Comments about ‘Justices tackle health law birth control coverage’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 25 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hayden, ID

If the SCOTUS does not overturn the healthcare law mandate, we all can kiss our religious liberties goodbye. If the government can force you to pay for other's birth control that violates your religious beliefs, what other religious beliefs can't the government violate?

Danny Chipman
Lehi, UT

This whole issue has gotten beyond ridiculous. Your employer doesn't owe you anything except the wages you are entitled to for your work. Benefits have always been a lure, a perk, but until recently, were not mandatory. It's no wonder our economy is so slow to recover.

If you want to keep your reproduction your own business and not your boss's, then by all means, buy your own contraception. If that's too much to ask of you, consider cancelling your cable subscription or data plan on your phone. That's what the rest of us have to do to accommodate our lifestyles.

-from a woman

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I suppose if huge Businesses were not making a PROFIT, they could be entitled to being exempt.
But a Business is NOT a Religion and is NOT a person, and is therefore NOT protect under the Constitution.

Now one is taking away the freedom of Evangelicals or Mennonites from practicing their Religion -- No one is.

A dog is not a person, and like a Business - has an owner.
a dog is not entitled to Human rights under the Constitution,
neither should a non-living entity such as a "Business".

For the last time,
Businesses - especially FOR profits - are not people.

Hayden, ID

LDS Liberal. Businesses are owned by people and as such they have rights, including religious liberties! Read the Bill or Rights in our constitution. Your attempt to obfuscate the difference is irrational.

Virginia Beach, VA

Danny Chipman -

“Your employer doesn't owe you anything except the wages you are entitled to for your work.”
That’s not true at all is it?

Employers must abide by Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations too, not just furnish a pay check.

OSHA stepped in to help guarantee the safety of employees and the safety of society as whole, because obviously it is not in the best interest of society to have workers injured, or sicken die from preventable diseases or from preventable accidents.

It is also not in the best interest of individuals or society to populate the country with unwanted children or force women into late-term abortions. It is therefore in the best interest of the nation to make birth control available to those who want it.

And religion should not stand in the way of our nation's best interests.

. . . Make sense?

Virginia Beach, VA

Mountaman - "Businesses are owned by people and as such they have rights, including religious liberties!"

But they have neither the right nor the liberty to inflict damage upon this nation or its people.

You might as well get used to that.

The Constitution indicates the Federal Government should promote and provide for the General Welfare . . . Not just the welfare of you and your church.

Centerville, UT

A business is any organization or individual involved in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers. The argument, a Business is not a Religion and is not a person, and is therefore not protect under the Constitution, Is false and a misdirection of facts.

As an individual, if you provide services to an employer, that is your business.

A single individual operating a business is a proprietorship.

Two or more individuals operating a business is a partnership.

A legal entity offered by the states allowing multiple individuals to operate a business is a corporation.

Note all are owned and operated by individuals, and individuals are protected by the Constitution. Business is a description of the act of providing goods, services, or both by individuals. Arguing a business does not have religion or rights is arguing that as an employee you have no constitutional rights while providing services in the work place.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

we don't need more birth control and abortions. We need more children. This nanny state gets to you.

Centerville, UT

And religion should not stand in the way of our nation's best interests.

. . . Make sense?

Do you remember Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and many others. All killed millions in the best interest of their nations.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Perhaps more children, as suggested above, might make the schools a little crowded, which could, in turn, put pressure on the "nanny state" to raise taxes.

I'll support businesses as people with their own religious rights when they can be thrown in jail for lengthy terms.

Danny Chipman
Lehi, UT

I don't and have never worked in human resources, so I will admit I am no expert on OSHA laws, but aren't they supposed to apply to mishaps that occur in the workplace, not in the private quarter? If I cut myself at home and require stitches, that isn't typically considered OSHA reportable. And unless you're a prostitute, I can't think of many places of employment where a woman would risk getting pregnant.

>It is therefore in the best interest of the nation to make birth control available to those who want it.

It's also in the best interest of the nation to eliminate homelessness, to provide every child with a stable loving home, and get rid of the drugs that are the cause of so many social ills, but you don't see those burdens being placed at the foot of businesses.


Hayden, ID

GaryO. What a strange and irrational comment! What is apparent in this issue is that the left demands everyone keep their religion out of YOUR version of government but YOU are so very eager to force your version of government into other people's religion, including forcing other's to pay for birth control/abortions. If you want birth control, pay for it yourself, problem solved, period! Please keep your government out of other people's religions.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Hobby Lobby already covered 16 of the 20 methods of contraception mandated under the Affordable Care Act, but it didn’t cover Plan B One-Step, Ella (another brand of emergency contraception) and two forms of intrauterine devices. This is because the owners of Hobby Lobby have incorrectly labeled these methods of birth control and emergency contraception as “abortifacients,” a claim popular among anti-choice ideologues but refuted by scientific evidence and major reproductive health associations.

Hobby Lobby is hoping the Supreme Court will swallow pseudo-science as medical fact, which, put politely, requires some serious guts.

If the Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby and agrees that corporations are people with religious convictions, the ruling would basically destroy what’s known as the corporate veil (which means to treat a corporation as a distinct entity from its owners or shareholders) — a precedent that would have far-ranging consequences.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

If the ACA is a tax, you don't get to pick and choose which taxes you pay.

This isn't about abortion unless you are willfully ignorant of the facts and don't believe in science which is your right, but you can't be part of the conversation if you don't understand what is being discussed. It's like children interrupting with...but, but, but, my friend said...

Hobby Lobby already covered 16 of the 20 methods of contraception.
The other 4 medications (they oppose) are there to prevent or delay ovulation,” Dr. Petra Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Mayo Clinic, told the New York Times in a piece on the science behind emergency contraception. “They don’t act after fertilization.” As the Times noted, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that emergency contraception prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb. Instead, the pills delay ovulation or thicken cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the egg, meaning that fertilization never even occurs.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

@Happy Valley Heretic
One more thing. You'll come back and say, 'but there is research!" Let me give you a little clue from the pharmaceutical regulatory affairs world. As far as drug labeling is concerned, if a variance from the approved labeling is not submitted to the FDA for approval, with millions of dollars of supporting research, it does not exist. So the research that seems to indicate that these drugs do not inhibit implantation is not relevant in the regulatory world. In the legal world, this constrains the courts to give a degree of deference to the approved regulatory labeling. Not absolute deference, but at least the presumption of veracity.

to comment

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