Why is the Hobby Lobby Case So Controversial?
 

This is something I don't understand. Basically, Hobby Lobby decided not to cover the costs of birth control for their employees as a career benefit, as part of the Affordable healthcare act. The reason they cite for this is religious beliefs-the owners believe it is immoral for them to fund it.

What I don't understand is why people act like they're being denied a human right. Hobby Lobby isn't firing people for using birth control. All they're doing is refusing to pay for it directly themselves.

So many upset with this case don't even realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch. To fund paying for birth control, it would likely result in reduced salary, as birth control is an increased expense for the company.

The women working for the company can buy birth control with their paycheck if they wish to have it. Why does the company need to take money out of the paychecks of everyone to pay for it? Why is the government supposed to tell everyone how to spend their money? isn't America supposed to be a free country? Those that chose not take advantage of it are essentially being robbed due to the expenses associated with it taking away from the wages of everyone. Those who do take advantage of it can just buy it with their own money if the company doesn't support it.

Now if Hobby Lobby was firing female workers for using birth control, then I'd be really upset. But simply refusing to pay for it themselves directly? This seems a bit extreme to be upset about.


Please enlighten me. I'm probably missing something.

Insurance can cover birth control without a co-pay. A larger group purchasing insurance lowers the risk to the insurance company and therefore the cost. Wouldn't cost the companies extra.

Have no fear GOAT is here. Im not familiar with the situation, but based on what you said about the company stating religious belief as the reason for not covering it, I would guess is why people are making a "big deal". Now it turns into discrimination against non-believers.

This is one of the things about America that always seems strange to me. The whole thing of employers covering everything like that and the importance of insurance. I'm not always up to date with the American politics so could you answer this, would Obamacare stop this sort of thing being such an issue?

It's unfortunate, since many women need birth control for controlling their periods as well. As Imprint mentions, it wouldn't cost the company extra-- they're just denying a kind of treatment due to personal beliefs. As much as I'm Catholic and understand the discomfort some have towards birth control, it's not really fair towards these women to have less options.

If you're a guy, you may not automatically understand the awful inconvenience of having a heavy period, especially while working.
Without birth control:
- With some women, even a large pad won't carry you til 1pm
- Basically, your day would consist of changing your pad every 1-2 hours(if you remember to), just so you don't bleed on yourself until your next meeting.
With birth control:
- you can last on 1 pad for much longer, like 6-10 hours at least
- also allows you to "schedule" your period, basically decide if you want to deal with it over the weekend or weekdays. Obviously, most working women would go with the weekend.

Then this isn't even covering how some women take birth control pills in case of rape-- out of fear, and precaution.

Yeah, they could pay out of pocket, and those that need it will have to. But by not supplying it, they're making the working lives of these women harder than it has to be.

I don't see why your employer should decide what kind of health benefits you do or do not get.

They actually do still cover most forms of birth control, just not "morning-after" and IUD types. I think it's controversial because it could pave the way for employers to not cover other types of health benefits because it goes against their personal beliefs.

It shouldn't be contoversial.

Agreed. The whole point of standardized health care in the first place is so that they don't. Here's the controversy.

I'm sorry but, why should an arts and crafts store have to buy birth control for their employees?

Birth control has no relevance to the business, therefore by buying it for their employees it would basically just be giving them free stuff.

Unfortunately that's how modern employment works. Pay doesn't just come in the form of a salary or wage, but in the benefits employees receive such as insurance. Of course, this means lower salaries to pay for these programs.

Basically this case is just a matter of Hobby Lobby not including Birth control as something covered by their insurance program.

Pretty sure this whole scenario is a result of Obamacare.

Yes I know, I just think it's a dumb idea.

Skill do you even read posts? Why don't you try re-reading Latte's post and when you fully understand it, re-read mine?

Yes, I read both of those two posts. Latte outlined the importance of Birth control. I never denied that Birth Control can be considered important or that it has a multitude of uses besides preventing pregnancy.

As for your post, it still seems a bit flawed. The money to pay for birth control has to come from SOMEWHERE. The insurance will cost more if it has to cover birth control than if it doesn't, because there is more to pay for. And more expenses put towards employees would require reduced wages. You don't need to be an actuary to understand that. If there's more risks and expenses associated with something, I will charge more. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, so they can't take a net loss.


I also don't understand why Latte says Hobby Lobby providing birth control would give women more options. By not providing it, women have the option to either purchase it, or not purchase it and use their money on something else. By providing it, women are forced to take reduced wages as a result, even if they do not wish to take advantage of birth control. If anything, its less options. Hobby Lobby's decision not to provide birth control doesn't prevent them from acquiring it if they want it.

It's just coming out of their salary anyways. If you're going to argue that its a need, and that it isn't fair for women, why not deal with the horrible wage inequality between men and women instead? If there's more expenses with hiring a female employee than a male employee, companies will pay the female employee less to make up the difference. Some companies simply do it because they can, even if female employees are just as useful to the company as a male one, with the same benefits. Why not establish some form of law that makes gender wage inequality illegal? That seems far more useful in protecting women's rights IMO. The including of birth control under Obamacare simply increases the cost of hiring a female employee, which could worsen the already poor wage inequality.

You dont pay an extra five dollars to get insurance with free birth control. It costs the same.