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

Red Shirt, Do you honestly believe the cost of a health insurance policy is going to be lower because it doesn't cover birth control? That's nonsense. It will make no applicable difference in the bottom line.

Hey It's Me
Salt Lake City, UT

We are here to be tried and tested. If we take everyone's rights away, how are we to choose. I don't agree with pills that end a pregnancy, but who am I to tell another what to do with their body? Especially if it doesn't hurt mine. They will answer later.

Virginia Beach, VA

Hey "the truth" - "The government has no constitutional power, to limit religion in the public square nor to limit it's exercise in the public square?"


Government has every right to "limit religion in the public square."

If your religion calls for raping virgins and sacrificing babies, it can be limited.

If your religion calls for depriving other Americans of their rights, it can and should be limited.

What makes you think America is a theocracy?

Provo, UT

It's amazing the hang ups that people have over anything related to sex. Why is this medication any different from your blood pressure pills? Oh, because someone using it might have sex. It's truly bizarre how much some people care about other people's sex lives. I've got a great idea. You think sex for any reason other than procreation is evil, then you don't have sex for any reason other than procreation. Otherwise, mind your own business.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "GZE" it is a start. It may only lower it a dollar or two, but if you cut out enough mandates you can really start to save money.

See "Mandated health benefits in Colorado increase the cost of health insurance up to 50%" at BusinessWord. Another great article is "The True Effects of Comprehensive Coverage:
Examining State Health Insurance Mandates" by the Baton Rouge Area Chamber. They have a graph that shows the number of mandates increasing, which ironically mimics the increase in costs.

So, back to the topic. If you want to cut costs, cut the mandates.

Sandy, UT

@ 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."

One could just as easily argue that several of the conservatives on the court are ruling based on their religious views, rather than on sound legal reasoning. (Would they be as sympathetic to arguments based on the religious freedoms of Muslims? the FLDS? The Scientologists?)

Or, one could stop a minute, and realize that two of the potential votes in favor of the Obamacare mandate are from men (Breyer and Kennedy), and one is from a Catholic (Sotomayor). Perhaps legal conclusions aren't just a function of gender or religion....

But to say that the female justices are just voting based on their feelings is the most sexist thing I've read this week--perhaps this month, or this year.

Taylorsville, UT

Abortion is an elective procedure, save in case of rape etal. Why should taxpayers pay for a tummy tuck when a person has made poor choices of activity. Individuals want control over their bodies, but they refuse the consequences of their actions and want a KING's X upon repenting. Save some accidental disfigurement elective surgery ought to be on your own dime.

to comment

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