Comments about ‘Government argues birth control mandate doesn't violate religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 3 2014 6:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Federal Way, WA

So many are debating how far the religious exemption will be taken. That is uncertain.

The point in this lawsuit is if the Nuns will sign a document stating that they are refusing to provide emergency contraception because of their religious beliefs, then the government will give them that exemption. Will the Obaba administration accept that for all of the other religious examples you have provided? I doubt it.

People dont want the government to decide what religious beliefs they can practise.

Court cases can be limited and for this one perhaps the Supreme Court can restrict the exemption so that practising these "long held" religous beliefs can be protected.

Salt Lake City, UT

Let's just have universal healthcare, then the gov't will provide it and the companies won't be complaining anymore. Solves two problems at once.

nampa, ID

Who is actually PAYING for the insurance? If the NUNS or HOBBY LOBBY is PAYING for it, then they have every right to say what goes into the policy they are buying for their employees: NOT obamacare! If the employees don't like it, they can pay for their own policy, or go work for someone who gives them insurance they do like.

Do you now see what a complete mess this Obamacare is? It is such a frustration and an intrusion in so many ways: Legally, Religious, Personal, Financial, Taxation, etc.

Counting the hours until this evil administration and it's corrupt judges, is no longer...

Vacaville, CA

Tyranny is government dictating how we must live our life. Anyone who claims to be a Progressive also believes they are smarter than the rest of us. To prevent tyranny, never vote for a Progressive.

Sugar City, ID

This is one of the major problems with Obamacare: You must buy an insurance policy that the government approves of, not especially what you need. Why in the world should a single man be forced to pay for a plan that includes maternity care?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Hobby Lobby is not a person. It cannot believe in a religion. It cannot go to church. It is not a church. It is a business offering public accommodation. As such, it must comply with regulations that apply to all such businesses, including those that prohibit discrimination in hiring. Where do they get off demanding to be exempted "on religious grounds" from the laws that apply to the rest of us?


The government is saying that the ACA birth control provisions are going to be mandatory. The plaintiffs are saying "this is against our Christian belief". I would side with the government on this one. This provision is a proactive approach instead of a blind one or biased one. The plaintiffs remind me of parents who believe their children (employees) will never have sex before marriage. That is unrealistic. I would support the decision of any woman to get on birth control verses having an unwanted pregnancy. With that being said, birth control should be used to prevent a pregnancy not take a life. Abortions should not be considered birth control.

Daniel Leifker
San Francisco, CA

All these comments simply prove one point: horrible things occur when the government starts compelling some people to do unnecessary things for other people.

The government's only legitimate role here is in compelling employers to do basic things such as paying employees on time, maintaining workplace safety, and preventing discriminatory hiring and firing. Not medical insurance.

Break this insane link between employers and medical insurance. Employers should pay employees, and employees should be free to use their wages to buy whatever insurance they wish.

Salt Lake City, UT

This case is incredibly weak, they are exempt already, all they have to do is sign their form declaring religious exemption yet they consider even that a burden which is just absurd.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Apparently, the only solution the Little Sisters of the Poor will accept is for the Federal Government to not apply legal provisions to their case. That's not being reasonable. Freedom of religion was never intended to exempt religion from compliance with the law.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

It’s a bad sign when Government appears to be apologizing for administering provisions of law. The Obama Administration undercuts its own effectiveness by offering a halfway out that ends up looking more like a fig leaf for themselves. It’s not fair to the other carriers and providers who do follow the rules. If providers with Catholic or other religious ties can’t meet those standards, it time for them to consider dropping their healthcare involvement altogether.

to comment

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