1. The law of the land as it stands now is that, of the 20 different birth control methods available in the United States, companies have to cover all 20 in their health care plans according to the Affordable Care Act. Hobby Lobby is willing to cover 16 of those birth controls but they find moral objection to 4 of them because they are considered to be akin to abortion. Right now, the general public is being told that the Supreme Court's ruling means women employed by Hobby Lobby and other businesses with religious leanings will not have their birth control covered anymore. This is patently false. Exactly 80% of the available birth control methods are covered by Hobby Lobby even after the ruling.
2. The phrase "denying access" has been thrown about constantly when discussing this case. But even referring to the 4 birth control methods that are not going to be covered by Hobby Lobby, no woman's access is being denied. She simply has to pay for those forms of birth control out of her pocket if she so chooses. Access is still available. To say women are denied access to birth control that is not free or nearly free to them is akin to saying that I am being denied access to a $10 steak, which I am willing to pay for, when the price jumps to $20 per steak, which I am not willing to pay for. My access to the steak after the price hike has not been denied. I simply am choosing to spend my money in other ways.
3. It should be noted that until very very very recently, women's birth control has not been universally covered like it is now. I know this personally as Wendy's preferred method of birth control was not covered by her insurance in the past and we had to pay out of pocket. Now that all birth control is covered, liberals have declared that women have a "right" to have their birth control covered by insurance and anyone who thinks otherwise is at war with women and wants to deny them their God given rights. This is an insane position. I am wholeheartedly in support of universal coverage of birth control for all females. I think it's an excellent policy. But I would never call this someone's right.
4. What is most ironic about the outrage over the Hobby Lobby ruling is that the women who are employed at Hobby Lobby will still receive the same birth control coverage as everyone else! I repeat, the women who work at Hobby Lobby will have all 20 birth control methods covered just the same as women working at other companies. Sorry, this bears repeating once more, there will be no difference whatsoever between the birth control methods covered by employees of Hobby Lobby compared to everyone else. As shocking as this revelation may be to some of you, the facts are crystal clear. There is already an exception over birth control carved out for non-profit organizations and the health insurance they provide for their employees. In these instances, the government asks that the private health insurance companies provide the coverage anyway at no additional cost. And if that failed, the government would directly provide the coverage if needs be. In practical terms, this ruling has no effect whatsoever on employees of Hobby Lobby.
5. There has been concern raised about whether this ruling opens the flood gates in terms of other things not being covered in health insurance. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in receiving blood transfusions. Does this now mean that employees of a company run by Jehovah's Witnesses will not have their blood transfusions covered by their company health insurance policy? For starters, it should be noted that this was the case prior to the recently enacted Affordable Care Act. In other words, this so called problem already existed. Yet, have we ever talked about this being a problem for a single person in our entire history as a country? The answer is no. It's important to remind everyone that the only reason this court ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was necessary is because of the demands of the Affordable Care Act. So it sounds like this doomsday scenario does not apply as we have never heard of problematic cases in the past. Furthermore, there is a difference between not believing in doing something for yourself (i.e. receiving a blood transfusion) and believing that an act is inherently evil (i.e. participating in an abortion procedure). To assume that Jehovah's Witnesses would wish to deny their employees the ability to receive blood transfusions simply because they choose to not receive them for themselves may be a stretch. This is similar to Mormons not wanting to drink coffee or alcohol. That does not mean Mormons wish to deny others the ability to make that choice for themselves. Finally, as pointed out in Point #4, even if other companies decided to deny health coverage of blood transfusions, the government would simply find another way to cover those employees. Essentially, no harm no foul.
6. An important fact not being reported is that the law requiring companies to cover all 20 types of birth control was not passed by Congress. This should strike you all as odd since, you know, Congress is supposed to pass laws in this country. Yet, a regulatory agency decided that company health insurance plans had to cover all 20 types of birth control. Why is a regulatory agency of the government passing laws that have to be challenged in the Supreme Court? That's a darn good question. Under the Obama Administration in particular, regulatory agencies have expanded tremendously in power to the point that they act as a 4th branch of government. Have an objection with the coal industry? Simply have the appropriate regulatory agency pass new regulations making it financially impossible to run a profitable coal plant. Want education reform? Have the appropriate regulatory agency pass decrees from on high instead of having to pass bills in Congress. The rise of a 4th branch of government is troubling in and of itself, even before we take into account the fact that these regulatory bodies are under the direction of the executive branch. Our government is designed to keep all 3 branches of government in check. However, this 4th branch of government shifts power decidedly in favor of one man: the president. This was never intended but that is what has taken place.
7. It should be noted that there is a genuine debate to be had over whether the Supreme Court made an accurate ruling. The premise by the majority is that closely held companies, basically companies who are controlled by 5 people or less, can have the same rights as individuals. In other words, family owned companies like Hobby Lobby can have religious rights much the same as an individual. The other side finds this absurd as a for-profit company is in the business of making money, period. Therefore, they are not like individuals at all. This is a fascinating debate. Unfortunately, we are not having this debate and never will. The reason is simple: the American public is not being told anything remotely close to the actual facts. Instead, outright lies are being perpetuated in order to sway the masses toward one political viewpoint. Our democracy literally cannot stand if this continues at such an alarming rate. Without accurate reporting by the media, the portion that is supposed to be unbiased and looking out for us, America will crumble. Let us hope a fair and trustworthy news source will rise sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment