LOL @ Open Minded Mormon"If hobby lobby agrees to cover the cost
of the child"This kind of reasoning is going to far. How about
this: avoid sexual intercourse. Ha
To "LDS Liberal" you should be able to explain that quite easily. You
say you are a libertarian, but would be perfectly happy implementing
Communism.How is it that you can say you are all for freedom at the
same time you want to government to be oppressive and freedom killing?
RFLASHSalt Lake City, UT====== Agreed.How can SAY you are for freedom and liberty, and then BAN just about
anything you disagree with for everyone else?
Why do Christians feel a need to stick their noses into the sexual lives of
others? How do they know which employees would use the insurance to get
contraceptives? Maybe they are married? Does Hobby Lobby interview potential
employees and make them explain their sex lives before they get the job? I think
religion has become so old to people because we are getting sick of all the self
righteous people who constantly judge and condemn people! It is creepy! I
certainly wouldn't work for these people! They have so much contempt for
I was pondering last night....If what conservatives say is true --
that CORPORATIONS are indeed people, and fully protected by the
Constitution....Then, Could the Biblical Anti-Christ spoken of
in the book of Revelations, Book of Mormon, and by numerous other prophets &
Apostles - both ancient and Modern -- actually be a CORPORATION?I
will keep thinking and pondering, but something about that rings true....
Excellent comment on piercing the corporate veil. Either a corporation is a
separate entity or it's not. Why do we have the legal structure of
incorporation if it doesn't mean anything.
@Kora:You are, of course, right. A patient can ask, and a physician
can prescribe and neither the insurance company nor the employer can actually
stop that from happening. I still - and this is my opinion -
don't think it is the employer's business. They are providing
compensation that includes pay and benefits. Trying to restrict the use of the
benefits to fit their religion is, in my opinion, no different than if they
insisted on paying employees with a pre-paid debit card and then restricted the
employee from buying alcohol or cigarettes for religious reasons. And I disagree with Citizens United for the same reason I would disagree with
giving a citizen with Multiple Personality Disorder the right for each
personality to make the maximum campaign contribution or for each personality to
vote. A corporation is people, but those people already have the
right to contribute to campaigns, to express an opinion, to vote. Extending
"speech" and now "religious rights" to a legal construct seems
disingenuous at best, especially because the executives and board already have
Stormwalker- Explain how Hobby Lobby not paying for contraception prevents a
doctor from prescribing it and the women going to the drug store to purchase it.
I am a physician and. I can write a woman a prescription for birth control even
if they don't have insurance. And no insurance has ever told me what I can
prescribe or prevented someone from purchasing the medicine out of their own
pocket, ever. I treat a lot of uninsured college students, and everyone who
wants birth control is able to get it. This being the case, why does insurance
have to pay for it? It is $9 at Walmart, or free a many clinics.What
did the Citizens United case that went to the Supreme Court decide? It
essentially stated that Corporations had the same Constitutional rights as
individuals and are protected by Free Speech rights in the 1st Amendment. If
that is the case, why would these same corporations be protected by the rest of
the 1st Amendment?
I get and agree with the idea of a company owner should have the right to not
spend their resources on things they do not believe in. But that
doesn't explain the moral contradiction here where Hobby Lobby has no
issues sending their dollars to China to buy cheap products, a country that is
well known for its single child policy. I am not sure how you justify the
contradiction. It makes their moral stand seem rather conditional rather than
based on any deep seeded principles. It makes one wonder if this is more about
politics than anything truly moral based.I am for people and
companies having the right to choose who they will do business with. We saw the
impact of such decisions had on ending apartheid in South Africa. But this one
stinks a little of something else. Its about being consistent.
@2bitsThis is not about what the business owner provides for
customers, this is about business owners and employees. If a Muslim
business owner required all female employees - Christians and Jews, not just
Islamic women - to wear a burka, most would be bothered. If an
orthodox Jewish business owner required all male employees to have a full beard
and forelocks most would see it as a problem. Hobby Lobby wants to
provide insurance, but then wants to come between female employees and their
doctors as to what is prescribed and why. I have a problem with that.
First amendment rights are enjoyed by all people groups and organizations,
however the people choose to organize themselves.First amendment
rights apply to all. period.There is no demarcation or definition
of who gets rights in the first amendment.It simply say what
congress can not do.The extreme left here is extremely wrong about
the first amendment.Their interpretation is wildly off the mark.Whether something or someone is a person or not is irrelevant.The
only question that needs to be asked is congress abridging or interfering, or
@Karen R. 4:34 p.m. April 1, 2014...Two, and this is
directed at the lawyers out there, would a decision in the owner's favor
have any impact on future attempts to pierce the HL corporate veil? They seem to
be saying in this instance, "No, we and our company are one and the
same." Could this be used as an argument against them on a subsequent
liability issue?----------------------Absolutely! Yes
!!! That's called a statement against interest. They just asserted that
they and the company are one entity. The argument "I only meant that for
THIS issue" would be laughed out of court. There's a good chance they
have already cooked their goose on that one. Good catch!
Re:JinAZI will restate mine as well.The FDA includes the same
language for emergency contraceptives as the most commonly used birth control
pills.So why is Hobby Lobby not opposed to birth control pills?Emergency contraceptives are available in Italy, where the Catholic
Church is headquartered.This issue merely provides another argument
and need for single-payer.
Unfortunately this is not an issue in this case, but I simply don’t
believe the owners are sincere in their beliefs, primarily because they purchase
products made in China, a country that actively funds and promotes abortion as a
means of controlling their population. But maybe the HL owners' god
doesn't care about Chinese fetuses.Two, and this is directed at
the lawyers out there, would a decision in the owner's favor have any
impact on future attempts to pierce the HL corporate veil? They seem to be
saying in this instance, "No, we and our company are one and the same."
Could this be used as an argument against them on a subsequent liability issue?
Overall Comment: This whole controversy is the fault of the manufacturers of the
two drugs and two IUDs in question. NONE of them have acted to get the changes
to the legal safety documentation changed to reflect their current understanding
that the four products do not prevent implantation. If they had done this, this
set of suits, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, would not have happened. anotherview - let me restate my point. When it comes to drugs, medical
devices, and insurance, current science DOES NOT MATTER if the legal safety
filings with the FDA are not in line with that knowledge. the regulatory filings
are all that counts. Check the FDA web archives for these products. The FDA
approved safety documentation for the four products all state that they may
prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The fact that new information
contradicts that does not matter in the insurance coverage world. All that the
pharmacy benefits management units of insurance companies care about is the FDA
JenicaJessen says:"*A* corporation is not *A* person, but a
corporation is a group of people."-- Yes, a group of people, who
as individuals have freedom of religion."You admit yourself that
people in corporations can have religious beliefs. I don't see the
difference between "the corporation" and "the people in the
corporation". It's like trying to distinguish between "the
forest" and "that large group of trees"."--
Seriously? In the forest, they're all trees. A corporation is a legal
entity created to separate real people from the risk. A corporation, while it
employs people is NOT a person, and therefore has NO religion or need for
religious freedom. "...where along the way do they lose their
religious rights?"-- When "they" become a corporation.
You see, "they" aren't the corporation and the corporation
isn't them. "They" become two, separate entities.@Copy
Cat;Churches are in the "business" of religion, not profit
(hopefully).@anotherview;If the egg never implants then
it isn't an abortion.
Ranch,the employee only pays a "portion" of the insurance (even
under ObamaCare) the Employer pays about 2/3 of the real cost...just
so you know, it is not just the employees money being used.
"So I assume you all are fine with companies refusing to cover blood
transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) or vaccinations, or any other random
thing a company deems unnecessary because the owner has some sort of religious
view?" This argument is a real reach, castigating a religion
because it has beliefs you don't agree with. In fact other than a
contracted insurance company, I know of no company that covers blood
transfusions in the general course of business. And I for one am OK with a
company owned by another religion not buying a policy covering something (like
blood transfusions), they feel is against their religion.
re:JinAZHere's what the Becket Fund (website)says:"Most
serious is the fact that certain of the mandated drugs and devices can cause
early abortions by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb. The
FDA's own birth control guide confirms that this is way certain emergency
contraceptives work.Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for Becket Fund:"the way they operate is to prevent the implantation of an egg in the
womb."Here is the FDA description of an emergency contraceptive
and the monthly oral contraceptive (which Hobby Lobby is not opposed to). See a
difference? Ella:When taken immediately before ovulation is
to occur, postpones follicular rupture. The likely primary mechanism of action
of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or
delay of ovulation; however, alterations to the endometrium that may affect
implantation may also contribute to efficacy. Monthly
combination oral contraceptive:Combined oral contraceptives act by
suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is
inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes
in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.
@SchneeOr better yet, these Insurance companies suddenly
"finding religion" One trustee can be opposed to blood transfusions;
another contraception; another prenatal care; another mental health services;
and the chairman anything besides faith based healing and prayer.They'll still gladly take your full premium, they'll just take out
what they find objectionable.
So I assume you all are fine with companies refusing to cover blood transfusions
(Jehovah's Witnesses) or vaccinations, or any other random thing a company
deems unnecessary because the owner has some sort of religious view? (Talk about
bloating the insurance industry, forcing there to be tons of new plans to
comprise each and every little whim of a company...).
Do churches have religious rights? They are groups of people, who
have religious rights, just like corporations. It seems ridiculous
to deny churches religious freedom.It seems equally ridiculous to
deny corporations religious freedom.
"There SHOULD BE no laws requiring Muslim restaurant owners serve
pork."and in addition:Nor should be no law requiring
every citizen to purchase pork, AKA bloated cost health care, AKA the ACA, AKA
Ranch:*A* corporation is not *A* person, but a corporation is a group of
people. You admit yourself that people in corporations can have religious
beliefs. I don't see the difference between "the corporation" and
"the people in the corporation". It's like trying to distinguish
between "the forest" and "that large group of trees". So if
people can have a religion, and those people assemble, and in that assembly they
earn a profit, and they happen to call that assembly a 'business' or
'corporation', where along the way do they lose their religious
rights?slcdenizen and hutterite: You assume too much. I am all in
favor of giving non-Christian religions the same rights. (I find it interesting
that you've automatically decided I'm part of a "crowd" of
bigots.) In fact, I am also completely in favor of separating church
and state-- it protects the church FROM the state. If church and state had been
separated in this case the state would be staying out of the Greens'
business. "Separation of church and state" means that government and
religion leave each other alone, not that religion should be completely removed
from public life.
anotherview wrote "There is no scientific evidence emergency contraceptives
prevent implantation of a fertilized egg."Let me explain to you
the difference between regulatory science and science. Regulatory science is
governed by the 'approved' documentation that has been supported by
evidence. Science in general is not fettered by the regulatory process. The FDA approved safety documentation for the four products that the
Green family does not want to cover in their health plan all state that they may
prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The Beckett Fund, a group of lawyers,
is not being deceptive. They are doing what lawyers do and rely on the federally
approved safety literature. If you want to blame anyone, blame the
manufacturers who have not filed updates to the safety documents in order to
make them in line with current knowledge about the mechanisms used by these
drugs and devices.
Darrel 10:09,RE "there are no laws requiring every restaurant to
serve pork"...That's the whole point of this controversy.
There SHOULD BE no laws requiring Muslim restaurant owners serve pork. And
there SHOULD BE no laws requiring a Christian store owner to violate his
covenants. That's the point!I know there are no laws
requiring a Muslim to serve pork, but the point is... neither should be required
by the Government to violate their covenants.I didn't say there
was a law to server pork. Just that there should NOT be a law to Christian
store owners MUST do something they feel violates their covenants with their
God.===2nd... the reason for the example was... the
statement that we would object if other religious business owners wanted to
observe THEIR covenants... the example shows that they do... and we don't
care.===Last comment.. sorry I wasted one.
It is reported that, ironically, Hobby Lobby investments include makers of
emergency contraceptives. Oops!Strip away all the rhetoric, the
fact remains, contraceptives reduce the abortion rate. There is no
scientific evidence emergency contraceptives prevent implantation of a
fertilized egg. The Beckett Fund falsely, flatly misrepresents how emergency
contraceptives work. They are designed to prevent ovulation and fertilization,
(as are contraceptives in general).Hobby Lobby has the option to not
offer health insurance at all and to simply pay the "tax/fee/penalty."
I hate to break it to everybody here, but this isn't about Hobby Lobby the
business. This is about David Green not wanting to be forced to violate his
religious beliefs by purchasing chemicals that are designed to end the life of a
fetus.Imagine you were told by the government that you had to buy a
statue of Zeus and keep it in your house. The statue is manufactured by
privates companies that manufacture ceramic products for your home. Would you
complain about having to do that, or would you just roll over and do as the
airnaut, open minded Mormon, lds liberal etc...Lets make a deal.I'll support Hobby Lobby being forced to provide birth control when
you can prove the individuals who are trying to prevent pregnancy had no choice
but to engage in such acts that would cause the birth of a child.Someone wants to have sex?Fine - you pay for the consequences.I never asked anyone to have sex - don't ask me to pay for the
consequences, or the prevention of a baby because of it. Hobby
Lobby never asked anyone to have sex, so they shouldn't pay for it.
@2 bits;The problem with your argument is that you allow Hobby Lobby
(2 b's in each word, btw) to tell the employee what the employee's
insurance premium will cover. That money IS the employee's.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTFACT is... Every person in the
United States can get contraceptives.. Whether they work for HobyLoby or not.
Just because someone else won't pay for them... doesn't mean you
can't GET them!======= OK, that's fine by me
-- Let's start by giving them all a Minimum wage increase.And when has a Muslim [or, Jewish for that matter] Resturant owners EVER been
forced to serve pork?I don't smoke, I don't drink - but I
have worked for company who did serve them.Did that violate MY
relgious convictions?Strawman arguement.
Open Minded Mormon wrote "When Hobby Lobby files a 501.c [not for profit],
they can preach religion all they want to."I really don't
think you want to go there. What you are suggesting is that where a business is
owned by an individual or a single family, those owners sacrifice part of their
1st amendment rights. Do you really want to say that they cannot express their
world view during business hours?
Jenica:You start with a false premise: "and the question of
whether people in corporations have religious rights, ..."Of
course people IN corporations have religious rights. Your problem is that
Corporations are not people nor do they have religious beliefs.
When Hobby Lobby stops profiting from business from China and stock in
contraceptive manufacturers then and only maybe then you may convince me
it's about religion, otherwise it's just another step towards
corporate influence and control of our society. Lobby is seeking the tax
benefits without the compliance.
OMM,Nice shifting of responsibility... but it wasn't HobyLoby who
made the decision to engage in the type of activity that results in the need for
abortions or contraceptives. So I don't think your solution is fair (to
shift the responsibility for your decision to them).Anti-Hobyloby
people keep insisting hobyloby is preventing them from getting contraceptives.
I keep pointing out that's not true.HobyLoby is not standing
between you and your contraceptives... they just won't pay for it.
There's a difference.Every person still has the right to walk
into their drug store and buy their own contraceptives (they are actually very
cheep and readily available).Just because they won't PAY for
your contraceptives... doesn't mean they are PREVENTING you from getting
them!HobyLoby is actually doing nothing to PREVENT you from getting
contraception. They just don't want to be forced to provide it (or pay a
company to provide it).===FACT is... Every person in the
United States can get contraceptives.. Whether they work for HobyLoby or not.
Just because someone else won't pay for them... doesn't mean you
can't GET them!
Open Minded Mormon- You do realize that the hobby Lobby company health plan
already covers 16 different contraceptive drugs, don't you?
@2bitsHere's one example.... a Muslim restaurant owner refuses
to serve pork in their restaurant. Non-Christian business owners want to live
their faith too. And I don't hear anybody complaining. So your assumption
is false (that they would flip if a business owner of another faith wanted to
run his business AND not violate his faith).==================This argument is a strawman. First of all, there are no laws requiring
every restaurant to serve pork (and would you want pork from a restaurant that
didn't want to serve pork). And people are generally free to decide which
restaurant they wish any way. When it comes to work, the
expectation changes. Can an employee working for Hot Dog on a Stick tell the
manager they cannot serve pork and expect to be employed there for long? Or and
LDS member refuse to sell alcohol and the check out register and Walmart? On the flip side; and especially with unemployment where it is at; job
hunters often don't have the luxury to find the perfect employer; they have
an option of take this job and eat, or good luck finding your own.
The original purpose of corporate "personhood" is to allow corporations
to enter into/enforce contract rights. The expansion of that legal fiction into
the full legal rights held by individuals is unsound and inadvisable, both
legally and ethically. Citizens United has already set us on a dangerous path
without injecting religious rights into the mix.If a corporation has
religious rights, does it have suffrage rights? Second Amendment rights? Can
it be imprisoned? Executed? Where do you start drawing lines?
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTLet's make a deal....I'll support Hobby Lobby's right to not cover birth control,
if Hobby Lobby agrees to provide for the life of any child born without
slcdenizen,RE: "until other non-christian religions begin demanding
the right to excersize their beliefs"...Non-christian business
owners already demand the right to exercise their beliefs, and not be forced by
government to violate their religious beliefs. Here's one
example.... a Muslim restaurant owner refuses to serve pork in their restaurant.
Non-Christian business owners want to live their faith too. And I don't
hear anybody complaining. So your assumption is false (that they would flip if
a business owner of another faith wanted to run his business AND not violate his
faith).===The situations are not identical. But there
ARE people of other faiths who expect to be able to own a business and still
observe their faith. And no religious zealot right-wingers complain. So your
pre-judgement of them was wrong.===I agree that just
providing insurance that provides things that violate your religious beliefs is
not YOU violating your religious beliefs (so I don't side with HobyLoby).
But nobody flips when a business owner of another faith demands the right to
exercises their beliefs. And I would not support a government
mandate that all business owners must serve pork.
When Hobby Lobby files a 501.c [not for profit], they can preach religion
all they want to.Businesses are NOT Religions.and visa
Denizen is correct; if you concede to one you concede to all, including a whole
bunch you want nothing to do with. The only workable solution is separation.
So clever, such great wit, until other non-christian religions begin demanding
the right to excersize their beliefs and the same crowd this contributor belongs
to will switch sides and want the separation of church and state enforced.
But Jenica, corporations are people too. I have it on good authority. So
let's just baptize Hobby Lobby and get it over with.