If Viagra is covered, so should birth control.
It is not that the employer does not want to pay for contraceptives; it is their
belief that providing those contraceptives makes them an accessory to what they
believe their religion teaches is a sin.
Christian 24-7., A1994I can only ask that your seek the real facts
for yourself. Think of business as a highway. You may drive your
own personal business on the highway but that does not give you ownership of the
highway. The rules of the road are made by the owner of the highway.
@Midwest Mom"IF a worker earns a benefit, including medical
coverage, then they have every right to make decisions regarding what now
belongs to them. "If an employee signs a contract and agrees to
certain benefits, that's the deal. Don't use the federal government
to impose your values on everybody else. You are under the assumption that a
company exists to provide jobs and benefits. A company is in business to make
money for the owner. The job and benefits are a by-product of that goal. If a
company wants to provide certain benefits, the woman seeking those benefits can
apply for that job. It's the governments role to impose your will.
@Mint JulipYou are so wrong. Hobby Lobby is a PRIVATE business!!!
Women who want contraception can buy it! Who are YOU to impose your beliefs on
the rest of us?
Remind me again why I a private business has to buy your birth control? For
crying out loud! Take some responsibility! It doesn't cost THAT much money
that you need it subsidized by your fellow Americans. There is also a sure-fire
way NOT to get pregnant. When did we become animals?
IF a worker earns a benefit, including medical coverage, then they have every
right to make decisions regarding what now belongs to them. The free
market only works when there is real competition. Today, monopolies exist
everywhere and there is a surplus of workers. Labor is unorganized. All of the
options are on the side of big corporate power.Good and smart
employees can’t always afford to make adjustments. I am
amazed at the lack of empathy on the part of some who feel safe and comfortable.
No person is an island. There are some who need to remember that. Freedom does involve risks and challenges, but big money in America today
stacks the deck in their favor. The attack on voting rights should be evidence
enough to show that the common man’s freedom is not the goal. There are
more options and outcomes than the choice between freedom and government
control. The new corporate, oligarchical plutocracy is not free, nor fair, nor
good for the future of our country.
Would this set any precedent that the goverment would require an employeer to
cover assisted sucide activities. Would objections have to be on religious
grounds,or could an employeer determin that they just didn't want to be a
part of that practice?Maybe that is a "way-out" comparison,
but say a half century ago the idea of covering a church for someone to have an
abortion would have been considered 'way-out."
@JoeBlowIF the employer pays, provides coverage for medical
insurance, then they have every right to make decisions regarding what
they pay for.IF you don't like their coverage then don't
work for that employer,let the free market work.The best
employers with the best package will get the best employees.and
other employers get what they get.Good and smart employers will make
adjustments.It's amazing the fears the left keeps shoving in
everyone's face,freedom means there will be risks and
challenges.But I would rather have freedom than live under leftest
government control of everything and everyone.
Ultra Bob says, "Business is owned by the society of people wherein the
business is operated."That is a socialist attitude, plain and
simple. If we enact laws to that extent, we will be a socialist country. You quote the first amendment, but then ignore the "free exercise
clause". This does not mean just behind closed doors. That would be the
Soviet Union style freedom, which was not freedom, and was socialism, to the
extreme.You ask, "Could an atheist ban his employees and
customers from wearing or displaying any sort of other religious clothing,
jewelry or activity, or race, or anything else." Sure, it is a
free country, and it is his business, despite what you may think.Many businesses have taken moral stands, and they glean some customers and
lose others. That is called freedom. What he cannot do is force
people to work for him or patronize his business.
I would simply urge any corporation that wishes to have full control of their
employee relationships to take the company private and surrender the protections
of corporate status. Then they can do what they want. As long as they are a
corporation, with the legal protections included in that status, they exist at
the pleasure of the government and are subject to any and all regulation
Hobby Lobby is imposing NOTHING on anybody. They simply do not wish to pay for
contraception for their employees. They should not be forced to do so.
To Belching Cow 12:07 p.m. Nov. 21, 2012@Mint Julip"Women
have the right to good and proper health care with decisions made between them
and their medical providers."No one has said otherwise. Hobby
Lobby is providing it's employees with good and proper health care.------------------------Unless and until Hobby Lobby
provides its employees with insurance for them and their families that includes
all forms of contraception, incluing emergency contraception, it is not
providing its employees with good and proper health care.
GiuseppeG. Asks:“Explain again why Hobby Lobby has to pay for
those choices when those choice violate the owners' personal morality.
...Answer:When you voluntarily choose to live in a
civilized society and take part in the benefits and obligations of that society
you are not going to agree with everything that society does. You have to weigh
the good against the bad and make your own decision. No one can make you do
anything you don’t want to do, but they can impose consequences on you if
you do the undesired things. The Constitution gives special status
to churches and religions of God, but it does not give any such special status
to business operations. However neither churches, business operations and
especially individuals may be exempt from the law of the United States of
America. The idea of freedom of religion is to not allow any one
to impose his religion on others. The idea of being an American is to
fairly share all the benefits and costs that come with the membership. But
without agreement on being different, America would be a sham.
The owners of Hobby Lobby are attempting to control the lives of their employees
and force their beliefs on others -- something most of the conservatives here
would decry, if it were a Muslim or an atheist cast in the role of employer.It's all spin anyway. Hobby Lobby would not be forced to pay for
abortions. Hobby Lobby would pay for an insurance benefit, period. What the
employee does with that benefit is their business and their right to private,
personal religious conviction.Are the owners of Hobby Lobby equally
concerned about men who may use contraception in order to have extra-marital
affairs, without pregnancy complications? Are the owners of Hobby Lobby worried
about employee benefits paying for drug treatment or STDs? If this
were about religious freedom, then why should an employer's right to their
particular faith brand trump the employee, who has earned that benefit and who
then owns the right to use it? I am sickened by those who wave the
flag and parade their faith in public in order to gain privilege and oppress
their fellow men, women and children.
re: Mint JulipExplain again why Hobby Lobby has to pay for those
choices when those choice violate the owners' personal morality. Seems to
me you have it flipped. "I want to do (insert whatever moral choice you want
here), therefore you MUST pay for it even though you view that choice as morally
wrong." Who is interjecting whoms morality on the other in this case?Read an article that you can get a month's supply of birth control
pills at Target for $9. Seems an awful small price to trample the freedom of
others who don't agree with your particular brand of morality.And...the discussion is on contraception, not lifesaving measures.
That's a totally different point and off-topic for this discussion.
"If he provides any, it should be up to him to decide what he covers and
what he does not. "Hmm. Can you imagine the outcry if a
business owner decided the insurance he provided would only cover the first 2
children? Or if they only wanted to cover the birth of males?Or if they refused to cover STD related issues.How about if
only providing health coverage for white people.My, we could go on
Actually JSB, Obama did meet with representatives from those organizations when
the law was being drafted, and when they read it, they endorsed it. Even if
they hadn't participated, upon reading it they still found it beneficial.
It's a pretty impressive list within the healthcare industry.As
to Benghazi, I'm not sure where you think Obama has something weighing on
his conscience. In the immediate aftermath, the nature of the attack was
mischaracterized, though with the heavy disclaimer that the investigation was
ongoing. As further evidence came to light, the official statements reflected
that. You are making the mistake of thinking that evidence of emails with the
correct story means the administration knew what happened. In the immediate
aftermath, a lot of contrary information pours in, and it is then the task of
those who receive it to judge what seems most probable. Do you remember 9/12
when it still was widely speculated that Palestinians were responsible?
Congress reduced embassy security budget by $300,000,000, than proceeds to blast
the administration when someone dies? That's like blaming an underfunded
police force for not stopping every single murder.
Sasha Pachev.Business is owned by the society of people wherein the
business is operated. A private person may own all the buildings,
processes and inventories of a business operation but he does not own business.
He can only operate his business operation with the permission of the people who
have the right, authority, and the means to regulate the business operation.
The people give their permission by a document called a business
license. The business license is given in return for a commitment to operate
the business operation according to the wishes of the society. Those wishes are
codified as laws and regulations and apply to all businesses operations equally.
The laws specify to the businessman the what, how and when of the business
operation, right down to the hours, pay and working conditions of employees.
The people’s agent in this is their government. However,
businessmen using their financial power to influence government can and do
thwart the wishes of the people and use the power of government to favor some
business operations over others. It is for the people to fix this if they can.
As a business owner very concerned with my bottom line, I would be willing to
believe in all the non-sense written in these comments if I could save a
dime.What a bunch of non-sensical positions.All of you
who criticize President Obama so harshly, what about Congress that doesn't
stop him "taking over the country?. What about the Supreme Court? the GOP
controls both of them.
@JSB -- The Benghazi fiasco bothers me as much as did the slaughter of over 200
Marines by terrorists in Lebanon when Reagan was president and the murder of
thousands by terrorists when Bush was president. Did those killings also bother
you or are you only bothered when a Democrat (aka to you: Marxist, Socialist
Kenyan) is President. Didn't see any Republicans calling for a Watergate
style investigation or screaming to high heaven when those atrocities occurred.
And you also did not see any Democrats doing it either. Democrats have the
common sense to know that attacks on our country are a time to pull together,
not a time to score one for the partisan team.
Mint Julip,I don't speak for Belching Cow, (which is a
hilarious name I love) but I think religious freedom, which is not inflicted on
others, is what the constitution protects. If the employer
doesn't believe in medical care, he/she shouldn't have to provide it.
The employer would have to disclose to potential employees, and then potential
employees are free to choose to work for them or not. This in no way inflicts
religion on anyone. People who don't like that their employees
don't get insurance, don't have to shop there. Again, no one is
forced to participate in any religion. Everyone gets to choose, religious and
non-religious alike.I oppose restricting religious freedom, except
in extreme circumstances where people are harmed in the practice of religion, as
in human sacrifice, virgin sacrifice, eliminating the infidels, etc. You get the
idea. I would also oppose kidnapping people to make them go to church.Religious of freedom for all! (including those who want no religion)
@Mike in SandyAhhh come on Mike the fine folks at Hobby Lobby are going to
@Mint Julip"Women have the right to good and proper health care with
decisions made between them and their medical providers."No one
has said otherwise. Hobby Lobby is providing it's employees with good and
proper health care.
OHBU: Endorsing is not the same thing as participating in writing the law. And
those organizations didn't do that because no one had read the law until
after it was passed and signed by the President. Which is another example of
Obama's willingness to deceive. He said that all bills would be put online
48 hours before he signed them. I'm still very glad that I don't have
it on my conscience that I voted for him. I wonder if the Benghazi mess bothers
his conscience? OHBU: Doesn't the Benghazi fiasco give you second thoughts
To PP: In response to my comment that biblical passages give divine approval to
the termination of unborn human life, you wrote: "Not in the bible the rest
of us read."I read the King James version.The God of
the King James Bible very clearly allows--even commands--the termination of
unborn life. In Numbers 5:11-31 we read that God authorizes the use of
"bitter water" to abort a fetus. At other times, prophets order the
putting to death of adulteress women, some of whom would have been pregnant.
Prophets also order the slaying of pregnant women in Ssmaria and elsewhere. The LDS Church has a responsible position on abortion, allowing it in
four different circumstances, and on contraception, leaving it up to individuals
to decide for themselves.
An employer should not be required to provide health insurance at all. If he
provides any, it should be up to him to decide what he covers and what he does
not. He also should not be told who he should or should not hire or how much to
pay. This is the spirit of free market. It is his business. If he makes a bad
decision, let the free market punish him. If you think he is making a bad
decision, start a competing business and prove it. If we want America to be
great we need to stop having a dependent mentality where we constantly expect
somebody else to solve our problems.
Chik-Fil-A----off my list.Hobby Lobby, see ya.
@Counter IntelligenceEither you and I have a different definition of what
an abortofacient is or you don't understand the law. Because the law only
mandates coverage for drugs that prevent a pregnancy, like IUD's, pill
birth control, plan B, hormone injections etc. Some people call plan B an
abortofacient, but that shows a lack of understanding of that drug. The plan B
pill is nothing more than a large dose of standard pill birth control. If the
egg has already been fertilized it does nothing to the pregnancy.
@IJ"I can't blame the secessionists. It's 1776 all
over again."Not only 1776 but also 1861
@Henry Drummond"Why should a company be allowed to impose their
religious beliefs on their employees?"To begin with Hobby Lobby
is not imposing their religious beliefs on anyone, no one is forcing their
employees to work there and no on is stopping his employees for paying for their
own contraception. There is a rather elegant solution. Don't work for
them. Yvon Chouinard the founder of Patagonia put it well. Patagonia gives
money to Planned Parenthood. Some of his employees where not comfortable with
that because of their religious beliefs. Yvon basically stated that if they
have any heartburn over it then they shouldn't be working for him. I
agree. If you don't like the way your employer does things then don't
work for him. They have a right to do with their business as they think is
correct and moral. If you don't like it tough, start your own business or
work elsewhere. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
When will Americans say NO to the encroachment of organized religion up our
freedom, rights and privileges. Will it be before or after the war of religions
and their haste to bring about the end of our world. Amendment
I:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Can the phase
“an establishment of religion” be extended to a business owned by a
church or even a religious individual who has an intense belief in God? Can an
individual’s intense belief be his religion even if he doesn’t
believe in God? Does a person have the right to believe and exercise his belief
as he pleases even to the refusal to abide by the civil laws and rules of our
society?Could an atheist ban his employees and customers from
wearing or displaying any sort of other religious clothing, jewelry or activity,
or race, or anything else. Because his personal belief says he should.
Freedom of religion is everyone's right until it comes up against the goals
of the Obama administration and the liberal agenda. I'm so afraid for my
Once you accept corporation status, you become a semi-governmental agency. If
Hobby Lobby were a sole proprietorship, they would have a case - but when you
become a corporation, you accept certain governmental regulation in exchange for
significant legal protection from individual responsibility. Bottom line is, you
can't have ti both ways. Once you sell your soul to the government, you
don't get to whine about your owner.
Women have the right to good and proper health care with decisions made between
them and their medical providers. Hobby Lobby does not have the right to
interject their morality into that decision making process. IUD's that inhibit the implantation process of a fertilized egg are used
for far more than birth control. Just ask my sister who nearly died from a rare
blood disorder that causes life threatening bleeding. Her IUD saves her life
every month. As if that's not enough, just this week a women in Ireland
lost her baby and her own life because religious influence stopped doctor's
from giving her what would have been a life saving abortion.
"The government is getting involved in a lot of things that are not its
business and it is limiting people's rights."Tek,
How right you are! But that is where BO wants to be. He wants to be the king
of America. He is a power grabbing narcicist and wants to control everyone;
under the guise of helping. He claims to be a constitutional attorney - and yet
he violates it every chance he gets. During and before the debates, he claim to
support the 2nd amendment and now is pushing for the UN resolution to turn gun
control over to them. Everything he has done and is doing is in violation of
his sworn oath as POTUS. I can't blame the secessionists. It's 1776
all over again.
mintjulip, you raise an interesting comparision, though you may not be aware of
some of the exceptions given to Muslims for their religious beliefs.The
other point is the fact that the government is using our taxes to pay for
abortions that most Americans don't approve of or believe in.It's outragious to think that someone can get pregnant, not have the
money to pay to have the living infant aborted, but they can ask the government
to pay to have it done and they can use my taxes to pay for it.And they
can force medical personnel to perform the abortion against their beliefs if the
hospital performs abortions.Now tell me that is a fair and just way of
running the government.
@Mint Julip"Would you feel the same way if you were employed by
someone who is religiously opposed to scientific medicine, believing only in
faith healing via their God?"That is a false narrative. Just
because the employer does not pay for your "scientific medicine" does
not deny you the right to get it on your own; either by paying for it directly
or getting supplemental insurance yourself.Your argument is a rather
passive/aggressive backward way of saying that simply because YOU want something
means that someone else must provide and pay for it. When the real question is;
why don't YOU do it yourself and leave them out of it.YOU are
making the argument of the perpetrator, imposing YOUR values onto others - you
are not the victim because you have not been harmed - you merely weren't
successful in manipulating someone else to do what you want (and they don't
want) rather than do it yourselfSo how would I feel if I were
employed by someone who is religiously opposed to scientific medicine (or
anything else)?I would respect their opinion, live with it, get my own
insurance or find another job
@TekakaromatagiIf this business owner was Jehovah's Witness,
would you deem it acceptable for him to refuse blood transfusions as part of his
employees health care, since it would mean forcing him to 'violate his
religious beliefs'?At what point does a business owners
religious belief system supersede the religious rights of his employees? In my
opinion, they are completely separate. My religious beliefs are between me and
my church, not me and my employer. If I am a devout follower, it doesn't
matter if my company insurance provides contraception...it's up to me to
choose not to use it if it violates my belief system.
Why should a company be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their
@Noodlekaboodle"So I don't get how birth control is the
same as an abortion." Therein lies the Obama obfuscation: Although
the law is billed as a contraception mandate, the offending portion of the
mandate includes abortofacient drugs, commonly known as abortion pills, that
cause miscarriage AFTER pregnancy occursHobby Lobby is not suing
over birth control, they are suing over abortion pills Even if they
were suing over contraception - there are religious denominations (Catholics)
that prohibit contraception and their tenets are supposed to be protected by the
First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom.Those who myopically
argue that everyone should obey the law continue the obfuscation; there is a
vast difference between telling a religious person they CANNOT do something that
is OK with their religion and telling them they MUST do something that violates
their religion ( i.e telling someone they CANNOT have a polygamous marriage is
vastly different than telling them they MUST have one).
Noodlekaboodle:I agree with your view of birth control. But, it is
against his religion and because of the 1st amendment he should not be forced to
violate his religious beliefs. The government is getting involved in a lot of
things that are not its business and it is limiting people's rights.People have argued here that Democrats are socialists. I disagree, if
anything they are on the other side of the political spectrum and they seem to
be moving us towards a "kinder, gentler" fascism.
@Belching Cow,Would you feel the same way if you were employed by
someone who is religiously opposed to scientific medicine, believing only in
faith healing via their God? Would you feel the same way if you were a female
employed by someone that believes it is immoral for women to work or to show
their faces? These beliefs exist and fortunately so do laws that require
employers to follow certain rules despite their religious beliefs.
Ok, So I don't get how birth control is the same as an abortion. It stops
the process before it ever starts. Men have nocturnal emissions if they
don't have sex. Using the hobby lobby logic that's the same as an
abortion as well.
JSB:Did he really renege on that promise? The law was endorsed by
the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Mayo Clinic, and the Cleveland Clinic.
@Mint JulipYou admit to that? LOL!Hobby Lobby should not be
forced to provide health coverage for things they feel are immoral. What a
Steve C. Warren - "On multiple occasions, biblical passages give divine
approval to the termination of unborn human life."....Uhhhh...
Not in the bible the rest of us read.
Those who claim to be pro-choice - but refuse to allow anyone the choice to say
NO to participating in an abortion (or providing abortifacient drugs); are
merely faux-choice hypocritesThey personify everything they claim to
Do you think Hobby Lobby is aware that their so-called "Christian
beliefs" are not in harmony with the Bible? On multiple occasions, biblical
passages give divine approval to the termination of unborn human life.I'm glad that my own church does not condemn contraceptive use but allows
members to decide for themselves about using them.
r.e. NedGrimley. That's the way that Obama designed the program. Actually,
in his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama said that he would organize a committee
or group of health care professionals, insurance people, and other specialists
who would design a good health care program. I thought this was a good idea.
But, like so many of his promises, once he was elected, this group never
materialized. He lied and just turned it over to congress and we ended up with a
2600 page monstrosity. Obama bragged in the debates that he knows how to work in
a bipartisan way, but Obamacare was passed without even one Republican vote!
Like Benghazi, just another Obama deception to add to the long, and growing
list. I am amazed that so many people can't see how non transparent he is.
Or maybe they just don't care.
So it's all about keeping the poor people poor...? Brilliant!
Hobby Lobby has another possible course of action if the court rules against
them. They can make all their employees part-time and not have to violate their
beliefs to run their business because then they won't have to buy Obamacare
for them.Actually BO is a genius with this plan (or whoever it was
that drafted it). Retailers and restaurants and other low-wage employers will
all have to cut ALL their employees to part time so they won't have to buy
Obamacare, thereby creating more part-time job openings and reducing the
apparent unemployment rate. Of course, all those people will be even poorer and
MORE dependent on big brother and therefore more likely to vote for the
dependency party - uh, the dem party - and BO therefor even more solidifies his
party's base. So what if the people are poor just so long as the dems
Thank me. I voted for Obama!
Don't blame me. I voted for Romney!