Judge rules against Catholic employer's birth control conscience claim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend whose husband works for an organization that is currently challenging the ruling. She is on her husband's plan, which currently covers birth control. However, the company is now ELIMINATING the coverage, which is forcing her to go on her own company's crappy plan.

They are Catholic. They have 4 children. She is on the pills because her mother died of cervical cancer. It is awful all around.

Um....there is an increased risk of cervical cancer linked to use of the pill. She should really stay on her husband's plan and get some real medical care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15105794

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend whose husband works for an organization that is currently challenging the ruling. She is on her husband's plan, which currently covers birth control. However, the company is now ELIMINATING the coverage, which is forcing her to go on her own company's crappy plan.

They are Catholic. They have 4 children. She is on the pills because her mother died of cervical cancer. It is awful all around.

The husband's employer SUCKS ASS big time. That's so stingy and petulant. If there are options, I would be looking for another job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend whose husband works for an organization that is currently challenging the ruling. She is on her husband's plan, which currently covers birth control. However, the company is now ELIMINATING the coverage, which is forcing her to go on her own company's crappy plan.

They are Catholic. They have 4 children. She is on the pills because her mother died of cervical cancer. It is awful all around.

Um....there is an increased risk of cervical cancer linked to use of the pill. She should really stay on her husband's plan and get some real medical care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15105794

I'm sorry, I should have said ovarian cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend whose husband works for an organization that is currently challenging the ruling. She is on her husband's plan, which currently covers birth control. However, the company is now ELIMINATING the coverage, which is forcing her to go on her own company's crappy plan.

They are Catholic. They have 4 children. She is on the pills because her mother died of cervical cancer. It is awful all around.

The husband's employer SUCKS ASS big time. That's so stingy and petulant. If there are options, I would be looking for another job.

Wow. Do you also amputate your hand when you get a hangnail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend whose husband works for an organization that is currently challenging the ruling. She is on her husband's plan, which currently covers birth control. However, the company is now ELIMINATING the coverage, which is forcing her to go on her own company's crappy plan.

They are Catholic. They have 4 children. She is on the pills because her mother died of cervical cancer. It is awful all around.

The husband's employer SUCKS ASS big time. That's so stingy and petulant. If there are options, I would be looking for another job.

Wow. Do you also amputate your hand when you get a hangnail?

Gee, that analogy could be turned around quite easily on the employer as well. It's just an oral contraceptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hm, what I don't understand is why my private employer has any business knowing if I am on birth control. Prescription drug coverage should pay for prescription drugs. I'm glad this judge saw through the weak arguments.

I agree, but it's more than just the prescriptions for birth control which are at stake....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hm, what I don't understand is why my private employer has any business knowing if I am on birth control. Prescription drug coverage should pay for prescription drugs. I'm glad this judge saw through the weak arguments.

I agree, but it's more than just the prescriptions for birth control which are at stake....

This is just another reason why health care shouldn't be tied to employment. Then your employer wouldn't know anything about your health plan or use.

As long as your employer pays, however, they have an obligation to keep the plan at an appropriate cost, which includes keeping the insurer from selling you coverage for things you are unlikely to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hm, what I don't understand is why my private employer has any business knowing if I am on birth control. Prescription drug coverage should pay for prescription drugs. I'm glad this judge saw through the weak arguments.

I agree, but it's more than just the prescriptions for birth control which are at stake....

This is just another reason why health care shouldn't be tied to employment. Then your employer wouldn't know anything about your health plan or use.

As long as your employer pays, however, they have an obligation to keep the plan at an appropriate cost, which includes keeping the insurer from selling you coverage for things you are unlikely to use.

A large proportion of women aged 16-40 use contraceptives; and at this time very few options for females are available without medical involvement...so needing BCP ou internal devices may actually be more common than say, needing asthma medicine or medication for high blood pressure....The insurance companies have actuaries who crunch numbers and determine rates. And providing an employee with a year's worth of birth control is guaranteed cheaper than providing for pregnancy coverage /delivery in a hospital/pediatrician for a newborn...

[Anonymous]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hm, what I don't understand is why my private employer has any business knowing if I am on birth control. Prescription drug coverage should pay for prescription drugs. I'm glad this judge saw through the weak arguments.

I agree, but it's more than just the prescriptions for birth control which are at stake....

This is just another reason why health care shouldn't be tied to employment. Then your employer wouldn't know anything about your health plan or use.

As long as your employer pays, however, they have an obligation to keep the plan at an appropriate cost, which includes keeping the insurer from selling you coverage for things you are unlikely to use.

A large proportion of women aged 16-40 use contraceptives; and at this time very few options for females are available without medical involvement...so needing BCP ou internal devices may actually be more common than say, needing asthma medicine or medication for high blood pressure....The insurance companies have actuaries who crunch numbers and determine rates. And providing an employee with a year's worth of birth control is guaranteed cheaper than providing for pregnancy coverage /delivery in a hospital/pediatrician for a newborn...

You missed my point.