Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The day after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people. The letter, first reported by The Atlantic, was sent on Tuesday by 14 representatives, including the president of Gordon College, an Erie County, Pa., executive and the national faith vote director for Obama for America 2012, of the faith community. "Without a robust religious exemption," they wrote, "this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom." The leaders noted that the Senate-passed Employment Non-Discrimination Act included a religious exemption.

Source: Talking Points Memo.

Comments

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

And actually - how hard a hit is this about, monetary speaking? How much in US for a month's supply of pills if you buy them cash out of pocket?

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

What does the cost of birth control pills have to do with employers asking to be allowed to discriminate against LGBT job applicants in hiring?

For that matter, what does it even have to do with anything? It certainly has no bearing on the PRINCIPLES involved in the original Hobby Lobby decision.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Well, first of all I must concede, that I was somewhat off-topic, but HobbyLobby ruling IIRC concerns contraception.
Secondly the extend of harshness imposed probably does matter especially for the minimum wagers and other poor folks.
Thirdly since I am not from US I really don't know your price levels and want to know, since I am watching this community and lots of posts here recently are referring to this issue.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I was confused by the fact that this question was posted under a post about LGBT hiring regulations.

I can't really answer your question about the price of birth control pills because I have been too old to need to purchase birth control in years. But I know it can vary greatly, depending on the drug prescribed and other factors (for example, everything, including prescription drugs, costs more in some parts of this country than others).

IUDs, which were also covered in the original Hobby Lobby suit are another matter entirely, because the cost includes the the device itself plus the insertion procedure According to some quick googling I just did, this can range from $500 - $1000, depending on the type of device used. This is a one-time cost (assuming there are no complications and the device is not expelled), as opposed to birth control pills, which must be purchased every month, but it's a very large amount of money to lay out all at once for all but relatively wealthy people.

My comment about the principle involved was because I feel that the cost of the drugs or devices is not the real issue. The issue is singling out certain types of birth control from other types of medical care and having different policies about covering these things. Because only women use these drugs and devices, it also puts an unfair burden on women, especially when you consider that things like erection-enhancing drugs, which are used only by men, are pretty much universally covered.

Basically, I (and a lot of other people in this country) feel it's ethically wrong to single out birth control in this manner, and that if health insurance is provided, it should cover ALL drugs and medical treatments, INCLUDING those that enable women to control their reproductive systems.