Some of the attacks on Hobby Lobby come from people who do not understand that
case at all. The Hobby Lobby onwers currently provide 16 of the 20 contraceptive
methods required by the mandate. They have no objection to those. They only
object to the 4 that are intended to end pregnancies after sexual intercourse
has occurred, what by most people's definition of the term would count as
abortions.Anyway, Hobby Lobby willingly closes on Sunday. They take
out adds for Jesus 2 days a year. They implement religion in their business plan
in these ways. They try to practice religion in more things than just refusing
to cover a very limited number of abortion-causing drugs.
Little Sisters of the Poor, 1; Obama administration 0.The claim by
Obama that these organizations can get free coverage they do not pay for in
health care is hogwash. The insurance will just hide the costs elsewhere. It is
a violation of religious freedom to force people to provide services that go
against there beliefs.
If birth control lowers insurance costs, should we also mandate weight loss
programs and ban tobacco using the same argument? Why limit First Amendment
religious liberties when a surplus of body fat and tobacco are not
constitutionally protected? Where is the individual responsibility in the ACA?
Bob K: You just don't get it....Birth control is available to
anyone who wants it. This is about making an employer or insurance provider pay
for all or part of it. No one is denied anything they are willing to pay for.
This is not an "equal protection" issue. It is an economic issue.Making an elderly person pay for birth control coverage she will never
use is denying her "equal protection" by your logic. I guess
for someone on the left it is easier to have the government make a law to
subsidize what you want rather than to pull out your visa card.To
your last example: if your sister's boss covers birth control, go get a
job with your sister, or don't have sex!Personal accountability
is something we should have more of....
Its called checks and balances, when a law violates an individual's right
as outlined in the constitution, the court is supposed to block it, which this
judge did.Are you REALLY saying we should force people to pay for
and distribute drugs they feel violate their religion, just to save some money?
Should we then force you to do things you think are wrong, in order to save us
all money? Maybe we could make the speed limit 45 mph, as that would save
resources, reduce injuries due to accidents, and be great for our posterity and
the planet? Maybe we could ban skiing, to save the forests, reduce injuries,
and save on fuel? We could ban fast food too, we all know how that stuff is
unhealthy.You need to get a grip on reality. Those people you think
are producing babies on our dime won't be stopped from overpopulating the
planet by free contraceptives. And I'm certain, by the time we add up all
the costs of running and administering Obamacare, we'll end up spending far
more than we ever would under the old system.
Justice Sotomayor did the right thing, hopefully this issue will be sorted out
by supreme court soon.
The Supreme Court is still acting outside its jurisdiction as elected
legislators and rewriting laws and the Constitution to conform to their personal
beliefs and acting as law enforcement officials regulating the laws.Its time for the legislator to stand up and be counted to block the supreme
courts and their illegal biased and discriminatory decisions contradicting the
constitution and bill of rights and freedoms. The Supreme court cannot change
the Constitution at all, they must obey the Constitution without persoanl
opinions getting in the way.This court is exceeding its authority to
adjust the laws on a whim or persoanl reason and the congress must begin its
upset actions to destroy the supermen courts contradictions.
Oh My Heck!Vernal, UTI think birth control coverage, as well as
maternity care coverage, should be optional coverages, not mandatory. I'm
66 years old. I don't need either one, so why should I have to pay for
coverage I don't need? Seems to me that making certain coverages, such as
this, optional would solve this problem.Sorry-- you do not get it at
allThe problem is that people who want and need those coverages are
being denied equal treatment under the law if they work for a business owned by
a religion, such as a catholic owned hospital (but not the church itself) -- or
if they work for a right wing (word omitted) like the guy who owns Hobby
Lobby.As a woman, imagine being young and poor -- then, because of
your particular employer, not only being told that the coverage is wrong, but
having to find the money for it, when your sister's boss covers it
"Justice Sotomayor is the Circuit Justice for the 10th Circuit, which
includes the District of Colorado, (and the District of Utah BTW)."Happy Day!!! This supreme court justice still believes in the First
Amendment.Does this mean she will consider Utah's appeal on
SSM? I hope so.I will pray for her, and all the justices, to see
clearly right from wrong. No more marriage licenses for anyone. Churches decide
who they join in marriage, a religious rite, wrongfully overtaken by the
government. The state should issue domestic partnership contracts only, equal to
the current marriage licenses in legal issues, but respecting religious freedom.
I think you will find that the Catholic Church will do what it feels it has to
do, if the SCOTUS rules against it.
Heck, If you check with any insurance broker you will find that including birth
control in a medical plan significantly reduces the cost for all covered
persons. If you are worried, at all, about your cost, you must insist that your
carrier covers birth control.
I hope this will cover the battle Hobby Lobby has with this same issue.
@Oh My Heck!You're old and I'm not, maybe I should have
insurance that doesn't cover things older people get and you can pay higher
premiums. Besides, birth control is cheaper than carrying babies to term, it
actually reduces insurance costs to cover it.
Just one more example of how religion is bad for us - even bad for your health.
Will the churches refuse to fund Viagra?
Let's get this straight --the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged
is more interested in Catholic doctrine than in equality.The issue
is that the law says EMPLOYEES of all organizations must get equal access to
birth control.-- It is only fair that if, say Maria can only find a job at
a catholic hospital, she should get the same benefits as her sister living in
another town and working for a dry cleaner.No one is telling a
church to change its doctrines. The ACA attempts to grant equality to low income
workers, who might skip buying the pill so their kids can have shoes.It is in the interest of the public to help families avoid conceiving unwanted
children, who may be a burden on the schools, on healthcare, on food stamps, etc
etc.Women who are able to plan their families are more successful
and raise more successful children.Remember that over 90% of US
catholic women use or have used birth control, so the law is supporting that.Catholic schools are firing Gay teachers who marry or those who have a
child out of wedlock -- trying to make 2014 into 1514 is a bad idea.
I think birth control coverage, as well as maternity care coverage, should be
optional coverages, not mandatory. I'm 66 years old. I don't need
either one, so why should I have to pay for coverage I don't need? Seems to
me that making certain coverages, such as this, optional would solve this
Justice Sotomayor is the Circuit Justice for the 10th Circuit, which includes
the District of Colorado, (and the District of Utah BTW). When appeals are
denied by a federal appeals court - in this case likely the Tenth Circuit
because the organization was located in Denver that requested the review. the
Circuit Justice can act as noted when requested, and can issue an order aa she
has done in this case. It may not represent the sentiment of the plurality of
all Supreme court justices, but it need not. I'd venture to guess that
because the D.C. circuit has already ruled, and the case that involving Hobby
Lobby is already headed to SCOTUS, that is only makes sense to rule in favor of
blocking the law.
Could the author of this article update the text to give the reason why Justice
Sotomayor was the Supreme Court justice who issued this order? Specifically,
apparently she was acting on behalf of the entire court, right? And why her? Was
she the justice assigned to such things for the holiday? Does she represent the
sentiment of a plurality of Supreme Court justices on the matter? Please give
Well looks like this is going to eventually be reviewed by the SCOTUS. Good.