@Butrflynet,
It would be even more worth it, if it included debunking of the "myths" being passed off as truth by opponents of the decision. Still, it
is worth reading and considering.
1. “What’s the big deal? Contraceptives are cheap.”
Only one of the four contraceptives Hobby Lobby objects to can be considered "costly," and that it the IUD. Talking about how "some other" methods might be costly and why some women prefer them is irrelevant and intended to make the argument advanced seem more valid.
Planned Parenthood at its website writes
[url]The IUD is
the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD and follow-up visits to your health care provider can
range from $500 to $900. That cost pays for protection that can last more than a decade.[/url]
If we assume that the protection lasts at least 10 years, the cost is between $50 and $90 per year.
OPT
(Options For Sexual Health) reports at their website that the cost of the Copper IUD is between
$80 and $160 and the cost of the Hormonal IUD is between
$325 and $360. It is not evident though if this estimate includes insertion and follow-up visits, but based on other sites it appears that this for the cost of the device alone.
According to WebMD the "up-front cost" of the IUD is $500.00
Per CostHelperHealth the cost (without insurance) for the device, insertion and a follow-up visit is between $175 and $600. This website focuses on the cost of healthcare and may be the most accurate.
The Law Dictionary website (I know this is a strange source) doesn't provide a cost estimate, but does report:
Quote:However, both Planned Parenthood and the makers of the most popular IUDs offer some limited patient-assistance programs for women in dire financial straits.
At the Community Baby Center site, Most Users who actually had the device inserted report paying between $500 and $600. One added:
Quote:I was fortunate to find a paragard patient assistance program which paid for my paragard.
So based on all of these sites it appears that the device, insertion and a follow-up visit can be expected to cost as low as $175 and most often around $600. Financial assistance is available from Planned Parenthood and IUD manufacturers which could reduce the cost by as much as 50%.
The cost of more than one follow-up visits pads the estimate. If a woman has annual gynecological check-ups it highly unlikely that her doctor will charge her extra because she has an IUD and these visits would be covered under the Hobby Lobby healthcare insurance. Whether or not that's at 100%, I do not know.
Over the life of the method it is very inexpensive compared to other methods, but even an upfront cost of $300 could be a challenge to
some women. How many of them can be expected to have a job with Hobby Lobby is debatable, but it's not a fictional issue.
However, we are talking about
one device out of four that Hobby Lobby will not pay for, and
one out of 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA, and so an employee of Hobby Lobby, assuming she cannot afford an IUD, would have 19 other methods to choose from, 16 of which would be paid in full by her insurance.
We are also talking about a device that is primarily used as a matter of choice and convenience. It has some potential negative side-effects, and it’s its chief virtues seem to be it’s cheap over the long term, it lasts for a long time, once its inserted it can be pretty much forgotten, it’s very dependable, and least one version doesn’t introduce additional hormones into a woman’s system. Four of these 5 virtues are matters of preference and convenience and have nothing to do with a woman’s health. Women, who, for health reasons, cannot tolerate contraceptives that are hormone based, have five FDA approved birth control methods they can choose from:
male condom, female condom, diaphragm, cervical cap, and spermicide. Actually there are six if sterilization is included but let’s not consider that as in the same league. Hobby Lobby is willing to pay for all five of these methods in accordance with the mandate.
As there are least five alternative to the IUD which carry a much cheaper up-front cost, the expense of the IUD is irrelevant. Women may have reasons to prefer it to these others, but they are not heath related, so even if one accepts that heath reasons trump the religious rights of Hobby Lobby, they don’t exist in this case.
2. “But Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood only object to four forms of contraception.”
The author then admits this is true, thereby nullifying her contention that it is a myth in need of debunking. Apparently this was the only way she could introduce her argument that the decision will open the door to consideration of 149 other complaints by companies. She adds that “several” are opposed to all forms of contraceptives. So if we use the high end of the definition of the term, 145 of these companies are arguing for an exemption of only some of the 20 FDA approved methods, just like Hobby Lobby. In addition if we visit the site she has linked to article to provide the list of these 149 companies we find that (according to the site) there are 51 cases with 122 plaintiffs. Where are the other 27 companies?
3. “Anyway, those forms of contraception are actually abortifacient.
First of all, despite the author’s certainty, this is not an entirely settled question. The NY Times ran an article which, while suggesting that there is considerable opinion that the author is correct, stops short of reporting the matter is settled. If the NY Times will not report it to be a settled fact, it’s difficult to imagine that it is. In any case, and secondly, if the author is assuming that this decision will open the door to cases of any and all reasons for religious beliefs, why does it matter whether or not Hobby Lobby is accurate in its beliefs? The SC did not consider or rule on the quality of Hobby Lobby’s religious belief, and none of the justices expressed any opinion that the belief was insincere. I don’t know if the author beliefs the Supreme Court is in a position to determine the validity of anyone’s religious belief, but I certainly don’t. It would be appropriate for them to determine if actions based on a given religious belief might harm those who don’t share the belief, but if that was an issue contemplated by the five Justices who ruled in the defendant’s favor, then, clearly, they found that in this case they did not, or at least not to the extent that harm could not be easily remedied, or was sufficient to warrant a restriction of religious freedom.
4. “But the government can just pay.”
This is hardly a myth. It may not be as simple as flipping a switch but it’s not the equivalent of saying the government can
just make pigs fly. When Obamacare was passed, Congress didn’t take the most straightforward way of filling the gap. It didn’t even specify the mandate that employers provide coverage, without cost to employees, for the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA. HHS and Karen Sibelius added the mandate. Democrats could have passed just about anything they wanted and they chose the ACA, and to grant the HHS pretty far reaching power in regards to it. It is disingenuous to suggest that because the political tide has changed from Democrat tsunami to something less is a reason to invalidate the argument that if the government believes providing these 20 contraceptives are essential to the good of the nation, it can do so without infringing upon religious freedom. Planned Parenthood can and does provide discounted contraception and whether or not it’s federal funding is under attack, doesn’t cause that fact to disappear.
The President has done a number of things that many people believe involved him over-extending the power of the executive branch, including Prof. Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University of Law, and somehow I don’t think Irin Carmon agrees with them. It’s interesting to see her here regard Obama as powerless to affect a government response to the gap created by this decision.
5. “It’s just contraception. It’s not vital health care.”
Not surprisingly Carmon conflates “gender equality,” with “public health,” but if we focus on simply “public health” (which is ostensibly the subject of the myth she wishes to debunk) we don’t have to even argue whether it includes contraception as a vital component. The decision doesn’t ban access to contraception, nor does it even ban access to the four methods of contraception to which Hobby Lobby objects. That four specific methods of birth control be paid for by an employee’s employer does not meet the test for “compelling interest” required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is why Alito wrote that simply stating “public health” as the compelling interest is too broad. Hormonal birth control has been proven to do all Carmon says, but again, this decision does nothing to deprive women (not even those who work for Hobby Lobby) from accessing these health benefits.
I will acknowledge that Carmon’s article is vastly superior, in tone and content, to the screeds bobsal keeps providing us, but it hardly presents the open and shut case the author intends and is not any less disingenuous that the myths it purports to debunk.
It appears to be virtually impossible for critics of the decision to avoid coming across as prophets of doom over a narrowly focused decision that is not capable of providing the support for broader and actual assaults on women’s
reproductive rights, but this is the M.O. of Democrats and liberal and feminist activists: Cast any disagreement with not only absolute freedom to obtain abortions, but the right to have someone else pay for them as salvos in an imaginary War on Women waged by brutish misogynists. Some like Carmon are at least able to demonstrate a level of restraint, but far too many are very much like the cretins who pen the diatribes bobsal has been posting. Typically levying hyperbolic charges that opponents of abortion are either religious lunatics that wish to impose a theocratic dictatorship on America, or slimy old men who take some sort of perverse pleasure in imposing their wills on women’s sex lives.
The purpose of this intent is obvious, to invest in so-call women’s
reproductive rights a sacred nature that elevates it well beyond any other right we may have into a realm of complete untouchability, and to demonize all who would dare to touch it (largely Republicans) so as to exert control of a huge bloc of American voters.
Rahm Emanuel verbalized a consistently plied strategy of this Administration and the Democrat Party: “Never let a crisis go to waste,” and if the issue isn’t a crisis, do your damnedest to portray it as one.
