So what's wrong with blocking it on religious grounds? Oh, right--those employed at the company might not believe in YOUR freakin' religion! And saying "well, there are other jobs out there" is in defiance of Equal Opportunity. To say that means that you don't believe in the freedoms that we allegedly have here compared to other countries. You believe in theocracies and letting your religion dictate daily life to others in your jurisdiction... and that's more Taliban-like than American.

They had better not let people get away with this nonsense on a national level. If I work for Jehovah's Witnesses and they block health care treatment for my blood disorder, because JWs don't believe in transfusions, that's a death sentence for me. Same applies for birth control--if I have ovarian cyst or uterine fibroids, and my employer won't let me get oral/hormonal birth control pills under "their" health plan, I stand a chance of being infertile, having the cyst rupture or developing cancer and dying. So they'd apparently rather pay for my cancer treatments over the fibroids than the birth control pills that could prevent it?

Fine. You have your beliefs. You CANNOT and SHOULD NOT prevent someone who does not follow them but who works for you be barred from a universal policy. You don't believe in it? Then YOU don't have to take it.

StandUpJokeOff,

I couldn't agree more. It makes a per4son wonder why religious thought is so elevated in importance in the culture to begin with and why the whole subject5 is given such deference. Like why do we allow that a person's belief system carries any weight at all in secular matters like contraception. I find it strange that we let religious thinking be applied to anything outside of its proper context of personal choice. It's just not rational at all.

I think we need to have a serious discussion about not allowing religion to inform secular decision making.

FlatIron...respectfully Health Care Plans already have this provision built in to prevent added costs to insurers from related illness. If you took the time you'd know that contraceptives are not used solely for birth control. Many women suffer from other issues that contraceptives are used to treat. You'd rather pay the greater cost for not making available a cheaper solution? You epitomize what the rest of the world sees as a self-serving, greedy American who is clueless. During the 1970's there was a term for people like you look that one up also.

Your ignorance and bias is showing -- contraceptives are used for many reasons beyond mere birth control. For many women it is an important way to manage a whole range of conditions.

Besides, even if it was merely for their "sex life" so what? They are being asked to pay for people's cigarette habits, their bad eating habits, and other traits far more easily blamed on bad behavior than a person's sex life!

Flatiron: EDUCATE YOURSELF. Look at how many different things that birth control pills treat in women. Learn about gynecological issues. THEN come back and argue your stance! Tell us how much you know about fibroid tumors, PCOS, endometriosis... Here. Let me make it easier for you. Click this link.

Not to mention that not every woman is born to be a baby machine, and for those with current issues (physical, mental), pregnancy can destroy their already-fragile lives. There are some who suffer from PMS/PMDD, which is a severe form of depression that worsens with pregnancy. Let me guess. Your argument is, "Well, they have no business getting pregnant", right? Well, Flatiron, you can't walk around and magically expect that you won't be 1) forcibly raped, 2) drugged and raped, or 3) coerced by someone who "loves" you into having unprotected sex.

From a medical perspective, making birth control options available to women is every bit as relevant to women as testosterone treatments are to men who need them. It is a way for them to stay healthy, stay productive at their job, and not suffer. Or maybe suffering is a turn-on for you, because it gives you an excuse to complain what whiners women are.

Would you rather encourage the use of birth control at a low cost or pay the much higher cost of caring for unwanted children who will need assistance with food, health care, education, and will still not be as likely to grow up to be good citizens? Do you know what it costs to keep someone in jail? Think about it. Don't just watch FOX.

Hey 'FlatIron" would you then agree, if you don't want to 'pay for someone elses sex life', that VIAGRA be included in 'your' ban? What's good or the goose, is good for the gander...

Oh nevermind, I didn't read the next part of the thread. You're a HYPOCRITE...

That's the biggest pile of crap lawsuit ever! They have been providing health care coverage that has covered contraceptives, but now that the Affordable Heath Care Act is going into effect they want to drop that health insurance and put new insurance in place? They are only doing it now to have a reason to sue and if the court allows them to get away with this absolute BS then those judges don't deserve to sit on the bench. The jerks are using their religion that didn't mean so much before the AHCA was in place and they covered birth control, but now suddenly their religion is important? I hope they go broke having to pay all the attorney fees that should be leveled against them for creating a situation just so they can sue.

Because Culheath we come to our citizenship as complete whole human beings, body, mind and spirit. We have all established a moral center and have come to believe what is right and what is wrong - or put another way, have come to believe what is consistent and inconsistent with our moral beliefs. It is irrelevant what factors play in the individual formation of conscience. For some it will include their upbringing and training in a particular faith tradition, for others it will not. Because one's moral positions are informed, in part, by faith does not nullify those positions in the public square. What you are suggesting is that those with morality informed by faith should be relegated to second class citizenship, unable to fully engage in the political process because we dare not discuss religious standards in "polite company" Nonsense.

The people engaged in these lawsuits are not imposing their religious beliefs on anyone. They are not suggesting that women should not use contraceptives, only that their company should not be forced to provide them in contradiction to their religious beliefs.

Janet, there are so many things wrong with your statement. First you are assuming that all of the children born from these circumstances would be unwanted and unloved and that the women who bore them would be unable to provide for them. Lots of contraceptives are used by women (and couples) who can afford and would care for and love any children they have in the event the contraceptives don't work. You are going, of course, to the worst case scenario because it supports your position.

You also seem to believe that if a company's health insurance plan doesn't provide contraceptives that the woman has no further responsibility for her reproductive status; that it is a choice between providing free contraceptives or having hundreds of unwanted children. The couple engaging in intercourse still bears the ultimate responsibility for their choice to enter into that act. The woman could insist the man wear a condom, the woman could pay for the contraceptives. If having a child would be such a disastrous consequence, they could refrain from having sex. The attitude of "pay for my contraception or pay for my child" is typical of the growing socialist leanings of our country which includes a health dose of abdication of personal responsibility for our actions.

Angela, I think there is more of a comparison between contraceptives and viagra than you think. One of the lines of reasoning for mandating the inclusion of contraceptives in health insurance plans is that they are used to treat a variety of health conditions unrelated to pregnancy. The fact is that both of these drugs have "medical uses" and "recreational uses". Viagra is used to treat the recognized medical condition of erectile dysfunction. It is also used "recreationally" by both men and women to enhance the sexual experience. Contraceptives are used to treat a number of recognized medical conditions. They are also used "recreationally" by women so that they can enjoy the sexual experience without worrying about becoming pregnant.

Neither the desire for hotter sex nor fertility are medical conditions that need treatment. How about we include these drugs in the plan when used for medical purposed and exclude them when desired for recreational purposes?

Flatiron, and plaintiffs, you are wrong. The law does not require employers to pay for contraception. Taking your religious concerns into account, the law was constructed so THE INSURANCE COMPANIES must provide this service free of charge. And, Flatiron, I challenge you to show me a single bible passage that EXPLICITELY bans birth control. I believe such religious concerns are equatable to the church's ban on women priests- not a biblical law, but one invented by MEN. I don't live in Italy and I will not have the Vatican issue the laws for my country. We are a democracy led by elected officials, not a theocracy led by church officials of the Vatican.

Hey Flatiron, why should I be forced to pay for ANYTHING regarding my employee's life? Oh, right, BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW!

If religious beliefs enter the equation, I can opt out of paying for any medical insurance but setting of broken bones if I am a Christ Scientist. Hell, based upon a plain language freaking read of the Bible I can opt out the child labor laws, minimum wage laws, can beat my child to death if he sasses me, and can marry multiple wives all around the age of 12.

Oh, and I can't wait to own me my slaves!

As for opting out of covering lifestyle decisions I don't agree with--I don't smoke and I don't drink, so it looks like I can buy insurance that only covers cancer and other diseases where alcohol and smoking are not a factor. Oh, and if an employee breaks an arm playing rugby over the weekend, since I didn't get the satisfaction of playing that match, they shouldn't be covered either.

See, the problem is once you carve out an exception for any reason whatsoever, it doesn't take an Einstein to opt out of the law 100%.

Now, just as you MUST pay Social Security and other taxes if you wish to run a business in America, you must pay any and all taxes. Including for Obamacare. You got a problem with ANY of the legal rules for running a Business in America--move. I am led to believe Afghanistan and Iran are very anti-contraception, and I am sure you would fit in there just fine.

In the meantime, stop trying to turn America into one of those 2 Theocracies...

Hold on to that thought because if they are allowed to only pay for what their beliefs support then maybe we can bring that same issue to the federal tax. I don't like wars so my tax should exclude the military portion, education too because I don't have kids and I believe people should work so Congress just lost its early retirement pension portion from me. In fact I may have my tax down to 0 when I look a bit further.

This is ridiculous, we fought about this is the 80's and insurance companies agreed to cover birth control.

There is a strong suggestion for Catholics to use the rhythm method, but nothing is cut in stone about the pill, only the morning after pill. There are thousands of Catholic women on birth control. Most of us because we have the size of family that we can support without aid. These right wing Catholics give all of us a bad name, and I truly believe that they are doing it from a Look at Holy Me stand than anything thing else.

So, FlatIron, where are your objects to insurance that covers Viagra? You know, those little blue pills that men of ALL ages are taking for their sex life....even young men who don't need it but think it makes them last longer?

culheath

I find it strange that we let religious thinking be applied to anything outside of its proper context of personal choice.

Translation: It's OK for me to personally choose contraception, but not OK for you to personally choose not to help me obtain it.

I keep seeing people whining about having to pay for other people's birth control, so I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you've never bought health insurance. You sign up for it and they deduct money from your paycheck (every two weeks for us). So, we are paying for it (my husband and myself since it takes two to make a baby). The employer isn't going to receive a discount for removing birth control pills, shots, vasectomies, hysterectomies, etc. I'm actually surprised that the companies offer any health care. Whatever happens to you and your family is god's will right?

I am all for helping to pay for other people's birth control if their employers do not offer insurance. It's a bargain compared to the medical cost of pregnancy, labor and delivery (which we will all absorb when the medical centers raise their rates to cover it). And if the kids are unwanted, then we will be paying the court costs for their parents incarceration for abuse or murder. Or maybe their foster care for 18 years. And if they grow up to be criminals, then we get to pay for their stay in prison.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. If your boss is a Jehovah's Witness are you OK with him excluding coverage for this life saving procedure? Are you OK with Christian Scientists not providing medical coverage at all based on their beliefs?

Flat Iron,

If paying for other people's sex lives is your biggest concern, here are your other solutions...

Outlaw women having sex. Because if they get knocked up, which is a real possibility without contraceptives and you can't really trust ALL women to buy and take the pill after making it especially inconvenient, you will STILL being paying for it. Just a more expensive version of it.

Allow women to have sex, but mandate they purchase contraception (regardless of ability to pay) and than deploy government agents to ensure that we take it everyday, just in case.

Of course women will still fall through the cracks and get pregnant, so you'll still be paying for their sex lives, but really your options boil down to first world health care, or Afghanistan.

You pick.

Good post Sarah.

Really Sarah?! You're generally much more reasonable and reasoned than this post.

It's funny how dumb people are thinking it is free from the insurance company...Nope, they pass the cost to the buyer of the policy, therefore, the employer is paying for it.

I'm against forcing birth control on employers with religious backgrounds. It's called freedom of religion and protected by the constitution. It does not matter what you think of the religion. It's protected.

However, apparently liberals think women have no personal responsibility or self control and just drop on their backs from command. Therefore, since women are not able to control themselves, getting them birth control on them is the right thing to do. Like what the vet does for stray cats.

Or, if you really wanted to see birth rates drop, just don't give welfare queens additional money for popping out babies. The birth rate would drop in half instantly.

Or, the president had a good idea by giving them cell phones hoping that the wouldn't shut up long enough to get pregnant.

Liberal philosophy is simple....Americans are too stupid to be personally responsible for themselves, therefore, the govt has to do it for them.

Sadly, I'm starting to believe they are right.

JoeMike,

It's not my logic, it's following the lines of Flat Iron's. If he/she is THAT scared of paying for other's sex lives, than those are his options.

If he/she is TRULY concerned about that, and not just parroting, overly dramatic, rhetoric, he/she will be able to stand by their convictions and REALLY do something about not having to pay for other's sex lives.

Otherwise, admit that it's illogical, fear mongering, that falls WAY short of ACTUALLY solving the problem he/she claims to be most concerned about.

Let's get real. First off, this order is meaningless. There are 10 judges on the Court with one vacant seat, (that Republicans are blocking Obama from assigning), and the 3 judges who made this ruling are all Republican appointed judges.

Joel Flaum is 76 years old, appointed by Reagan. He's very conservative and has been on the court since 1983.

Diane Sykes is an ultra conservative appointed by GW Bush. Her former husband has a Conservative radio tak show. She belongs to the Federalist Society, (an ultra conservative organization trying to change the American legal system taking it back to Colonial days) Illinois Senator Durbin lead a strong opposition to her appointment. http://votesmart.org/public-statement/46555/nomination-of-diane-s-sykes-to-be-united-states-circuit-judge-for-the-seventh-circuit The woman should not be on the bench.

The dissenting judge Ilana Rovner was appointed by GH Bush in 1992. She is 74 years old and an immigrant from Latvia as an infant when her mother was trying to escape the Nazis. She too is conservative but far more moderate and realistic.

Keep in mind that the order just signals that they think they should hear the case. That isn't yet decided and could still be rejected although they will likely hear the appeal. Keep in mind this order was issued by a grouchy old man who is hard core conservative and a radical right wing woman who would be viewed today as a "Tea Party" activist. Realize that a moderate conservative elderly woman dissented against these two rogues.

Rovner's dissent tells it all. This company has 90 employees, about 70 are Union covered by a Union sponsored insurance plan. The other 20 are covered by the company sponsored plan, which interestingly enough had already covered the birth control and related services in the mandate. The plaintiff now claims they want to drop that coverage on religious grounds and will have to pay the "fine", which is a $2000 tax assessment per employee. They further claim that this penalty could cost them up to $730,000 per year which would be ruinous to their company.

You do the math, $2000 times 20 employees = $730,000? EVen if somehow they claimed all their employees including those covered by the Union sponsored plan, we're talking about 90 employees times $2000 which is only $180,000. But those Union employees are covered by a separate plan the Union sponsors.

Rovnner in a very nice way basically points out that they did not even consider this for the last year an a half and supposedly now have just discovered their current plan covers everything the mandate ask for. She points out that there is no undue financial burden necessitating the restraining order as they have already been paying for this coverage for some time, at least a year if not more before they even filed for restraint.

If you read between the lines in Rovner's dissent , she basically says they case is bull@!$%# and is simply a showcase attempt at stirring up some controversy. She points out that the order by the other two judges has no basis in fact either from the point of of necessitating a restraint order because of financial harm, or from the point of having a likelihood of winning their appeal.

Even if they hear the case, with a conservative dominated court, it is highly unlikely that their appeal would be sustained for the simple fact that their case is so weak. And even if it somehow were sustained, it should be crystal clear that the Justice Department would appeal that decision. It should be fairly clear that the Supreme Court has already signalled that these cases have no chance of being granted.

Take some time to read the ruling by the court and you will see that these idiots are simply making noise with no logical basis for their complaint. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/7th-CA-ruling-on-contraceptives.pdf

Planned parenthood will for "$30, THIRTY DOLLARS" apply an injection that will prevent contraception in women for six months.

Any working woman can easily afford $5 a month, which is the cost of a drink in a bar or half a pack of cigarettes in NY.

Something people seem to forget which may ultimately come into play on this issue, is that health insurance provided by an employer is in fact part of the employees compensation package. This is crystal clear and if not for a specific exemption, we would all be paying income taxes on any employer paid health insurance.

Congress can mandate any number of things about employee compensation, for example, minimum wage, FICA, employer contributions to medicare and Social Security.

As a part of compensation, the money spent on this insurance belongs to the employee, not the employer. An employer could not refuse to pay you some portion of your wages on religious grounds if you used that money to buy prostitutes or pornography or any other use that they deemed to be in violation of their religious beliefs. This issue of insuranceis no different because it is the employee's option as to whether or not they use that coverage. The use of that coverage ultimately is reflected in the costs of any premiums or direct payments for services in the case of a self insured company. The actual "purchase" or use of the services provided is up to the employee, just as is his/her use of wages to buy alcohol, drugs, prostitutes, etc., or even contraception or abortions. To uphold this objection is to say that employers have a right to determine what is the appropriate use of an employees compensation. That is none of their business and the employee still has the right to accept and use this coverage or reject it.

If this should ever make it to the Supreme Court, you can be sure that this argument will hold true. The moneys being spent are not something the employer decides. It is a required part of employee compensation. To allow such as is being claimed would open a door for all sorts of refusals on the part of employers on religious grounds. It would open the door to refusing to pay taxes because of what the money was being spent on, such as wars, goes against an individual or employer's religious beliefs. It would open the door to refuse compensation payment to employees based on what they used that money for.

Someone might come up with some religious based objection to Social Security or Medicare, so therefore an employer could be exempted form paying their contribution? The fact is that these too are part of employee compensation. To the employer, these are employment costs just as is the insurance they may provide.

The very nature of this argument is insane and has nothing to do with religious objections. Furthermore the convoluted claim that the RFRA applies is an even bigger travesty. The RFRA was written to protect Native Americans from having their sacred lands confiscated and controlled by the government. And interestingly enough, parts of it have been ruled Unconstitutional as an overreach of Congress. This was a Democratically sponsored bill and had nothing to do with the type of claims being applied to it.

We all know what this is about and it has nothing to do with religion, morals or personal freedoms.

If you were a Jew could you be forced to fed pork to your workers?

Muslim taxi drivers in NY have won a lower court verdict to be allowed to worship Allah six times a day. If the workers can win a sham lawsuit like that, why can't the boss win a verdict it is against "THEIR" religious principles to pay for abortions? Now if the women want to pay for that part of the health plan that gives them added coverage for the contraceptive needs that the bosses object to, then that is fine. However, the bigger issue is the constant ever increasing insult and invasion of the privacy of American people.

Planned parenthood will for $30 apply an injection to prevent pregnancies for six months. This is affordable to every woman working or non working.

Also the complete absence of common sense by the government that is driving out of business and making the U.S. less competitive in the world market place and the insistence of Obama to flood the U.S. with goods from countries that make the U.S. worker uncompetitive and our goods impossible to sell overseas.

Obama does not understand that not one tv, one, radio, one stereo, one computer, one speaker, one hair dryer, one small appliance is made in the U.S.? And the reason is that all tariffs have been removed and the American worker cannot compete with the cheap countries?

Putting on more rules and regulations and more costs are not going to cure the unemployment problem. They are going to increase unemployment! Yes we need health care but there are ways to make it much more affordable. Put reasonable limits on malpractice awards, lower doctors' health insurance costs, decrease the need for more workers in doctors' offices by reducing federally and state mandated paperwork. Hospitals need to charge everyone for health care and collect from those who use the services. Smokers have to have severe penalties as do alcoholics or people who drink. Why should my health care costs have to subsidize smokers and drinkers' ailments? Overweight people have to have much higher health costs. It should be pay as you go. And don't say well that is their right and they can't help it. These people pay for satellite tv, celular phones, luxury cars, purchase cigarettes by the carton and wine and beer by the case. They can well afford to divert some of those purchases to super expensive health care packages due to their own selfishness.

Planned parenthood will for $30 apply an injection to prevent pregnancies for six months

Um, I think you are thinking of Depo Provera. It is good for 3 months (not 6 months) and can only be used for 2 years before one should switch to another form of contraception because it increases the risk of osteoporosis significantly (especially if started in teenagers). It also has a higher incidence of certain

Also, as far as PPH charging $30 for this shot - couple of things. 1st) one must have access to PPH - in some states this is very difficult. 2nd) PPH operates on a sliding fee schedule, meaning the price varies based on the woman's income. 3rd) per PPH's website, the shot is available for $35 - $75 + exam fees. This means that every 3 months, the woman has to go in (taking time off of work), pay $35 - $75 + exam fees in order to cover the cost of the shot. In other words, it's not as easy as you try to make it sound.

Yes we need health care but there are ways to make it much more affordable. Put reasonable limits on malpractice awards, lower doctors' health insurance costs, decrease the need for more workers in doctors' offices by reducing federally and state mandated paperwork.

First, I would like to point out that this contraception mandate isn't really a contraception mandate - it's one component of a much larger preventative care mandate in which there are services for men, women and children provided at no out-of-pocket cost. That does not mean it's free - it just means there is no co-pay at the time of service and the deductible doesn't need to be met for the services to be covered. Some insurance companies may increase premiums to cover the preventative care mandate that provides services for men, women and children.

Second, preventative care is important. It helps prevent certain medical conditions (such as pregnancy, that, while it's not a disease, is most certainly a medical condition), allows some medical conditions to be caught earlier the the process. Some of these conditions can be reversed, or successfully treated if caught early enough. If caught later, or not prevented, these conditions end up costing a lot more money (and yes, this does impact taxpayers).

Third, I agree with putting reasonable limits on malpractice awards. Though I would like to point out, that states that have put in tort reform did NOT see a decrease in malpractice premiums, they only saw a decrease in award amounts.

Fourth, on "Decreasing the need for worker's in the doctor's office by reducing federally and state mandated paperwork", while I'm not saying I disagree with you on this, I do think it's rather odd that you say this -- right after you said "Putting on more rules and regulations and more costs are not going to cure the unemployment problem. They are going to increase unemployment! ". It just seems odd that you would claim that adding this mandate will increase unemployment, and this is a bad thing (which, yes, increasing unemployment would be a bad thing), but then you turn around and advocate for another idea that the whole purpose of that idea is to eliminate jobs.

I am an active Catholic who has a long history of using oral contraceptives. They were first prescribed for me as a teenager - a non-sexually-active teenager, because of severe menstrual issues that didn't respond to other treatment. Then, once I was married, I used them to limit the size of my family to only as many children as my husband and I could afford to raise properly. Once we were done having kids, he had an insurance-covered vasectomy. Later, I was put back on oral contraceptives for non-contraceptive reasons (considering my only sex partner had a vasectomy, I didn't need them to prevent pregnancy). I guess all women who take oral contraceptives are sluts, me included - even though I've only ever had one sex partner and that is my husband. Oh, and my teenage daughter was recently prescribed oral contraceptives by her dermatologist. Add her to the list.

I understand that Catholic employers do not want to pay for something against their beliefs, but is it their right to deny this medication to non-Catholic employees, or Catholic employees like me who don't trust natural family planning, and who don't think the Church should tell that every time I have sex with my husband I should welcome another child with open arms (given that natural family planning has an effective failure rate of 25%)? I used to work for a Jewish hospital. Would it be OK for them to mandate that all male children of their employees be circumcised? After all, that is their religious/medical belief. And as another poster said, I'd sure be unhappy if the company I worked for was bought by a Christian Scientist, whose only form of medical coverage would be faith healing, even for non-Christian Scientist employees - outrageous, you say? But why? If the Catholic Church can claim they can't be forced to provide coverage against their beliefs, then why not Scientologist-owned companies, or Jehovah's Witness-owned companies...... No one is forcing anyone to take oral contraceptives. But they should be available at a covered rate for those who choose to use them.

So can a Muslim business owner force his religious beliefs on his employees? No women in the work place? All women must be segregated from the men? All women must be kept in inferior positions of employment? All women must wear burqas? How about a Jewish business owner requiring all male employees to be circumcised? Or that all women employees must be segreated? Can a Jewish business owner require his employees to keep kosher? How about a Amish business owner requiring all married male employees to have a beard and no mustache? Or that all employees dress plain? How about a business owner whose religious beliefs say married women may not work outside the home? Can he fire a woman for marrying?

It should be pointed out that there is NO method of birth control that is 100% effective and healthy for women.

Abstinence, you say? You're wrong. It is both mentally and socially UNHEALTHY. It is unreasonable to live a life where you have to keep a close friend/partner at arm's length, essentially, so that a slip in your intimacy level does not lead to unprotected sex. The social and psychological effect of keeping that distance from men you're interested in results in many lonely nights. Because let's face it: if you are a man, how long are you going to stay in a relationship where the woman won't "put out" on any level that might lead to an accidental pregnancy? It also does not insure against pregnancy if you get drunk, drugged, coerced or forced into sex by a stranger... because then the complaints would be 18th-century style finger-pointing ("Well, she shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt that night" or "She shouldn't have been drinking that night" or "She knew he'd talk her into it," etc.--going back to the age-old practice of laying blame on the woman for her condition).

Read the effectiveness chart here for birth control methods.

Sterilization, IUDs and implants are the most effective but even they have the potential to go wrong. Men have to wait three months and be re-checked to make sure the vasectomy "took," because it might have been done wrong. And sterilizing a woman is a SERIOUS medical procedure, not the simple, quick snip-snip of a vasectomy; 5/100,000 die every year in the process. You can have cardiac or respiratory arrest under anesthesia and die, and women sterilized under age 30 are at least twice as likely as women over 30 to have an ectopic pregnancy if the process is reversed. IUDs and implants also have negative effects, as the implant hormones can negatively affect a woman's health and may have to be removed.

Unless you do marry at 18 and you are lucky enough to have that one partner for life, and accept regular and wanted pregnancies as part of that life, then sex is risky business. There is no such thing as a safe encounter, no matter what method you use. And how can you be sure that he doesn't cheat on you, catch something from someone else, pass it on to you? Do you spy on your partner? Monitor their phone calls and emails? Visit them at work and make sure they don't have any "special friendships" going on? You'll end up as a control freak and mask your suspicious insecurities as being an advocate for your health.

Hey, if convert to Tantra, does that permit me to opt out of the sexual harassment laws?

I'd like to see Viagra not covered by insurance. Why should I pay for some creep's jolly tablets?

These jerks just want to OWN women's bodies. Find out what they make or what service they provide (in this case contracting); and, if you are a woman or a man who believes women should have control of their bodies BOYCOTT them!

FlatIron72-7314662 --- OMG!
You must not know many women. Hormonal birth control does soooo much more than your small opinion of allowing sex without the fear of getting pregnant. Do you realize that such products are often used to mitigate female problems like endometriosis? If birth control should not be used for such problems then male ERECTION pills should not be allowed for their “problem” either. Because let’s face it “their problem” is only about sex…or rather their inability to get it up…it has nothing to do with PAIN during a menstrual cycle. Get a clue!!!!!!!! And this is coming from a married man.

Learn to read, I was refering to birth control being used specifically for recreational sex. And many women use birth control for exactly that reason. If it's for a specific medical issue then I believe it should be treated like other medication, but not simply for the purpose of birth control.

ElkMeadow ...(#2.2)..."I'd like to see Viagra not covered by insurance. Why should I pay for some creep's jolly tablets?"

When they mandate that Viagra class drugs must be provided without having deductibles and a co-pay, as in absolutely FREE.....Then you might have a point, but just on the technicalities....not on the moral objection in question by these employers...

You're never going to change the costs of healthcare when the majority of healthcare service consumers don't care what it costs as long as "someone else" pays for it....

What is being created now is a Caste System of Healthcare.....Where the best Doctors are going to cater the those who can afford to just pay....fee-for-service and the rest will get all the doctors that graduated at the bottom of the class at their Medical Schools or imported from the University of Bombay....that's if you can even find one of those taking on any new Medicaid (0bamaCare) patients. You'll be herded like cattle through Government Clinics...

And let me just remind you'se that the part of 0bamaCare that forces the States to participate, whether they like it or not, was found to be Unconstitutional....

This isn't about religion anyway. It's about money. These people use their religion to try to get out of giving their employees benefits. Besides, at some point we need to break up the religious bullying over birth control. Check out the situation in the Philippines if you want to see where societies go with no birth control. Let's start taking decent care of the children we have before we force more women to have babies they can't take care of.

Gee FlatIron, and who gets to decide who is just using it for recreational sex? Men on Viagra don't have to prove that they are having ED problems. Why do women have to pass a test and not men?

Mike: I heard the same arguments when Medicare was introduced! Doctors will leave, they'll be no one to treat you, only the rich will have medical care and everyone else will get nothing, blah, blah, blah....

Problem is, it's not true! Some doctors even today will not take certain insurance plans! But the practices that want to turn a profit will comply.

Of course, it is just greed and really has nothing to do with religion. The next thing these jerks will decide is that it is against their religion to pay into FICA or to pay minimum wage.

I think some people are missing out on one small fact..........Until Obamacare if fully implemented a private employer does not have to offer insurance at all.....PERIOD!!! Benefits are NOT government mandated, nor are they guaranteed!! Once Obamacare is fully implemented a company will only have to offer insurance if it has more than 50 full-time employees or full-time equivalents(each 120 hours per month of part-time labor counts as a full-time equivalent). So if a company wants to drop down to 49 full time employees OR have 99 part time workers earning 25 hours a week they don't have to offer squat!!! That is what is wrong with Americans, we think we deserve the maximum return for minimal output!!!

Take Viagra off the prescription coverage. I don't like the it, as many of the users are adulterers.

I totally agree Jamie. It's a part of women's health care. It is a choice on whether or not women will use it. Just knowing that it is supposed to be covered under the health insurance companies, is a bit of a relief for people who Do use certain types of contraceptives.

One of the first articles like this that does not identify what party the three judges are aligned with. Could it be two right-wing judges trying to force THIER dogma on the rest of us?

@FlatIron, OK, but you are forcing your lack of an erection on my wallet. so to speak. Not having an erection means you can't have sex, but you can still urinate, which is the 1st of two uses of the penis. The 2nd use is for sex. You can pee without a erection, so really, your arguement about it being a medical problem is pure bull excrement.

It's a mental problem for men that they can't get a hard-on, that's all. Men that can do, men that can't need that little blue pill. Ban the blue pill, just like they want to ban abortion.

Awesome Jamie! Perfect solution to the ongoing debate. Now add guns to your statement.

Amen!

FLatiron - You can have a say where your money goes when I can have a say where MINE goes. I don't want MY money going to fund WARS, AG and OIL subsidies and FAITH BASED initiatives which ALL VIOLATE my beliefs and principles. Do I have a choice ? HELL NO... and NEITHER DO YOU so STFU !!! We ALL have to pay for things we don't agree with. Get over yourself.

What an idiotic comment. Of course we have a choice, that's why we vote for politicans. What libtards can't seem to figure out is the more government expands the more it will spend money on things like warmongering even if they don't want it. So either do something about it or STFU.

SallyAnn-4595694

@FlatIron, OK, but you are forcing your lack of an erection on my wallet. so to speak. Not having an erection means you can't have sex, but you can still urinate, which is the 1st of two uses of the penis. The 2nd use is for sex. You can pee without a erection, so really, your arguement about it being a medical problem is pure bull excrement.

It's a mental problem for men that they can't get a hard-on, that's all. Men that can do, men that can't need that little blue pill. Ban the blue pill, just like they want to ban abortion.

It is a medical problem. Nothing you said has disproved that fact. Your sentiments are the true BS.

FlatIron: Pregnancy is considered a medical condition. It may not be a disease, but it is, indeed a medical condition. There are many physiological changes that occur during pregnancy that all compromise the woman for the sake of the fetus. Preventing pregnancy is preventing a medical condition. Oral contraception is also used for many non-pregnancy related conditions.

Yes, using oral contraception is always used for medical reasons. Just like use of ED medications is used for medical reasons.

Interesting how you switched "medical problem" with "medical condition". Give me a break.

FlatIron: Interesting how you ignored this sentence: "There are many physiological changes that occur during pregnancy that all compromise the woman for the sake of the fetus" and this sentence: ."Oral contraception is also used for many non-pregnancy related conditions."

It's also interesting that you don't realize that medical condition is a medical problem - may not be a disease state, but it is a problem in that it does have deleterious affects on the person with the medical condition (aka medical problem).

I guess I should've been more specific for you in these:

Pregnancy, in and of itself, causes changes cardiovascular, respiratory, hematologic, metabolic, hormonal, renal and gastrointestinal changes. All of these are intended to take things from the mother to provide for the fetus - and it's not uncommon for it cause problems for the mother. Even gestational diabetes (which isn't rare, affecting 5 - 10% of pregnant women) is caused by a physiological change in women. The pregnancy hormones cause the woman's cells to become insulin resistant -- this occurs in ALL pregnant women. In 5 - 10% of pregnant women, it causes too much insulin resistance - leading to the complications of diabetes in the pregnant woman and consequences for the fetus. It also increases the risk of the woman developing Type II diabetes later in life.

Furthermore, there have been multiple studies that have shown that women should have 2 - 3 years between pregnancies for health reasons. More frequent pregnancies results in long term medical consequences for the woman as her body doesn't fully recover and, due to this, also provides sub-optimal conditions for the subsequent fetus(es). Sub-optimal conditions for a fetus can result in life-long medical conditions (aka problems) for the child once they are born.

I guess I should've also told you that endometriosis (which affects 10% of women of child-bearing age), PCOS (affecting approximately 7% of women), and other conditions (aka problems - in case, you're having a hard time with that bit of comprehension still). Just between endometriosis and PCOS, there is approximately 17% of women that require oral contraception for their medical conditions.

Considering ALL women of child-bearing age that want to prevent pregnancy are using oral contraception for a medical reason - that means 100% of women that use oral contraception are using it for a legitimate medical reason.

Leave it to a liberal to equate pregancy to a medical probem. All of that can be mitigated by either abstaining from sex, using condoms, or *gasp* paying for one's own birth control pills. Your argument is little more than an exscuse to force others to pay for recreational sex.

No, leave it to a medically trained person who is planning on doing their residency in Ob/Gyn (as in I'm going to be a physician in a little over a year), to understand that pregnancy is a medical condition (maybe not a disease, but, yes a medical condition [aka a medical problem], nonetheless).

Condoms can not mitigate endometrosis, PCOS, or many other conditions that oral contraception is used to treat. Condoms are less effective than oral contraception in preventing pregnancy.

Also, providing access to contraception with no out-of-pocket expense does NOT mean that the woman is not paying for her own contraception. Guess what *gasp* we pay for our premiums too.

Your argument is little more than misinformed drivel.

A medically tainted person should recognize that pregnancy is a perfectly natural function of the human body and essential to humanity. Pull your head out of your textbook and try using a little common sense.

We're talking about birth control pills being used for contraceptive use. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Condoms are very effective if used properly and have the added bonus of protecting against STDs. Talk about preventing medical problems. If you want birth control pay for it yourself so *gasp* my premiums don't go up. Again, try using some common sense before you make any more stupid comments.

A medically tainted person should recognize that pregnancy is a perfectly natural function of the human body and essential to humanity

First of all, I'm not quite sure what you mean my "medically tainted", I assume it was a error (we all make them occasionally).

Yes, pregnancy is a natural function - doesn't change the fact that it is a medical condition, albeit a temporary medical condition.

Pull your head out of your textbook and try using a little common sense.

I am using common sense, it is you that is failing to use common sense.

We're talking about birth control pills being used for contraceptive use. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

No @!$%#, Sherlock. Again, it doesn't matter - preventing pregnancy (a medical condition) is a valid medical use of contraception. It is used to prevent pregnancy, a medical condition. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Condoms are very effective if used properly and have the added bonus of protecting against STDs

Didn't say otherwise. However, when it comes to preventing pregnancy, condoms are not as effective as hormonal contraception. Of course people should still use condoms - whether they are using contraception or not - for STIs, especially if they aren't in a long-term, monogamous relationship.

If you want birth control pay for it yourself so *gasp* my premiums don't go up.

You should quit making stupid, dumb-ass assumptions. I pay 100% of my premiums, co-pays and deductibles (it's required to purchase the insurance through my school, but they don't pay any portion of the premiums). I also, have had my tubes tied for 9 years - I use contraception still, but not to prevent pregnancy, as I already have my tubes tied (which is an even more effective method of contraception - and, btw, is also covered under the preventative care mandate, along with other things for men, women and children).

You don't want your premiums to increase, I understand that. However, if you used a sliver of common sense you would find that the increase in premium to help cover contraception is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, especially if the person ends up needing welfare assistance to take care of the resulting child.

Again, try using some common sense before you make any more stupid comments.

There are any number of women in the world who should never become pregnant, for various medical and psychological reasons, as pregnancy can threaten their lives should their bodies be unable to support a life within it.

Flatiron, you're delusional if you think pregnancy is "perfectly natural." Pregnancy is NOT a "perfectly natural" thing for the human body--just because it CAN do something doesn't mean that it SHOULD, or that everyone who experiences it will have a positive outcome.

READ THIS LIST and tell me if everything here is acceptable as being "perfectly natural." Go ahead. Pick any five symptoms and tell me how well you yourself could tolerate them day in and day out for six, seven or eight months out of the time you'd carrying a child... AND without complaining about the pain, discomfort or embarrassment! And remember that the list is just a list of issues that occur DURING pregnancy; it says nothing about post partum depression and post-pregnancy illnesses that befall women.

FlatIron,

ED is perfectly natural. Some men get too old to get it up. That's life. Why should I cover something just so you can have sex?

You see, unlike ED meds, BC often serve purposes other than just sex. I don't want to pay for your sex.

Those procedures are vital to human health. Recreational sex is not.

Viagra is also for recreational sex and is not vital.

@Mary911256

I addressed that issue above.

FlatIron72-7314662

ElkMeadow

I'd like to see Viagra not covered by insurance. Why should I pay for some creep's jolly tablets?

I don't think that's a fair comparison. ED is a medical disorder and Viagra treats that problem. Birth control, when used for recreational sex, does not treat a disfunction of the body.

You are ridiculous. Yes ED is a medical disorder, but only during recreational sex. So you will pay for one and not the other. Hypocrite much?

I religiously object to insurance. So now any company I own can opt out of the Affordable Care Act.

I religiously object to war. So now any company I own can opt out of any taxes to pay for any war.

I religiously object to government feeding the poor. So now any company I own can opt out of any taxes to pay for foodstamps.

I religiously object to government. So now any company I own can opt out of any taxes to pay for any government service.

Yes Robert, if you can prove it in a court of law, then all (to some degree or other) can be true statements. For example, everyone knows that S.S. tax is mandatory for people earning paychecks, except of course if you're Amish. Amish, who are employed and earn a paycheck, are exempt from paying S.S. taxes due to their religious affiliation. They are registered as such with the S.S. administration and as such are not able to draw any S.S. benefits at all, ever, in their lives, as the trade off for not paying into the system. They were granted this exemption due to their religious beliefs. So, exemptions from Federal laws that violate a person's religious beliefs are well founded in case law as well as practice in the U.S.

Maybe I'm not getting this, but how is it that the company owners are allowed to force their employees to abide by their (the owners) religious beliefs when they deny birth control coverage? Isn't that religious oppression?

ED is a medical disorder and Viagra treats that problem. Birth control, when used for recreational sex, does not treat a disfunction [sic] of the body.

Only if you want to have sex. If you remain celibate, you will never need worry about ED. Therefore, my premium is paying for you to have sex. Slut.

yes

No,

You have a right to use Birth Control, but you should not have the right to force others to pay for it!

No marmee, in liberal world, if someone doesn't want to pay for something you want, it means that they oppose said item and are oppressing and controlling you. For example, if you want a steak dinner once a week and the government hasn't passed a law to provide you, out of taxpayer funds, said steak dinner, then it is plainly obvious that they are violating your right to have a steak dinner along with the rights of cattle farmers to provide the meat for the steak dinner. It is a complete violation of your rights and oppression and the fact that this is not discussed in the media is further proof that conservatives are trying to keep this pressing issue out of the public spotlight.

Anilof, I have really had it with people like you. "WHY SHOULD MY TAXES BE USED...." Just shut up already. You know what? Why should my taxes pay for:

The police department in your area

The Fire department in your area

The Roads, street lights, Sidewalks parks, city maintenance in YOUR AREA

This is Amreica, not some third world country. We have community things that get paid for by all of us whether you use them or not. I would rather have birth control available for women then have to pay for thousands of needy and forgotten children. This is not Africa......

And if you're a Christian Scientist, does that mean that prayer and eyeglasses and bone setting are the only health coverage your business's health insurance will offer?

Pretty much. If Christians get to opt out of the provisions they don't like, then everyone should be able to opt out of the provisions they don't like.

Personally, I plan on opting out of the minimum wage and child labor laws... Bible is against both, after all.

If you want the government (note the spelling) to buy your ammo, maybe you should join a well-regulated militia.

VetinVA: oh, now, you can't expect someone who wants to hold a rational argument to spell "government" properly, can you?

I always find that the first flaw in someone's discussion--when they are either too lazy or too lame between the ears to properly spell a word or to use someone's actual name (i.e. "Obummer"). That or when they use pointless exaggeration ("99 percent of all Americans believe...").

ThomasWardoo...so if your wife, daughter or daughter-in-law developed complications from a pregnancy that threatened her life requiring her OB/GYN to abort to save her life you'd opt for death? I guess woman can argue that regardless of the cause for your ED you should not be provided health care coverage for those issues. You also probably don't know but in 2010 women out number men in the work force. So whose paying for who with their tax dollars?

I don't care if there are Abortion Clinics in every town, it simply isn't moral to use my taxmoney to pay for it.

To me Abortion is murder, but I don't care what other do, it's on them... Just don't implicate me through using my tax dollars...

Funny, I didn't have this option of opting out of paying my taxes for when we were murdering people in the Bush Wars.

Henry David Thoreau went to jail rather than pay taxes for a war he didn't believe in. There are a lot of things I don't believe in, that I have to pay taxes for. A lot of people in Portland annoyed that they have to pay taxes to fix bridges that they don't drive over.

thomaswardoo: None of your tax dollars are used to fund abortions.

thomasward00

Once your tax money goes in the "community pool" for lack of a better term, it is no longer YOUR tax money, it is a part of everyone's tax money, you no longer have control of YOUR portion, it is no longer YOUR money. It is a miniscule part of everyone's tax money, are you tracking the bills you contributed by serial number. Each tax payer does not get to allocate their portion, if it makes you feel better you can say YOUR contribution was used for open back examination gowns, when in all reality none of us know exactly what our portion was used on. No one gets to pick and choose what part of the First Amendment they agree with and which they don't, that would nullify the First Amendment, and then people may not like YOUR religion and may decide to persecute you. It is a very slippery slope on which you desire to tread.

Um, due to the Hyde Amendment, no tax payer money goes towards abortion coverage. Medicaid covers women breeding children they can't feed and sterilization BUT not abortion. Makes total sense. (HEAVY SARCASM)

Everyone: this is Thomas's attempt to divert the conversation from the actual article! Throw in the abortion word and get everyone off the point.

We are not talking about taxes, We are talking about a company being forced to pay for an insurance plan that covers contraception, There is a big difference, First off It should be the companies choice whether they want to provide insurance coverage at all, If my business employed over 50 people I would cut all their hours to under 30 if I was being forced to pay for something I could not afford or was against my beliefs. And that is exactly what is going to happen in this country because big government has decided that it has authority where it should not.

Our government can not even manage it's own finances and they think they have a right to try and manage a businesses

Wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare is simply another tax, and thus you are not forced to pay for insurance, rather you are taxed if you don't. Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me, but neither do 90% of our laws. But, I am required to obey them.

Ergo, this is about taxes, and you need to learn to obey the MANDATE Christ gave and render unto Caesar those things he demands.

One of which is you pay for contraception coverage. Don't like it, move.

One of which is you pay for contraception coverage. Don't like it, move.

Wrong, I have the option to appeal to the court on the basis it is unconstitutional and low and behold the court has blocked it based on constitutional issues. I am not moving anywhere, If you don't like it you move!

And since you used the argument that it is a tax only if I do not provide it that means that when I do provide it I am paying for it and not a tax or penalty.

Personally I do not have a problem with a employer offering an insurance policy which included contraception, I have a huge problem with a government mandating it, That is none of governments business.

Sorry Dude, Supreme Court spoke. Obamacare is legal. Now swallow the bitter pill and realize that Christians are not better than everyone else and do NOT get to opt out of laws they don't like.

The original argument about contraceptives was that of a lesbian who needed the Pill to treat ovarian cysts, which had nothing to do with preventing a pregnancy, because--think about it--she doesn't have sex with men. However, George Stephanopoulos, Rush Limbaugh and others ran with their stupidity. Now women who were getting treated for cysts, endometriosis, hormone imbalances, severe acne and so forth are being denied their medications, while men are still getting their Viagra.

Can a woman even get a hysterectomy, or is that considered birth control, too?

I understand that Obamacare is legal. I simply do not think it is wise.

Religious freedom protects more than just Christians.

Most birth control pill packs run about $30.00 a month. I would hate anyone to actually pick up any portion of their own health care costs.

You are free to practice whatever you want in your private life. However, once you put on the role of employer, you provide what everyone else has to provide. Same way I as a member of the public have to pay my taxes to finance your wars.

If you don't like it, move to someplace like Afghanistan, were religion is the law. You should enjoy it.

WRONG

Maybe these loons should only be allowed to bid on Religious construction jobs.

If the company wants to play in the public sandbox then they have to play by public rules and not the one's their mommy demands they play by at home.

A business is not a person and the owner of a business has no business asserting his or her personal religious beliefs on anyone who works for them.

ChrisMcK...respectfully when an employer deems to fight in court against a provision that has broader application for the health of the largest segment of our population your wrong. Women pay the greater percentage of tax dollars as they exceed the number of men in the work force. Thus I like you feel I have a voice in what, where and how my tax dollars are steered. I want my tax dollars to provide contraception for the many reasons it's necessary. I have "picked up my portion," of the cost for my daughters who have serious health issues. Those who think they really know what they are talking about should do their research. I"ve one daughter who almost died from complications during pregnancy. Her baby was delivered 3 months early as a result. Her husband's and her insurance combined could not come close to the total cost involved. Her hospital bill alone was 100K not including the baby's neonatal ICU room per day, doctors, specialists, OR, ER, meds, and that's just for starters. Now do you suggest we pay for her to have far more costly, evasive continued procedures compared to a cheaper solution of contraceptives? Do you believe that continued costs for the duration would be less expensive? For our nation's women it is not "solely," recreational as some suggest it's a matter of life and the quality of their life. Those who think they are so knowledgeable obviously do not know that "no insurer will cut or tie a woman's fallopian tubes, when they are of child bearing age unless it's a dire medical necessity." Now you can debate the term "dire," 20x to Sunday but the underwriters not you or I decide the criteria for "dire." Experience teaches some really hard lessons that no amount of debate can compare with or to.

Yes, the employers are forcing their beliefs on others. If you use an example other than birth control, such as transfusions, this becomes clear. No one is forcing the employers to use birth control. Your freedom of religion does not extend to my house or to my body.

Your freedom of religion does not extend to my house or to my body.

Actually it does when you are trying to force me to pay for it, And do not try to cloud the issue with taxes, This is not about taxes, This is about forcing someone to pay a private company(insurance co) for a covered service for something they do not believe in, Inusrance coverage is a benefit the business provides to it's employees and as such the business should have a voice in what it is paying for.

No one is saying you can not use contraception, Just that you have to pay for you own

If the company wants to play in the public sandbox then they have to play by public rules and not the one's their mommy demands they play by at home

Except there was no government rule that an employer provide insurance coverage for any employee up until this law was passed and now it is being challenged as being unconstitutional just as any new law can be challenged, Remember all the challenges to laws by the fed government by states on voting ID and immigration, That is whay we have a court system so that an government is held in check and does not force unjust laws upon its people

And Lost! What about Viagra? What is the reasoning for covering that and not contraceptives?

You pay your taxes and that money becomes the property of the Federal Government. End of list.

Think of yourself as a grandmother giving your grandkid $10 on their birthday. It's not just a simple gift; it's also a monetary expression where you acknowledge your obligation for their well-being, something to help them get something they want/need. At that point of giving, do you think you have ANY right to say what your grandchild uses that money on? If so, you're a control freak--open your eyes and admit it.

Precisely. If I give a hand out to a street person and they buy booze or drugs or smokes with it, it doesn't matter to me at all. My giving is unqualified, and the only enabling I'm doing is to allow them to make their own decisions. Giving should never be a control issue.

This is what drove me nuts over the guy who got a $100 pair of Sketchers boots from a police officer. Giving isn't about control, and yet everyone suddenly wanted a piece of that man's life.

The boots that the man got were a GIFT. The ACT of giving was the important thing and all that matters. But all of a sudden, the entire nation seemed to think that it had a say in what that man did with those boots! People who wouldn't deign to look at a homeless person, much less give someone a $1 bill when they walk by their car holding a sign, suddenly felt misplaced indignation over the situation.

It was nobody's business if he wanted to wear them, to sell them, to spray-paint them with skulls, or to loop the laces around his neck and walk down the street saying, "My boots are strangling me!" They were HIS property at that point. Yet suddenly the entire country thought they had the right to be outraged that he wasn't wearing them.

Bingo. Well said.

Women have ALWAYS had to fight harder for equal treatment of their illnesses in the medical field.

My experience is that men simply don't listen and take action for women's issues in the same way that they do for men. This was illustrated a few years when my mother went to her physician. A few years after I was born, she had a hysterectomy due to cervical/uterine cancer. She developed adhesions and had three abdominal surgeries over the years to remove them, so when she went to the new doctor, she knew it was the adhesions growing back again. The doctor that she went to ignored her medical history, put her on steroids for her abdominal pain, suggested pain management classes and essentially told her "there's nothing wrong, it's all in your head." Well, she finally went to see another doctor, had surgery, and lost parts of her small intestine, large intestine and colon--which were being choked off by the adhesions. She could very well have died if she'd not taken action on her own.

Men can get their "happy" Viagra pills as an OPTION in their medical plan. Why can't women get birth control as a OPTION in theirs?!? It's absurd. Birth control is NOT just about "birth control"--it is used to prevent and ease any number of gynecological issues!

I believe that all of us, male and female, need to advocate for ourselves when it comes to medical care. And have an advocate for ourselves in case we are incapacitated. I always tell my patients (I work in the field) to advocate for themselves. And yes, women should have their contraceptives covered.

My IUD would have been covered by my plan had I gotten it this year instead of last year. I ended up paying for the Paragard IUD out of pocket and it cost me over $500. I shouldn't complain given that the IUD I am using can last for up to 12 years. But $500 is a good chunk of change for most of us. Of course, having a child would be much more expensive. I think it was money well spent. But I also think my insurance should have covered it.

I dated a girl with an IUD once. Let me tell you, when you hit that thing, your trip to la la land is over!!!!

What cracks me up is that the Republican party was decrying "Obama death panels" and the lack of choice in this fantasized situation... and yet were setting up the very same idea as "abortion panels." Had they implemented their plans to prevent abortions (even in medical emergencies, cases of incest, for long-term health reasons, etc.) it would have been out of the female patient's hands as to whether or not she could have an abortion, and out of her doctor's hands, and put onto the schedule/agenda of a group of total strangers who could get to that case in their own sweet time. And that idea wasn't a problem at all for the conservatives, yet they were screaming bloody murder at some hypothetical death-panel situation.

It's too bad that they never think about the lives that "pro-lifers" have taken when they invade other countries and bomb the hell out of their innocent civilians, some who may even be women, pregnant women and children.

I was not aware that Johnson,Clinton and Obama were ProLifers...or are you trying to tell us that Viet Nam,Somalia,Clintons bombing of Iraq,Bosnia,Obamas bombing of Afghanistan,Yemen and Libya never happened.

Lost: follow the breadcrumbs out of the Barrens: You are so off target! How come you didn't mention Iraq?

No one is trying to force anything on you, If you want birth control you are free to purchase it at your own expense.

Same for Viagra?????

Yep, that what it would mean. But it will be overturned at some point. The owner of a for profit business can not force their religious beliefs on their employees.

This is ridiculous. If you own a business, you must abide by the laws that are written for the employees.

Up until the enactment of Obamacare there was no legal requirement that any business provide health insurance to it's employees, Any health insurance was a negotiated contract between the employee and employer with the employer mainly setting the parameters because afterall they were paying for it. So with the passing of Obamacare there will be challenges to it in court to ascertain if certain provisions of it are constitutional, Those provisions that are unconstitutional are removed and those that are not remain.

The most important part was that the US Supreme Court ruled that Forcing someone to purchase insurance under the commerce clause was Unconstitutional, However they ruled that the government could penalize those that chose not to purchase insurance by taxing them.

A business stating that they do not wish to pay for contraception is not forcing their belief on any employee, The employee has the option of purchasing contraception on their own.

Trying to use the argument that birth control pills are used for other medical conditions is bogus because first off that is using a medication for other than it's intended purpose, Further there are safer more effective hormones that can be prescribed for those other medical conditions, The active type of estrogen used in birth control pills is one of the most dangerous types of estrogen when it comes to DVT,Blood Clots, Strokes and breast cancer.

Julie, exceptions to Federal regulations based on religious beliefs has been an accepted practice in the U.S. for many decades now. This is not an unusual situation which is why the federal appeals court is even deigning to hear it as opposed to just throwing it out altogether.

Anilof, while that is true, in this case it is more complicated than an individual asking for a personal exception due to religious beliefs. These are employers asking for an exception to providing services to their employees, who MAY NOT be of the same religion. Church employees are most likely members of the faith of their employers, but how many employees at Catholic schools, universities, and hospitals are NOT Catholic? And yet their Catholic employer is deciding what services they have access to based on tenets of the Catholic faith. That is unfair to employees who do not subscribe to the same beliefs as their employer.

They haven't imposed their will upon anyone. The employees can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. If I was the owners, I'd just fire them and replace them with more part-time workers and be done with it. That would make more sense than having to go to court to change out insurance coverage. But I guess these owners are trying to still provide some kind of insurance coverage and an actual job to the employees.

Yes they are imposing their religious beliefs on people! If they say they don't want a certain coverage for their employees, because their PERSONAL beliefs don't allow it, they are denying those employees who DO NOT subscribe to their religious beliefs the benefit of coverage. They are not a religious institution but a public company.

This is all a ploy to try ONCE MORE to eliminate Obamacare entirely, allowing us to go back to the free for all of insurance coverage that was.

I smell the tea party religious right using dirty politics

right to lifers and GOP are still waging a war on women infringing their equal rights and their right to equal health care, by using the fake excuse it goes against their religion . Employers have never gotten involved in this before nor did they care

this is politics being pulled by someone on the right the courts are letting them get away with it.

this is not a reflection of how mainstream employers or companies feel .. this is religious right wing fanatic abusing their role as an employer trying to start a trend. This is about Abortion and contraceptives.

Not only do employers want to pay slave wages these days, now they want to tell people what they can do with their pay. Insurance coverage is compensation- after it is paid to the employee, it stops being any concern of the employer.

Insurance is not compensation, It is a benefit, If it were compensation ergo income then it would be taxed as income and it is not!

Jackass.... insurance benefits are INDEED part of the COMPENSATION PACKAGE as are ALL benefits. They are considered part of your PAY/SALARY.

Educate yourself "Einstein".

http://www.salary.com/Articles/ArticleDetail.asp?part=par1032

Lost and stupid?

There are so many things wrong with your statement that I dont even know where to start.