Quantcast
Opinion

Sarah Torre: Hobby Lobby does want bosses out of the bedroom; why are these liberal senators against that?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 17, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    To "John Harrison" you are wrong. Hobby Lobby is not restricting the choices of their employees. The employees are still free to go an purchase the abortion inducing drugs as they please.

    However, the Greens are the ones that are losing their choice and are being forced to do something that they believe is contrary to the Gospel.

    You are the one cheering on Satan's plan of force as the Greens are being forced to pay for drugs that cause abortions.

  • John Harrison Sandy, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    If I remember correctly, Satan's plan was to remove choice and thus ensure that everyone conformed to his expectations. While we as LDS regularly mock this plan we find ourselves cheering its implementation here on Earth all too often.

    Hobby Lobby is convinced of its own righteousness and wants to restrict the choices of its employees that might believe differently. The fact than an LDS owned media outlet would publish articles praising this behavior proves just how enticing Satan's plan can be.

    On top of that, the doublespeak of the headline would make Orwell jealous.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    July 16, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    Question: Does the New York Times, a corporation, have the right to freedom of the press? Or can the government muzzle them because they are a corporation? How about the Deseret News? Can the Times or the Des News issue an editorial? Should they be allowed to do so? Should the Times be allowed to propagandize in favor of Obama? They are a corporation and have no 1st Amendment rights, correct?

    If you think that the New York Times or the Washington Post can exercise the freedoms of the press, a 1st amendment freedom, then why can't Hobby Lobby exert their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion? If corporations have the freedom of speech, and of the press--and no one would, I hope, disagree with that--then why not freedom of worship?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" what, you couldn't handle the argument so you have to change it? You were arguing that the Greens were not the same as their business, but they are. (Yes they are financially liable for their business).

    Their business is no different than your vehicle. You own it, and you are responsible for it.

    Again, what would you do if the government told you that you had to buy products from the "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality" and keep them visible inside of your vehicle. Would you just comply or would you fight against it?

    Do you believe that the government should have the right to force you to buy products that go against YOUR beliefs? Would you fight the government if they told you to by products from "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality"?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    @RedShirt;

    Was Hobby Lobby born from a womb? No? Then it isn't the Greens. It is a corporation, not a person. It has no beliefs to violate.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" yes, the Greens are the same as their business. They own the business. It is not like Apple that is owned by thousands of shareholders.

    Imagine if the government told you that you had to buy products from the "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality" and keep them visible inside of your vehicle. Would you just comply or would you fight against it?

    That is what is going on with the Greens. They are being forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.

    The owner of HL is a person, and as an owner has property rights to control what is done with is property. You may disagree with his beliefs, but that does not give you the right to force him to do something that goes against his beliefs.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    @RedShirt:

    "Why is it wrong for the Greens to impose their religious views on their employees, but it is ok for you to impose your views on the Greens?"

    What you're essentially saying is that the corporation is the Greens and the Greens are the corporation. If that's the case, then the Greens should be held liable for every liability of the corporation and vice-versa.

    HL is not a person. Until the State actually executes a corporation for it's crimes, it is not a person.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 15, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    To "Marxist" you make no sense. You are saying that you would give away your golf clubs if it helped get your garden grow better. Getting rid of a grandchild to get your daughter out of a bad marriage makes no sense. You forget that your daughter likes being promiscuous, and doesn't believe in protection. She got pregnant because of her own choices. What would you do if she wanted to get rid of your grandchild because she doesn't want stretch marks? Nothing more than a superficial reason.

    As for a rape victim, why should Hobby Lobby have to cover drugs that are already included in the rape kits that hospitals have? The rape kits are paid for by the state, so why should Hobby Lobby have to pay for something that is already covered?

    Why is it wrong for the Greens to impose their religious views on their employees, but it is ok for you to impose your views on the Greens?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    Sarah, no matter how you slice it, corporations are not people, do not have religion nor worship. Until Hobby Lobby sits in the pews on Sunday, it isn't religious and has no need for "religious freedom".

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 9:28 p.m.

    @RedshirtMIT "To "Marxist" but hobby lobby is not discontinuing coverage for contraceptives. They are discontinuing coverage for drugs used to abort babies. Would you pay for your daughter to abort your grandchild?"

    Hobby Lobby is discontinuing coverage for IUD's and two types of "morning after" pills. I'm not certain how IUD's work, but my wife who has worked in emergency rooms says the morning after pills bring on a menstrual period and flush out a woman's reproductive track. Such is necessary in cases of rape which she dealt with (I guess you would oppose such uses in cases of rape?). So the morning after pill may be a kind of abortion, but what is being aborted is not a "baby." Many such fertilized eggs never "take" on their own.

    You asked me if I would pay for my daughter to abort. I have no problem with morning after pills and I would pay for an abortion if it helped her get out of an abusive marriage. Many women face just that issue.

    Lastly, Hobby Lobby has no right to impose their religious views on their employees period.

  • MoliterManus SLC, UT
    July 14, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    To accept that the medications in question induce abortions means that we must accept that life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized. If this is so, then would miscarriages not be an act of murder? Or at the very least manslaughter?

    Plus, now the the majority shareholder and the corporation are really the same person, there's no real argument as to why the shareholder cannot be held legally and criminally responsible for the actions and debts of the corporation.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    July 14, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    Since Hobby Lobby is objecting to abortificents, this ruling doesn't involve the bedroom. Aborted fetuses are disposed of elsewhere.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    July 14, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    To "Marxist" but hobby lobby is not discontinuing coverage for contraceptives. They are discontinuing coverage for drugs used to abort babies. Would you pay for your daughter to abort your grandchild?

    To "LOU Montana" but Hobby Lobby is willing to pay for 16 different types of birth control. So, it isn't really strange at all. Plus, how many babies are killed when a person has a vasectomy or a hysterectomy?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 14, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    It won't be long before we're divided in the workplace too I guess. Fudamentalists at places like Hobby Lobby and Chickfila.

    That's just how my friend describes his home country of SUDAN. He says if you aren't a Muslim with a long beard and a bruise on your forehead from praying, you can't get a job anywhere.

    Profit from division, that's what they are doing.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 14, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards.... you say "If we use LDS Liberal's argument that the 14th Amendment was a decree and not an amendment to the Constitution, then we're in deep trouble."

    No - we are in trouble if anyone thinks the 14th amendment has anything to do with the emancipation declaration. And yes, the 13th amendment was an attempt to fix a decree. Under the war powers act, the US had the right to take enemy property - to liberate it. The issue is that under the terms of the Civil War, Lincoln never recognized the legitimacy of the confederacy, did not view them as a sovereign state, and that the inhabitants of the south were truly still US Citizens.

    Where the emancipation proclamation runs into constitutional issues is with southerners still being citizens, property could not be taken without due process. Lincoln understood this and knew the proclamation was on shaky ground to he pushed hard for the 13th amendment to make the constitutionality of the proclamation moot.

    Trying to say the emancipation proclamation was not an executive order - but a precursor to the 13th.... that is a real stretch. The 14th does have everything to with abortion rights arguments.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 14, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    If it is improper to ask a business to share the cost of all health care for their employees without discrimination, why isn't it improper to force me to pay for part of the cost of their religion?

    Contribution that Hobby Lobby makes to the church of their religion is tax deductable which causes my taxes to be higher. Government should be fair to all people in the cost of government.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 14, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    @VST 7:37 p.m. July 13, 2014

    @Furry1993 said, “Life begins when the spirit and body join, according to the requirements for sealing established by the LDS Church.”

    If you are implying that the Church says a still-born child can be sealed to the Parents in the Temple, then you are wrong – that is not Church policy/doctrine. You referenced the word “sealing.” Furthermore, the Church has no official position on the moment that human life begins.

    -----------------------

    quite the contrary. I have discussed the issue with the LDS Church department handling sealings. I was told that the sealing ordinances are performed only for people who have lived and that stillborns and miscarried fetuses are not eligible for sealing because they never lived. (A birth and at least one breath taken thereafter is necessary for a person to be considered to have lived -- miscarried fetuses have not lived because they haven't been born or taken a breath; a stillbolrn is not considered to have lived because even though there was a birth, no breath was taken).

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 14, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    @Mountanman: Comparing birth control pills with medical procedures is ridiculous!

    Ridiculous? Many expensive to treat conditions are caused by lifestyle and diet choices. Birth control medications are about regulating hormones to have control over fertility and pregnancy and to treat other conditions. Well over 90% of women alive today have needed birth control at some point in their life, well over half of all women 15-44 are using birth control at any given time, and some 70% of married women use it.

    To claim that it is not an essential part of women's health care and treatment is like claiming an oil change is not an essential part of car care.

    None of these medications or treatments cause abortion - all four block fertilization of the egg.

    Take a survey of random women in a variety of settings - ask them if birth control is medical treatment or not. You will be educated.

    @Mel50:

    I feel you, I am currently without Rx coverage. My metformin is only $4, my wonderful pharmacist has worked hard to find and use discounts and coupons for anther Rx I get.

  • Mel50 Nashville, TN
    July 13, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    Stormwalker - I DO pay for my own insulin. Once obamacare went into effect, I lost my Rx coverage.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 13, 2014 8:54 p.m.

    If it is such a great crime to ask a business to share the cost of all health care for their employees without discrimination, why is it not a crime to force me to pay for part of the cost of their religion?

    Every contribution that Hobby Lobby makes to the church of their religion is tax deductible which causes my taxes to be higher. Government should be fair to all people in the cost of government.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    July 13, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    Interesting that they will pay for a vasectomy and a hysterectomy but they will not pay for birth control. How strange!

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 13, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    I appreciate the forum that the Deseret News provides for us all to air our opinions. If we are wise, we will think about the opinions of others before we jump to conclusions. We will think about the value of life. We will weigh the fact that we are living, breathing human beings against the lives that are invited by having sex. We will carefully consider the fact that having sex is an invitation to generate another living person who, I think, has the right to expect the Government of the United States to protect it at least as much as the Government of the United States protects the most despicable felon living on death row. Those felons receive a trial to prove that they deserve to be put to death. They are afforded lawyers who defend them, at public expense. They are allowed to appeal their sentence.

    What protections are in place for the unborn? If a woman decides that she does not want that baby, she can destroy it without citing the reason.

    Enough is enough. As a business owner, I will not pay for abortifacients.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 13, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    @ Stormwalker. Comparing birth control pills with medical procedures is ridiculous! In case no one ever explained it to you, one is about killing unborn or keeping them from being born and the rest is keeping people who were lucky enough to be born ALIVE and healthy! Don't be silly! And by the way, I have never tried to force my neighbors to pay for my medical expenses! Never have, never will!

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    July 13, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    What is Orwellian is reading about all those who hate liberty so much, and I am sure don't even understand what liberty means, that they are willing, with great fervor, to give it up to big brother without even knowing what they have done. If SCOTUS says it, it must be so; if Obama, or Bush, or a bureaucrat says it, then raise your hand and support it! If the SCOTUS were to say stampede off a cliff, most of the people writing here would lead the parade! How is it possible that anyone in the 21st century, with access to unlimited resources and information, could talk like this defies logic, as if they never knew what liberty and freedom ever meant! Your allegiance to a cess pool of power in Washington is not flattering. Why would anyone want to debate an issue with those who have taken an oath to the state as the supreme unquestioned ruler?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 13, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    @Mountanman: "If you want birth control, BUY YOUR OWN! Problem solved!"

    If you want a blood transfusion, buy your own.

    If you want blood pressure medication, buy your own.

    If you want heart surgery, buy your own.

    If you hip replacement, buy your own.

    If you want insulin, buy your own.

    An argument can be constructed against any of the above - the first on firmly established religious grounds, the next four on a sincere belief in a vegetarian diet and healthy lifestyle. Why should your employer have to pay for your lifestyle choices?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 13, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    Look at how many people are in favor of having the government give people rights. They seem to forget that our Creator gave us all rights, including the right to be free from an oppressive government that tells us that we must abandon all religion if we want to do business in the United States. Those people are demanding that the 1st Amendment be struck down. Do they know that the 1st Amendment not only protects religions from legislation from government, that it protects the individual from government intervention, but that it also protects us from the government dictating what we can say without permission from the government. In their haste to make us pay for their abortifacients, they are willing to sacrifice their right to demand that we pay for those abortifacients.

    If people thought about the unique opportunity that we have to be free from decrees from a President, they would demand that Obama stop his nonsense. They would demand that the press print the truth about our right to freely live our religion. They would demand that everybody stop demanding that others pay for their personal welfare.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 13, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    @mountain man

    employees are buying their own through their labor that earns them insurance which they also pay a premium on. this is not a gift from the business owners this is the employees earned income.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 13, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    So by limiting what options someone has under the health insurance they earn business is getting out of the bedroom and Liberals are forcing their way into the bedroom by arguing that peoples options should not be limited? Once again this author seems to have cause and effect a little mixed up.

  • Mel50 Nashville, TN
    July 13, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    It's funny how the feminists continually cry to "keep your laws and religion out of my bedroom and my womb... until I want you to pay for my birth control and abortion". There is not a single method of birth control that was legal before this ruling, that is not still legal today. The only difference is who pays for it. Not your boss's business? Then don't expect him to pay for it.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    July 13, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    The day after pill isn't some abortion pill!

    How bizarre it is to read several posts describe it that way. Do you folks even know what you're talking about? Or are you merely writing in anger towards Romneycare?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 13, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    @VST 11:45 a.m. July 13, 2014

    “Why doesn't hobby lobby focus on hiring people who share its values…”

    How about alternative: Why not those, who do not share the Hobby Lobby values, choose to become employed elsewhere?

    -----------------

    Because, especially if they are receiving State benefits (including unemployment) they are required to accept whatever job comes along, even if the conditions of employment (including but not limited to benefits) are substandard. Are you willing to allow a person to continue receiving benefits if they turn down a job which, like a Hobby Lobby job, would come with incompetent, substandard insurance that doesn't even provide coverage for all basic preventative health care?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 13, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    @Igualmente 11:47 a.m. July 13, 2014

    Sorry. Your statement is not correct. None of the prooduts at issue -- IUD or mediations -- are abortifacients. All they do is keep pregnancies from starting. That doesn't kill anything. Life begins when the spirit an body join, according to the requirements for sealing established by the LDS Church.

    I see where you're trying to go. So, let's talk about what happens in nature. Between a third an a half of all fertilized eggs never implants in the uterus an therefore never starts a pregnancy. Of the pregnancies that actually start, between a quarter and a third self-terminate in the first trimester. Even more self-terminate in the second and third trimesters, and at birth. Using your argument -- Mother Nature is quite a killer, isn't she?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 13, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    If we use LDS Liberal's argument that the 14th Amendment was a decree and not an amendment to the Constitution, then we're in deep trouble. The Emancipation Proclaimation was made law by that amendment. It was presented to the States and the States ratified it.

    Can Obama "decree" that you and I have to pay for abortions? Obama believes in abortions, even when the child could survive birth. As a state senator in Illinois, he picked the side that said that that newly born children could receive no medical care if it survived an attempted abortion. How draconian can we get?

    Those who don't want Hobby Lobby in their bedrooms are perfectly satisfied with having government in their bedrooms.

    Why can't the liberals understand that we are protected from a President who rules by decree, that the federal government has no authority to be in our bedrooms, that any duty not ENUMERATED in the Constitution is to be left to the States or to the People? Why is that concept so hard for Obama to understand and for liberals to understand? Why do they so easily give away their freedoms?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    July 13, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    Mike Richards,

    "Since when can the President 'decree' anything?"

    Executive orders enacted by Ronald Reagan: 381
    Orders enacted by George W. Bush: 291
    Orders enacted by Barack Obama: 182

    I'm guessing that the first two didn't bother you much...

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 13, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    This letter is bizarre, almost Orwellian as it turns the truth on its head. Giving women a choice does not limit their freedom; taking choice away DOES limit their freedom. Not vice versa. Not. Not. Not.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 13, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    "The bill would force families . . . . American employers to provide coverage of abortion-inducing drugs and devices, contraception and sterilization — regardless of religious objection."

    GOOD.

    Religious zealots should obey the law just like everyone else, don't you think?

    Corporations, even those run by religious zealots, have no business at all sticking their noses into the private lives of their employees, especially in relation to health care.

    That's not the American way . . . In spite of the recent Supreme Court Decision that bastardized the long-honored and very American principle of the separation of church and state.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 13, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    If you want birth control, BUY YOUR OWN! Problem solved!

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 13, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    A visit to the website of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology reveals the friend-of-the-court brief they filed in this case.

    The problem is that none of the four drugs at the center of the case actually cause an abortion. Two drugs either delay or interrupt ovulation - there is no egg to be fertilized. Extensive research shows that if the egg is fertilized and the either drug is taken the embryo still implants normally.

    One of the IUDs functions to increase and thicken cervical mucus, so it is impenetrable by sperm, again making fertilization impossible. The second IUD is copper, it releases copper ions that are toxic to sperm, again making fertilization of the egg impossible.

    The SCOTUS decision was not based on the actual effect of these drugs. It was based on the Green families religious belief about what these drugs do. And, like every other religious belief, it is wrong.

    The Hobby Lobby decision was a major step back into the dark ages, where misinformed religious belief about science trumps actual science.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    July 13, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    The Hobby Lobby ruling is NOT restricting contraceptives. It restricts abortifacients, the after conception drugs that are used after the 'choice' is made. So, in effect, the healthcare for all, that is promoted by Obamacare, is now even more inclusive. The right to choose ends where life begins.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 13, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    No person in America has the right to demand that her employer pay for her abortion. If she wants an abortion, she can buy those pills herself.

    =======

    What about those of us - including the LDS Church -
    who feel Rape, Incest and Life and Health of the woman would justify it?

    BTW -- Viagra and other ED promoting pills are covered.
    So, why won't you say "if a man wants to enhance performance, he can buy those pills himself."?
    Double standard?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 13, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby and any other business can run their business any way they want so long as it is not in America and it doesn't involve Americans as consumers and Americans as employees.

    Business operations in America do so only with the permission of the government(s) that apply to the location. That permission is granted only to those business operations that agree to the specifications made and enforced by government. There are no Constitutional rights or privileges, even for churches, for business operations.

    Consumers and employees are both protected classes of people. Their health, welfare, safety and personal being are prime functions of our government. While extreme latitude is allowed to business operations, they are not wanted to use their economic power to influence people. It is our leaders duty and responsibility to maintain that protection.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    July 13, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    If a civilized society is what is supported by the Democrats, Republicans, or Marxists, it is easy to see why there are so many independent minded people that don't want anything other than what the Constitution allows. if Marxists, Democrats, or Republicans don't understand what that is, then for people like me, I am quite content and happy to support any citizen or politician that wants to end any government program. If they want to end it, I am for it! It doesn't matter what it is because anything would be better than what we have! No need to debate; no need to wonder! Consistency is a virtue that even the simplest man will respond. Gridlock is wonderful, but ending any possibility for future government programs is even better!

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 13, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    What is the definition of abortion? It's the termination of pregnancy, right? According to the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, pregnancy does not occur unless implantation occurs. The morning after pill most typically prevents ovulation. In some cases a morning after pill can prevent implantation of an egg, but pregnancy has not occurred still. Two of the IUDs that Hobby Lobby protests do not even prevent implantation. The copper one can, but that's only if placed after intercourse. Once again, not abortion.

    That being said, this issue goes beyond the Hobby Lobby case. There are about 100 other companies who are now claiming they deserve religious immunity as well and some want to deny coverage of ANY contraceptive, not just ones they believe are "abortifacients" despite the fact that some women use contraceptives for other legitimate medical needs other than preventing pregnancy.

    What this bill is trying to do is remove religious immunity from health care concerns because it is of no concern to the employer how their employee uses their benefits. It's sad when we give a company more consideration and rights than a real human being.

  • PG #1 FAN Lindon, UT
    July 13, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    This entire issue is a joke. Hobby Lobhy has chosen to operate as a corporation and have the tax advantages associated with being a corporation. Now they want individual religious rights aside from the corporation. Disavow the corporate structure and operate as a wholly owned noncorporate entity. File your business tax return on a Schedule C on the 1040 form and get no benefit from LLC structure such as immunity from lawsuits, protection of personal assets etc. If you want to be a family owned business and be a family owned business. Corporations are entities, not people. You can set up your financial affair in any manner of your choosing but there are often unintended consequences with those decisions. Don't get all the advantages of a corporation and then beg to be treated like a person with individual religious liberty.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 13, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    In America we believe in "due process". An unborn child has the right to "due process". Killing that unborn child is allowed under Roe v Wade, but Roe v Wade does not require the employer to pay for the abortion. Many of us do not condone abortion. Many of us detest abortion.

    Since when can the President "decree" anything?

    8:29 a.m. July 13, 2014

    ========

    ...and many of you would not allow it
    - even for Rape, Incest, or Life or Health of the Woman.
    AND
    That is why I do not agree with you.

    btw -- Abraham Lincoln freed the Slaves by "decree".

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    July 13, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    I suppose if Hobby Lobby advertised for employees who agree with them the left would go out of their minds.
    They already provide 16 birth control methods to their employees (and BTW, they pay double minimum wage). Seems to me you might want to plan ahead.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 13, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Sarah Torre is the policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. She focuses on policy issues related to religious liberty, marriage and family.

    ========

    No political motive,
    No agenda,
    No Lobbying,

    Why does the Deseret News consistently offer such a one-sided, lop-sided, biased, sounding board for all things conservative?

    In 8th grade - I was taught ALL Journalism required an opposing view point.
    Propaganda did not.

    So Deseret News -- Where is that line between "journalism" and "propaganda"?
    20 to 1
    40 to 1?

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    July 13, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    An IUD is not an abortifacient. And some women are medically unable to use other forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby's owners are not being asked to personally perform abortions. They're merely being asked to fully provide all FDA approved medications. The decision of which one she should use should be made by her, in consultation with her doctors. Her employer has no appropriate role to play in her medical decisions.

  • Young Moderate Logan, UT
    July 13, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    @Marxist. I agree. Women are adults, not children. They can pay for the things they want themselves.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 13, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    Dumb question. There is such a thing as antibiotic resistant gonorrhea. If you get it then you can't be cured.

    By emphasizing contraceptives and not talking about condoms, then people will assume that with contraception they are safe.

    If someone has to take a 'morning after pill' because they made a mistake with their boyfriend, (a married couple wouldn't make that kind of a mistake) then they are engaging in risky behavior. Contraceptives isn't going to help them.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 13, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    Instead of letting just a few 'people', which is to say the personhood of corporations, provide us with health care, why not make it the responsibility of all of us. After all, the only individuals that actually will never need health care are corporations. In spite of court rulings to the contrary, they're really not actually people.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 13, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    There is a logical conundrum in this article. The main contention is that Obamacare restricts people's access to healthcare because it decides the minimum amount of coverage people must have. What it fails to mention is that employers are free to add whatever they like beyond the minimum. In the case of Hobby Lobby, that corporation didn't want to implement a portion of the minimum requirement, yet according to this article, that is expanding one's healthcare options, not constricting it. Go figure! I'm still scratching my head over that twisted logical fallacy.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 13, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Some people are still promoting the lies being told by Harry Reid and the Obama administration about the Hobby Lobby case. Some people believe those lies. Some people believe that a woman cannot buy abortifacients herself. Some people believe that she can only get those abortifacients if her employer pays for them.

    The truth is that abortifacients cause abortions. No person in America has the right to demand that her employer pay for her abortion. If she wants an abortion, she can buy those pills herself.

    In America we believe in "due process". An unborn child has the right to "due process". Killing that unborn child is allowed under Roe v Wade, but Roe v Wade does not require the employer to pay for the abortion. Many of us do not condone abortion. Many of us detest abortion.

    Obama has decreed that all employers must pay for abortions. Since when can the President "decree" anything?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 13, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    I find it rather amusing that by providing choice - one is accused of limiting ones freedoms. Just because an employer, or even the government provides birth control services, does not mean anyone HAS to avail themselves of them. Just as if I go to an eating establishment that serves alcohol - I am not compelled to partake. And if no one at that venue partakes, then the average cost for that venue will also go down.

    Why doesn't hobby lobby focus on hiring people who share its values - and therefor makes the entire proposition moot. Choice is not restricter of freedom. One can support peoples right to choose - right and wrong - without partaking in those individual decisions themselves.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 13, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    Great article. Liberals want government out of THEIR bedrooms, not yours!

  • Sal Provo, UT
    July 13, 2014 6:05 a.m.

    The government can easily provide any types of contraceptives that women want. There is no justification to force religious companies to kill the unborn.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2014 1:35 a.m.

    I might also add that the conferring of personhood on Hobby Lobby is an excellent example of Marx's "fetishism of commodities," whereby we treat people like things, and things like people.

    The only real people are people - men, women, and children. Corporations, businesses, religions, trade groups, chambers of commerce etc are not people. Only people have rights. Women as people have rights. They are not commodities. They are always people.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2014 12:23 a.m.

    The simple fact remains that contraceptives are a major part of women's health care - and in the reproductive years a dominant part. Restrictions and exceptions as required by Hobby Lobby and others will make it harder for women to get needed care. This is particularly true for women making the despicably low American minimum wage. An IUD requires intervention by a doctor the expense of which will likely be out of reach for many women if they have to obtain such outside of their employer provided insurance.

    Women are adults, they are not children or property.