Insurance giant Aetna is in some serious how water over its treatment of it’s LGB customers compared to its straight customers when it comes to fertility treatments.
Plaintiff Emma Goidel filed a class-action lawsuit in Manhattan in which she claimed that she and her spouse had to pay $45,000 for fertility treatments due to the fact that Aetna requires same-sex couples to pay for treatment out of pocket before they are eligible for coverage.
While straight couples who are trying to conceive through intercourse can receive coverage from Aetna simply by saying that they have tried for six or 12 months, couples of other sexual orientations or genders who cannot conceive through intercourse must initially pay out of pocket for six or 12 months of intrauterine insemination (IUI), according to the complaint.
Tony KKK Perkins – President of the Anti-gay right wing extremist hate group the Family Research Council:
“The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines. All Americans can be thankful that the Court reaffirmed that freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition and that the government cannot impose a law on American men and women that forces them to violate their beliefs in order to hold a job, own a business, or purchase health insurance.”
Failed Boxer, failed Insurance Agent and current hate group leader of the Liberty Counsel Mat “Bam Bam” Barber:
“The implications of this victory for freedom cannot be overemphasized as the decision holds essentially that First Amendment religious liberties are applicable to corporations. It protects those with pro-life views from being forced by the government to be complicit in (pay for or provide) abortion homicide procedures, whether chemical or surgical. There will be much analysis to follow and it remains unclear, but this bodes somewhat well for religious liberty in the context of how Christian business owners who sincerely hold to the biblical view of sexual morality may (or may not) ‘associate’ with others who are engaged in the counter-biblical ‘LGBT’ lifestyle or other forms of sexual immorality.”
Today’s majority ruling disregards decades of case law that drew a protective line between free religious expression and religious dominance of others. It is a radically dangerous decision that invites more misguided actions contrary to essential protections for employees, customers and the public. It is imperative that the U.S. Congress amend the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to withdraw the blessing the Court mistakenly has given these companies to impose their beliefs on working women. Today’s ruling is about the ACA and women’s reproductive health and rights, but some may mistake this narrow ruling as a wide open door for religious liberty exemptions from other statutes that protect employees and the public. Today’s opinion says doing so would be incorrect. However, recent mistreatment of LGBT people in employment and other commercial settings still makes this extremely troubling. A business owner’s religious objection to a worker’s same-sex spouse or a customer’s LGBT identity is not acceptable grounds for discrimination. It is more important than ever that states and Congress enact strong, clear nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.
The Center for Lesbian Rights:
The majority’s holding that closely held corporations can claim religious liberty protections designed for individuals—and can rely on those protections to avoid complying with generally applicable laws—is a dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers and shows a callous disregard for the health care needs of women workers. Thankfully, however, the majority recognized that even under its sweeping new rule, corporations cannot rely on claims of religious liberty to evade non-discrimination laws. That limitation is extremely important and means that employers cannot exploit today’s decision to justify non-compliance with laws that prohibit discrimination against LGBT people and other vulnerable groups, but we will need to be vigilant to make sure that principle is respected and enforced.
NARAL Pro-Choice America:
Today’s decision from five male justices is a direct attack on women and our fundamental rights. This ruling goes out of its way to declare that discrimination against women isn’t discrimination. Allowing bosses this much control over the health-care decisions of their employees is a slippery slope with no end. Every American could potentially be affected by this far-reaching and shocking decision that allows bosses to reach beyond the boardroom and into their employees’ bedrooms. The majority claims that its ruling is limited, but that logic doesn’t hold up. Today it’s birth control; tomorrow it could be any personal medical decision, from starting a family to getting life-saving vaccinations or blood transfusions. Ninety-nine percent of women use birth control at some point in our lives, and none of those stories made it into the arguments. It’s outrageous that these five male justices chose to single out birth control for special discrimination. NARAL’s message has always been clear: bosses who want control over their employees’ personal medical decisions are offensive, out of touch, and out of bounds, and so is this ruling. We call upon Congress to right this wrong, and we will work tirelessly with our allies and member activists to make sure that the people who would stand between a woman and her doctor are held accountable.
Feeling the heat from plans of avoiding giving health insurance to full-time employees working 30 hours or more by cutting employees’ hours because he can’t afford the costs of health insurance, Papa John’s CEO and multimillionaire John Schnatter wrote an op-ed which was published in The Huffington Post on Tuesday, “suggesting” that his intentions regarding the implementation of The Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) for Papa John’s employees was all a misunderstanding and that he plans to provide health care benefits to all of his corporate employees along with all employees working in his company owned stores.
Papa John’s, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John’s corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984.”
Good news if true. For both for his employees and his business considering the ongoing boycott. But I for one will wait to see what happens before and what his franchises do including Peyton Manning who owns 21 Papa John’s locations and see if they announce their intention to provide health insurance to 100 percent of the employees in their respective pizza operations before i call this a true victory.
But it is nice to see that Schnatter feeling the heat and that real Americans, ones who care about their fellow citizens were able to stand up and make him take notice over his ivy covered mansion walls. It would help if American were not lied to about how other places in the world operate their health insurances, the e111 benefits are huge, we need to wake up.
Choke on that pizza GOP, Tea Party and Breitbart loons.
In 2011 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary injunction from a lower court that blocked a 2009 state law eliminating health-insurance coverage for same-sex partners of state employees from taking effect signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that overturned a 2008 executive order from her predecessor, Gov. Janet Napolitano, who used administrative powers to grant the coverage.
After the 2011 decision, Brewer and her lawyers asked the Ninth Circuit to re-hear the case en banc, or by an 11-judge panel. On April 3, the Ninth Circuit denied the request.
The Ninth Circuit ruling, which upheld a trial-court ruling, kept an Arizona law from going into effect that, as the appeals court held, “would have terminated eligibility for health-care benefits of state employees’ same-sex partners
In a July 2 filing noted on the Supreme Court docket, lawyers for the governor have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the September 2011 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had the effect of keeping same-sex partners’ health-care benefits in place in the state.
The case, Brewer v. Diaz, is No. 12-23 is now on the Supreme Court docket.
Lambda Legal which is representing the plaintiff couples, who have until August 6 to submit their response to the governor’s petition.
Last week during the GOP Presidential debate applause rang through the hall over support of the death penalty. And now last night during the Tea Party Presidential debate (and by the way what exactly is the difference between the GOP and the Tea Party debate anyway) during a question about health care treatment of the uninsured applause and shouts of “let em die” rang through the hall.