Published: Tuesday, July 1 2014 1:20 p.m. MDT
This ridiculous Supreme Court decision isn't about being anti-Liberal or
anti-Conservative.It's about being anti-American.This decision has invalidated the principle of the Separation of Church and
State by allowing religion to dictate the law.There is nothing more
anti-American than that.And of course, "Conservatives" are
@GaryOThey are delighted until they have surgery and get stuck with
a $10K hospital bill when they need five pints of blood and come to find out
their health insurance doesn't cover transfusions because the company is
owned by a Jehovah's Witness.
Most women "need" birth control like I "need" a vacation to
Hawaii because my doctor said it will lower my stress.As soon as the
libs foot the bill for my trip to Hawaii I'll help pay for their birth
control. Yes, its a loss for the liberals. And I love it!Hooray!
@GaryO,Re: "It's about being anti-American"...Come on.. grow up.You will be on the other side when the SC
decides that marriage can't be limited. Don't get all sour grapes
when they don't rule in your favor... but praise them when they do.The court is trying to be consistent... you should too.It's the Supreme Court's job to decide these issues (not ours).
They don't always have to rule the way you want them to... or they're
"Anti-American".I'm pretty much expecting the SC to
have to rule on SSM soon. And I expect them to show the same NON-partisan
logic (and make SSM legal). And I promise to not throw a "it's
anti-American" tantrum when they do. I suspect we will have SOME who do
though.What's "Anti-American" about it??
The Church of the Almighty Dollar, formed by corporations in the early part of
21st century, set about to write a set of religious tenets that give advantage
to Corporations over their employees.The great problem of having
corporate citizens is that they aren't like the rest of us. As Baron
Thurlow in England is supposed to have said, "They have no soul to save, and
they have no body to incarcerate."Corporations were given the
rights of immortal persons. But then special kinds of persons, persons who had
no moral conscience. These are a special kind of persons, which are designed by
law, to be concerned only for their stockholders. And not, say, what are
sometimes called their stakeholders, like the community or the work force or
Malarkey.We now know that insurance for all forms of birth control
are up to the owner's of closely held companies. And I would imagine that
a lawsuit is on the horizon to challenge even that. Soon, I predict, any
business entity can claim religious exemptions for all kinds of discriminatory
behavior.It is a war on a woman's reproductive freedom for her
employer to tell her that she can get her birth control included in her
compensation package which includes health insurance. If an employer sought to
rid coverage for that little blue pill that is advertised so much on TV for the
male of the species, we would have a revolution. However, it must give men and
conservatives great joy to know that they have inflicted harm on woman's
health.Shameful, just shameful.
CHS 85 - the ruling specifically called out the circumstance you state.... and
Justice Roberts specifically said that this ruling does not permit that level or
manipulation of coverage. The ruling makes it very clear that "life
saving" restrictions are not allowed. This is a very American
ruling. You have a choice who you work for. If you don't believe in the
restrictions your employer places on you, work somewhere else. If you
don't like the beliefs of the employer, shop somewhere else. If you want
to work at HobbyLobby, and know the beliefs of the management, then expect to
pay for that additional medical coverage yourself.I don't think
that the employer should have the right to fire you if you use birth control, or
are gay, or are of another political persuasion, so long as it doesn't
impact your ability to do your job. That is a whole different matter.
Don't expect a Muslim employer to buy you alcohol. Don't require a
jewish owned business to be open on Saturday. Don't expect me to reimburse
expenses for a sales person and his client at a "gentleman's" club
- not going to happen.
@GaryOYes it is so anti-American to uphold Religious Freedom. I am
so glad our country was not founded on such a principle. (sarcasm should be
implied)Yes I am delighted that finally a win for religious
freedoms, at a time when the government is slowly taking away our freedom. Open
your eyes, because a Socialist regime is not far in the future. Especially when
people sit back and forget the principles this country was founded on.Hobby Lobby already covers 16 of the 20 birth control options mandated by the
Affordable Care Act. What they had an issue with was the two different types of
"Morning After" pills and two types of IUD's.
Not an expert but from what I've read, Hobby Lobby decision may not mean
anything. Decision seems to be based on accommodations granted to religious
institutions. By doing so, government established that accommodations for
religious view points were not burdensome. Apparently, had the administration
not drawn those distinctions, the 5-4 decision could have easily gone the other
way. Of course, failing to grant religious accommodations would have set the
right into a frenzy. So in a way, this decision is the best of all possible
outcomes. Court based decision on law, not on constitutional right. Government
can continue to reasonably accommodate religious view points. The liberal base
and moderates will be energized for the upcoming elections. And there really is
an easy work around, the administration will figure out a way to provide birth
control to those who can't obtain it through their insurance.
It is hard to believe that this op-ed supports giving a non-person (a
corporation) more rights and power to the actual individuals. I understand the
argument, but in the case of for profit corporations, it is always disingenuous.
Hobby Lobby willingly supports forced abortion in China by paying taxes to
Chinese government and supporting the communist regime by outsourcing American
jobs to that country. They are also a major stock holder in the drug companies
that invented, manufacture, and distribute the "abortion pill." They
just played the Supreme Court for the fools they are and now they are playing
the public for the fools they are too. Meanwhile, they can laugh all the way to
the bank, because this has been about money as usual. If Hobby Lobby wants to
win me over, they need to change their business practices, big time.
More of the DN's pattern of grabbing any and all chances to tell you to
take sides."Liberals" never call something
"anti-liberal". In the case of this decision, the issue is that owners
can bring their religion to work, and try to coerce workers into following
it.Working women who cannot do better than low end retail jobs
generally are not the best educated, with the best resources. However, they are
equal American citizens.Anyone who understands low income people
knows that women will tend to sacrifice for the family, perhaps buying shoes for
Johnny and foregoing the cost of family planning.A couple of
commenters here show the misogyny of the Hobby Lobby owners -- sneering at women
who lose out on this important health protection because they had to take the
job they could get.Furthermore, it is conservative to encourage
birth control's easy access. Unwanted kids cost money for education, food
stamps, health care, and prisons.
The birth control options the DO cover should be sufficient.If you
need the other ones... you can pay for them. Plan-B one step is $49.99 at CVS
or Wallgreens. If you need Plan-B... you have already made a very
unwise mistake... and it's now an emergency and you're going to go buy
it over the counter anyway. You don't have time to wait for a prescription
so your insurance will pay for it.All is well... it's NOT the
end of the world....
Another 5-4 SCOTUS decision by 5 unelected Republican male lawyers.Nothing anti-liberal or anti-woman about that vote at all.
I wish one of these articles would fully explain the ramifications of the
decision. The court may have left the door open for the gov't to do what it
does with religious organizations and that is have the exemption and then have
the insurance companies just provide it for free (the insurance companies are
fine with this since birth control is cheaper than pregnancies on their end).
The Little Sisters of the Poor case is one that challenges this claiming
it's just a backdoor mechanism that makes the exemption in name only.
This decision will lead to more abortions. Happy now?
Seems to me that one way out of this is to get employers out of the health care
business entirely. Remove the employer mandate from ACA and get rid of the tax
break for providing health insurance. Employers who have any religious
objections can just not provide insurance, freeing up that money to give to
employees directly, who can then get whatever insurance plan they're
comfortable with on the individual exchanges. And yes, loosen the requirement
that insurance must cover this as well. Presumably there will still be some
plans that would cover the drugs in question, since there's clearly a
market for them. Is this a viable option?
@Frozen Fractals: "I wish one of these articles would fully explain the
ramifications of the decision."Both sides are too busy spinning
to actually clearly report the meaning.From what I have seen:The decision does not eliminate all birth control, only four specific
items - two drugs and two IUDs. All, it is claimed, cause "abortions"
rather than stopping fertilization. Medical experts are saying that is not
actually true, for technical reasons. HHS has already put forth a
plan to allow the women so affected to obtain those treatments, if needed. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby covered all four items on their plan up until
2012, according to several reports. This would seem to have been more about
attacking the Affordable Care Act and scoring points with the extreme religious
right than any stand on long-held principles. As others have pointed out, HL
owners also invests in companies that make and distribute these treatments, and
does extensive business with China where human rights abuses such as forced
abortions and slave-like labor are rampant. Some principles, it
would seem, are more sincere than others.
If this issue is really about freedom of religion then why are so many
"conservative" commentators here lecturing women and taking delight in
their difficulties?Not one conservative commentator has celebrated
religion. However, all of them have laughed scornfully at women. So
please, don't you dare tell me that this is about religion. The cover has
been blown. Conservatives are merely interested in control of women's'
lives and belittling them.
Saying that because companies cannot be forced to pay 100% of contraceptives
that abortions will increase is absolutely incorrect. Hobby Lobby already pays
for all contraceptives except those that cause abortions. Of the 20 pills and
devices available, Hobby Lobby pays 100% of sixteen. They claim exemption for
pills and devices that terminate life AFTER conception.No woman is
denied the RIGHT to purchase prescriptions prescribed by her doctor, but that
doesn't matter to those who have no regard for truth. They want us to
think that somehow the Court has ruled that contraceptives are illegal. Any
woman can buy a prescription if she is willing to pay for it. No woman can
expect her neighbors to pay for her contraceptives. That concept is asserted
by the 10th Amendment. Contraceptives are not on the list of items that
Congress can tax us for; therefore, the purchase of contraceptives are left to
the State or to the people.
Hey 2bits –“Don't get all sour grapes when they
don't rule in your favor... but praise them when they do”You
should probably look up the meaning of “sour grapes,” because the
term doesn’t really apply here.Hey Cowspackle –“Yes it is so anti-American to uphold Religious Freedom. I am so glad
our country was not founded on such a principle.”The United
States was indeed founded on the idea of religious freedom . . . freedom of
religion and freedom from religion. And that is what makes the principle of
the Separation of Church and State so fundamentally American.Hopefully, at some future point, a wiser Supreme Court will reverse the
ridiculous decision of our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court that has been
whittling away at our freedoms.It’s happened before. Look at
how Brown v the Board of Education reversed Plessy v Ferguson.History has shown that that little dark ages of “Conservative”
oppression in this country can be undone by enlightened justices as that
opportunity arises. Fortunately the Presidency (and its power to appoint SC
Justices) is likely to be in more reasonable Democratic hands for some time to
come (knock on wood).
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments