Comments about ‘Hobby Lobby ruling puts Green family in crosshairs’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 1 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Tuesday, July 1 2014 4:01 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

I'm just making an educated guess here but I would expect Hobby Lobby to be on the IRS audit list for 2014.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Liberals have been disingenuous in this(and most) arguments. No one is saying women shouldn't have access to birth control. We're just saying if you want to engage in activities that make you susceptible to becoming pregnant and you don't want to get pregnant - you can pay for your own birth control.

Birth control is a "need" like a Hawaii vacation for me is a "need" because my doctor said it would lower my stress level.

I'll pay for everyone's birth control when they pay for my Hawaii vacation.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

Chris B, why should insurance than pay for those who choose to get pregnant? Why should those of us who don't have children have to pay for the costs of maternity, schooling, etc? Birth control is certainly the least costly of the two.

Would you support a company to only cover birth control if the owner's "sincerely held religious beliefs" are that it's morally wrong to bring more children into the world?

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

@Chris B,

What if a woman has endometriosis? Or Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome? Or a host of other medical problems that are treated using contraception? Female contraception is not just for preventing pregnancy. However, Viagra only has one use and it is covered.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Chris B – “I'll pay for everyone's birth control when they pay for my Hawaii vacation.”

Except that preventing unwanted pregnancies accrues tremendous benefits to society exponentially greater than the cost of birth control. We reduce abortions, single mothers, children for those who cannot afford more, and gain all the benefits of these results (reduced crime, welfare, etc…).

Unless you’re on the verge of going postal and a vacation to Hawaii will prevent that, your vacation does nothing for the rest us.

Not making birth control as cheap & widely available as possible is penny wise and pound foolish. Didn’t that use to be a conservative maxim?

EJM
Herriman, UT

So we are basically saying that it's okay for women to get pregnant/not get pregnant, and that someone somewhere is going to help pay for it, in either situation? Not trying to be a hater, just asking a question.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

So will there now be a special formulary used only by "closely-held" religious companies? Will they also offer some sort of paid maternity leave but only if the employee is married? Will they also offer mental health treatment but only after the employee meets with their local clergy? Does a "closely-held" company owned by Jehovah's Witness get to deny paying for blood transfusions after surgery?

On another note, it just seems silly to pay $20K for an unwanted pregnancy and birth than $10 for BC pills. I thought with conservatives it was all about the bottom line.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

How will this ruling affect mergers and acquisitions? If my boss now is Jewish, but the company is acquired by another company whose CEO is a Christian Scientist, do our insurance policies all change? What if it is part of a larger holding company and its corporate offices are moved to Dubai? Do we have to make sure we are not in violation of the larger corporate entity's primary religious beliefs? What about medications that are not contraception, but are prohibited by various different religions? Does the coverage for this need to be re-evaluated every time there is a new IPO?

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Tyler D,

Yes, it helps prevent those things.

So go buy it.

worf
Mcallen, TX

This was a no brainer.

Why should anyone pay for someone else's behavior?

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

You don't have to work for Hobby Lobby.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

What most critics don't know of will not admit is that Hobby Lobby's plan already offers more than a dozen birth control options (condoms, pill, implants, etc), but they refuse to offer only those methods which kill a human life after conception- i.e.- morning after pills and the like.

Of course, the 100% guaranteed and free method of birth control- not engage in intercourse until you want to conceive a child, is rejected outright.

This is not about birth control availability it is about the "tolerant left" eager to destroy anyone who fails to worship at their altar of abortion. They will scream about everyone having a "choice" as long as it is the only approved choice.

The Green family and their successful business will be the targets for all sorts of leftist attacks, verbal, in biased reporting, government harassment, and sadly, probably physical intimidation and even violence. That's liberal tolerance for you.

cambodia girl
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

I love Hobby Lobby. I wish there was one by me because I would certainly support their business. I am grateful for the ruling.

clasiklmuzikbiz
Tulsa, OK

Hobby Lobby was not denying all types of birth control. There were four: those that would cause a possible pregnancy to terminate.

Cat
Centerville, UT

Hobby Lobby already covers 16 of the 20 forms of contraception included in the mandate, objecting only to those it considers to be abortifacients. So you can work for Hobby Lobby and still get some form of birth control. Guess what, most insurances have worked that way in the past. I've tried just about every kind of BC however there were some that my insurance didn't cover. If wanted those kinds, I had to pay for it myself.

BTW - I've been with 3 different insurance companies and not one of them would cover Viagra or anything like it.

Commenter88
Salt Lake City, Utah

Regarding tax payer health care coverage for pregnancy:

First, this wasn't even an issue until Obamacare came into existence. To be fair, this is what many critics of it said would happen with such a vast plan. Previously, you could sign up for a plan that did not include pregnancy.

Second, pregnancy and childbirth are not considered diseases or necessarily adverse health conditions under the law (other opinions notwithstanding) but are considered generally healthy states that require some medical help. So "preventing" pregnancy in the preponderance of cases is a "choice" not a health-necessity. So costs aren't as relevant by these primary criteria. Obviously there are exceptions to this but SCOTUS was not tasked to rule on the exceptions.

Most important is that the new contraceptive issue emerging with universal health care has plopped in a territory that has been squarely in the realmof the 1st amendment and religious freedoms in our statutes, case law, and previous jurisprudence for over two centuries. Nothing changed with the SCOTUS decision. It was a challenge to a long-standing protection that simply failed.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

DN Subscriber -

You took the words right out of my mouth...

I find it intesting that the left dismisses claims of religious discrimination that are resulting from legalizing gay marriage, but they will go overboard on how this ruling will be disastrous for womens rights. Really? You can't make your employer buy the morning after pill and that sets womens rights back 50 years? I hardly think so.

Not to mention that women can get birth control from the government via Planned Parenthood way cheaper than on any insurance plan....

Melanna
Salt Lake City, Utah

One of the interesting notes in the opinion was the idea that if employees want health benefits that their employer doesn't want to provide to them, the government should provide that benefit instead - and we have RedWings reiterating it and claiming health care through the government is cheaper than for-profit health plans.

So basically the Supreme Court and RedWings are advocating for Universal (Single Payer/Socialized) medical coverage because it bypasses employer restrictions and is cheaper.

This ruling may not be the win Conservatives want it to be.

K
Mchenry, IL

They cover most forms of contraceptives. Just can't participate in pay in for ones that cause aboritions. They won't fire someone on the pill either.

I don't know why contraception in all forms isn't available over the counter. I would also be in favor of the governement paying for all forms of contraception. These pills aren't ridiculously expensive either. A person making 30K could certainly afford $400 a year.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

I agree with Melanna. I think some here don't understand what this ruling says. Alito's solution is to do for the Greens what the ACA does for religious institutions: the government, i.e., you and I, foot the bill. HL employees will still get these particular types of birth control if they want them, but we'll be paying for them, not the owners of a multi-million dollar, for-profit enterprise.

So no potential abortions are being thwarted. No women are being prevented from getting the birth control they want. The Greens have just managed to push the "sin" and the costs onto their fellow citizens.

to comment

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