It's allowing employers to dictate which medical treatments their employees have access to.
Would you take issue with an employer denying an employee cancer treatment, for example, because that employer was into New Age Heal Yourself Thinking or Reiki or something?
The right to full healthcare coverage was denied to the employee in the Hobby Lobby case.
Between the two of you, you seem to be presuming that this is a
right before even going in. I get it - if you
believe that healthcare coverage under terms you agree to is a right, then obviously he's denying people their rights... But isn't the whole point of sending it to court to
determine if it is a right or not, rather than just something we think should be done? I mean, "y
our healthcare provider providing insurance that pays for your birth control" is obviously not a natural right, so that's off the table - it must be some sort of civic right, or state right, or constitutional right, or something... So, which is it?
I guess the next example is, why is your employer covering birth control a
right rather than a privilege, a service, a job place perk, etc etc etc? Courts certainly do get things wrong based on ideological driven rulings - but is there an actual firm document or precedent that determines that yes, this is absolutely, without question, a right, or is this just one of those rights that people call a right because they
feel every person should have this? So, not really a right at all and just something we think people should have...
Just to be clear, I think birth control should be covered by the socialized medicine that I have openly supported in this forum on various occasions. I do not see how it is a right at the moment, so much as a perk deriving from democratically negotiated a social contract. I see it as something I
think we should have because it would lead to positive outcomes for the state at large. So, convince me - why should I take the next step and say "it's a right" rather than just "It's something we should provide because it has good outcomes from the state at large."? For all I know, there is a clear passage or precedent that makes this a defined right - but the Supreme Court didn't seem to think it was convincing. Since you two are saying that it was the
right of those employees to not only be able to get birth control, but have their employers pay for it, you must have a concrete case for it being a
right rather than just something you think should happen.
And to answer Lucky's question, yes I would have a problem with that. I *fully* understand that this ruling puts us into an area where the potential for a slippery slope into stupidity is a very real possibility. This concern in no way turns a privilege/something we think we should have into a
right though. Just because it's something the state should do, when judged by measure we agree with, doesn't make it a
right that people have. I think the state should do all sorts of things it doesn't - but my thinking that doesn't make those things rights that are being denied.