Quantcast

Comments about ‘Why the Hobby Lobby decision isn't anti-liberal’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 1 2014 8:49 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

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 delighted.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@GaryO

They 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.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@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??

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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 whatever.

Bad Decision

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

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.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

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.

cowspackle
LOGAN, UT

@GaryO

Yes 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.

One of a Few
Layton, UT

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.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

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.

Bob K
Davis, CA

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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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....

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Another 5-4 SCOTUS decision by 5 unelected Republican male lawyers.

Nothing anti-liberal or anti-woman about that vote at all.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

This decision will lead to more abortions. Happy now?

Rule of Law
Pittsburgh, PA

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?

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

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).

to comment

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