutions to this conundrum:

1. While the current Tea Party controlled House of Representatives will not endorse a constitutional amendment, we can get the states to pass one over Congress head. But that route is a very difficult and has a high likely hood of never happening because the requirements are so high.

2. The government can take over responsibility for ensuring that both men and women and hermaphrodites (trans people like me) have access to the contraception we need. This will eliminate employers responsibility in this regard and perhaps even insurance companies' responsibility in this regard. In exchange we raise taxes on both insurance companies and private employers enough to cover the contraception the government provides to their employees and health plan policy holders. Either way, the employers will have to pay.

[Doitsu-san]

You claiming employers should cover contraception because of heart disease is just as ridiculous as Hobby Lobby claiming this whole debate is about religion. Contraception prevents heart disease, but it wasn't designed to do that, and that is not it's main purpose, nor what it is sold for. If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill. If people are somehow too poor to afford affordable contraception alternatives that cost $10 in a nation where the minimum wage is $7 AN HOUR, they'll just have to not have sex.

You were the one arguing that contraception isn't necessary because it's only for sex and sex isn't necessary? So are you conceding that that point is false? And that I proved you wrong? And if it's ridiculous that Hobby Lobby sued for religious reasons, than the Supreme Court shouldn't have made the decision it did, because it was 100% about religion and "religious freedom." And as I've also said: condoms don't work 100% of the time and you don't always have them. If you have an IUD or the pill, which as Justice Ginsburg said:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.", then you don't have to worry about using a condom to prevent pregnancy.

It's primarily used for pregnancy prevention, it is sold and marketed for pregnancy prevention. The affects that it has on lowering cancer and heart disease risk can be achieved by other means, such as exercising and eating healthily (which don't cost any additional cash).

Sex is an optional activity with risks, it is not necessary for everday life, and other affordable methods of prevention (such as condoms) which have a very small chance of breaking can be used. How many times do I have to go over this?

[Atlanticatia]

America: the place where corporations have more rights than people.

[Farnhamia]

America: the place where corporations have more rights than people.

Not quite yet.

[The Black Forrest]

If you want to reduce your risk of heart disease, buy the pill yourself. I decrease my risk of heart disease buy buying vitamins, and I don't believe my employers cover that.

this is why we have the preventative care mandate in obamacare. preventative medicine is the key to lowering overall medical costs. contraception is a key part of that care. why wouldn't you want lower costs?

Indeed. When my mom was still working in labor and delivery; she worked on a few campaigns to get neonatal care covered more. It drove her nuts when she heard the arguments of "Derp why should I have to pay taxes for THAT! Derp"

[The Black Forrest]

But they shouldn't have to /choose/ not to have sex. Sex is a vital part of relationships (not including asexual relationships, etc). Ten dollars can be a lot to some people, sweetie. Also, condoms aren't 100% effective and aren't always available. An IUD is always available because it's inside of a woman's body. And yes, contraception is an important part of health coverage because women need it.

Women don't need contraception, sex isn't a "need", it's an option. Condoms are always available, look at your local WalMart, and if you are too poor to afford them (cause some people obviously can't find ten dollars in a first world nation?), you can not have sex or you can put them on layaway.

Please study the subject. This ruling isn't about condoms.

[Regnum Dominae]

This is a pretty bad ruling.

WOOHOOO!!!! COURTS RULED IN FAVOUR!?!?! AMAZING!!! AWESOME!!! AW YIS!!!! GO HOBBY LOBBY!!!

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!!!!!!!!! WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS TOO!!!!!!!!!!

[Doitsu-san]

Contraception prevents diseases during sex, and sex is completely optional. It isn't an employer's responsibility to pay for an employee doing something that they could live without and isn't necessary to their health.

Seriously. You need to study the concept of contraception. This ruling isn't about condoms.

But you fail to realize that condoms are an affordable alternative to contraception and achieve the same results. It's stupid to make companies cover an optional activity on the basis that workers are too poor to afford contraception when condoms come $10 a box.

[The Black Forrest]

Some women NEED contraception as a preventative medicine. To prevent other diseases. And a lot NEED it to prevent pregnancy. And right, because poor people shouldn't be having sex. And why wouldn't we want poor people to have access to contraception? Because they can obviously afford to have children/diseases.

You don't need it to prevent heart disease, you can buy vitamins. You don't need it to prevent pregnancy, you can just not have sex.

That is a rather ignorant comparison. Please study the pill. Ignorance is not something to be proud.

You can buy condoms to have sex, and please don't give me the rant about how "poor people can't afford condoms", if you can afford a fucking Happy Meal you can buy a box of condoms, fuck, even in the shithole of a town in Puerto Rico where my Grandfather lives there is a whole shop dedicated to condoms.

And again. This ruling isn't about condoms.

Sex isn't a need, sex is an optional risk. And no matter how long you rant you can never change that.

Again an ignorant statement.

[Atlanticatia]

Why is it that, in America, there is more of a social stigma on a poor person having sex than there is on a person believing using birth control will make everyone go to hell?