Comments about ‘Letter: Determining rights’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, July 12 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Provo, UT

Couldn't the exact same be said about corporations?

What else can corporations determine to be against their "religious convictions"?

Giving people breaks? Discrimination? Child labor? Abiding by health and EPA laws? Heck, could a corporation determine that paying salaries be against it's religious convictions?

Where does it end?

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

From the piece: "Who is he, his party or the government to have the authority or right to determine what is right and best for “women’s lives?”

I assume, then, that the author of this letter is strongly pro-choice.

salt lake city, utah

Wow Mr. Robertson. Nothing in Senator Reid's comments says a woman should use contraceptives. His comments simply say it's a woman's right to choose and access is part of that choice.

Contraceptives are part of women's health care and health care decisions and therefore belong as part of health care plans. Cost isn't the issue appropriateness is.

seattle, WA

This is indeed a swiss cheese argument.

Who indeed is an employer to tell his/her employee that a given, approved medical procedure or prescription is off limits? Since the company provided insurance is part of the employee's compensation, and since the employee undoubtedly pays a portion of said insurance, that employee ought to be able to have a choice to/not to have birth control. Please note that no one is forcing anyone to use birth control. Only the option to use if said employee wants to.

However, five old men have told women that their corporate employer can paternalistically use religion to harm them. Hobby Lobby provided birth control to woman before it was required by the law known as Obamacare. Politics was the motivation behind the suit, and politics was behind the decision of these sad old men on the court.

Government ought not take a position on religious matters. This decision was a bad one. Unfortunately you, and those like you wish the government to take your religious sensibilities to law. That is not how secular government works.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Tom Blumer reported: "Harry Reid told the press that "the one thing we're going to do, during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we're going to do something about it."

Harry Reid does not honor the 1st Amendment which guarantees our right to live our religion without government interference. Hobby Lobby willing pays for 16 of the 20 contraceptives. The four that Hobby Lobby will not pay for are abortifacients, which induce an abortion if taken as prescribed.

Harry Reid does not believe that people have the right NOT to be forced by the government to pay for abortifacients. He thinks that women have the right to demand that someone else pay for their abortifacients.

Which nation does Harry Reid live in? He took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, as written, not as he interprets it.

The Court ruled. The Court is an equal branch of government. Reid has no authority to order the Court to do anything.

Eugene, OR

So based on this letter, I assume that Robertson is a strong advocate in favor of gay marriage...

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

Shame on those who think that their employers are responsible for financing recreational sex. If people want to collate like crazed rabbits, they should pay for birth control themselves.

American Fork, UT

Right now the state of Utah is actively working to prevent same sex couples from getting married, denying them their rights. Rights denied are rights denied, emboldened by a mob or not.

Here, UT

Who is the corporation to determine a woman's rights?

Why is the corporation allowed to force their female employees to follow the business's "religious values" when making their health care choices?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The grand irony here is that it is employers,NOT the government that is telling women what's best for their lives. The gov't wants to leave it up to the women.

Sandy, UT

Don, if this is such a moral, religious issue with the owners of Hobby Lobby, then why do they own stock in the very forms of contraception they want to reject in the health insurance they offer their employees? Why did they offer those contraceptives previous to the ACA? I reject the freedom of religion card. This is a landmark case that has many implications as Justice Ginsburg elaborated about but these issues could all be solved by implementing a single payer healthcare system. No more corporate religious rights would be imagined. You could focus on new bogus and we all could truly have access to the healthy choices you take for granted.

Salt Lake City, Utah

the author seems to have his cause and effect mixed up. Reid and others are attempting to return the decision making process to women instead of the corporations they work for when deciding which options are accessible when it comes to their own body .

Salt Lake City, UT

So the gov't saying you should have the option to access birth control through health insurance coverage is inferior to a company or some other entity saying they won't cover it at all (like Wheaton College that wants to exclude all forms of birth control, unlike Hobby Lobby which opposed just the four)?

Bountiful, UT

I think the question is at what point do I consider it my right to tell someone else they must do something they consider murder or else give up their livelihood? When do I get to tell Hindus they have to eat beef? When do I get to tell Jews and Muslims pork is what's for dinner or tell Buddhists to desecrate shrines?

According to this letter, when the alternative is to use one of sixteen other forms of contraceptive or cough up fifty bucks.

And why? Because, apparently, my reproductive choices ARE my employer's business--and they can either bankroll those choices or suffer the consequences.

Meanwhile, even though the argument is that it's the employee's choice, if an employee chooses not to pay money into a plan that pays for abortifacients, too bad, one man in Washington wants to take that choice away from me.

No One Of Consequence
West Jordan, UT

I'm so ashamed of our neighbors in Nevada who repeatedly send Harry Reid back to the Senate.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

How about we pay for our own birth control like responsible adults and keep government and corporations out of our personal decisions? I, for one, want to personally make my healthcare decisions with the advice of doctors with whom I have contracted for services.

E Sam
Provo, UT

An IUD is not an abortifacient.

J Thompson

The last time I checked, the Church that I belong to asked some questions about abortion before granting a recommend to attend the temple. Attending the temple is something that devout members of that Church do. The "blessings" of the temple and of the work performed there are paramount in the lives of those members.

The questions are:

1. Do you encourage abortions.

2. Do you pay for abortions.

3. Do you perform abortions.

A business could not honestly answer "NO" to questions 2 and 3 if it PAID for abortifacients as REQUIRED by Obama and ObamaCare. That is a direct infringement on our guanteed RIGHT to practice our religion without government control.

NO WOMAN is being denied abortifacients. If she wants an abortifacient, she can go to her local pharmacy and buy that abortifacient herself.

The issue at hand is whether the government can REQUIRE a business to be in the abortion business by paying 100% of the cost of those abortifacients.

The Court said NO. Some people object to that. Tough! That is the law of the land.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Let's see ---

WHO'S telling women what they can or can't do?

Is it the Government?
Is it a Corporation?


Salt Lake City, UT

"Who is he, his party or the government to have the authority or right to determine what is right and best for “women’s lives?”

I heartily agree. It should be women's choice what is best for their lives, not government, not the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, not Hobby Lobby, not any given religion. In the area of health insurance women should not be a special case subject to special sanctions. Hobby Lobby wants, as a matter of their own "religious liberty" to dictate to their female employees what their health care options are. This is unconscionable.

to comment

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