Published: Saturday, July 12 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
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
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
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.
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.
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.
So based on this letter, I assume that Robertson is a strong advocate in favor
of gay marriage...
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 .
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
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.
I'm so ashamed of our neighbors in Nevada who repeatedly send Harry Reid
back to the Senate.
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.
An IUD is not an abortifacient.
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.
Let's see --- WHO'S telling women what they can or
can't do?Is it the Government?or Is it a
"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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments