Corporations Claiming ‘Religious Liberty’ Try to Infringe on Their Employees’ Religious Liberty


“The contraception mandate violates the Constitution and federal law by forcing religious organizations to pay fines for the privilege of practicing their faith.”

This is a refrain oft-repeated by lawyers for the more than 40 for-profit companies that have filed lawsuits challenging the birth control benefit, the provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires nearly all insurance policies to cover preventive health-care services for women, including contraception without co-pay or deductible. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits complain that the birth control benefit forces company owners—and, indeed, the companies themselves—to either violate sincerely held religious beliefs (by paying for, providing, facilitating, or otherwise supporting contraception, which they find morally objectionable) or risk paying severe penalties.

Such claims are compelling but, ultimately, untenable. The birth control benefit no more forces employers to violate their religious beliefs than the minimum wage set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act does. The birth control benefit simply seeks to promote gender equality and women’s public health, and attempts to achieve parity between the cost of health care for women on the one hand, and men on the other. Moreover, it is perfectly constitutional.

Still, approximately two-thirds of the court decisions in these lawsuits we’ve seen so far have found that the claims of for-profit companies have enough merit to warrant granting temporary relief from the law while companies pursue their claims in court. This ascribing of moral values and superiority to corporations is an alarming trend, one which Elizabeth Sepper, associate law professor at Washington University School of Law, describes as “the birth of corporate conscience.”

For-profit companies suing to block the birth control benefit run the gamut, from an arts and crafts retail chain to a Christian book publisher to companies that manufacture heating and ventilation systems. Some are publicly held companies, and some aren’t. Some self-insure, while others provide health insurance through third-party insurance carriers. Despite their differences, however, these plaintiffs are bound by a common effort to demand from courts recognition of corporate religious liberty interests that they believe must be protected from intrusion by the government, and an acknowledgment that corporations exercise religion just as living, breathing humans do. (Or, at the very least, the religious exercise of a corporation’s owners can “pass through” to the corporation itself.) After all, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that corporations are people for the purposes of political speech, so expanding that doctrine for purposes of religious expression seems to be the next logical step—or so these plaintiffs believe.

But, as Professor Sepper points out in her article “Contraception and the Birth of Corporate Conscience,” the plaintiffs’ efforts raise thorny questions: “How can a business have beliefs, religious or otherwise? What does it mean for a business to hold a faith? How, as courts now ponder, could a corporation exercise religion? How does it show sincerity? Can a single-minded obligation to maximize profits meld with religious devotion?”

The response to these sorts of questions by courts throughout the country has been mixed. In Autocam v. Sebelius, the Sixth Circuit declared that corporations are not people for purposes of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). In Conestoga Woods Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, the Third Circuit ruled that a for-profit, secular corporation cannot assert a claim under the Free Exercise Clause and therefore cannot engage in the exercise of religion under RFRA, signing on to the district court’s observation that “religious belief takes shape within the minds and hearts of individuals, and its protection is one of the more uniquely ‘human’ rights provided by the Constitution.”

In Grote Industries v. Sebelius and Korte v. Sebelius (which are now consolidated), the Seventh Circuit granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Kortes run their for-profit construction company “in accordance with their religious beliefs,” thus rendering the mandate a substantial burden on those beliefs. And it found the case for preliminary relief in Grote Industries to be even stronger than in Korte because Grote Industries was self-insured. And in a sprawling ruling, the Tenth Circuit, sitting “en banc” (the entire court), declared Hobby Lobby to be a “religious person” for purposes of free exercise and RFRA claims, observing that “sincerely religious persons could find a connection between the exercise of religion and the pursuit of profit.”

The appellate rulings in Grote Industries and Hobby Lobby, along with similar lower court rulings blocking application of the law to for-profit companies, are baffling because, as Sepper writes in her article, “protecting corporate free exercise … runs counter to our intuitions that individual claims of conscience are morally superior to those of institutional structures.”

Corporations don’t have feelings—they don’t exercise religion the way that human beings do, so why are these claims of corporate conscience in the birth control arena gaining a foothold?

In an interview with RH Reality Check, Sepper provided a chilling answer: “These cases certainly seem to reflect a skepticism on the part of the federal judiciary that reproductive health care is actually health care.”

This skepticism is palpable in some of the court rulings. Courts quibble with the Obama administration’s claims that promoting gender equality and women’s public health is a compelling interest (one of the elements the government most prove in order to justify a substantial burden on religious liberty under RFRA). The district court in Legatus v. Sebelius, for example, stated that it had “no doubt that the Government has an interest in promoting public health as a general matter,” but went on to claim that it was “uncertain that the Government will be able to prove a compelling interest in promoting the specific interests at issue in this litigation.” Those specific interests? Women’s health. Gender equality. Health-care parity.

Courts also look askance at the manner in which the government has chosen to roll out the new complex health-care law. The mandate exempts religiously affiliated employers and employers with less than 50 employees, and doesn’t apply to grandfathered plans. How compelling could the government’s interest be if there are so many exemptions built in to the mandate? The obvious answer is that a policy which seeks gradually to implement the provisions of the Affordable Care Act is not indicative of how important the government considers the interests of regulating public health and furthering gender equality. But many courts aren’t buying it.

Skeptical courts also question whether refusing to provide a particular plaintiff with an exemption from the requirements of the mandate is the “least restrictive means” of advancing the government’s interest (yet another element that the government must demonstrate before it can substantially burden religious liberty under RFRA). Such concerns ignore that, to date, 43 lawsuits have been filed by for-profit companies, and in each lawsuit a particular plaintiff is seeking “just one more” exemption. Moreover, there are countless corporations waiting in the wings to demand their own exemptions. The mandate would be rendered useless if exemptions were handed out to any plaintiff proclaiming a religious right to receive one. And, ultimately, requiring that such complex legislation be immediately enforced in order to satisfy the “compelling interest” element of RFRA as a matter of law would encourage Congress to ignore pragmatic considerations and competing religious liberty interests when implementing new legislation.

Given the demonstrable judicial skepticism about whether or not contraception is health care, it’s easy to understand how discussions about corporate conscience and corporate religious liberty frequently devolve into a yelling match about how women should pay for their own contraception or simply buy it at the drug store.

Such facile arguments ignore that the corporations challenging the birth control benefit are not simply asserting a religious right, but are simultaneously asking to be allowed to infringe upon the religious rights of their employees. “When it comes to asserting corporate religious liberties, we’re not just dealing with one religious liberty right,” Sepper said. “We’re dealing with competing religious liberty rights.”

When we think of religious liberty cases, we think of cases like Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, in which a Muslim prisoner protested that a prison’s failure to serve halal food infringed upon his religious liberty, or May v. Baldwin, in which a Rastafarian prisoner challenged a policy requiring him to loosen his dreadlocks before medical transport. Those cases involve religious liberties as asserted by one party—the person being refused halal food, or the person being commanded to loosen his dreadlocks. “Religious liberty is thought of as a right that people clearly possess and can claim against the government,” Sepper said.

The problem with the birth control benefit debate is that few are thinking about the competing religious liberty rights of women, leading to what Sepper describes as “an impoverishment of how we think about women’s rights to contraception or rights to abortion as almost being impossible to assert against anyone.” So impossible are these rights to assert that some courts refuse to view the promotion of these rights as a “compelling interest,” as evidenced by the district court’s uncertainty in Legatus. ”That’s why I think it’s really important to think of it as a right to religious liberty versus a right to religious liberty, where women’s religious liberty is at risk when their employers can decide whether or not they have access to contraceptive coverage,” Sepper said.

The point is this: Religious liberty is a right that women should be able to claim against their employers too. Women who work at large companies like Hobby Lobby should not be subjected to the religious values of their employers—whether the corporation itself, or the owners of the corporation—when those religious values infringe on women’s religious freedom, and result in the denial of earned employee benefits and the elimination of access to the full range of preventive health-care services authorized by the Affordable Care Act. To permit for-profit companies to wield that much control over the personal decisions of their employees simply relegates women’s health to a status viewed as less important than the purported religious feelings of a corporation. And that takes the Mitt Romney canard that “corporations are people” too far.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Imani Gandy on twitter: @AngryBlackLady

  • feloneouscat

    So corporations are going to claim they are what? Religious institutions? Or are they going to say they are a Christian organization? And does that not bring up thorny issues about hiring and firing? If money is a corporations “speech”, then what is it’s faith? Moral values do not spring from religion – it has always been a weak argument (are Atheists less moral than Christians? If you have 20 gods are you more moral than a religion with one god? How do you test this hypothesis when it is essentially untestable?).

    My father is an Episcopal priest and we talk a lot about faith, religion, and what it all means (or doesn’t mean). The concept that a business entity has some form of “faith” is laughable in much the same way that it has “opinions” or can express “love”, “hate” or ANY emotion. To me, “corporate religious liberty” is a nonsense phrase – first you have to show that corporations have a sense of religion. If that can not be proved, then “religious liberty” is nonsense. People have morality. Corporations do not.

    I’m at a loss how people were taught how to make arguments suddenly start floating in this cloud of non-sense. Lewis Carroll would be hard put to write something so ludicrous.

    “What is it,” said the Carpenter, “do you suppose they fear?”
    “Tis women rights,” said the Walrus as he shed a bitter tear.

    • colleen2

      The concept that a business entity has some form of “faith” is laughable
      in much the same way that it has “opinions” or can express “love”,
      “hate” or ANY emotion. To me, “corporate religious liberty” is a
      nonsense phrase – first you have to show that corporations have a sense
      of religion. If that can not be proved, then “religious liberty” is
      nonsense. People have morality. Corporations do not.

      I agree. But, then, I think that the religious right is as shocking in it’s whole hearted embrace of power and power over others as it is in it’s embrace of conscious and deliberate lies, misinformation and manipulative propaganda.

      • CJ99

        Keeps reminding me of that quote “When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag & carrying the cross”. Guess what, its been here a while.

  • expect_resistance

    Excellent article!!!

    “To permit for-profit companies to wield that much control over the personal decisions of their employees simply relegates women’s health to a status viewed as less important
    than the purported religious feelings of a corporation. And that takes the Mitt Romney canard that “corporations are people” too far.”

    Corporations ARE NOT people!!!!!!! What is it with Christian/Mormon religious conservatives that think corporations and fetuses are people with personhood rights that trump the rights of women?

    • crash2parties

      “What is it with Christian/Mormon religious conservatives that think
      corporations and fetuses are people with personhood rights that trump
      the rights of women?”

      Simple: Churches are granted exclusions from just about every type of law there is in America. Employment, taxes, discrimination, even regular old criminal law (as in when police allow a church to handle lawbreakers, “internally”). Couple that with the incredible power and liability shielding that corporations provide and you have a new class of Person that is essentially above the law completely.

      • CJ99

        Smells like LuthorCorp.

  • suburbancorrespondnt

    I don’t know. One could easily argue that people should not choose to work for corporations whose owners espouse religious beliefs the workers do not agree with. Isn’t it a better tactic to consider that individuals are often forced to pay for something that does not agree with their morals? For example, conscientious objectors still have to pay taxes that support our armed forces. So, even if you do want to call a corporation a person, there is precedent for having to pay money for something that one does not believe in.

    • Arekushieru

      And that is just victim-blaming. Some people DON’T have a choice about where they can work. Corporations DO have more of a choice about who they can hire. Apparently corporations want all the freedoms but none of the responsibility (and no freedom for anyone else, unfortunately) and, apparently, you’re just fine with that?

      • suburbancorrespondnt

        I didn’t say I was fine with that. I’m just thinking that it may be a moot point as to whether or not a corporation can abrogate to itself the rights of an individual person. Whether or not you can call a corporation a person, there is precedent
        for people having to pay for programs that they find morally
        objectionable.

        I also agree that some people don’t have a choice about where they can work, I was just pointing out the arguments that the corporations use to defend their position and how to sidestep them.

        • Arekushieru

          And I was attempting to explain why corporations should not be able to use those arguments to defend their position. It’s victim-blaming. That’s it, that’s all I was saying.

    • HeilMary1

      Companies don’t have the right to commit Munchausen by Proxy medical abuse against female employees. Where is your outrage over company-covered Viagra for male pedophiles and adulterers?

    • cjvg

      If a company claims corporate status they can not concurrently claim personal status.

      If a company wants all the (tax) benefits that come with incorporation why should they also be allowed to claim the benefits that only private persons have?!
      Sounds to me that these companies just do not want a single law that is not to their liking to apply to them.

      Having your cake and eating it too means you are taking the cake that is NOT yours to eat!

      • outrageous

        Re-posting here.

        http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/do-fetuses-feel-pain/27805

        anti-choicers think they have a slam-dunk with this new article by Dr.Platt which apparently debunks the RCOG study on fetal pain:

        http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

        What is your opinion on this apparent debunking? I can’t find anything debunking the ‘debunking’ so I am at a loss. Which is why I am asking you :)

        BTW, I used your excellent essay on Jennifer and she complained that the information was ‘old’ and therefore ‘worthless’. So far every single study that I have been able to find – from the RCOG, JAMA, and Dr. Mellor seems to back up what you said.

        Only Priscilla K Coleman (pro-life bias) and this Dr. Platt have ‘refuted’ the fetal awareness studies.

        • cjvg

          The studies used are over a 20 year period, obviously the data did not change that seems to happen when the results are factual and immutable.
          The reason I use these studies is because the anti-choice crowd uses these exact same studies to “prove” that babies (read fetuses) have “brain function” and as such should be considered alive and persons.
          I have read some of Dr Platt but the actual material presented do NOT contradict the fact that a fetus does NOT have a functional cortex and as such has no sentience or person hood.
          I believe he is conflating simple reflexes that do not require pain sensation with evidence of pain.
          Also the FACT that dr Platt is still pro-choice clearly demonstrates that he himself does NOT consider the results of his study proof that a fetus is alive like the woman is alive
          I will try to find some time and read his full study and get back to you.
          In the mean time, if this material is considered “old” why are we (the medical establishment and society at large) still using the exact same requirements to determine if someone is brain dead and we can start organ harvesting or terminate life support.
          Obviously the facts are still the facts and NOTHING was gainsaid by Dr Platts study!

          • dildo depot

            This is why you are so fucking awesome cj! And yes. Suspected that Dr platt was conflating reaction to noxious stimuli with pain. And he is a neonatal dude, not a brain scientist.

          • cjvg

            Thank you (blush), one does what one does best and hopes it is useful to society.
            (don’t forget I was trained in this stuff, it makes it easier and I probably do not deserve that much of a compliment. The simple matter of familiarity with reading and paring down study results, lets me filter out the irrelevant distractions that are added)

          • dildo depot

            Oh, apparently adults can experience pain through pathways that do not involve the cerebral cortex. According to dranand and platt. Are they talking about the brain stem and reaction to noxious stimuli or something else? They also think they have a slam dunk cus pain studies are on sheep fetii not human fetii, hence no definitive answer.

          • cjvg

            That is the same argument they use to claim fetuses have “brain activity” at 6 weeks.
            What they do not disclose is that this is random firering in the most primitive part of the brain (yes the brain stem)
            Again this is irrelevant if there is no one home (no cerebral cortex= no consciousness), what actually registers the pain, no one.
            Sort of like the tree in the forrest

            Think of it this way, even if you are not home you can run your dryer. Your clothes are dry and the buzzer rings, however since you are not home no one knows or will take the dry clothes out of the dryer.

            There might be random pain signals but there is no one home to cry about it! People who are legally considered brain dead often still have activity in the brain stem (most primitive part of the brain and first to develop) however that does not change the fact that they are cadavers.

            In fact people legally declared brain-dead can still have a beating hearth because these involuntary functions are handled by the brain stem

          • dildo depot

            Sweet, thanks for all of your input.

            I am going to copy what you wrote and stick it in my fetalpain.txt file that I refer to:P

            Btw, Priscilla K Coleman also had an article out claiming to have ‘rebutted’ the RCOG study on fetal pain. Of course, there are no rebuttals to it. so pro-liars can continue on pretending that she must be right.

            The biggest problem with all of the pro-life studies is that unless every.single.one.is.thoroughly.rebutted by our side they claim victory. Not much we can do about that…alas

          • cjvg

            It does not matter if you rebut the h*ll out of all of them.
            I have seen them state undeniable medically seen impossible “facts” with out even a flinch of their conscience.

            These people are immoral (hence their immoral positions) and do not care one wit for the truth or relevance of their position!
            The only reason I engage is so they get exposed for the evil that they truly are
            .

          • cjvg

            “pain studies are on sheep fetii not human fetii,”
            This in itself invalidates their conclusion that human fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks. We have no conclusive proof that the brain of a sheep fetus develops in the same way as a human fetus’s brain (after all humans are self aware, sheep are not , so in what way does our brain differ in development and does this difference happen before or after birth?)
            Then there is the fact that a sheep does not carry for 40 weeks, it only carries for 27 weeks total on average and this varies per breed.
            So by necessity we must assume that the brain of a sheep fetus develops more rapidly then the brain of a human fetus, how did they determine that the sheep fetus brain they studied was at a similar developmental stage as a 20 week human fetus?, did they keep in account the breed studied and its shorter or longer gestational period.? Even if they went with the equivalent of so many weeks before birth and however many days that turns out to be for sheep to get to 20 week gestation on a human brain.
            They can not slow down the faster developmental factor. By necessity a sheep fetus brain develops more in a day then a human fetus brain, in order to accommodate the fact that their gestational period is only 27 weeks. I did not see their procedure for determining accuracy for this comparison.
            Besides we routinely terminate sheep pregnancies without input from the ewe if it threatens the health of the ewe, shall we then put a mandatory stop to these too?
            Or are we to continue the sheep compression and routinely terminate human pregnancies without input from the woman, if they threaten the life of the woman?
            Obviously it is a very questionable thing to insist on strict comparisons to human pregnancies!

          • dildo depot

            Yes and from what I have been reading, both Anand and Platt have stated emphatically that health of the woman comes first…and they both remain pro-choice.

          • cjvg

            Probably because they themselves realize that it is not quite ethical to make medical decisions for others based on their study results

        • cjvg

          Think the Terri Schiavo case in Florida, she was present but all tests showed that she was functionally brain-dead.

          She was an empty shell and after plenty of tests and countless neurological reports the courts finally allowed her body to pass to were her mind had gone 10 years before!

      • outrageous

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20884-premature-baby-brains-cant-tell-pain-from-touch.html#.Uo7WzuJGKHs

        Fetuses can tell the difference between pain
        and touch in only the last two weeks before birth, which could help to
        explain why babies born prematurely often have abnormal pain responses.

        Lorenzo Fabrizi from University College London and colleagues used EEG,
        a non-invasive way of measuring brain activity, on 46 newborn babies as
        they underwent a routine heel lance – a pinprick to the heel for taking
        a blood sample.

        They also measured how the babies’ brains
        responded to normal touch – a light tap to the heel. Almost half of the
        babies were born prematurely – some at just 28 weeks – so the team were
        able to compare the responses of babies in the final stages of
        development with those of babies born at full term.

        Premature babies up to the age of 35 weeks
        had bursts of activity across the whole brain in response to both pain
        and touch, but a change happened around 35 weeks. Between 35 to 37 weeks
        – just before a fetus would normally be born – the brain seemed to
        become able to tell the two stimuli apart. The responses to both pain
        and touch now took place in specific areas on the front, back and sides
        of the brain, but the signal was much stronger for pain.

        • cjvg

          Well, after 26-29 weeks the cerebral cortex is formed and functional.
          In principal a fetus of up to 35 weeks has the same brain as a newborn. (it probably only needs some fine tuning and experience with all interpreting and using signals since the cortex is only just become functional)
          However, this argument does not at all refute the previous studies at all, remember those clearly stated that sentience is housed in the cerebral cortex and around 26-29 weeks that structure goes fully functional.
          Abortion is not legal after 24 weeks under any circumstance except were the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus is not compatible with life!
          Clearly there is NO contradiction between the previous and these findings, who is aborting 28 week babies?!
          This is an obvious red herring that is not even very logical or hard to refute !

          • dildo depot

            Fabrizi supports us! It is the latest study on the subject and it backs us up, not the liars.

    • CJ99

      So you want people to lose their livelyhoods en masse so that corporations can dictate their healthcare? I’m glad you don’t live in the real world. I’d hate to be in the dictatorship you live in.

  • JamieHaman

    When judges rule for companies, they rule that the religious freedom of the company to deny health care to women is more important than the right of the women and their families to be free of religious impositions. Absolutely outrageous.

    • colleen2

      In this case I would say that they rule that an individual woman’s right to freedom of religion (and conscience) is trumped by her employer’s right to impose his religious views on his women employees, Not that the courts have been affirming an individual’s right to freedom of religion and conscience much lately. Apparently we’re supposed to allow religious right employers to make those sorts of decisions for us. But ONLY women, not men. Apparently the ‘religious freedom’ of the Catholic Bishops requires that all women bow to their beliefs in our innate inferiority and our need to be controlled by pathetic assholes.

      • HeilMary1

        And women aren’t allowed to challenge company-covered Viagra abuse by male pedophiles and adulterers.

  • LonesomeDove

    This isn’t about birth control – it’s just about control – if people that work for a company don’t want to utilize the benefits that are included in the programs, they don’t have to – it’s that simple – stop trying to control other people’s lives because you don’t ‘believe that way’ – it’s NOT your choice to make -

  • Lynnsey

    What I want to know is if these companies believe that they should have the right to deny prenatal care to women who get pregnant out of wedlock or if they think they should just be allowed to stone the sluts to death…

    • crash2parties

      They’ve indicated that they feel they have a right to whatever their personal interpretation of their religion happens to be.

  • fiona64

    These idiots clearly don’t understand how articles of incorporation work. The minute you hang out your shingle and license a business, you are creating a barrier between your personal assets/your person and those of the business. Your business does not have “sincerely held religious beliefs” just because you do; it is legally removed from your person.

    That’s Business School 101, cor crying out loud.

    Unless your business (and I do not mean you as a business owner) can sit its happy arse in a pew come the Sabbath, it does not have any religious beliefs. It *can’t.* It’s a fictional person, not a real one, under the law.

    • crash2parties

      The SCOTUS has been eating away at that barrier for some time now, but only where it benefits the business owner / investors. And meanwhile, religious exemptions from all forms of law have been growing. Put them together and you have a new class of “Person” that is above the law.

      Conservative Nirvana.

      • CJ99

        Those with a lust for power or money along with those whose sole desire is to be worshipped have always viewed themselves as, quite incorrectly, being above the law.

    • fiona64

      Reply to Jennifer, in moderation:

      A public accommodation (i.e., a business) is not private property. Thank you for playing “I Don’t Know Crap About Business Law,” Jennifer. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

  • crash2parties

    “How, as courts now ponder, could a corporation exercise religion?”

    “If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out” …if this idea of religious corporations comes to pass in a highly Christian SCOTUS, what is to stop said corp from purging its self of those parts that think sinful thoughts and do sinful things, such as non-believing employees?

  • labman57

    Sanctimonious, chest-thumping conservative politicians and pundits indignantly proclaim that their religious views on sexual morality and procreation are being violated by the Obama Administration.

    Of course, the irony is that many women take birth control pills as a means to regulate hormonal imbalances, not for preventing pregnancy per se. Should an employer who is a Jehovah’s Witness be allowed to deny health coverage for blood transfusions and organ transplants?

    Although self-righteous social conservatives appears to believe otherwise, the United States is not a Christian theocracy. No employer should be able to impose their religious mores onto their employees.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Ilana Mercer is a racist loon; last time I checked on her she was still whining about apartheid ending in South Africa. I very much doubt that she has anything of value to say.

  • Jennifer Starr

    The only way an employer would be ‘imposed’ upon is if they were forced to personally ingest contraception themselves.

    • outrageous
      • Jennifer Starr

        Have you looked at what she writes on her facebook page? We’re all mean baby haters, apparently. *sigh* And she’s not exactly literate, either.

        • outrageous

          Oh man, I never thought to look there.

          She can’t be for real, can she?

          “proaborts r so mean. i saw a fb site they made n they make no since, just pick on people 4 no reason.”

          WHAT THE FUCK?

          I was just suspicious because her one and only Disqus comment is here…

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m really hoping that no one can be this dim. Her spelling is so atrocious in places that I can hardly make out what she’s trying to say.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Ahh, but they complain even when it’s your money, like pharmacists who refuse to fill a prescription that you’re paying for because of their so-called ‘conscience’.

  • dance commander

    The right not to be pregnant all the time for starters. Or to be hobbled by uterine diseases.

  • JamieHaman

    Got it in one Jennifer!
    If you need your boss to tell you when you legal medications or procedures you should have, you go right ahead and ask him or her.
    I’m an adult. I’ll make my own healthcare decisions with my doctor.

    • Jennifer

      *whew* Nice to have a kind and sensible agreement; thanks :) And I’d say you’re 100% right.

      • fiona64

        And :woosh: went the point …

      • dance commander

        Over your tiny head like a 747.

    • Jennifer

      Apparently I was so relieved to see what looked like an agreement instead of the usual snark, and confused by the “I’m an adult” part, that I did miss the sarcasm, as the bitch dance said. Yes, adults should make their own decisions annnddd not expect their bosses to pay for them.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Only their bosses aren’t ‘paying for them’. This has been explained to you many times now.

      • JamieHaman

        It’s Ok.
        How you get information is profound. Information from a trusted person or source is trusted. Trusted and used. Even iwhen wrong. Information from some “snarky” source is not usually trusted, even if correct. The info from unknown sources can be denied. It’s infuriating when some “snarky, mean person” has accurate information, and I don’t. It’s ADULT to admit when we are wrong. (even if only to self)
        It why people HAVE to do their OWN research.
        What words mean, via a dictionary matter. Unfortunately what people mean when they USE those words incorrectly matters too. What my uncle Fred means when he says Liberal is NOT what I mean when I say it.
        Understanding how insurance works is a bi*ch. Most insurance companies who hire a new employee train them for six solid weeks before they turn them loose.
        Judge Scalia of the SCOTUS was afraid to READ the ACA.
        The boss isn’t paying for any single thing out of his pocket for your insurance, and most people have a real problem understanding that.
        Insurance paying for a man’s medical needs, and refusing to pay for a woman’s medical needs is just not fair.
        Any insurance payments come from a collected money pool of premiums.
        Bosses pay their own premiums, just like you do. If we say it is “pay your own way” we just flat get rid of ALL insurance. Auto health house, flood EVERYTHING.
        No more payments for open heart surgery, cash up front. No more help for victims of Hurricane Sandy. Cash up front. No more payment because your dog bit the neighbor Cash up front.
        Because insurance payments to a contractor, surgeon, neighbor, doctor, or pharmacy ALL COME FROM A COLLECTED MONEY POOL OF PREMIUMS.
        What that means, is insurance pays for legally prescribed medications of ANY kind, legally prescribed procedures of

      • dance commander

        Oh, you called me a bitch.

        How charming!

        • colleen2

          and funny.

      • CJ99

        You’re confused by the statement “I am an adult” cause you don’t understand what adult behaviour is.

      • colleen2

        But ‘Jennifer’ nobody is going to agree with you. We aren’t stupid enough to believe what you have to say and your ‘debate’ method only works with women with no discernible self respect or intelligence

  • Jennifer Starr

    I think it’s time for the pharmacist to find a new job, or maybe a new profession entirely.

    • CJ99

      People lose their jobs daily for not doing them properly but clearly not enough in the right places.

  • Jennifer Starr

    I’m sorry, but I’m really not feeling sorry for employers who go to bed in tears every night because their employees might be preventing the conception of those dear little baybeez.

    • Jennifer

      No one asked you to cry for them, but their beliefs should still be respected, plus the fact that birth control is not usually a matter of health; if it is, that’s another matter.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Well then they probably shouldn’t pay their employees a salary either, lest it be used for something they might disagree with. What about coverage of playtime pills like viagra and cialis? What about JW employers who don’t want to pay for blood transfusions or Christian Scientists who don’t believe in healthcare at all? What if your employer is against vaccination coverage? I don’t really see why any employee should be denied healthcare because of their employer’s religious beliefs.

        • Jennifer

          Viagra, puh; no one should have to pay for a man’s “playtime” pills. If the employer’s ridiculous enough to wish to deny healthcare or vitally important things altogether, there’d probably be a huge uproar which I doubt they’d win. But things that are used simply to enable a safe sex life are rarely needed for health.

          • Jennifer Starr

            But if you just limit ‘conscience’ protections to Catholics and anti-contraception evangelicals, is that really fair? Exactly how much do you think an employer should be able to use his personal ‘conscience’ to ride roughshod over the consciences of his employees?

          • Jennifer

            The bar stops for me at the genuine health of the patients and whether that’s a factor.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you think a woman who needs contraception for a health problem or who needs to avoid pregnancy for medical reasons should have to come to her employer and beg her case? Keep in mind that I’ve actually spoken with people who believe that there is never a good health reason for contraception.

          • Jennifer

            She can provide documentation stating that it’s a necessary medication; no graphic details are needed, I’m sure. But needing birth control for my sex life would be more embarassing for me personally.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Forgive personal question but I’m curious. Why would needing birth control for your sex life be embarrassing? Over 99% of women have used this. Catholic, Protestant, Married, Single, Liberal, Conservative, you name it. My parents, married for 42 years, used birth control after their third child, since 1977. It’s not really something that’s considered shocking.

          • Jennifer

            I don’t mind your question. A sex life is just a very personal thing; it’s different when two married people take care of everything it involves themselves, or when a woman does this, but I don’t need my employer to know whether I’m having sex or not. Hormonal issues, though, are more general and can be less detailed; all they need to know is that it involves hormones. Thanks for being willing to hear more of my reasons.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And what if her employer rejects said documentation, based upon his personal religious beliefs? Please don’t say something glib like ‘just find another job’, because that’s quite difficult, especially in today’s world.

          • Jennifer

            I’d say it’s up to the woman, but seeking legal help if she can would be advisable.

          • Jennifer Starr

            But then you have a woman who is facing not only the possibility of delayed medical care (some prescribed birth control can actually be quite pricey), but additional legal expenses as well. Not to mention having to take time off work to go to court, etc. And if she takes it to court there’s also the possibility that the employer will go to Fox News, Limbaugh, CBN etc, trying to pass him or herself off as the victim. Not so far-fetched in today’s world. All in the name of ‘conscience’.

          • Jennifer

            I can tell you right now that many on Fox News would not be ok with a woman treated in such a fashion, but obviously it could be a complicated issue no matter what. If we legislated that a person or company had to pay for something they didn’t believe in, it could stretch to bad limits on THAT side as well; maybe there would be men demanding payment for things like Viagra or stereoids.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Legal steroids are actually available via prescription–I had a great aunt who was on them for a brain condition. No insurance is going to cover illegal body building steroids. However, viagra and cialis are regularly covered by many insurance providers. I wonder how a man would feel about a female employer who wanted to know exactly why he needed viagra :)

          • Jennifer

            Oh yes, that’s true; if stereoids have medical requirements, I’m sure they’d be covered too.

            “I wonder how a man would feel about a female employer who wanted to know exactly why he needed viagra :)”

            Be a nice little turn of the tables, wouldn’t it? :P

          • Jennifer Starr

            As a poster above just said, we pay for things we don’t agree with all the time. I’m quite sure I didn’t want my tax dollars to go towards the debacle in Iraq, but I didn’t have a choice. Everyone has the right to personally practice their own particular faith. However, you go too far when you start trying to demand that others, who might not believe as you do, follow the rules of your faith. As insurance premiums are often taken out of employee pay, I think the employee’s conscience should dictate what that insurance is used for.

          • fiona64

            I’ve got news for you, sweetie. A whole slew of health plans covered Viagra but not oral contraceptives until the Health Care Parity Act.

            You have a whole lot to learn …

          • Jennifer

            Then that just proves the system’s even more stupid than I thought, doesn’t it?

          • fiona64

            The only thing you’re proving is the breadth of your ignorance.

          • Jennifer

            And your snarkiness has done little to nothing for me.

          • fiona64

            Boohoo.

          • dance commander

            Whiney moron.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I mean, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic when I say that the conservative media has gotten an awful lot of mileage from trying to paint all women who use birth control as somehow immoral. Rather hypocritical, considering that they or their spouses most likely use or have used it. Callista Gingrich, a supposedly devout Catholic woman, managed to be a man’s mistress for 11 years without getting pregnant. But then again, hypocrisy tends to run rampant among the conservative crowd.

          • Jennifer

            Hypocrisy runs rampant in both the severe left and right. The only conservative news folks I listen to are far more rational.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’d be interested in knowing who. I believe that Gerald Ford was fairly rational, but I was just a toddler when he became president after Nixon’s resignation. The GOP has moved so far to the right that Nixon and Ford wouldn’t even recognize their own party, and the revered Reagan would be considered a RINO. I listened to Sarah Palin’s ramblings on The Today Show about ‘atheists tryin’ to destroy Christmas, oh noes!’ and I was about ready to bang my head against something.

          • Jennifer

            Megan Kelly is one of my favorites, as is Monica Crowley and Charles Krauthammer and Mark Levin. I’ve enjoyed different writers too, such as David Kupelian and Kathryn Joyce (who’s a feminist, which I don’t usually support, but a reliable researcher; basically, I enjoy a variety.

          • CJ99

            Monica Crowley, any relation to Alastair?

          • CJ99

            Anyone who runs for vice president wearing boob zippers in public and expects to be taken seriously is just that…. a boob.

          • fiona64

            So, a woman should get a lawyer to get a PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE PRESCRIPTION because her employer is a dickhead?

            You’re a real piece of work …

          • Jennifer

            Likewise, Mrs. Clinton. Talking to someone in the manner you’ve spoken to me doesn’t get you anywhere, as some numbskulls on this site have learned, nor does it even induce me to take your professional claims seriously. You’ll have to speak to me like an adult if you want any further interaction.

          • dance commander

            Twit.

          • Jennifer

            Ohh, keep those insults coming, such scientific rebuttals just fascinate me!

          • dance commander

            I have provided you with plenty of scientific rebuttals. Pity you are too thick to understand them. Then again you are the idiot who thinks that ectopic pregnancies can be birthed.

          • fiona64

            Wait, what?

            Is anyone really so stupid as to believe ectopic pregnancies can be birthed?

            Wow.

            Definitely a high-schooler, and probably male.

          • CJ99

            If you had an inkling in any branch of science you’d have long since realized your tinfoil hat isn’t working.

          • fiona64

            You’re getting every bit of respect you’ve earned.

            Draw your own conclusions.

            Imbecile.

          • CJ99

            you yourself have treated noone as an adult and have no right to demand others do the same for you.

          • fiona64

            It’s none of an employer’s business why anyone is taking *any* prescription medication. Ever heard of HIPAA?

          • Jennifer

            That depends on whether they’re the ones expected to shell out the bucks for it.

          • fiona64

            Nope. Your medical situation is none of your employer’s business, with the exception of times when a physician states that you are to not be at your place of employment. Even then, the reason for the absence need not be revealed.

            My source is primary, honey. I’m in the medical profession.

            You really need to quit typing about things you don’t understand.

          • Jennifer

            And so is your patronization, sweetie. People are allowed to disagree about being held financially responsible for a woman’s reproductive choices.

          • fiona64

            What part of THE INSURANCE BELONGS TO THE EMPLOYEE is too hard for you to understand?

            If you’re going to behave like a dimwit, expect to be treated like one?

          • JamieHaman

            fiona64, I think “Jennifer” is a man, just pretending to be a woman. Writes like it, ignores valid points while repeating her/himself, and is in general clueless about the consequences of pregnancy, and childbirth. Not nearly as sensible about reality as a woman.

          • dance commander

            Yes I have been insulting the twit for hours.

          • dance commander

            If the woman has the baby you pay for it with higher insurance premiums. Birth costs between 20 and 40k. And if she is too poor to raise the kid you pay for it through your tax dollars for 18 years.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Nope. Federal law says it’s still none of their concern.

          • JamieHaman

            You do realize that the whole contraception debacle only applies to women asking right? Men automatically get the contraception coverage with no questions. Still think this crap is fair?

          • Jennifer

            Not in the least, I find men getting contraceptives ludicrous.

          • JamieHaman

            Then wth advocate for the business so called conscious? Men most certainly do need some form of birth control besides trust, vasectomies, and condoms.

          • Jennifer

            For the health of their bodies?

          • JamieHaman

            Yep, for that wallet in the back pocket.

          • CJ99

            The irony of that statement is delicious…..almost. The real world finds your silly fantasies ludicrous.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Who are you to decide what is necessary for someones health? If I had to provide a doctors note to receive medication coverage, how would you know what the doctors reasons are for prescribing the medication unless you asked for specific details? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

          • CJ99

            Why embarrased? its quite clear to all you have none & are quite jealous / irate at those who do.

          • fiona64

            Tell me, Jennifer. Are you a doctor? Are you able to tell what is or is not “the genuine health of the patients”?

            Yeah, I thought not.

          • Jennifer

            LOL I’m a patient who has used birth control for medical reasons, and I know they are quite different from wanting sex without pregnancy particularly as a single woman.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Wanting sex without pregnancy is a very valid reason for contraception.

          • Jennifer

            But for having others pay for it? Especially if they’re unmarried and sex is not even a vital point in their lives?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Insurance premiums are generally taken out of pay. So the employee is the one paying for it . It is part of their compensation. And people can have relationships, including relationships with sex, even long -term, monogamous relationships, without marriage.

          • JamieHaman

            What? You don’t think women should enjoy sex just like any man? They “should” be married to enjoy? Who decides whether or not it is a vital point? You? The supervisor? How about keeping other people’s noses out of other people’s business?

          • Jennifer

            They can enjoy it all they want, but I’m not paying for a man’s “BC” either.

          • JamieHaman

            But you do pay for his viagra if you have insurance, and paid for it long before his premiums paid for your birth control. Or hormone therapy.

          • Jennifer

            He never paid for mine.

          • JamieHaman

            You understand that all insurance premiums are used by insurance companies to pay for procedures and medications, regardless of who actually Paid the premium right? The overweight guy who smoked for 30 years, (and drank every weekend) his heart surgery costs were not covered by only by the premiums he paid. They were covered by the premiums every body who bought insurance from that company paid. So for some years, if you paid for health insurance, you helped to pay for his viagra, and his premiums DID NOT

          • fiona64

            Yeah, it’s quite clear that someone doesn’t understand the concept of insurance (and, specifically, risk pools) at all.

          • JamieHaman

            Or a lot of other things. Here is hoping she has just gotten out of high school, and will be smart enough to learn facts, not just repeat things she’s been told by her parents? Friends?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Parents would be my guess. And apparently she’s been raised on a steady diet of Fox News.

          • CJ99

            Fox news would be my 2nd guess. 1st is no doubt a non stop flow of late night televangelists to whome faux jennifer sends a large portion of his / her income to join the chosen few.

          • fiona64

            Especially if they’re unmarried and sex is not even a vital point in their lives?

            So, those who are single/widowed/divorced should remain celibate to satisfy you?

            You’re laughable.

          • CJ99

            yes completely absurd but still reminds me of 1 christian lunatic webforum I ran across a few months ago where the “singles forum” was labelled “for those who’ve been given the gift of celibacy”. that’s just as loopy as calling a bullet to the head as “a gift”

          • fiona64

            And so fucking what, not to put too fine a point on it?

          • CJ99

            thankfully nothing stops at you as far as other people are concerned. The health of the rest of humanity is none of your damn business. Hammer that into your thick skull before you get somebody hurt with your hysterical insanity.

          • JamieHaman

            Have you ever been pregnant? Had to spend a month in bed to prevent a stroke? Had toxemia? Pre-eclampsia? Had a c section? Do you understand the real risks of major surgery? The real risks of pregnancy? Been the sole support of your family?
            You don’t write like you have a clue what any of those things are like.
            Safe sex is absolutely needed for health.

          • Jennifer

            No, but I’ve had serious issues due to bad birth control and other female issues, thank you. And if a woman, again, needed birth control because of health concerns like those, I’d be all for it.

          • JamieHaman

            Those are all possible issues while pregnant, which is exactly why so many women need birth control. It isn’t any body’s business, especially a supervisors. There are way too many who would immediately play the “she’s a helpless woman” card and there goes any chance of being promoted, or using one’s talents for a business. Not any employers’ business at all.

          • Jennifer

            But not all women NEED it. Hell, I’ve “needed” it to keep some things working normally, but I’ve ditched it, with the wish that I really knew how harmful it could be.

          • JamieHaman

            It doesn’t matter if a woman NEEDS it today. She may NEED it next week. People don’t generally get to make changes to their insurance policies on a weekly, or monthly basis. Most policies only allow changes once a YEAR, unless there is a “life event” such as marriage, divorce, birth or death. Yes, it can be harmful, which is why it is a prescribed medication, not over the counter, and taken with a DOCTOR’S supervision.
            Not the supervision of a man or woman who has no clue how hormonal birth control works, or why.

          • Jennifer

            With a doctor’s supervision, mine went batshit crazy. And the reasons you mentioned are why I think changes to this sort of thing are in order.

          • JamieHaman

            There are batshit crazy doctors, and batshit crazy reactions to hormones. Sorry for you for either one. But your bad experience doesn’t affect other people’s need for the same medication, or a doctor either.

          • Jennifer

            Thanks. I know mine doesn’t apply to everyone, but my point is that my BC was not vital and I’ve been better off without it; in many cases it’s really not vital to a woman’s health.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I believe that’s up to the woman taking it–I don’t believe that anyone likes being told their medication is unnecessary by a non-medical third party. For example, Tom Cruise mouthing off on TV about Brooke Shield’s medication for her post-partum depression.

          • Jennifer

            Ah yes, the Scientology stuff, no?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, but not the point. The point is that Tom Cruise has no degree in medicine–no degree beyond a high school diploma as far as I recall–and even if he’d been an MD he wasn’t her MD. And yet he felt perfectly comfortable with opining that Brooke ‘really didn’t need that medicine’ on national TV because he had ‘read up on the history of psychiatry’. So think how women feel when an unqualified third party is telling them that they don’t actually need their medication.

          • dance commander

            You are not a doctor dumbass and you do not speak for all women. Who the fuck are you to decide who can and cannot benefit from contraception.

          • fiona64

            As it’s abundantly clear that you are not a physician, you have absolutely no business opining about what is or is not “vital to a woman’s health.”

          • colleen

            Apparently you are not fertile (or, more accurately, are a male who never gets laid) but I assure you that for fertile women who have an active sex life avoiding a yearly pregnancy is vital to a woman’s health. Please just shut the fuck up and go away.

          • CJ99

            Seems you’re quite right colleen. Little doubt remains that “Jennifer” aka faux jennifer is probably among the obnoxious 8 year olds up playing Call of Duty nightly waaaay past his bedtime.

          • dance commander

            I agree. I bet jenny here is a dudebro.

          • colleen

            I wouldn’t take that bet

          • CJ99

            shall we call it a dead cert or odds on each way bet? doesn’t really matter to me.

          • Jennifer Starr

            How well you tolerate a medicine depends on the individual. I’ve had friends that have had problems on the pill, and many who have not. My friend with endometriosis finds it a positive godsend, she loves having light, practically painless periods after all the ones with heavy bleeding and excruciating pain. Percocet doesn’t work on me, as I found out after a wisdom teeth extraction, and there’s only one cold medicine that doesn’t make me hyper and irritable and that’s the alka-seltzer brand. But that’s just me.

          • Jennifer

            For five years or so I had some with no problem. Then one seemed faulty, so I got it changed to a higher dose; I didn’t realize it was higher, I thought we’d gone back to my first type. And this new one screwed up my hormones so badly I couldn’t take any anymore. I’d read so many warnings about BC, and some seemed extreme, but not all apparently.

          • CJ99

            Unlike Milk & Eggs along with other contents of your kitchen, These medications don’t suddenly “go bad” when consumed as you so absurdly claim. You’re tinfoil hat doesn’t exempt you from reality.

          • dance commander

            Ignorant twit. 1.2 million women per year in the USA alone are permanently disabled as a result of pregnancy. It absolutely is a health issue

          • fiona64

            Viagra and Cialis are cardiac meds that have a particular side effect that has caused them to be prescribed ioff-label for erectile dysfuntcion. I don’t see you demanding that men present paperwork showing that they have cardiac issues … but you are demanding that women present paperwork to show that hormonal contraception is being used for something else.

            Feh.

        • CJ99

          In regards to christian scientists I’ll only tell them this: Pick ONE.

      • fiona64

        My employer’s religion and personal beliefs are none of my business .. and vice versa.

      • colleen

        An employer attempting to impose his religious beliefs in this manner has NO respect for his /her women employees. He/She has no respect for our rights, deeply held beliefs or consciences. Effective birth control is moral and responsible and employers should never have the power to dictate the personal lives of employees. It’s an idea that is fundamentally disrespectful and exploitative to the employees. So, no, we are under no obligation to respect the notion that effective birth control is morally wrong (it isn’t) and we certainly are under no obligation to respect a church that treats women like garbage and views us as breeding livestock.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Actually Ilana Mercer has regularly defended racial supremacists and separatists, she is a friend of well-known racist John Derbyshire and has written for the racist VDare website. Look up an article about her called “Deep in the Heart of Whiteness” .

  • JamieHaman

    Jennifer, every day people are forced to pay for things against their will. Examples include banking fees, (endless, yes?) sales taxes, utilities, state and federal taxes, pay for 2 wars on a credit card, and the bail out of banks. We pay for funerals for the indigent, we pay for Walmart’s refusal to pay a reasonable wage, (costing us about $900,000. per store per year.) We pay tolls for highways after paying highway taxes through gasoline, state vehicle registration, and driver licensing fees. Pay for football stadiums. That list is endless.
    When an employer is allowed to dictate a woman getting a legal medication, or a legal procedure, where does that stop?
    Because we are talking about legal medications, and procedures.
    Does it stop before an employer decides the insurance he chooses won’t pay for diabetes? Or Chemotherapy for an overweight person who consumed too much sugar? What if an employer decides not to pay for coverage for heart treatment?
    The bottom line is this, is the corporation more important than the people who work there? I say it is not. Since corporations are legal entities created for the sole purpose of preventing the original investor from being sued for any ‘wrongdoing’ I think corporations should do just like the rest of us, suck it up, and pay.

    • Jennifer

      But everything you mentioned are general public services, like taxes for public schools, highways and driver’s licenses. An employer paying a woman for her birth control is different.

      “When an employer is allowed to dictate a woman getting a legal medication, or a legal procedure, where does that stop?”

      But they’re NOT able to stop her, they’re just able to keep from being forced to pay for it out of their own pockets.

      • JamieHaman

        Banking fees are not general public services, they are free money for the bank. Not so. They don’t pay for your insurance, the company collects premiums as a rule, and IF they do pay a part of the premium, guess what? It is tax deductible as a business expense, and your part of health insurance isn’t.
        If a company can refuse one thing (birth control in this case), it will be able to refuse others. The immediate thing that comes to mind is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their religious refusal to accept blood transfusions. Others include the churches that insist on no medical treatment whatsoever, that has resulted in the deaths of children, because God will cure them, if of course they are not sinful, or the child is not sinful. Do you see the difference now?

        • Jennifer

          I already know the differences, and I highly doubt anyone will be able to refuse to pay for a blood transfusion. But there’s also a difference from paying for general things like banks (which do participate in public services) and paying for someone’s reproductive choices. If you believe there’s a thin line between brtih control and blood transfusions, there’s certainly a thin line between birth control and abortions.

          • JamieHaman

            Yes, there certainly is a line between birth control and abortions. The more birth control is readily available, along with accurate information concerning sex, and it’s consequences, the less abortion there is. I for one would like to see abortion stay safe, legal and be rare.
            What would be the difference, refusal to have a blood transfusion is a very strongly held belief of the J.W.’s. If Catholics can refuse birth control, then the J.W.’s can refuse the blood transfusions.
            Birth control; is a legally prescribed medication, just like blood transfusions can, and do assist with treatment of various blood disorders.
            That’s why your religious beliefs don’t get to interfere in insurance coverage I pay for myself.

          • Jennifer

            No indeed, bc you pay for it.

          • fiona64

            Um, dumbass? That’s the entire point. We are paying for our insurance. And the portion we don’t pay for is *part of a salary package.* It does NOT belong to our employers; it belongs to US.

          • fiona64

            GMTA.

          • fiona64

            I highly doubt anyone will be able to refuse to pay for a blood transfusion

            The same logic applies, though. You maintain that Georgetown U. (for example) should have an exemption from the contraception mandate because it’s a Catholic school; a business owned by a JW should be able to use the same logic (“sincerely held religious belief”) to deny coverage for blood transfusions.

            You don’t even understand how very stupid (and dangerous) your position is, do you?

      • fiona64

        Um, sweetie? Health insurance belongs to the *recipient.* It’s part of what’s called a total compensation package. It’s *earned.* It is not up to an employer to call the shots on women’s reproductive decisions.

        • Jennifer

          No, just up to them to decide what they don’t want to pay for.

          • fiona64

            No, actually, it isn’t.

            Let me explain it, in as small words as I possibly can. When an employer starts a business, s/he is legally separating themselves (and their assets) from the fictitious person of their business. They do not get to pretend that their business has religious beliefs or opinions, see; that’s trying to have it both ways. You cannot separate your person and your assets from your business and then pretend that you and your business are one and the same.

            Maybe when you grow up, you will understand these things.

          • Jennifer

            Yes, I hope I can grow up and be just as knowledgeable and mature as you. An institution that is particularly religious, like a Catholic college, should not be expected to support things they don’t believe in. The entire reason this matter is a debate is because it’s not as cut and dry as you claim.

          • JamieHaman

            lol, the courts certainly think it is just that cut and dried. They think it for catholic college employees, for catholic hospitals, and other catholic businesses. When the church partners in those things, they are not in the religion business, they are in health care, they are in teaching, they are in business.

          • dance commander

            Unlikely. Fiona is intelligent and you are an imbecile.

          • fiona64

            The minute that Catholic college accepts Federal funds (for example, by accepting a Pell grant as a tuition payment), it is subject to Federal employment law. The minute a Catholic hospital accepts Federal funds (for example, by accepting Medicare reimbursement), it is subject to Federal employment law. Yes, it really is just as cut and dried as I claim. That is because I inhabit a place called Realityland.

          • CJ99

            Expecting faux Jennifer to grow up at this point is hopeless.

      • CJ99

        health care is a public service. It does not belong to *you* ergo you don’t get to dictate to others. End of argument.

  • fiona64

    No, it’s time for the pharmacists to do their job: filling legal, valid prescriptions.

    I think Jamie (below) is right; you’re a male concern troll. Feh.

  • JamieHaman

    Just got done reading some “Deep in the Heart…” Jennifer, OMG. You cannot be seriously saying that Mercer has her head on straight. No decent person could. For shock value, that was a win. For sanity? Oh no.

  • Amanda Kazarian

    My employer doesn’t pay for my contraception, I pay for it with the money that comes out of MY paycheck for my heath insurance.

  • CJ99

    because having a corporation dictate public health destroys equality. If you were fired from your job for going to church you’d be the first screaming “discrimination”

  • CJ99

    No we don’t. As usual your reposting inflammatory propoganda as “fact” while you pretend your someone your not. You are a great example of Bass ackwards.

  • CJ99

    Your idiotic delusions need bursting right now. You do NOT get to chose for the rest of humanity as YOU ARE NOT GOD. PERIOD!