Skip to comments.Will Company's Owned By Jehovahs Witnesses Have To Include Blood Transfusions In EBP's? (Hobby Lobby
Posted on 07/10/2014 3:58:44 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Will they have to cover something like this under the Employee Benefit Program if that employee wasn't a JW, or could they say that they now have a religious exemption, too?
I wonder what other can of worms the recent SCOTUS ruling will open up...
All comments welcome.
But please be civil in them/with them, as when posting here at FR it clearly says “no personal attacks” against anyone.
Transfusions are medical necessity. Abortifacients, like all bc, is elective.
Well, no. Their religion makes them reject blood transfusions (if I understand it correctly). It doesn’t mean that they think you can’t or shouldn’t have a blood transfusion yourself.
what company is owned by Jehovah Witnesses anyway?
so what is the premise? That a company is owned by someone whose religion does not allow blood transfusions. Therefore that company would want health care companies to offer plans that do NOT cover blood transfusions? (which save lives instead of taking lives like abortion drugs) so the employees would have health care but the coverage would not cover transfusions?
seems a stretch. doubt the SC would bite on such a case
That wouldn’t prevent you from having a blood transfusion, they would just refuse to pay for it under their health insurance plan.
I was talking about someone who wasn’t;t a JW, worked for a company owned by JWâs, and the company did not want to pay for any blood transfusions, and did not want them covered under company EBPâs. They could say that while it is a medical necessity, the person can pay for it out of pocket or the govât can pay the tab, and thus the medical necessity would be taken care of, and religious liberty protected simultaneously.
Infertility treatments could also be objected to.
I can't see a way that SCOTUS could say no to this and yes to Hobby Lobby. It would parallel the Hobby Lobby ruling.
your blood transfusion seldom kills another person...the birth control items they objected to kill an innocent third party
Nope. Blood transfusion is emergency treatment.
Abortifacients are prophylactic.
Would they, though? I don't think they believe that having a blood transfusion is in the same category as having an abortion is for the Hobby Lobby people or that the same issues are concerned. They don't regard it, for example, as the taking of a human life, but just as something they are forbidden from doing, as people in some religions don't drink or eat pork or beef. I'd have to find out more about the matter, though.
The Hobby Lobby ruling made no mention of whether or not birth control kills a human being, only that the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage for those prescriptions.
My reply in post 16 applies to your comment as well.
These are all problems of communism.
They will be required to get blood transfusions with faggot blood... if 5hey need it or not.
We have a live and let live policy about alcohol, pork, beef and other things that some religions regard as forbidden. Some countries don't, though. What's barred to them has to be barred to everyone else.
As things stand here and now, I'd expect Jehovah's Witnesses (a very small part of the population) would recognize that not everybody felt as they did about blood transfusions (apparently, not all Jehovah's Witnesses think alike on the matter, either).
Christian Scientists, for example, may not believe in many medical treatments, but Hobby Lobby doesn't mean that a company owned by Christian Scientists is exempt from the law. Most Christian Scientists (I think) recognize that the rules they apply to themselves aren't going to be accepted by the wider population as valid.
If I'm not mistaken I think what you're saying is basically the upshot of Hobby Lobby. The individual or government picks up the tab in the end, so it doesn't matter (though blood transfusions may be a lot more expensive than morning after pills, though). People who are intent on opposing the ruling will oppose and distort it whatever it actually says.
Trying to come up with ever more obscure religious groups and taboos, though, is a good way for them to attack the decision, so maybe it's not the right thing for us to do right now.