Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court to hear 2 cases involving Obamacare contraception mandate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 26 2013 8:05 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

Anyone think with the way this country has declined in the past couple of decades that religious rights will take a back seat to the new ACA Tax on everyone?

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Liberals constantly tell us they are pro-choice. Forcing your neighbors to pay for your birth control is not pro-choice, its government coercion! "What I choose to do with my body is not your business" they tell us "Keep the government out of my bedroom", they tell the rest of us. Except using government law to force other people to pay for what you choose to do with your body, in your bedroom is now demanded, expected and forced upon us, by liberals! Conclusion: Freedom of choice is only for liberals, the rest of you must comply!

Ranch
Here, UT

@Mountanman;

"Forcing your neighbors to pay for your birth control is not pro-choice,..."

What do you call PREMIUMS? They ARE paid by the employee. Employers have absolutely no right whatsoever to force their religious views on their employees.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Forcing your neighbors to pay for your birth control is not pro-choice, its government coercion"

Lets look at your choices today. Mandated by your insurance company.

Does your health insurance cover contraceptives?
Do you have a choice to remove that coverage?
Does your policy cover childbirth?
Do you have a choice to remove that coverage?
Does your policy cover blood transfusions?
Do you have a choice to remove that coverage?

We have been "forced" by the insurance companies for years to cover these sorts of things.

Where is your outrage at Blue Cross Blue Shield?

This outrage is a joke.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Joe Blow, Answers to your questions: YES, I have a CHOICE of coverage in my health insurance, at least until it is cancelled by Obamacare mandates. With Obamacare, I have NO choices and must pay for what the government chooses for me! That's the difference, even if your ideology has you blinded to that. Obamacare burns down your house, comes to your rescue with an empty water bucket and then Obama lectures you about how defective your house was anyway!

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"YES, I have a CHOICE of coverage in my health insurance"

So, you say you have a "choice of coverage". I also have limited "choices" but not down to the level of whether or not they cover such things as transfusions, childbirth or contraceptives.

Are you saying that you do?

Come on Mtnman. Care to provide the name of an insurance company that allows these choices?

I would be interested to know.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Joe. Aetna, Cigna, among many, many others! You can pick and choose what you want covered and your premium cost are varied accordingly and none of them force me to pay for your birth control!

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

@Mountainman, nobody -- nobody-- is forcing anyone to buy insurance that covers birth control. What on earth are you complaining about?

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Irony Guy. Obamacare forces older people to pay for maternity insurance, forces people to pay for birth control! Where have you been?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Their body.

Not yours.

Religious exemptions are fine, for the person.

Otherwise, if you want to be 'outraged', why are we paying Medicare…

to cover men's Viagra?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm somewhat content to accept the concept of corporations having legal personhood, as it has some utility in policy and law. However, it raises some questions. Although legally "persons," corporations are not "people" (despite what Gov. Romney said). They have no corporeal being, they have no mind-- they are merely convenient legal figments of our imagination. So what defines the "personality" of a corporation? Does (or can) the corporate person exist and have an identity or values independent of its human ownership? Apropos the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases, are the religious values of a corporation determined by its CEO? By its shareholders? By a vote of the directors? By its employees? Could a corporation have values different from its owner's?

Say XYZ Inc. is owned by a priest, a rabbi, an imam, and an LDS bishop. They each own 25.0% of the stock, they each are co-presidents on the board, and they each equally share executive powers. What are the religious values of XYZ Inc.? Say XYZ Inc. (a legal person, remember) walks into a bar. Does it buy a cocktail? Does it eat the port fritters?

Joan Watson
TWIN FALLS, ID

Lagomorph:
Corporation a group of people who get a charter granting them as a body certain of the legal powers, rights, privileges and liabilities of an individual, distinct from those of the individuals making up the group; A corporation can buy, sell, and inherit property 2. A group of people, as the mayor and alderman of an incorporated town, legally authorized to act as an individual. 3 any of the political and economic bodies forming a corporative state, each being composed of employers and employees in a certain industry, profession, etc.

So you see lagomorph, Mitt Romney was correct, among many other things, about corporations being people. Or were you thinking in terms of 'robots'?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Joan Watson: "Corporation a group of people who get a charter granting them as a body certain of the legal powers, rights, privileges and liabilities of an individual, DISTINCT FROM THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUALS MAKING UP THE GROUP..." [emphasis added]

We can dismiss definitions 2 and 3 as irrelevant to the current discussion (namely, business corporations). The emphasized clause in your definition makes my point: corporations are organized aggregations of people, but they have an existence and powers distinct from and independent of those people. A corporation exists as a legal entity (a legal person), but it has no physical being, except maybe for a sheaf of papers stamped with the seal of a state department of corporations. It is not human, not people, though it contains people. And that is the crux of my questions. What constitutes the conscience, values, religion, or voice of a corporation when it has no physical body or brain? In the Hobby Lobby case, the company is arguing that the contraceptive mandate violates the corporation's religious views (not just those of its founder and CEO). As I asked in my original post, how are the religious views of a corporation determined?

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

@Pagan
"Their body?" That's a valid concept, but very short sighted. When an unborn child is involved, the question is not confined to one person's body. A person is generally allowed to treat their body anyway they chose, but an unborn child is no longer just "their body."

Joan Watson
TWIN FALLS, ID

Definition of a corporation as given in the New World Dictionary is not hard to understand even for high school students. The point is that people make up a corporation and that includes those who are chosen to represent them. To claim that a corporation is not composed of people is ludicrous.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Owl;

"...an unborn child is no longer just "their body.""

---

An "unborn child", a few cells, is still not a person and has absolutely NO RIGHT to demand that it's host carry it for 9 months.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Hobby Lobby is removed by several steps in the chain of events from the contraception (or drug-assisted abortions) that it finds objectionable. The contraceptive mandate in the ACA does not force Hobby Lobby or its employees to use contraceptives. It only requires the company to make contraceptive coverage available in their insurance plans. The company never pays directly for any drug-- the insurer does. Hobby Lobby's premiums are pooled with those of other policy holders. No dollar spent for a pill can be traced back to Hobby Lobby.

So how far does moral culpability go with indirect, dilute financial transactions? If indirect financial support to a third party equates to culpability, then Hobby Lobby might also rethink its use of Chinese suppliers, because its business with them subsidizes China's One Child policy (not to mention horrid labor practices that can't be aligned with Hobby Lobby values). To be consistent, the company would have to sever financial ties with any other party that facilitates contraceptive use. Its pension plan could not invest in pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies that cover contraception, or any company with a health plan that covers contraception.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Joan Watson: "To claim that a corporation is not composed of people is ludicrous."

Yes, it would be ludicrous. I made no such claim. In fact, twice in my response to you I acknowledged that corporations are composed of people ("corporations are organized aggregations of people" and "though it contains people"). That is not the point. Even the dictionary definition you yourself cited noted that corporations have properties distinct from the people that comprise them. The whole is greater than (or at least different from) the sum of its parts. And that is why I stressed the difference between legal personhood and biological personhood. They are not the same.

Try addressing any of my questions. How are the values of a nonbiological entity determined? You come close to an answer with "includes those who are chosen to represent them." Are you saying it's the board of directors, the CEO, the stockholders, the employees, a union? Who, exactly? Are the values of a corporation determined democratically (most number of people in support) or financially (largest investors)?

Correction to 11/27 10:21 post: pork fritters, not port fritters

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"To claim that a corporation is not composed of people is ludicrous."

I don't believe that anyone claimed that they weren't.

My house is composed of brick, but one would hardly call a brick a house.

Here is my problem with corporations. People in corporations sometimes do unscrupulous things. When they do, the corporation gets fined. Those fines ultimately hurt the stockholders who had nothing to do with.

If corporations are people, why does the corporation get fined rather than the people who cross the line?

Joan Watson
TWIN FALLS, ID

As one recalls, Mitt Romney was laughed scornfully when he stated corporations were people. For some, his meaning was perfectly clear and understandable, while for other who mocked and discredited Romney, it seems their choice was to look through a dark glass of confusion, and ambiguity concerning the true meaning of a 'corporation.'

to comment

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