[Vision2020] Hobby Lobby co-pay free birth control options

Tue Jul 15 13:44:06 PDT 2014

As has already been clarified, the "narrow decision" verbiage was nothing
more than smoke & mirrors.

As for taking action, I've already done so - have you?  And, while you're at
it, be sure to let them know you continue to support the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act because following the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby and Wheaton
decisions, the PDA is already in the sites of some employers that don't want
to have to pay for out-of-wedlock maternity care because it goes against
their "sincerely held" religious beliefs by encouraging sex outside
marriage.  There's another case before the SCOTUS now about accommodations
in the workplace for pregnant women, and while the issue isn't one of
"sincerely held" religious beliefs, I expect those aren't far behind.

The Not My Boss' Business Act, introduced last week in Congress to reverse
the Supreme Court's decision gutting women's right to birth control
coverage, has HUGE momentum--and will come to a vote TOMORROW.1 The bill
states that federal laws, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
cited by the Supreme Court, do not allow employers to refuse to cover health
care--including birth control--guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. It
would ensure women employees at corporations like Hobby Lobby continue to
have critical access to affordable birth control.

But there are still Senators who refuse to say where they stand--and they
need to hear from you. If we shine a spotlight on this bill and bring it to
a vote, we'll know which members of Congress support affordable access to
birth control--and which side with five men on the Supreme Court.

Can you call Senators Mike Crapo and James Risch today and tell them to vote
YES on the Not My Boss' Business Act? Make sure Sens. Crapo and Risch knows
that you believe all women have a right to affordable birth control.

*         Sen. Crapo - (202) 224-6142 

*         Sen. Risch - (202) 224-2752 

After you call, please click here to let us know how it went
<http://act.weareultraviolet.org/go/2145?t=1&akid=1117.629344.Fr4ccA>  so we
can track our progress together.

Thanks for taking action.

--Nita, Shaunna, Kat, Karin, Adam, Gabriela, Holly, Kaili, Kathy, and Onyi,
the UltraViolet team

From: Scott Dredge [mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:28 PM
To: Saundra Lund; viz
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Hobby Lobby co-pay free birth control options

<And, Scott, you think there will "eventually" be some solution, but what
about the basic health care needs of women in the meantime?  It's just so
unimportant that it's OK for us to hope and pray that - eventually - you'll
be right?  Would your attitude be so caviler if it were your gender-based
basic health care needs?  I guess we just tell rape victims desperate to
prevent pregnancy who need EC to just wait . . . it's all get sorted out in
the wash.>

How much more time should be spent on venting about the Hobby Lobby decision
before taking action to remedy the situation?  The Supreme Court is the
highest court in the land and they've made their narrow ruling on the Hobby
Lobby case.  Alito and Kennedy already wrote in the majority opinion that
the option for the government coverage of BC for non-profit organizationss
could be expanded to cover closely held for-profit orgs (just before they
issues the Wheaton injunction).

  _____  

From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:17:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hobby Lobby co-pay free birth control options

As much as you try to ignore the matter, it isn't just about affordable
birth control; it's about allowing employers to dictate what appropriate
mainstream medical care employees spend their compensation on.

The fact of the matter is that IUDs have appropriate accepted medical uses
besides contraceptive use - something like 8-15% of women who have IUDs have
them for medical reasons other than contraception.  I know that's an
inconvenient fact for you, but it is nonetheless a fact, and a fact that was
completely ignored by SCOTUS, by Gary, by Scott, and by Paul.

Allowing employers to "opt out" of covering the most appropriate mainstream
legal treatment decided by a woman and her doctor is discrimination on the
basis of gender, plain and simple, not to mention wholly inappropriate.

And, when your employer "opts out" of covering, for instance,
triple-bypasses for men over 50 because it's thwarting God's will or for any
other silly "religious" reason, I'll be just as outraged.  I'll think it
just as wrong for men to have to purchase private "heart disease" coverage
"just in case" or schlepp around looking for cheaper care when your employer
puts itself in your doctor's office.

It's really too bad you have such a low opinion of the health care needs for
women.

And, Scott, you think there will "eventually" be some solution, but what
about the basic health care needs of women in the meantime?  It's just so
unimportant that it's OK for us to hope and pray that - eventually - you'll
be right?  Would your attitude be so caviler if it were your gender-based
basic health care needs?  I guess we just tell rape victims desperate to
prevent pregnancy who need EC to just wait . . . it's all get sorted out in
the wash.

Saundra

Moscow, ID

Well-behaved women seldom make history.

~ Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Gary Crabtree
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Scott Dredge
Cc: viz
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hobby Lobby co-pay free birth control options

I'm dreadfully sorry Mr. Dredge, avoiding Gary's comments is not one of the
available options. When the discussion devolves to the silly assertion that
because of the courts decision women won't be able to afford birth control,
you will hear similar comments again and again and again.

g

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com
<mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com> > wrote:

The comments about Hobby Lobby are yet again all over the map.   Getting
back to basics to hopefully avoid comments like Gary's '42 condoms at
Walmart cost about $18', here is the list of 16 of 20 FDA approved birth
control options that are available c0-pay free to Hobby Lobby employees:

1.	Male condoms
2.	Female condoms
3.	Diaphragms with spermicide
4.	Sponges with spermicide
5.	Cervical caps with spermicide
6.	Spermicide alone
7.	Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin ("Combined Pill)
8.	Birth-control pills with progestin alone ("The Mini Pill)
9.	Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
10.	Contraceptive patches
11.	Contraceptive rings
12.	Progestin injections
13.	Implantable rods
14.	Vasectomies
15.	Female sterilization surgeries
16.	Female sterilization implants

The 4 remaining FDA approved options of which Hobby Lobby objected are:

1.	Plan B emergency contraception
2.	Ella  emergency contraception
3.	Copper IUD
4.	IUD with progestin

While I don't agree with SCOTUS decision, I can certainly see both sides to
this case and ultimately I'm convinced that coverage for FDA approved birth
control will be provided through some other means that will absolve
(according to SCOTUS) objecting employers.

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
=======================================================

======================================================= List services made
available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140715/fbd9650d/attachment-0001.html>