Comments about ‘Hobby Lobby files lawsuit over mandate requiring coverage of abortion-causing drugs’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 12 2012 2:03 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
sparkey
Clearfield, UT

The AMAZING thing to me about all of this is the fact that we, as a people, have agreed to allow the Federal Government to MANDATE that a PRIVATE business offer health insurance AT ALL!!! I certainly agree that no PRIVATE company should be forced to compromise their religious or any other sort of convictions just because the government says that they have to. Worse than that however is that the government is forcing companies to pay for health insurance for their employees!!!

Is it a good idea for companies to offer health insurance? Sure, as long as they can afford it. If they don't they risk losing good employees to their competitors or to other businesses. NEVERTHELESS, it is their right to run their business the way they like in this regard. If they fail then they fail. If an employee does not like the fact that their employer does not offer health insurance then they have the right to go look for a different job!!!

In no way should we EVER have let this happen!!! It's mind-boggling that we've let the government have this sort of power!

Nan BW
ELder, CO

I am not a crafter, and have been an infrequent shopper at Hobby Lobby. However, I'm thinking I'd better change my ways and show support for a company that takes this stand. Thank you leaders of Hobby Lobby. I may not be into making clever crafts, but I like your reasoning.

sparkey
Clearfield, UT

Kalindra,

You are missing a huge point here. Hobby Lobby does not OWN its employees. They are a private company and frankly have the right to "demand" all sorts of things of their employees. No one is holding a gun to the heads of the employees and forcing them to work for Hobby Lobby! No one! If they do not like how Hobby Lobby runs their business they are FREE TO LOOK ELSEWHERE for their employment or to start their own business. Hobby Lobby is not forcing them to do anything because the term "force" implies that they have no choice but to continue to work for Hobby Lobby whether they want to or not. Well, that's called SLAVERY and frankly, its the US government that is engaging in behavior that is much more closely tied to slave ownership than Hobby Lobby. The Government is acting like they can DICTATE to private companies how they should run their business and they are backing this up with increadibly heavy fines and threats or litigation etc.

A private business has the right to run things as they see fit. They may go out of business but they have that right!

NeilT
Clearfield, UT

The problem is many businesses don't want to provide health insurance. They are comfortable with compensating CEOs 400 times more than rank and file workers but not with providing benefits like health insurance. I would be terrified if I were uninsured. We need to fundamentaly reform health care in this country. It is to expensive and it is to difficult to obtain private insurance. This contraceptive issue is a just a diversion from the real issue. If a woman is a victim of rape or incest and can take a pill within 24 to 48 hours and prevent an unwanted pregnancy I am all for it. That does not mean I support abortion. I don't consider that an abortion.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Kalindra:
"The owner of Hobby Lobby thinks he should get to dictate to his employees how they live their lives because if they use medication of which he disapproves, it is a violation of his religious principles?"

Actually, no. That is not the issue. Health insurance is a way to spread the risk evenly. Hobby Lobby's owner puts money into a pot and if an employee gets cancer, needs stiches, etc. The money is available to pay the employee’s medical costs. The government is telling the owner of Hobby Lobby that now he must pay for his employees’ health insurance which will increase his cost of doing business. Furthermore, the government is also dictating to him that he has to pay for a morning after pill. It is probably his religious belief that life begins at conception, so he objects to this on religious grounds.

He is not telling his employees how to live their lives. He is objecting that he has to pay for it. They can do whatever they want as so should he.

I hope this helps.

OnlyInUtah
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Bill McGee: "Not every 14-year-old girl makes consistently good decisions, and telling her that she has to just live with a terrible mistake is inhumane."

What is inhumane about living with our mistakes? That is life. We learn and grow from the mistakes we make. That 14 year old girl needs better parenting if she doesn't understand the consequences of having sex. And it's not the responsibility of the parents employers to pay for that 14 year old's mistake either.

I will continue to support Hobby Lobby. This administration only wants to turn us into a welfare state / socialist country.

BlameItOnTheOfficials
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If Hobby Lobby or any other company doesn't provide the type of coverage you want, such as the morning after pill, then those employees are free to look for work elsewhere. That is the free market system in action. The government has no right to force any company to private a specific level of health benefit.

Fire Obama!!!

killpack
Sandy, UT

NeilT said: "This contraceptive issue is a just a diversion from the real issue. If a woman is a victim of rape or incest and can take a pill within 24 to 48 hours and prevent an unwanted pregnancy I am all for it. That does not mean I support abortion."

Some people in this country still believe in the freedom of religion and consider that a REAL issue. It doesn't matter if a woman was raped or just wasn't careful while messing around, the government has NO RIGHT to require her employer, by force, to provide for her abortion, whether it's a morning after pill or a full on late term abortion, if that violates the employers freedom of religion! It's like the Constitution doesn't even matter anymore. The Obama Administration and their supporters ought be totally ashamed of themselves!

silo
Sandy, UT

Tekakaromatagi

Jehovah's Witness followers don't believe in blood transfusions. Should a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness with employees of other beliefs be able to tell those employees that their medical coverage won't cover blood transfusions?

Same concept applies here.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

With all the complaints of the government mandating what will and will not be covered, one point seems to be left out: Insurance companies are far more invasive and restrictive in coverage than the ACA. I had a plan that would not cover certain prescriptions, and would also not cover heart or lung transplants. That was in 1998! Insurance companies are in business to make PROFIT, not to help people.

I don't see what the big deal is with Hobby Lobby's position. They do not want to cover abortion, but they do cover contraceptives. All rights come with responsibilities. If I own a gun, I have a responsibility to my fellow citizens to use it safely. We all have rights, but we also have to live up to the responsibilities that come with them.

Lastly, I find the argument to "catch up with the times" hilarious! Society keeps changing, but God does not change. We live in a society that will continue to be at odds with religious principles for this very reason. That is exactly why the 1st ammendment and it's religious protections must be defended and preserved.

toshi1066
OGDEN, UT

Joanne's and Michael's will see even more of my money now. Employers need to get on with business and stop staying up all night worrying that their employees might have sex.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Sparky: No - you are missing the point. Businesses offer health insurance to their employees as part of the compensation package - instead of paying the employee a higher wage, businesses offer insurance - this provides several benefits to the employer: they have a healthier workforce, it is a very desirable benefit so employees are willing to work for substantially less than if the benefit were not offered and employees had to buy insurance on their own, it saves the employer on the taxes he has to pay, and, since it is a "benefit" and not a wage, it can be removed fairly easily in comparison to the alternative of lowering employee wages.

Even with it being a benefit offered by the employer, the employee still pays part of the cost directly out of his or her paycheck.

The employer is not providing the insurance to the employee out of the goodness of his heart. The employer is not providing anything to the employee that the employee is not earning. Insurance is part of the employee's benefit package - and the employer should not get to use the employee's paycheck to force his religious beliefs on the employee.

Rob
Logan, UT

Amen. You go Hobby Lobby. We will support you.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@silo:

You bring up the issue of the Jehovah's witnesses. That is a good question. I wonder how that would be solved? The next time that I talk with Jehovah's Witnesses I might discuss it with them.

The bigger issue is that when the government decides to extending more rights to us, in this case, a right to health care from our employers, some of the new rights start impeding on the old rights like the right of freedom of religion. It becomes a big mess.

Instead of helping, it is hurting.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To Tekakaromatagi 6:49 a.m. Sept. 14, 2012

Dammam, Saudi Arabia
@silo:

You bring up the issue of the Jehovah's witnesses. That is a good question. I wonder how that would be solved? The next time that I talk with Jehovah's Witnesses I might discuss it with them.

------------------

I have. Our next door neighbors are Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't mind paying for the insurance, recognizing that its provisions are for the good of all; they just choose not to use that feature of it.

killpack
Sandy, UT

I am surprised at some people's total disregard for the Constitution anymore. If a Jehovah's Witness doesn't want to pay for someone else's blood transfusion, because they feel it is against their religion, they should NOT be forced by the federal or state government to do so.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@Kalindra

"So - the owner of Hobby Lobby thinks he should get to dictate to his employees how they live their lives because if they use medication of which he disapproves, it is a violation of his religious principles?"

You completely totally entirely miss the point

You can live your life, buy whatever pills you want or get whatever supplemental insurance you want: However; the government does not have the right to force people to pay for your pills against their own religious convictions - check the First Amendment non-interference with religion clause. You are NOT the victim here (you are the perpetrator)

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

I once liked Hobby Lobby.

Not anymore.

kiapolo
Provo, MA

This has nothing to do with them being forced to provide health insurance. They don't have to provide health insurance at all if they don't want to. What they can't do, is provide health insurance, but pick and choose that it covers things they like, or dislike. Do you really want companies to be able to make your health care choices for you?

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

Repeal and replace with simple common sense. Employers pay money to employees for their work. Employees do whatever they want with their money.

Health insurance is not health care. Health care is not health insurance. Health insurance should be like car insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, life insurance (the list goes on and on). It pays for catastrophe. You buy insurance to be insured against a disaster. It shouldn't pay for anything else.

Doctor visits should be cash, check or credit card unless it is something you purchased your insurance for like cancer, broken bone, Alzheimer, blindness, etc. The more things you put on your insurance list, the more your premiums.

Why would the government ever think they needed to be involved?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments