Comments about ‘High court seems divided over birth control rule’

Return to article »

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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Kings Court
Alpine, UT

LDS Liberal, you are absolutely right. There seems to be a fair amount of disingenuousness among those claiming "religious" objections to fund birth control, when they have no problem supporting the expansive birth control culture in China by manufacturing goods in that country--thereby helping to prop up the communist regime and the objectionable family values promoted there. I noticed the same thing here in Utah. In my youth, I worked for a locally owned convenient store chain in Utah County. The owner refused to sell birth control because it was against his wife's LDS values. That is fair enough, they can sell what they want, but their "values" seemed contradictory. You see, they sold beer, wine coolers, cigarettes, and chewing tobacco like it was going out of style. I asked the manager about this contradiction. She just laughed and said that those items make too much money as compared to birth control. So there you have it folks! Money is the real culprit here and that is Hobby Lobby's problem as well. They support abortions in China because of the amount of money they make there.

Murray, UT

The penalty has been ruled a tax. So is it okay to tax people for their religious beliefs and practices, which are guaranteed by the first amendment? If there were an additional income tax based on which religion one is a member of, that would be considered outrageous, and contrary to the first amendment.

Some might argue that HL could just pay the penalty, which is cheaper than the premiums. But what if HL wants to provide health insurance as a benefit to its employees, either out of benevolence or a desire to compete for better employees, but they choose a plan that does not cover abortifacients, then they would have to pay twice. They would pay the premiums and the $2000 penalty.

Taxes on practice of ones religion are prohibitive to the free exercise of religion, and are therefore contrary to the first amendment.

I hope the attorneys for HL and the other companies were sufficiently articulate in pointing this out.

Mchenry, IL

The company can not pay for the morning after pill for an employee or the spouse of an employee, they would paying for an abortion.


Wow, Kings Court - I guess the matter is clearly settled. Since a Quiki-mart owner in Utah County was a hypocrite, therefore ALL business owners claiming right of conscience have no honest beliefs and are only motivated by greed and money.

Thanks for the broad brush. Clearly, everyone needs the government to determine who holds sincere beliefs that can be allowed constitutional protection.

Ogden, UT

@K 10:23 p.m. March 25, 2014

The company can not pay for the morning after pill for an employee or the spouse of an employee, they would paying for an abortion.


The morning after pill does not terminate (abort) a pregnancy. No pregnancy has been started when the morning after pill is taken. The only thing the morning after pill does is keep a pregnancy from starting.

Sandy, UT


"late term abortion via the morning after pill"

There seems to be a contradiction here....

Leesburg, VA

>>The question before the court is whether a corporation...have the right to mirror the owner's religious beliefs. It's not so straight-forward.

Actually, that's not the question before the court at all. The question before the court is whether the government's desire to force corporate-provided insurance to cover abortifacients meets the established legal test for whether a proposed regulation is justified in restricting First Amendment rights.

The established test says that any proposed regulation that would restrict a constitutional freedom 1) must address a very compelling government interest; and 2) must "employ the least restrictive measures possible to achieve its goal." While the Obama Administration's wish to expand access to contraception *might* meet the first requirement, there's no way it meets the second. Abortifacients are so dirt cheap and prevalent--you can buy them at any drug store for the cost of a six-pack of soda--it's difficult to see how intruding on Freedom of Religion is required to make them even more widely available.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

I agree with Abeille. The issue in this case is if a for-profit corporation can exercise religion. Based on what I've read so far, I think the Hobby Lobby side has the stronger argument. Ironically, the government seems to have undermined its own position by bending over backwards to respect religious rights in connection with the ACA and in other areas in the past. (I know this may be a shocker to the "Government hates religion" crowd, but this is indeed the case.)

The government also conceded the sincerity of the belief in question. I question who the belief actually serves. The religious right's anti-abortion crusade has always struck me as fundamentally selfish. It allows one to feel morally righteous (and, for some, superior) without bearing any responsibility for the lives affected by one's actions. What a nice position to be in.

I'm all for limiting the necessity of abortion as much as possible, but a judgmental and moralistic approach seems to be more about serving one's ego than actually addressing the problem. If the Hobby Lobby owners sincerely want to limit abortions, they should have no objection to the contraceptives in question.

t-ville, UT


"Doesn't matter. You could worship a stone pillar of Baal nether of which mention contraception. The right to worship is not to be infringed."

I'm glad we're progressing past these arguments. If you're assertion was to be followed and respected, then there would be no societal argument against allowing the ku klux klan to likewise impose their deeply held convictions on their communities. If you're a member, then I withdraw from the argument. If you're not, then apply your same reasoning above to denounce the ku klux klan, who are simply following their religious beliefs.

Or, on the other hand, we could continue to require a semblance of common good and humanity in the beliefs of others and not be hesitant to critisize each other's religious beliefs , the unchecked application of which have led to horrible atrocities in the past. Your choice, I've picked mine.

Eagle Mountain, UT


"Doesn't matter. You could worship a stone pillar of Baal nether of which mention contraception. The right to worship is not to be infringed.


Then Warren Jeffs was illegally imprisoned wasn't he? I mean after all he was only doing what he felt God was commanding him to do. And his right to worship is not to be infringed.

Or are you saying that there can be reasonable restrictions in place?

Sandy, UT

The history is that it used to be, and still is to a some degree that companies would provide health benefits to its employees as an incentive, to attract and retain the best employees. In other words, an incentive, and also a gift to employees to promote and preserve health. It wasn’t a “right”. Now it’s turning into a litmus test, a cause, an inalienable right.

Now why is it the government’s job to dictate to said corporation exactly what will be and what won’t be part of that insurance. Why are some rights so staunchly supported (i.e. “PERSONAL” freedoms) to the point that SOCIETAL, or RELIGIOUS freedoms seem banished. Isn’t it the legislature’s job to reconcile all these kinds of freedoms, using integrity and intelligence, BALANCING one group’s freedom with another’s. No one right should be championed at the expense of all others. Can we really afford to uphold one constitutional amendment at the expense of another. Really?

Sandy, UT

If you don’t like dedicated Christians who happen to run businesses, why work for them. You’re bound to have serious disagreements with them at some point. I’m not saying you should be PROHIBITED from working for them, but why would you want to. Why join their company and then constantly endeavor to foist your philosophy on them.

If you think about it, aren't companies just a conglomeration of individuals, be they employees, stock-holders, or executives, bound together by legal covenant to advance the corporation. Why are you forcing them to accept someone's liberal agenda.

I’ll tell you one big reason health insurance is such a hot potato. Because it is so expensive. Someone is making so much money while the rest of us are hurting. But conservatives at least understand that even though it may be unfair, rich people and corporations still have rights.

Another reason people complain about such issues is “for the principle of the thing.” One thing I notice is that people who do that are usually riding their own "hobby horse."

Sandy, UT

Who is holding whom hostage? You say that the owners have no prerogative to specify what is in their company's health benefits. A person without balance will complain till all moral judgments are voided and they get everything they want. A reasonable person will be grateful for what health benefits they have (health benefits are not a right, never were), and pay out of his/her own pocket for those inexpensive items his company does not.

And if the company's health plan excludes too many things, for whatever reason, that health insurance becomes less attractive to prospective employees and ceases to be an effective incentive to said employees. In other words, health insurance has traditionally been a perk, an extra, but not a right.

Let's turn it around. Why should the liberal people get to dictate to the conservative exactly what he or she will offer as an employment incentive to his/her employees. It is an interference into the conservative's religious freedom of conscience to do so when he is being forced to violate his most deeply held beliefs just to stay in business. Where is the balance of rights? Why so one-sided?

Provo, UT

1-Go buy some birth control.

2- Or get a job not in a store selling christian fish from china

3- stop trying to get the government to make laws to give you stuff

3- realize that the government has a poor track record of taking care of you

4- realize that it's all about money

5- realize there are 100 worse things in society than hobby lobby not wanting to provide birth control (their wages are probably one of those things)

6- What I am saying is be pragmatic for your own situation

Deep Space 9, Ut

Ok liberals, here is the question that you need to ask yourself.

Why do you want to keep raising the price of health insurance? You do realize that be eliminating this particular mandate, and other mandates, that we could actually DECREASE the cost of insurance.

It is really that important to hurt 99 so you can help 1?


"Clement objected that businesses would find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in a situation where other employers were offering insurance."

So then shouldn't these companies offer similar health plans to stay competitive? Many employers tout their benefits packages to lure employees.


@ wrz
"Of course. The ladies on the court seem to be letting their personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment."

Of course it seems all justices on the court are letting their personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the 1st Amendment. These would not only include the women's personal feelings about the subject, but also the men's personal feelings about the subject (including religious and political views).

American Fork, UT

If businesses are allowed to hold religious beliefs and make decisions that affect their staff because of it, then health care should not be allowed to be connected to ones' employer in any way. And texas should be allowed to execute corporations.

Provo, UT


Can a corporation be held responsible for capital crimes? A corporation is only a person for benefits, the moment they do something wrong the blame falls to a person within.

Also, I think they like their corporations...

*also joking*

American Fork, UT

I worked with a couple that had a new home, two new cars and take several vacations a year to all places of the globe. They have the nerve to stand up and say that they can't afford Health insurance because the company offered Health plan is to expensive. I agree women should have the choice to do with their body what they want but along that line they also need to assume the responsibility for their choice which includes paying for that choice. Not to single out women I also believe Viagra should be my responsibility and not my insurance companies. We are in the financial ruin as a nation because we believe we are entitled and don't have to save or budget for anything. It is the role of government to build roads and infrastructure and to stay the heck out of my pocket. I work hard enough to support mine. Don't expect me and others to pay for your entitlements. Earn what you want.

to comment

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