Former Democratic congressman: 'It is possible to support Obamacare and Hobby Lobby'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 14, 2014 12:56 p.m.


    There are NO abortifacients covered by the ACA mandate. None. Hobby Lobby is wrongly and dishonestly characterizing morning after pills as abortifacients though there is NO evidence they interfere with a fertilized egg.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    March 14, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    olderGreg - red herrings are all they have. Most of their arguments are dishonest as disingenuous. That's all they've got.

    Its not my responsibility to make sure someone else doesn't have children. You want birth control? Pay for it. Try some personal responsibility on for size once in a while

  • tateofpa state college, PA
    March 14, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    Bart Stupak Isn't he the guy who trusted Obama and other dems and then got double-crossed on the contraception mandate? Yep he believe Obama and the dems lies that gave us Obamacare good to see him as an ex congressman.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    March 13, 2014 6:24 p.m.

    Hutterite: That is a red herring. The transfusion thing was "not an option for *me*", never was about denying you the option. Medical science has provided suitable alternatives for the practitioners of "that" religion.

    Nobody is denying medical services to anybody. The specific issue is a few specific abortificants that are sticker-priced cheaper than most copays. The employers are *not* saying "you can't have that" -- they are saying "don't make me an active participant in murder" (in line with their core beliefs) by making me pay for it.

    Those specific items are not in the law, they are a part of a bureaucratically established list created in administering the law.

  • SaltyPepper Bountiful, UT
    March 13, 2014 5:25 p.m.


    Soooo... do corporations NOT have the right to be closed on Sundays? Must every restaurant provide liquors? Every supermarket sell cigarettes? Must all waitresses be topless? Etc., etc., etc. Of course not. Your contention that actions of corporations cannot reflect the scruples of owners/management because they are "corporations" is patently ridiculous.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 13, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    Corporations do NOT have religious beliefs. They absolutely do NOT deserve "religious exemptions".

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 13, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    It's a mistake to enable religion in any capacity. It shouldn't even be an issue in health care. What happens the first time a person is denied coverage for a blood transfusion because it goes against their employers' religion?