In light of the new efforts by POTUS to work around the egregious ruling by SCOTUS, some of the same ignorant, uninformed opinions are getting tossed around regarding employer health insurance and the rights of their employees.
Because it can get rather tedious attempting to respond to all of them, I give you a break down of some of the most common remarks you'll need to address.
I'll just leave this here and you can feel free to link the page so that you don't have to risk carpal tunnel on idiotic ramblings and can instead use your fingers to toast with a tasty porn star dirty martini. Yum!
First: An IUD isn't a pill. Ask any woman who has had to spread eagle to have one inserted if it's even remotely close to a pill. I dare you.
Second: Plan B and Ella are not RU-486. They aren't even proven effective after ovulation and don't interfere with a fertilized egg. If you're already okay with the pill, it's ridiculous to oppose these drugs, since we are really just dealing with dosage in most cases.
Third: Health Care Insurance is part of a compensation benefits package (even if an employer contributes), it belongs to the employee for work performed. This is not an entitlement under the law. This is a benefits package, which deals with salary and wage. Kind of like a vision plan, your boss isn't buying those stylish leopard print frames for you. They are free to compliment the look or tell you how they make your dye job moot, but they aren't allowed to force you to get contacts instead. It's your money. You earned it the minute you clocked in.
Fourth: There was and is no mandate requiring employers offer healthcare. There is a mandate on what contraception needs to be included if the employer offers this as part of a benefits package. This distinction is important. ACA mandates minimums on all health insurance policies, private or public. ACA assigns penalties for any variation of minimum. Employers are not required to offer a health insurance package as part of their benefits package to employees. Again, health insurance compensation offered as part of a benefits package to employees is not considered an entitlement under the law.
Fifth: SCOTUS ruled all contraception is on the table. So even if you wanted to make the fallacious stupid argument that there were still some available, all you'd be showing is you don't really keep up with current events or rulings that slight our Constitution. Which says a lot about you. Also, read point nine.
Sixth: Contraception is used for more than birth control. Any presumption that sperm is even a part of the discussion ignores that contraception is about a woman's health not whether she has sex. Plenty of women choose these methods and may or may not even desire or have sex. (Why a woman would choose not to have sex is its own conundrum. Sex is awesome. It feels great and is great for you too. But that point is irrelevant). Women have reproductive systems, as a part of our anatomy. That doesn't mean our decisions regarding this aspect of our body even remotely relate to the decisions we have regarding sexual activity. They might. They might not. Point being: It's highly invasive, extremely inappropriate and horrifically presumptuous to infer we are even discussing fertilized eggs.
Seventh: An employer, any employer, targeting only women in exclusion of benefit for employment is a civil rights violation. We're talking about a little thing called income inequality and discrimination based on the sex of the employee. If you offer your employees a car allowance and tell the men they will get a Mercedes while you offer the women a token for the latest in public transit, you can see how this could be viewed as problematic.
Eighth: Objections to a woman's bodily autonomy stem from coverture legacies. Don't stay on the wrong side of history. If I have to explain coverture to you, we've lost half the battle already. Here's a history lesson: It was legal for a man to rape a woman in 1993. The fact that we are even debating issues dealing with the anatomy of women is a pretty clear indication we are still viewed as property. This ought to insult you if you are a living, breathing human being.
Ninth: In regards to companies agreeing offer some but not all health care options to female employees: Telling someone they ought to shut up because the back seat is still a ride on the bus is egregious. Don't do it.
Finally: A violation of the Establishment Clause at the expense of a woman's right to her own privacy and body is pretty horrifying.
We could argue the effectiveness of ACA and every intricacy within it ad nauseam, and we probably have already. You don't have to be a fan of ACA to care for facts regarding it. You don't have to like the penalties or minimum requirements. You don't have to think our health care system is perfect. It really isn't. But you do need to educate your ignorance if you believe for one minute these cases aren't an attack on women.
Because when all is said and done and all the aforementioned arguments have come and gone, at the end of the day it comes down to this:
No one has a right to presume they know why you make the decisions you do with what's between your legs. No one.
In regards to the most notorious company at the heart of this debate and their aggressive challenge that made it to the Supreme Court of the United States: Any company profiting from the manufacturing of products through business with an abortion on demand nation, profiting from the manufacturing of contraceptives through 401 plans (unless you contend the owners don't participate in their own 401?), and profiting off the sale of wire hangers that have an evidential history of being a method for abortion has zero grounds to claim religious infringement. The double standard is telling to say the least.
As to religious beliefs: While there certainly might be current doctrines regarding the use of contraception or the rights of women, they do not have historical accuracy or biblical grounds. There is absolutely no biblical mandate opposing birth control (or the termination of a pregnancy). There is nothing in the biblical text that makes a claim that conception is sacred. Hebrew laws and tradition do not acknowledge any rights to persons until well after birth. There are, however, biblical mandates to follow the rule of law in the land. Although, that's all irrelevant, since this nation is not a theocracy.