Group protests Hobby Lobby decision on birth control


Return To Article
  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2014 1:23 a.m.

    "Does anyone feel like they are having a discussion with a child. "I want it, I want it." "No, I am not going to buy it." "But I want it, I want it." "Then you need to save your money." "But I want it now!" I tell my kids that if you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult. "

    Yep. When I read you stating that in relation to this issue it sure does make me feel like I'm talking to a child.

  • Random Redlands, CA
    July 9, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    It's easy enough to say that all the other kinds are covered, but different birth control types work better at different times of a woman's life. Pills only work well until age 35, with a few caveats thrown in, then it may be time to switch. This is anecdotal to me, but an IUD stopped migraines and cramps. There are other medical reasons to be on a specific kind of birth control.
    Funny, I was on the other side of this argument until I realized the relevance to my life.
    And those who say, "Quit having sex"? Sure, you tell that to your husband. It's not just young and unmarried women this affects.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    July 9, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    Does anyone feel like they are having a discussion with a child. "I want it, I want it." "No, I am not going to buy it." "But I want it, I want it." "Then you need to save your money." "But I want it now!" I tell my kids that if you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult. That means paying your own way. If you want to be an adult and be sexually active - be an adult and pay for it. Keep your employer out of your bedroom and away from your ovaries.

    Also, why are opponents repeatedly misstating what it says. As Jeff notes: "So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women don't." Where do you get that women do not have religious freedom. I am not aware of any religion that believes "thou shalt use birth control paid for by your employer."

    What if Congress passed a law requiring businesses to pay 10% of an employee's income to a church, temple or mosque of their choice. Can the business refuse to do so without violating the employee's freedom of religion?

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 7, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    If your ovaries are your business (and of course they are), it's your business to pay for what you do with them. My business = my responsibility; your business = your responsibility.

    Not one liberal in ten protesting this ruling has a remotely accurate conception of the facts and law involved, nor has read one-tenth of the decision itself.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    "it is simply saying that a business does not have to be financially responsible for all of the private decisions of its employees."

    Ulvegaard, it is saying nothing of the sort. This ruling does not apply to all businesses, if it did THEN you would be correct. But it doesn't. The ruling is saying that RELIGIOUS people do not have abide by the law; that RELIGIOUS people are exempt from following the law.

    If you are NON religious then you STILL have to supply insurance that provides ALL of the contraceptives. This ruling said that a certain subgroup of people get to choose NOT to follow the law, and to specifically determine, for themselves, how they do not want to follow the law.

    Let's be clear, the law was NOT requiring ANY of the hobby lobby owners to pay for anyone's birth control, or even insurance. The owners get paid salary and shares. NONE of THEIR money was required to be used for ANY insurance or contraceptives for ANYONE. Their religious freedom was not burdened one iota.

    Five SCOTUS justices made a terrible ruling.

  • 14Aggie North Logan, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    I think the obvious solution is to work somewhere that gives you the benefits you want. I want to work somewhere with tuition reimbursement so I can get my master's degree. I should find an employer that decides that it's something they want to offer based on what they believe. I can still go to school and pay for it myself regardless of what my employer does, that freedom is not taken away from me in any way. I know exactly what I'm getting when I apply. I don't feel like Hobby Lobby's situation is really all that different!

    Another point of interest, I could be wrong but it seems to me that it's not Hobby Lobby's employees that are making such a big fuss, but rather those outside the company who aren't even affected by the supreme court's decision.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 7, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    Not paying for Birth Control is not restricting it.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    You are right, Jeclar2006,

    If my religious beliefs tell me that paying for war is wrong then this ruling says I do not have to pay taxes that go to pay for war. They say this is a narrow ruling, yet it's not. If the owners of hobby lobby have the religious freedom to not pay for things they religiously disagree with, then why not me? Why not anyone? And why would the key to not paying be owning a corporation? It's the religious freedom that is the issue, not the corporation, according to this ruling. Why do the hobby lobby people get more religious freedom then anyone else just because they own a corporation? Logically they shouldn't. I have just as much right as them not to pay for things that are objectionable to my religious belief.

    In fact if my religious beliefs tell me that paying ANY taxes is religiously objectionable, then, according to this ruling, I should NOT have to pay them. Again, why do the hobby lobby owners religious beliefs, and freedoms, take precedence over mine? They don't.

    This is a terrible ruling.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    July 7, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    "I can't think of a better way to spend the day after Independence Day than to exercise our constitutional right to protest," said Chelsea Kilpack, president of the Utah Chapter of the National Organization for Women."

    Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a 'right' to protest? I guess in the same section that says we have a 'right' to make others pay for killing our babies.....

    Right to lawful assembly? Sure, but that was originally violated by this group. Right to free speech? Sure, even when that speech is misleading and inaccurate, as with this group.

    Somebody needs to start reading the Constitution, and not hiding behind it.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    July 7, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    You want to abort a baby either by pill or by going in for a "procedure", pay for it yourself.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 7, 2014 5:09 a.m.

    @J Thompson 4:46 p.m. July 6, 2014

    And how about the Americans who see the issue clearly and recognize that none of the things you allege in the second paragraph of your comment are happening or have happened.

    The government is not trying to change anyone's religious doctrine.

    The contraceptives in question in this issue do not terminate the live of an "unborn baby" in the womb or anywhere else -- they at most merely keep a pregnancy from starting, just like nature does for between a third and a half of all fertilized eggs (if you have an issue with that, take it up with nature).

    Americans are not having to "pay for contraceptions" -- they are just included as necessary and basic preventative health care medications (reducing death/maiming by preventing unwanted pregnancy/childbirth) available in the insurance coverage that is part of the remuneration for working people.

    The government has not "turned decency into a crime and abortion into a requirement".

    Nobody is being paid for sexual activity.

    I recognize you are just ranting, but there is no truth in what you say.

  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    July 7, 2014 12:00 a.m.

    It seems ironic to me that the non or anti religious groups that are crying foul want to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats. What if I believe differently? What if I think abortion is killing a fetus? What if I think that if someone isn't responsible enough to try to prevent pregnancy that I shouldn't have to pay for them to eliminate that pregnancy? What if I think someone else's poor choices should not be paid for by me? We aren't talking about eliminating access to choices. We are talking about who has to pay for those choices. The government may say that the corporation will pay, but really each one of us pays for a society that no longer values personal responsibility. We seem to only value personal choice. "My ovaries are my business" is a statement of choice, not responsibility. If it was a statement of responsibility, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    July 6, 2014 11:38 p.m.

    1. Why are people so worked up about Hobby Lobby only having to pay for 16 out of 20 types of birth control? Find another job if you are irresponsible enough to not care about prevention rather than damage control after the fact. No one is telling you that you have to get pregnant. There used to be a thing called self-control and responsibility. Are you saying that females are so irresponsible that they can't figure out how to prevent pregnancy? Birth control is widely available, even to minors.

    2. Is Hobby Lobby such a large corporation that people have no other choice for jobs and different benefits? Do they pay more than anyone else? Why don't you find another job if you object to their health coverage?

    3. The government is mandating a lot of extra health care coverage at a huge cost to corporations and individuals. I now pay $1800 a month for worse coverage than what used to be $1200 a month. I do get birth control though, even though I am menopausal and have had my tubes tied! Thank goodness the government cares more for my ovaries than my wallet.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    July 6, 2014 11:38 p.m.

    Do some research. Hobby Lobby does cover some birth control. Just not the type that "control" things after conception.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    July 6, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    One comment I read I can fully sympathize with --- regarding consensual intimacy between a married couple. Wonderful, awesome. Still, why is someone else responsible for covering the costs of preventing a pregnancy or a birth?

    I recognize that many here have assumed that the noted intimacy was reckless, irresponsible and even immoral and that certainly isn't always the case. But again, this court decision isn't shoving women under the bus, it's not returning us to the stone age, it is simply saying that a business does not have to be financially responsible for all of the private decisions of its employees. As so well stated by others, no one is forcing employees to work for Hobby Lobby -- the minute that happens, there isn't much freedom left.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 6, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    Who cares that twelve people protested the Supreme Court ruling? Doesn't the Deseret News have more important things to do than to create a story from the actions of twelve people? I'm sure that they could easily find thousands who supported that ruling, but they decided that people who were imported into South Jordan to protest was the important thing to report.

    How about reporting on how many Americans believe that our religious doctrines cannot be changed by Obama? How about reporting on how many Americans believe that destroying the life of an unborn baby is NOT the duty of an employer and NOT the duty of the government? How about reporting on how many Americans believe that paying for contraception is NOT the responsibility of the employer? How about reporting on how many Americans are totally fed up with a government that has turned decency into a crime and that has turned abortion into a requirement - if you want to run a business?

    Make no mistake about it, catering to those who demand that others pay for their sexual activity is obscene and is no business of Obama or of the government

  • ute alumni SLC, UT
    July 6, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    pay for your own birth control

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    July 6, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    This country believes in rights for all. Ms. Anaya has a right to "control her own sex organs". However, she does not have a right to force her views on others. Hobby Lobby was plain in its acceptance of birth control while paying for some 16 of 20 contraceptive procedures. They balked at paying for four which have been construed as a form of abortion. If they were forced by the 4 left wing justices plus another left wing appointee to pay for abortion, then we would become a dictatorship. We are just one vote away.

  • James E Tooele, UT
    July 6, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    "...My ovaries are my business and nobody else's." I think everyone recognizes the hilarious hypocrisy of this statement followed by demanding your employer pay for your abortion drugs. Well, except for these protesters. The price of the fuel to drive from Brigham City could've paid for a month's supply of birth control.

    These people are acolytes of the Liberal religion. Too blinded by their faith to see how nonsensical their demands truly are.

  • Meadow Lark Mark IDAHO FALLS, ID
    July 6, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    You go RG I totally agree with your comments. Thank you.

  • jeclar2006 Oceanside, CA
    July 6, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    Back in the olden days of the 60's some number of people tried to reduce their 'tax' bill by the percentage of the then military budget as a means of protest of the Vietnam War.

    It didn't work... they were charged with tax evasion no matter their 'moral beliefs, some of which were based on their religion.

    Ah, but now, we have 'religious freedom', perhaps we can revisit that sort of thing, and for those who do believe that the example of the Christ figure in found the New Testament, such people can claim a tax exemption based on such a religious understanding.

    As it is there is plenty of 'craft stores' to compete with "Hobby Lobby". While specific protests may benefit publicity on Hobby Lobby's policies, I'd recommend 'protesting' with dollars and patronizing other craft stores.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    July 6, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    Interesting. Why is it always about controlling women's healthcare. If a company was all up in their male employees healthcare I'm sure people wouldn't be so complacent about it.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    July 6, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    To Jeff Harris: re: "So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women don't."

    This is a really weak argument - and essentially a red herring. Women have religious and personal freedom, and can purchase contraceptives if they desire. But there is not a "constitutional right" to contraceptives, nor a right to force someone else, particularly a private employer, to provide it free of charge to its female employees. And forcing a private employer to provide contraceptives, particularly if the employer has a moral sense that it is not right, is a violation of that employers freedoms (personal and religious).

    I have no problem with a business offering contraceptive coverage to their employees. In fact, it is a valuable benefit that most companies have offered for decades. And the marketplace may demand higher wages from firms who don't offer such benefits to offset this added cost to their employees. But it is not a "right", and should not be forced on employers. This is simply not the American way, and harms our system - and all of us - in the process.

  • from but not of Lindon, UT
    July 6, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    What utter non sense and political theatre.

    There is no loss of benefit. Now, under the act, the insurance companies pay for the benefit that Hobby Lobby objected to being charged for as the employer.

    Has anyone read the opinion?

  • environmental idiot Sanpete, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    The more government intrudes in our personal lives the more common this type of problem becomes. Government needs to get back to what it is supposed to do, roads and military. And leave people to shape their own destiny.

  • Holly Mullen Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    Brava! I especially appreciate the under-30 age group (mostly, anyway!) exercising their rights to free assembly and free speech. Onward.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    July 6, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    @Jeff Harris
    "So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women don't."

    Please explain how religious freedom is taken away if people pay for their own contraceptives. This should be good.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    July 6, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    The "war" on babies continues unabated.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 6, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    Your company paid insurance is part of your compensation. And you probably pay a portion of your insurance anyway. Nobody gets insurance for free, unless you are the chief executive.

    So, even though your insurance is part of your compensation, and even though you most likely pay a portion of it, your employer now has the right to say no to your personal choices.

    Sounds like a totalitarian statist view to me. Where are all of you strict constructionist, conservatives out there? Aren't you afraid of what your employer will decide is best for you next? When will your employer tell you how to spend the other portions of your compensation? When will a Mormon owned company you work for tell you not to buy that wine you like on Saturday night with your wife. Not much difference. Or a Christian Scientist company deny transfusion benefits? Or a Southern Baptist company dock your pay for fishing on Sunday. Or...you ought to get the point.

  • Max Upstate, NY
    July 6, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    Entitlements! Entitlements! Entitlements! We have become a nation of entitlements.

  • Not Much of a Fan OC, CA
    July 6, 2014 3:55 a.m.

    The ignorance displayed on this topic is appalling!

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    July 6, 2014 1:23 a.m.

    So does a business owned by Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to refuse to pay for employees' blood transfusions? Does a business owned by Christian Scientists have the right to pay only for Christian Science healing for employees?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 6, 2014 12:31 a.m.

    It's nice to see people standing up for rights of individuals above institutionalised religion.

  • Cole Thomas Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2014 11:12 p.m.

    So since employers now get to pick and choose how we use our healthcare coverage, why not our paychecks as well?

  • shottaker MIDWAY, UT
    July 5, 2014 10:38 p.m.

    Dear Protesters,

    A privately held company owned by 5 individuals has the right to not pay for for your birth control when it violates their moral and/or religious convictions, just as you have the right to not work or shop there.

    It really is that simple.


    Common Sense

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 5, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    Most of the women I know who are on birth control are married and monogamous. The idea that birth control is only for "recreational sex" is absurd and demeaning.

    Imagine if Hobby Lobby declared that the life style choices that lead to high cholesterol are against their religious principles and refused to pay for cholesterol treatment? Would people be railing against the irresponsible "recreational eaters," calling them names and putting them down?

    This decision has already expanded, from four items to all birth control coverage to groups demanding the right to discriminate against GLBT employees. One restaurant owner, in North Carolina, said the decision meant he could refuse service to people of color based on his belief on the Bible.

  • BoringGuy Holladay, UT
    July 5, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    According to the Supreme Court, the rights of a corporation trump the rights of individual citizens. Figures.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    July 5, 2014 10:03 p.m.

    These protesters need to put a cork in it, and they can pay for it themselves.

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    July 5, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    Hurray for Freedom!

    Remember the Alamo!

  • Enough is enough! Saint George, UT
    July 5, 2014 9:54 p.m.

    There are/were 16 different kinds of contraception discussed in the documents I have read about. Hobby Lobby has been willing all along (even before the law suit) to fund 12 kinds of them...just not the four kinds which Hobby Lobby considered inappropriate from their perspective. They HAVE NOT denied contraception to employees.

    @Jan Jones...married couples who engage in recreational "activity" and don't want to become pregnant have a myriad of contraception available to them. They can plan ahead or pay for their own "morning after" pills. It's basic personal responsibility.

    @Kerissa Anaya...my ovaries are my business"...I couldn't agree more. Businesses have no business being forced to pay for your "business."

    There is no war on women...just war against individuals and companies willing to take a stand.

  • CougFaninTX Frisco, TX
    July 5, 2014 9:46 p.m.

    I won't comment on the moral side of the decision.

    But instead, a short comment on capitalism. The more we let government determine how businesses operate, the more we move from freedom, democracy and capitalism and the more we move toward socialism a.k.a. communism. Democracy is what makes America great and the reason why hundreds of thousands try to come to America every year (some legally and some illegally). Keep government out of business. If these workers think this benefit is important, go find a job with another business that offers it. If my employer doesn't give me the pay and benefits I need / deserve, I would find a job with another company.

    And for those who are mislead to think this benefit is "free", open your eyes. The cost of benefits like "free" contraception, or mandated coverage for up to 26 year olds are just hidden or passed along in the form of higher premiums. It is not "free".

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    July 5, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women don't.

    This imbalance can't hold for long. I support the women who are protesting this ruling.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2014 9:25 p.m.

    @Topher Mehlhoff: “I don't believe that your religion should limit my choices.”

    To you I reply that I do not believe that your belief systems (atheism, or whatever) should dictate my choices and what I have to pay for. It's ironic that so many anti-religionists want their philosophies and believe standards to tell the rest of us how we should live our lives through their activism or the activism of their liberal un-elected judges. Well guess what - we religious types can be activists too.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    July 5, 2014 9:23 p.m.

    The scary thing thing is the vote was still 5-4. What are the 4 thinking? I guess they are in favor of forcing all of us to pay for the activities and choices of a few.

    On the flipside nobody lost any choice here. Duh! Can they still not choose these methods of birth control?

    The only choice Liberals lost was once again the "choice" to use someone elses money to pay for their choices. No wonder they are outraged.

    Every day they scheme how to get access to other peoples money.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    July 5, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    Hobby Lobby does not limit contraceptives from their health plans! The core issue of this case was about post-conception drugs, those that are used after conception to destroy life.

    These drugs are deceptively marketed as emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. The truth is these drugs are used by the unprotected individual wanting to rid itself of any possible inconvenience as a result of their irresponsibility of not taking precautions beforehand against conceiving another human being.

    Of course, the NOW folks believe its just a tissue mass unless its viable outside the womb on its own, much less a fertilized egg looking to implant on the uterine wall.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 5, 2014 8:44 p.m.

    Far cheaper to pay for a pill or two per month than a late term abortion once or twice per year.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    July 5, 2014 8:37 p.m.

    Liberals were all for freedom of conscience during the 1960s when they were protesting against the Draft and the Viet Nam War. This commitment has mysteriously diminished, though, when people started disagreeing with them on issues like abortion. The politically correct community tells us that corporations should display a conscience. When Hobby lobby proceeded to do exactly that, however, they changed their tune in a hurry.

  • Todd_i Midway, UT
    July 5, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    I sure hope they had police around to control all those protesters.

  • taatmk West Jordan, UT
    July 5, 2014 7:49 p.m.

    When did Hobby Lobby tell them they could or could not have sex? When did Hobby Lobby tell them that they could or could not buy birth control?

    I would love to wear contact lenses instead of eye glasses. My health insurance will not pay for contact lenses. Yet, I wear contact lenses. How? I paid for them myself.... It was my RIGHT to pay for them myself.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    July 5, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    My only regret is that the Supreme Court once again voted 5-4. I'm glad they came down on the rare side of freedom, instead of mandated payment for reckless sex.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 5, 2014 7:04 p.m.

    Hurrah for freedom of speech!

    It is great to see these women out there protesting (too much, methinks) about wanting to get their ovaries into everyone elses's wallets.

    This give us proof that some people, indeed, can be fooled all of the time into believing that it is always someone else's responsibility to provide them with birth control, but not a husband, an income but not a job, and sex without consequences for the woman but not an "unviable tissue mass."

    We need to point out these people to our children and show them what happens if you fall for all the liberal propaganda.

  • Jan Jones West Valley City, UT
    July 5, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    John Charity Spring - So married couples who engage in sex, but do not wish to become pregnant (which I suppose makes sex a "recreational activity"), are engaging in irresponsible lifestyles? Just want to clarify.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    July 5, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    Thank heaven that the Supreme Court still respects freedom, at least 5-4. We are increasingly encountering new "rights" that everyone and their pet bird supposedly has, and, in the process, are removing freedom of choice from someone else. We should have a free-market of ideas, including the freedom for Hobby Lobby to choose to not offer contraceptive coverage, and the right of those who work for Hobby Lobby to 1) buy it with their own money, or 2) choose to work elsewhere.

    The U.S.A. used to be about limited government protecting the freedom of all. Increasingly, however, it is turning into the majority voting themselves an ever expanding list of rights. In the end, it will leave all of us worse on economically, and will limit all of our ability to pursue happiness as we see fit.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    July 5, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    It has never been the resposibility of business to bankroll employees who treat sex as a recreational activity to be engaged in at any time with any person. No truly reasonable person would claim that it is.

    Business pays for standard health care because healthy, responsible employees are a benefit to the business. Employees who engage in irresponsible lifestyles are a detriment to business, and no business can prosper if it is forced to pay for its own destruction.

  • barakhlo London, 00
    July 5, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    I live in Canada, where we have "universal" health care. Funny thing, the very kind of birth control that Hobby Lobby does not want to cover (the IUD) is also not covered by our "universal" health care insurance. Even the private plan we have through work does not cover the IUD. If we want it, we buy it. All the insurance will cover is the necessary appointment with the doctor.

    So when someone says that they "don't believe that your religion should limit my choices" I'd say in reply that this does not limit choice. They (like us in Canada) can choose to get an IUD, just not on someone else's dime.

    I understand that some would like Hobby Lobby to pay for this (just like I'd like the provincial government to pay for it here -- especially given the high taxes), but I think that it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that "that these judges are being allowed to dictate health care for entire families". Not true. Yes, there may be an extra cost -- but the ultimate decision is yours as it is for those of us with universal care.

  • caljimw Orem, UT
    July 5, 2014 6:29 p.m.

    It is difficult to understand how the advent of ACA suddenly created an expanded freedom of one of the persons interviewed regarding the her choices in the "use of her ovaries", unless she is expressing the idea that there is an inherent right to require others to contribute financially in support of her choices. Unless the SCOTUS decision has been grossly misrepresented, there is nothing in it to limit a woman's choice of sexual activity. The protest reported by the Deseret News seems to be little more than the growing demands of a portion of society for greater entitlements, without concomitant responsibility.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    July 5, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    Kerissa Anaya: “My ovaries are my business and nobody else's."
    Me: Correct! So why are you asking Hobby Lobby/taxpayers to pay for your birth control??

    Anaya: “This sets us back for women's rights, and it completely sets us back as a country.”
    Me: You’ve lost no rights. You can still buy those contraceptives with your own money. Or choose not to have sex. Do you think “women’s rights” means we all have to pay for your birth control? I thought it was your own business and nobody else’s.

    Topher Mehlhoff: “I don't believe that your religion should limit my choices.”
    Me: Again, you can still buy any birth control with your own money. Your choices have not been limited. Why should I have to pay for your birth control? Some forms aren’t even that expensive.

    Mehlhoff: "To limit health care choices just for women is patently sexist and not something Christ would do."
    Me: Christ would ask you not to get pregnant unless you are married, and then, to buy your own birth control. Ideally not a type that kills a fertilized egg. You are a pastor and don’t understand this?

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2014 5:55 p.m.

    Those girls wouldn't take a job paying $10 an hour for one day that in turn would pay for their annual contraception supply.......instead they protest expecting those of us who work to pay for their irresponsibility and stupidity......these kind of women give women a bad name!

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 5, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    Great article, great sentiments. And I don't understand how anyone can argue with it.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    Hooray for freedom of thought and expression!! :o)

    I'm especially happy that the Supreme Court voted to allow that in the case of owner's of Hobby Lobby and their right to NOT be the purveyors of death that these people demand they be.

    I share the view that insisting that someone violate the most sacred tenets of their religion is a violation of the first and, apart from the right to life, the most important of the few enumerated and unalienable rights. I dread the day if ever the views of these few ever become realized. For their sake as well as the rest of us.