Comments about ‘Supreme Court ruling won't alter birth-control coverage for many’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 2 2014 1:42 p.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, July 2 2014 1:42 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT

Of course it won't.

But it will serve as a hysterical rallying cry by the left to promote their mythical war on women.

Liberals still win by advancing misinformation to an uninformed electorate willing to surrender their reason based upon an alleged infringement on a "right" to an entitlement.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ Cletus

The mere fact that this debate exists feels like an invasion of privacy to many women, me included. It doesn't matter what the details are. As long as men and the religions they control remain so presumptuous as to debate and decide for all women what we may or may not do with our lives, they will continue to hand leverage to their political opponents.

Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT

@Karen

I generally agree with you; "men and the religions they control [SHOULD NOT] remain so presumptuous as to debate and decide for all women what we may or may not do with our lives."

The SCOTUS decision did not do that and to say it did is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and serves only to shore up a hysterical rallying cry by the left to promote this mythical war on women in America.

SCOTUS removed the government mandate that employers MUST provide contraception coverage in their insurance plans. It's as simple as that. Women are still free to choose what they want to do with their bodies, what means of contraception they want to use, and work with their doctor to decide what kind of health decisions are in their best interest.

The irony here is that most corporations will still offer contraception coverage for employers; they just won’t be forced to do so under the threat of government penalty.

The unfortunate misinformation about women’s rights is staggering.

bobdc6
park city, UT

After Citizens United, corporations are now people, and money is now speech. Pushing even farther, the Supreme Court has now given corporations religious rights, and have singled out some corporations as being more equal than others in the eyes of the law. This thing is going to grow into the monster from the land of untended consequences when large corporations sue for equal rights.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Birth control isn't really the major issue with this decision. The major issue is that a corporation can impose the religious views of its ownership on employees who are hired to perform secular functions. The decision is about the erosion of religious freedom for individuals and the granting of special rights and powers to institutions.

Weber State Graduate
Clearfield, UT

Corporations have always been recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law through a legal concept called "corporate personhood." By definition, a corporation is an association of individuals united for a special purpose. People acting in concert generally have the same equal protection of the laws guaranteed to individuals in the Fourteenth Amendment...they do not surrender their Constitutional rights when they act collectively.

The doctrine of corporate personhood has been reaffirmed by the Court many times – going as far back as 1888 when the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania. In that case, the Court held "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment].

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

And when Christian-fundamentalist Chik-Fil-A refuses to hire those of us who are Mormons because we belong to a satanic cult, will we cheer just as loudly as we are cheering now?

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ Weber State Grad, don't overstate the concept of corporations. They are creatures of the state, and their rights, powers and authority can be changed by the state.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Just a couple questions.
Did the Greens change religions in 2012, because before the ACA they paid for the birth control they just sued over?
If you make money by investing in the Pham. Company that makes these birth controls that's within your morals?
When you stock your store with goods made in China, whom has such a great record on abortion and human rights to increase your profit, that's alright.

But to allow your employees to choose for themselves what is right, is absolutely unacceptable, and an infringement on Corporate Religion that has no soul to save, no body to incarcerate, and is immortal.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ Cletus

I understand your point and agree that birth control is not being denied. My point is that it is insulting that women's private lives are even considered a proper topic of debate. So for me and many like me, no misinformation is even required to infuriate. The fact that our nation's highest court still deems it proper to entertain a religious belief (or any kind of belief, for that matter) that seeks to assert control over or comment on a woman's private life is enough.

Five MEN. Five RELIGIOUS men.

But when I look at the young women coming behind me, I can see that this won't be the case much longer. Women aren't becoming more subjugated with time. No, we're becoming increasingly empowered and the numbers of those who will not tolerate anyone but their spouse/partner weighing in on their sexual lives is increasing as well. This voyeuristic state will not last forever.

BTW, I don't find "staggering" the misinformation that our perpetual campaign machines and their media outlets disseminate. It's exactly what I now expect from them.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Karen R. said, “The mere fact that this debate exists feels like an invasion of privacy to many women, me included…”

Well, Carly Fiorina AND my wife do not agree with you.

Does it not depend upon which side of the political fence you reside as to whether you feel this in an invasion of your privacy? If you are liberal woman, then you feel it is an invasion of your privacy and it becomes categorized as a “war on women.” If you are a conservative woman, then all of this rhetoric is pure hogwash.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ VST

You seem to have stated the obvious - that people have differing opinions. I'm not sure how this addresses what was being discussed.

Blunderbuss
Silver City, NM

You all do know that birth control is used for many more reasons than recreational sex don't you? Why is it okay for a bunch of bible-thumping men to decide what is or isn't right for women? I am a man who thinks women know their own needs better than any man would. Ironically, however, I think women know men's needs better then most men do as well! Perhaps it's time to hand over control to women, and see if we can drag this country back up and out of the nineteenth century.

Jeff Harris
Edmonds, WA

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman's healthcare is now between her, her doctor and her boss at a chain store.

I have a problem with this ruling.

to comment

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