Posted on Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
Judge blocks implementation of insurance coverage for birth control
By Cole Bertsos
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the requirement of most employers to provide employees birth control coverage as part of their health insurance, MLive reported.
The decision came after the judge ruled implementing the requirement could be seen as an infringement on the religious rights of family-owned Weingartz Supply Co., which has a store in Scio Township, west of Ann Arbor. He said the company showed some likelihood of winning at trial.
The president of the outdoor power equipment company designed a health plan to exclude contraception coverage in order to observe the company's Catholic beliefs.
Comments
a2miguy
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:04 a.m.
I just don't get these businesses that feel the need to take a political stance of this nature. You are in business to make money. By "standing up for what you believe in" you are hurting your business by alienating customers. Soon enough you end up having to lay off employees because you can't afford not to....which is certainly irresponsible of you, some would even say immoral. And then what has your holier-than-thou stance gotten you? When you take a right wing stance in a town that leans left (or vice versa), you are asking for trouble. And it's not like Weingartz is the only place in town to buy the stuff they sell. I hope you get what you deserve, which is apparently your pride. That, and a couple bucks will buy you a nice cup of coffee.
Unusual Suspect
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
It's not a political stance, it's a moral stance. But to the left, from whom our cultural decline comes, that is a titally foreign concept.
Tesla
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.
This is why I keep my mouth shut when it comes to business vs my political leanings. No more business to Weingartz for me.
A A Resident
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
Reading the various posts and sub-replies, it's amazing how many people are trying to spin this into a denial of the choice to use birth control. That hasn't happened here.
1bit
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
No, what is happening is an employer imposing their religious views on their employees.
Unusual Suspect
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.
Or anywhere. But that doesn't stop the lies from the left.
Michigan Man
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 10:50 p.m.
I am reasonably wealthy with a big bank account. If you know of some women who cannot afford the $9 per month prescription expense please let me know as I may be able to help. I will probably need, however, to examine the most recent tax returns to make sure those who I buy birth control for truly needy.
aggatt
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 4:14 a.m.
mine's $70 per a month, and I use it for a medical condition--not to prevent pregnancy. So feel free to cover that for me
TruthMan
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
Recent reports were that more than 90% of Catholic women have used some form of birth control ... who is he trying to appease ??? Seems to me the only ones who are concerned about the issue are Catholic men. Isn't that strange ??
Nicole B.
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.
Particularly Catholic me who have made a vow of chastity.
seasons
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 6:06 p.m.
This ruling isn't just about religious freedom for the employer, its also about denying women basic health care which doesn't just impact women, it impacts their entire family. This judge was in error in making this determination. Religious sects may be as exclusive as they wish, the government must be as inclusive as they can because it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that all, every single citizen in this country has freedom of religion, not just a select few. The government also has the responsibility to ensure that every citizen has access to basic health care. Shame on this judge for a narrow, poorly reasoned ruling.
A A Resident
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2 p.m.
"My religion says church leaders should not molest little kids, then cover it up for decades." _________ The man is not claiming a religious right to sexually abuse children, or that Church doctrine supports it.
clownfish
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.
My religion says church leaders should not molest little kids, then cover it up for decades.
A A Resident
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.
This is odd! We have some people here who allegedly believe in "the right to choose", getting bent out of shape about a business owner who also wants to have a right to choose, and who is pursuing it through the proper legal channels. His employees are not denied access to birth control, and there is no evidence that they are expected or required to structure their lives around his religious paradigm. It's simply that he doesn't feel right about his required level of involvement in something which is contrary to his religious beliefs, and a judge has backed him up for now. Perhaps this issue should have been decided instead by a mob of secular zealots? If someone doesn't believe in war, they have a legal right to challenge their involvement in that as well.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.
There is a world of difference between being forced to use your body to incubate another human being and being forced to include birth control in a health care plan you provide your employees *if* you choose to provide health care. They aren't even close to being the same thing. Just like having the right to choose to smack someone across the face isn't really something we feel most people should have the right to choose. Being pro-choice usually just means being in favor of women having the right to choose how to use their own bodies, it doesn't mean that one has to support every single persons choices on any issue.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 4:43 p.m.
www.stopcryingthinksdepressionisfallacyandthefluiswack.com/religiouspeoplearesmart
A A Resident
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
"Crying", if you can link your belief against anti-depression medication, and your belief that flu doesn't exist with the long-established policies of some mainstream religion, I think you might have a viable court challenge. And I would support your right to make that challenge.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
Do you think that the health care costs per employee will actually decrease as a result of this? I imagine they will continue paying the same per check and still lose out on an essential piece of health care that the owner of a business has no right to decide. Where does it stop? I do not believe in people using depression medicine so that is also no longer covered. I also think that the flu doesn't exist so don't bother going to the doctor for flu like symptoms unless you want to pay out of pocket.
outdoor6709
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
I wonder, since the Sec of HHS has broad discretion under the ACA, if it was determined that home invasions was a "Hazzard to Health" and Ted Nugent was sec of HHS, and he mandated everyone must buy a gun for self protection, if liberals would be as happy with mandates?
clownfish
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.
What if my religion says war is evil, I should not have to pay taxes that support war, right? And I should not be required to withhold employee taxes that pay for war. What if that religion was the Catholic Church? I have yet to see a single Catholic employer go to court over this issue. In 1991, Pope John Paul II opposed the Gulf War and publicly appealed to U.S. President George H.W. Bush not to wage it. In 2003, he once again opposed a war in Iraq and appealed to U.S. President George W. Bush to refrain from going to war. Did Weingartz take the Bushes to court?
average joe
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:13 p.m.
I think I'll go buy a new snowblower @ wiengartz today.
DonBee
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.
I went to a picnic run by a company whose founder was Jewish. One of the employees wanted to put bacon on the grill. The owner told him no, because it was against the owner's beliefs, should the employee have been allowed to put the bacon on the grill anyway? No one here seemes to complain about keeping Kosher and what that might do to a workplace or other religious beliefs that are in many of our workplaces today. Separation of church and state has been the rule since the constitution was written. While I agree that people should have access to what they want, I also understand the impact that forcing someone to do something against strongly heald beliefs can have. My concern is that many employers who have strongly held beliefs will end up dropping health care coverage for their employees, rather than do something that is against their beliefs. I have to wonder, is it better to have something included in a health care plan that no longer exists, or not have that coverage and have the rest of the health care plan? This is where I fear this will end up, if forced, the company will just drop health care coverage.
1bit
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.
Ridiculous analogy, but your hypothesis is correct. I believe some employers (the minority) will drop coverage. That is not a bad thing in my opinion. More likely they will increase wages as a result and the person will buy insurance on one of the health insurance exchanges. Problem solved. And I'll take those grilled pork ribs when they're ready!
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 9:55 p.m.
I don't actually think that would be a bad thing. If enough companies started dropping health care because they don't want to comply with the law, it would be a good start to divorcing health care from employment. That is what we really need to do.
Sue
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:48 a.m.
This isn't about birth control, it's about a business having the right to decline paying for something for their employees which they do not agree with morally. I believe in birth control for those who choose to use it, but I agree that employers have a right whether to provide it or not. All those who believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose, well what about an employers right to choose? Or is the "right to choose" limited to women? After all it's already been determined that men don't have the right to choose life for their unborn children if the mother decides to abort, and I doubt "birth control" coverage includes condoms.
1bit
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:02 p.m.
The choice employers have is whether to offer health insurance coverage or not.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.
"They can choose to not be in business." And people can choose not to be employed by them.
clownfish
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
They can choose to not be in business. Their religion is personal, not business. What if their religion did not believe in Minimum wage, hiring women, hiring brown skinned people, what if their religion said children should work 12 hour days fixing lawn mowers and should not attend school?
dsponini
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:37 a.m.
Weingartz...one place my family and friends will NEVER go to. Thanks for the tip A2 dot com!
McGiver
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:32 a.m.
Good for Weingartz. If you want birth control spend your own money. It's a well establish practice and belief of the Catholic church not to employ use of birth control and I dont see what business the government has in mandating insurance companies provide it when an employer doesn't want to provide it. After all, they don't even have to provide health insurance.
1bit
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 11:16 a.m.
@McGiver: Okay, here is your logic: Employer pays for health insurance + employee uses health insurance for birth control = bad Employer pays employee + employee uses salary for birth control = good Do you see why it's a silly argument? Once the employer spends the money on a benefit or salary then it is no longer the employer's money to decide what to do with it.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
You are right. They don't have to provide health insurance. But they do have to follow the law and the law is that if they provide health insurance, it is going to be regulated and one of the ways it is regulated is that it requires women's health issues (including birth control) to be provided. If they can't do this because of their moral convictions, they can stop providing health insurance. No one is being forced to do anything.
grimmk
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.
Right, because it's so CHEAP, it's easy! Seriously, it's FREE, right? So that is why they aren't covering it? No, wait. It's NOT. Most peopel do not have enough extra money to spend on BC. That is why when they get insurance it should be included. It is singling out a group of people. That is called discrimination. And in this case, sexism.
sandy schopbach
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:23 a.m.
So because of one judge, everyone will be denied something that is law? I agree with the minority having rights, but that is ridiculous! In that case, no law would ever be implemented.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
So in other words, any employer can now say they are religious and cut this from the health care plan.
outdoor6709
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
The ruling was this person or maybe anyone with a religous belief against birth control does not need to offer birth control as a "right" under the AFCA. If you work for a non-religous employer this ruling has no effect.
outdoor6709
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:22 a.m.
It would add to the debate if AA.com would inform us of what prodcedures the Dept of HHS defines as birth control. I think we all would be surprised.
grimmk
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 5 a.m.
I trust they also will not cover Viagra or any other ED meds? What about Low T? Don't cover that. That's natural and it's supposed to happen to men as they get older!
Ryan Bowles
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:39 a.m.
Just wait until this comes up with a business owned by a Christian Scientist.
Mike
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:35 a.m.
The liberals believe that Christaians should be accepting of homosexuals and for the most part they are; they just don't condone the behavior. But when Christians doen't want to do something that they find to be immoral liberals insist that they be forced to do it. How hypocritical and radical is that?
a2miguy
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:44 a.m.
Mike, just what "behavior" are you talking about? My desire to love someone? Raise a family? Be allowed to choose who assists in my medical decisions? To say that someone is "accepting for the most part" but "doesn't condone the behavior" is not the behavior of a Christian, but rather a hypocrite. Although I'll grant you, there is often a microscopically fine line between the two.
Nicole B.
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.
Christian Scientists don't believe in medical care at all (they believe in prayer only). If I work for a company owned by a Christian Scientist, should he have the right to deny me medical benefits? What if my boss is a Jehovah's Witness? Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to transfusion. If I need a transfusion, should my boss be able to refuse payment for the transfusion and any associated care? This is just so absurd. A benefits system that has to take into consideration every religious belief of every employer is untenable.
talker
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:52 a.m.
He can follow his beliefs and customers can have the belief that they don't want to patronize his business. What if an employer believes it's immoral to behave in ways he believes lead to diabetes or lung cancer? What if an employer believes that a woman with breast cancer somehow did something immoral that caused the breast cancer? The majority of Christian women (including Catholic women) and non-Christian women use birth control at some point in their lives. I apologize that when I was aiming for the "reply" box, I accidentally voted thumbs up. I didn't intend to do that.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:13 a.m.
It must be so much easier for proper Ann Arborites these days, what with smarthphones and all. Before this great technology came along, you had to walk around with pockets full of big notebooks containing the names of all the companies you're boycotting. Now you can keep that whole 12,000-item list on a tiny little micro-SD card.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 1:52 p.m.
Failed again. I don't have a side. I'm not boycotting anything.
clownfish
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
Got it, US, good for your side, bad for Other People.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:56 p.m.
No, I don't know how to keep track of all their boycotts, But then, I don't want to keep track of all their boycotts. But I do enjoy the entertainment of watching the Ann Arbor crowd keep track of theirs.
clownfish
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.
I guess you have never heard of the American Family Association. Do you know how they keep track of all of their boycotts? boycotts against "Saturday Night Live," "Roseanne," "Nightline," "NYPD Blue," "Ellen," and "Desperate Housewives.", Disney, Eastman Kodak, Citigroup, PepsiCo., American Airlines, Allstate Insurance, and the Coca-Cola Company, Wal-Mart, Sams Club, Ford and many other "people".
Dog Guy
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.
Once again in the city of big trees, Ann Arbor's herd of independent thinkers speaks with unanimity.
a2citizen
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 12:15 a.m.
Example of a winning argument that was NOT ad hominem: Weingartz
1bit
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.
Ad hominem is pretty clearly defined, no matter who uses it. Anyone losing an argument resorts to it.
Angry Moderate
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:24 a.m.
I assume that "ad hominem attacks" is referring to the comments calling them "fundamentalists" or accusing them of "forcing" their beliefs on others instead of trying to understand the court's ruling.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:17 a.m.
For the win, Dog Guy!
1bit
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:24 a.m.
Ad hominem attacks: the last resort for a failed argument. It's much more helpful to have an actual reasoned opinion or argument.
amlive
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 10:47 p.m.
Man, thanks for the heads up. I was about to take my generator out there to see if they could fix some engine troubles for me. I don't know if I could have slept at night had I later learned I was supporting a bunch of whacked out fundamentalist extremists.
Fat Bill
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 10:18 p.m.
From the Tom Monaghan school of business....
arborani
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
...and of Law.
justcurious
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 10:10 p.m.
I am Pro Life but I believe this judge is wrong.
Richard Carter
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 8:21 p.m.
"Morning after" pills are contraception, not abortion. They don't work on a fertilized egg, they prevent its fertilization.
average joe
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.
It's an injunction, or "let's put this one on hold". He didn't proclaim that it's unconstitutional. Since you are pro-life, you might be interested to know that part of the contraceptive issue at hand is the 'morning after' pill, and whether it should be required of employers to be covered.
Westfringe
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
My religion believes that cancer is a gift from god. No one I employ will get coverage for radiation or any other cancer therapy! Yeah, it's that stupid. The year is 2012 not 1012, wake up people. My dollars will go elsewhere when I need landscaping gear, which is fairly often.
LyingMittRomney
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 8:39 p.m.
mental note not to shop at this holy temple....I advise all others to do the same!
Vixen
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
Very dark ages mentality. I won't be shopping there.
Not from around here
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.
Ok, a little reality for all the left of center commentors here...No one is denying anyone employment or access to birth control, all the ruling said was that if a person, or company, was moral against something they have the right for THEIR money not to be used directly for something that they find morally wrong. If a person recieve a prescription for birth control for a medical reason, insurance will cover it. No one is trying to take access to birth control from anyone. I believe in, and use, birth control. However, I pay for it out of my own money. I wouldn't think of asking for my employeer to pay for something medical that wasn't needed for my surival. When did we get into this "gimmee, gimmee" mind set in the US? Would you ask for a morman to pay for your beer or a muslim to pay for your bacon? of course not!
arborani
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
I think Average Joe means "moot?"
average joe
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.
@ JRA- Dental & Vision coverage isn't being forced on the employer by the government , so that's a mute argument.
Sue
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 11:54 a.m.
I agree with you completely, nobody is telling his employees that they are not allowed to use birth control, as long as they provide it for themselves. That is fair to all parties involved.
1bit
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:21 a.m.
Employers should not decide what is appropriate and inappropriate health care for their employees. Period. We do not live in a feudal society.
johnnya2
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.
1. It is not FREE. Insurance is a BENEFIT that is part of your pay. 2. My religious beliefs do not allow me to pay for murdering people with the death penalty( Which should be Weingartz position as well if he is truly Catholic). I no longer want to pay ANY of MY tax dollars going to pay for it. What if my "religious belief is that women should not be allowed to drive (many muslims do)). Should that give them the right to say they will not provide them with car insurance and only sell to men? 3. As for a Mormon to pay for my beer, I would say I pay every day for them to be allowed to own property and not pay taxes on it. I would also say that if a Mormon hired me as an employee, it is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS what I do outside of work. They are paying for the beer with my paycheck
morninglory
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 10:38 p.m.
If "essential for survival" is the criteria for a drug being covered by insurance, why isn't the religious right up in arms about paying for Viagra? Birth Control pills are more of a medical necessity for many women than Viagra is for men.
talker
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
Does the employer want to deny employees other health care such as treatment for lung cancer or prostate cancer? If I go to a Catholic wedding, I'll honor a church's dress code. That business is not a church. I assume the business owners want customers of all religions, including Catholic women, the majority of whom use birth control at some time during their childbearing years. St. Joe's doesn't appear to be much better. Their on-line mission statement includes the comment that they don't prescribe or dispense birth control. I'm glad to get health care from the U. of M.. I'm also glad to have choices regarding which business I patronize. Maybe it's time to check out the practices of other businesses, too. Thanks for raising the interest in checking out businesses where we spend our money.
Basic Bob
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.
My insurance does not include dental or vision. But we still go. I pay for birth control too out of our family budget. It's much cheaper than the dentist.
JRA
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.
So I am assuming you do not have employer provided dental or vision benefits? Because neither is "needed for your survival". What about flu shots?
John of Saline
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 8:37 p.m.
I'm not sure, but somewhere along the line, the political definition of "access" was changed from "easily available" to "free."
doglover
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 7:58 p.m.
I don't get it. A "company" cannot have beliefs. This is just one more case of people trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. In no way should that be supported by the law and the courts.
kejamder
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:14 a.m.
but corporations are people now, remember?
leaguebus
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 7:55 p.m.
There are many other reasons to take birth control pills besides preventing pregnancies. I can hear Michael Palin of Monty Python singing "Every sperm is sacred". LOL
Klayton
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:22 a.m.
Exactly! I take them for endometriosis (NOT for birth control), I know women who take them as a preventative for ovarian cancer, I know women who take them to control their cramping during the cycles....there are many reasons why we need birth control that have nothing to do with contraception. I truly believe that men should not have a say in this issue, if you don't have female parts, you don't understand how complex our reproductive systems can be (and how much birth control can alleviate paralyzing pain).
ThaKillaBee
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
So, do not shop at Weingartz Supply Co? Noted.
Gail O'Neill
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 1 p.m.
I'm shopping there.
bruceae
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
And does he only hire Catholic Employees or is he trying to inflict his religious beliefs on everyone that works for him. What ever you do don't go to work for a Jehovah Witness or you won't get any health care.
a2citizen
Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 12:01 a.m.
Kmgeb2000: I didn't say they were catholic. everyone else: I didn't say I agreed with it.
1bit
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 10:56 p.m.
Seriously, a2citizen? The only ones telling others how to practice religion are employers. You cannot dictate morality, it must be chosen.
kmgeb2000
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
A2Citizen; the founding father may not have been atheists but neither were they Catholics. You may not like history but that does not mean you get to write it too fit your whim. Consider Wikipedia: "In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[51] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the USA and Europe)." These men were not bystanders in the formation of our country but the leaders of its inception. I have no doubt you will not be swayed by actual history but your buy-in is not required. It is history.
clownfish
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:18 p.m.
Nobody is telling them they cannot practice their religion, in their places of worship and in their homes. Their business has nothing to do with their religion and their employees should not be bound by the owners beliefs.
DonBee
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : noon
Bruceae - While I don't agree with the lawsuit, I can understand how people with strongly held beliefs feel when someone tells them they have to violate those beliefs. My fear is that people with strong beliefs will end up dropping health care for their employees rather than conforming to the law. This would be the worst possible outcome for those employees.
a2citizen
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 4:03 a.m.
1bit, the founders left their native lands to avoid religious persecution because they wanted to be able to practice their own religion. Not one founder was atheist. A government that tells you to practice a specific religion is just as bad as one telling you that you can't practice your religion.
1bit
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 12:18 a.m.
This really is the point. Your health care coverage should not be decided by the whim of your employer's religious beliefs. What if your employer was Muslim or Jewish and you contracted a food borne illness from eating non-Halal or non-Kosher food? Would you not be covered? We do not live in a theocracy. One reason the founders of this country left their native lands was to avoid religious persecution.
Jack Eaton
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.
If you believe that contraception is an essential part of health care that shouldn't be controlled by employers, perhaps you want to take your business elsewhere. If you are headed out Jackson Avenue to go to Weingartz, you can just pull into Larry's Mower Shop -- 5040 Jackson Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103, (734) 994-6555. They have been in business for about 30 years. I will admit that I don't know if they have strongly held beliefs about contraception, but they aren't in court fighting this, either.
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:08 a.m.
Go, Jack. I'm *still* writing you in for 4th ward council.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.
Because it isn't anywhere near my house, I wouldn't have shopped there anyways but I'll remember this and will be telling my like minded friends on the west side to avoid Weingartz like the plague.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
Mike, you seemed to have just described about 90% of religious people..or were you trying to use that description against people that are not nearly as hypocritical as most people that practice religion?
Mike
Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:38 a.m.
I'll go to Weingartz even more. We need more businesses that take a stand in what they believe instead of caving in to the radical fringe who on one hand claim they are accepting and on the other hand attack anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint.
M
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
I spent about $3k with Weingartz a while ago to buy a tractor for a new home. It was a great experience, I'm sad I won't be going back.
15crown00
Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.
Company insurance plans cover all sorts of things that not every employee uses but they pay for the whole package anyway.Thus it is with birth control.If you don't want to use it fine don't.Religion has very little to do with this issue.Sounds to me like the judge is playing P.C. with the law.I dare say hundreds of thousands of good Catholic people, who irrespective of the churches stand,use employment benefits to obtain birth control devices including the pill.