Comments about ‘Government's final rule on contraception coverage to unleash more lawsuits’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 29 2013 11:50 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

BO and his cabal are just launching a new round of Edmunds-Tucker Acts. with a wider target now

4601
Salt Lake City, UT

Has anyone mentioned lately that the federal government is out of control?

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

In other words, these businesses (which are NOT people) want to deny their employees basic preventative health care, and force religious beliefs on their employees. Bring on the American taliban.

paintandestroy
Richmond/Cache, UT

I don't get it- An employer giving an employee a paycheck is already being a gateway to whatever they choose to do with it.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

I'm guessing that the people who are getting upset about this are also demanding that this type of insurance no longer cover vasectomies and colonoscopies, either. Right?

ManInTheMiddle
SANDY, UT

Furry1993 - businesses are not denying their employees health care - they are just saying the employees can pay for it themselves.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"I don't get it- An employer giving an employee a paycheck is already being a gateway to whatever they choose to do with it."

I bet you would "get it" if an employer, concerned with overpopulation, excluded any an all coverage for childbirth.

Laura Ann
Layton, UT

Birth control is very cheap. I don't see why they don't just go get it at a place that is able to offer it for a few dollars. Add it to Obamacare so they can be reimbursed if necessary. People will then have more jobs! Government paper work, extra,... Sometimes, though, birth control can be used for other purposes. It helped me be regular and slowed down the progression of my endometriosis. It also helped with my severe acne. I never used it outside of marriage. I don't believe that it should be forced upon a private company and especially a religious group. One would think that a religious group wouldn't have to worry if its members were obeying their beliefs. If they were faithful, there would be no need to even worry about covering it as no one would use it.

QuercusQate
Wasatch Co., UT

There are employers that are opposed to blood transfusions. I suppose you'd be fine with an insurance program which exempted coverage for that? This is nuts. Contraception is a basic need of women's reproductive health, and should be covered--with no deductible--by every insurance program.

The ACA's new guidelines give the insured FREE access to procedures or measures which prevent unwanted health conditions, such as cancer, and including prevention of pregnancy. Pregnancy and childbirth (not to mention raising a child to healthy maturity) are massively expensive and dramatically health-altering conditions.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Businesses are people for the issues of rights. Many religious rights are best exercised in cooperation.

Anyway, the government exempts lots of businesses from these rules on other grounds. If it was really a goal of providing these services, the government could set up a system where it provides these services freely. By trying to force employers to be the providers the government is trying to compel them to violate their religious beliefs. This is a very scary and disturbing trend.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

I would fully support the right of a Jehovah's Witness business owner to refuse to cover blood transfusions in his employee health care coverage. The government has no right to force people to pay for things that they object to on religious grounds. What next, will the government try to mandate that DI provides coffee to its employees?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Hobby Lobby and Mardel (its partner company) are not religious organizations, the ruling states. Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

Hobby Lobby's owners and other religious zealots don't seem to get that they don't own their employees. They hire them.

Do their employees have to turn in a report monthly on what they spent their paycheck on, to make sure they paid their church and not a bartender?

to comment

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