- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In Honor of the Hobby Lobby Case, how is this a "Women's Rights" Issue?
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:15 pm to SettleDown
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:15 pm to SettleDown
quote:
Hell. I'm fine with a company not covering viagra. I think if your dick don't work and you want it to, that's on you.
Well, assuming Viagra is needed as a result of a health issue out of the man's control, I don't see the issue, but also agree.
The key here is whether there is a legitimate health issue or whether it is based on a personal choice (i.e. wanting to sleep around, correct a mistake, or avoid having a child). If it is one of the latter, then it shouldn't be required coverage because there are alternative ways to avoid having a kid and one's lifestyle decisions should not need to be subsidized by their employer or the government.
I think the endemetriosis example in my earlier post lays it out well. If a woman has an actual non-self inflicted health issue that birth control can be used to help, than I understand the need for coverage.
1
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:16 pm to a want
quote:
I think both sides are completely full of shite on this one.
The idea of crafting a health plan for your employees based on some religous belief (that isn't defined anywhere) is ridiculous. I also think those who don't like Hobby Lobby's health plan should get a job at Wicks and Sticks.
You are 50% right. That's pretty good for you.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 5:46 pm to SettleDown
quote:"they should just give up their cell phone and cable" BHO.
The other annoying thing about the birth control issue is that its importance is being GREATLY inflated given that the cost of the pill is less than pretty much anyone with a job pays for a whole host of minor monthly items.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 6:41 pm to SettleDown
quote:
Hell. I'm fine with a company not covering viagra.
Funny thing is they DO have that right. Viagra is not "essential" coverage, and there are plenty of plans on the market that don't cover it or any other ED drug.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 7:29 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
I think the endemetriosis example in my earlier post lays it out well. If a woman has an actual non-self inflicted health issue that birth control can be used to help, than I understand the need for coverage.
I see what you're saying, but I think this will bring in alot of grey area. What if a woman with SLE has a history of repeated miscarriages and wants to be able to have sex with her partner without the risk of that happening again? Does that fall under "non-self inflicted health issue" or "lifestyle choice?"
Posted on 3/25/14 at 7:41 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
What if a woman with SLE has a history of repeated miscarriages and wants to be able to have sex with her partner without the risk of that happening again? Does that fall under "non-self inflicted health issue" or "lifestyle choice?"
Is BC the only way she can not get pregnant?
Posted on 3/25/14 at 7:48 pm to Taxing Authority
One aspect most are forgetting is that according to our tax code, a corporation is a person and pays income taxes. If a person is forced to do something against their religious beliefs, that is a violation of their first amendment rights.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News