@ Testimony and TheTrueVoice:It is strictly your opinion that
pregnancy doesn't begin until an embryo is implanted. To me, and others
who believe as I do, pregnancy and human life begin at conception. I could
never personally use any product that prevents the implantation of an embryo, as
to do so terminates an already developing life.The owners of Hobby
Lobby feel the same, hence their unwillingness to cover any birth control that
could result in preventing implantation of a already developing human being. By
that definition, anything that prevents implantation is indeed an abortifacient.
Year's back Hobby Lobby's insurance program included contraceptive
coverage. This is purely a political decision by far right justices. Hobby Lobby
owners simply wanted to use the issue for political purposes against the
President and common sense. Men cultural do little about contraception so the
burden falls to women and Hobby Lobby merely makes that burden heavier.
@TheTrueVoice:The fact is, their are 16 other contraceptives that
Hobby Lobby's insurance plan covers. So, there are basically three remedies
women working for Hobby Lobby can employ if they're not happy with this
SCOTUS decision:1) Use one of the other 16 forms of contraception
that are covered under Hobby Lobby's insurance plan2) Pay for
the four contraception methods not covered by Hobby Lobby themselves 3) Find another employer who's insurance plan covers the other four
contraceptive methodsTheTrueVoice, I have a fourth suggestion that
you could be directly involved in. Why don't you and all Liberals by
extension, find one or two deserving female Hobby Lobby employees, and purchase
their contraceptives...in particular, one of the four that Hobby Lobby
doesn't wish to pay for. I mean, if you feel a company should be compelled
to purchase their employees contraception, you shouldn't have any objection
in compelling yourself to do the same thing...right?BTW, Obama
already has the authority under ACA to make insurance companies pay the costs
for these four contraceptives. Obama and the Democrats have nothing positive to
run on, so they have to invent the bogus "war on women." Pathetic!
Techpubs,If you read Ginsberg's dissent, which is very well
written by the way, she explains how the majority did not apply the RFRA so much
as completely reinterpret it counter to the stated purpose of the Act and its
legislative history. The dissent is published as part of the decision (in the
back), posted on the SCOTUS website.Mormonmama0106 and others,This anti-abortion excuse for restricting certain contraceptive methods
is dishonest. Abortion is ending a pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until
implantation takes place. Implantation is a complex process and frequently fails
on its own. (Ask any couple who had trouble conceiving.) These methods
aren't foolproof, they just increase the odds of failure. If implantation
never takes place, pregnancy doesn't occur, so abortion isn't
what's happening. It's just pregnancy prevention, which is what
contraceptives do. Over-defining abortion to include preventing
implantation is an early step towards outlawing contraception altogether, taking
away women's rights, and possibly even creating the world of The
Actually, it is those that profess these drugs "result in abortion" who
are intellectually dishonest.Not only is it factually incorrect, it
is downright misleading. These products are not abortifacients,and their only
connection to abortion is that they can prevent the need for one.A
rather horrible day for those women who just want to be left alone to determine
their own health choices.
@ The True Voice; You said "Regardless, this particular SCOTUS
decision is horrible beyond words. It is right up there will 'Citizens
United' decision, truly awful on multiple levels." Since
SCOTUS ruled on this based on the Religious Freedom Protection and Restoration
Act (RFPRA) which was passed by both houses of Congress in 1993 with only 3
dissenting votes total and signed in Nov 93 by President Clinton I would expect
more than just a statement that the decision is truly awful. Could you
please explain why it is so horrible that SCOTUS would uphold a law that was in
place long before the PPACA?
Let freedom ring!!!! Let Barack and the progressives go down in flames once
Reading the comments by Liberals on DN and elsewhere over the past 24 hours
proves that most Liberals are ignorant of what's in Obamacare. First, this ruling simply provides Hobby Lobby the freedom not to have to pay
for drugs that result in abortions. HL's insurance covers 16 other
contraceptive drugs which don't result in the death of the unborn baby.
This ruling simply provides them the religious freedom not to have to offer the
four drugs that do result in an abortion.Secondly, this faux outrage
by the Left that this is a "war on women", is simply a campaign
strategy. News flash for Liberals: Under Obamacare (ACA), Obama has the power to
compel insurance providers to cover the costs for the drugs that companies like
Hobby Lobby do not wish to pay for, for religious freedom reasons. I'll
wager Liberals don't even know this fact.A simple question for
Liberals: why, if Obama has the power to make insurance companies pay for these
abortion drugs under Obamacare, is he instead waging a war on Hobby Lobby and
other like minded private businesses, and blaming the Republicans? Easy Peasy,
the faux “War on Women” campaign strategy.
"This ruling opens the door for corporations to discriminate based on
religious beliefs on all sorts of things. Imagine being able to not hire or to
fire someone because your religion is opposed to gay marriage."Yeah, just ask the former CEO of Mozilla.
This ruling means that a business owner doesn't have to be party to
something they believe is murder (ie. abortions caused by birth control and
morning after pills). I think that's fair.My husband and I
don't like the health insurance offered by his current employer, so he is
looking for work with companies who offer what we consider to be better
coverage. Hobby Lobby employees are free to do the same if they want birth
control coverage. Lots of employers have health insurance coverage that does
not meet the needs (or wallets) of their employees and many people do change
jobs for that reason. Again, Hobby Lobby employees are free to do the same.
Most jobs at Hobby Lobby are minimum-wage, customer service type jobs that are
available all over. It's not as if Hobby Lobby is the only employer out
there, or even the most lucrative one.
If corporations could get pregnant, contraceptives would be free.If
men could get pregnant, contraceptives stores would outnumber Starbucks.Strange how the faithful are not using the term "activist
judges" now. This tune will of course change when SCOTUS makes SSM the law
of the land, which they can do by refusing to hear the Utah appeal on the 10th
District's decision. Regardless, this particular SCOTUS
decision is horrible beyond words. It is right up there will 'Citizens
United' decision, truly awful on multiple levels.
To "riverofsun" I hate to tell you this, since you didn't bother
to learn more about the case. Hobby Lobby still has insurance that covers 16
forms of birth control, and is happy to pay for those 16 forms. All they have
objected to is paying for pills that are used to abort babies.Would
you pay for your daughter to abort her babies?
We now find out that Hobby Lobby invests in the very contraceptive companies it
denies it's employees for their health insurance coverage....Yes,
they invest in these contraceptive companies for their employees retirement
plans.Do they also invest in the companies who make and sell Viagra?Do they invest in the instruments used in vasectomy procedures, as well?Ah...Hypocrisy at it's very finest!
I'm not sure whether this case was decided on a strictly
conservative/liberal legal divide or simply on a patriarchal sectarian divide.
As Ginsburg points out in her dissenting opinion, the majority of the Court
violated their own legal principles of strict interpretation and engaged in some
torturous and acrobatic interpretation of otherwise irrelevant legislation to
justify the decision they signed. She doesn't accuse the five male
Catholics on the Court of being in thrall to Rome, but that's who comprised
the majority, and I think we're entitled to wonder. The lone female
Catholic and the three non-Catholics in their dissent are actually the real
legal conservatives in this case, hewing to the case law and legislative history
and not to religious doctrine.As for those of you who are condemning
"loose women" for their use of contraceptives, let me remind you that
family planning is a thing. Most contraceptives are used by married women.
Especially IUDs by women in families who've had the number of children they
want and don't want the medical risks of hormonal methods for another
Stephen Daedalus wrote, "By admission, their religious faith and practice is
no different from the faith and practice of a mere legal fiction..."On my mind as I read through all of the vitriol in the comments was,
"All of this over something that isn't even real." And then I read
your post. LOL!IMO, the plaintiffs' objections were always
much more about the government dictating to them and I could relate to this.
I'd feel the same way. In this respect, I agree with others who commented
that the sooner we move to a single payer system, the better.To
hockeymom who felt free to judge as "murderers" those who have
abortions, you are the embodiment of "a good Christian." You and others
like you continue to be the best players on my team. Thank you.
Once again, we see positive proof that 4 liberal judges are blinded by ideology.
Their vote to uphold the mandates on these two issues is COMPLETELY
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, these people want the federal government to run
every aspect of our lives. Can they not see that the last 6 years of Obama
policies has done nothing but screw up this country?? One more liberal judge on
the U.S. Supreme court, and our freedoms are all but gone.
If someone wants contraception, they can go and get it without prescription at
the local drug store of any type. I personally don't see why my hard
earned money has to pay for someone else's contraception or abortion. Good
move by the Supremes. Of course Ginsberg would object.
Meh. As only a couple of other comments explained, this SCOTUS
decision is not about the hoary "Religious Freedom" of our Founding
Fathers and the Constitution. No, this is small ball bickering about what may
be only a drafting error in a 1993 statute. Could Congress have stated that
within RFRA "person" means "natural persons"? Sure. And some
future Congress could, and likely will do so. This case is an odd footnote.Lost on many is how the owners of Hobby Lobby have debased their own
religious traditions for this short-term win. By admission, their
religious faith and practice is no different from the faith and practice of a
mere legal fiction, some paperwork on file with the Secretary of State,
collecting dust in a 3-ring binder on a law office shelf. The Good News swapped
out for corporate minutes and by-laws. Limited liability instead of conscience.
Sacred replaced by the blandly profane.It is no surprise organized
religions in America are losing the hearts and minds of young people. But hey,
at least ya'll have some dandy potpourri and needlepoint kits, amirite?
I wish I had a Hobby Lobby close to me. I'd shop there at every
For all the so-called 'liberals' who argue that the people running
corporations should not apply their morality in running the company, they should
whatever they want to do to make money, only as long as it is legal.This is not a liberal viewpoint. It is a PC viewpoint, i.e. it is a fashion,
like bell-bottoms and leisure suits from the 60's and 70's.Remember apartheid and companies and universities in the US divesting from
South Africa, or the current drive to divest from Israel?Corporations should be socially responsible.
It amazes me how liberal slc has become. Just so interesting to read some of
these comments. Of course most conservatives, are busy at home, or at work.
@Mikhail:"By the way, corporations are people."Corporations are 'people.' But they are not 'human'
people. They are ruled to be people because they are authorized to do business
as an entity regardless of what 'human people' own the
'business.' And they can sue and be sued. You can't sue or be
sued by a non-entity.@Frozen Fractals:"Then there's
no logic to this ruling. Why only allow one religious exception [abortive drugs]
but not others [transfusions]?Because the transfusion issue was not
before the court. The religious group that doesn't like transfusions need
to bring it to the court. But, as soon as we get single payer health insurance,
there will be no meed for SCOTUS to get involved.@shesaidohkay:"...women's contraception sold over the counter is not that
effective..."The issue is not about contraception. It's
about abortion drugs. Big difference.@HeresAThought:"Since when are abortion-inducing medicines considered 'health
care'?"Abortion inducing drugs are far cheaper then costs
associated with pregnancy, giving birth, and health-related expenses in raising
a child. Hobby Lobby probably didn't consider this, but should-a.
Men are covered for vasectomies and Viagra in the religious world of Hobby Lobby
and like corporations.So much for their talk and rationalization of
"equality" for men and women.A continuation of what has come
before in past political campaigns from the ultra right conservative
Republicans.Just makes it easier for the Dems in the forthcoming
First, glad the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. A 5-4 vote makes me
wonder if Justice Roberts voted for Hobby Lobby primarily because he knows deep
down he caved in to his own unwarranted desires for 'fame' in being
the deciding vote to pass Obamacare.Second, the liberals are out in
force today.Just what is so hard to see that business owners have no
"good" reason to get into this mess of providing contraception to their
employees? Again, the key word being "good".Liberals claim
they don't want to force others yet that is exactly what they are doing to
others. Why do they refuse to see that? You want to have an abortion? Fine.
Do it on your own dime.
Numbers...137 comments.I've read each comment.I know...give me a star...get a life etc..Another 5-4 cave
to the reich-wing?How many women voted for this ruling?Women...please remember that number when you vote.Also remember
there is no one in the voting both who knows exactly how you voted.Reich-wing men should remember that last sentence as well.
The HobLob case only highlights the error in having healthcare insurance
provided by employers. Hopefully this ruling (which leaves the ACA intact) will
hasten the day when national health insurance will make this kind of discussion
seem like ancient history. It would have been helpful if some news source took
the time to analyze what kind of coverage the company is providing its
employees. The way of survival the last ten years that has kept the prop under
the current system is that deductibles, copays and caps have grown as rising
prices have made it out of reach of many families.Not discussed
much, but a growing phenomenon is that even insured people can be bankrupted by
catastrophic illnesses or more than one member of the family being sick at the
same time. Hence we are now not only paying the highest prices in the world,
but we are still in danger of bankruptcy all the time. About another 10 years of
business as usual and we will all be asking when the profit is the next thing
removed from health insurance.
RE Duckhunter:I have to give you props. Your post was just classic,
I can't stop laughing. Now Liberals/Democrats are baby killers? Oh my.
I'm quite sure your totally serious but I hope you're
not.I was surprised to see that the D-news posted it but I am glad
The court made the right decision because Hobby Lobby was objecting to a form of
birth control that when a pill was taken killed a fertilized egg. They consider
that murder and its close enough that I have to side with them.
Oh no! Hobby Lobby's stock in contraception companies is certainly going
to take a hit with this announcement. Or should I say the Christian owner of
Hobby Lobby's stock in contraception companies is going to take a hit. Oh
the Irony!I would suggest those fans of Hobby Lobby take a closer
look at their business practices and then tell me they are a "Christian"
company. Religious they are, Christians their not.I
thought the Founding Fathers came to this country to escape Religious
For those who think this is a "terrible" decision, furthering the
supposed "war on women", consider this: Hobby Lobby benefits already pay
for 16 different methods of contraception. Their complaint was about the
morning after pills that basically cause an abortion. I welcome a victory for
religious freedom and letting the free market decide how things should be run,
not the federal government. As for the war on women, that is a fictitious
idiocy manufactured by the left and perpetuated by the mainstream media in order
to garner votes. Hope women everywhere are smarter than they were in the last
election. But probably not. (I am a woman, by the way.)
It should be clear that the ACA itself supports women being able to get birth
control if they want it. But they have let companies controlled by a religion
opt out before when the Catholic Church employers had this same issue. Then,
another option for birth control is offered (not by the employer). So, women can
get it if they want. And under the ACA website, it is a requirement under those
insurances. This country will reach a point someday where people are not
controlled by religion, but by their own choices.
A win for the First Amendment. A loss for doing the reasonable thing. I guess
that's America folks.
May I remind all you nay sayers about how this SCOTUS ruling is going to be bad
and that Corporations are going to be people.... One little fact...Hobby Lobby is a family owned business, it is NOT traded on the Market... It
is PRIVATELY own, while corporations such as Microsoft or Starbuck are
publically owned corporations.That is why SCOTUS made the ruling
that PRIVATLEY owned corporations, have the right to refuse Contraceptives as
part of their insurance.the second part of that, is discrimination
based on the 6 Federal classes, will not be affected by this ruling, so
"No" this does not open the door to other type of discrimination.
To "Schnee" so what you are saying is that you don't think that
women should have to be responsible for their sexual behavior?You
think that women should be free to have unprotected sex or be that .1% that gets
pregnant despite using protection, then should have somebody else pay for their
abortion (in this case using chemicals)?Is that really what you are
Fair warning to all of you cheering this decision. Do you actually believe that
this is now settled law and everyone is just going to quietly accept it? The SC
and fox news cheerleaders have just handed the democratic party the best gift
ever for the Nov. elections, in that they will point at this ruling as more
proof of the GOP 'war on women'. They need the votes of single young
women (ask Romney how important those votes are) and they will hammer this
talking point every chance they get. You may have won this battle, but in doing
so you have conceded ever regaining the majority of women voters. (Keep railing
against immigration too...).
Don't anyone get excited. If you take note, the decision was 5 to 4. If
Obamacare and all it's waste, fraud, and abuse is still around in a few
years, I'm sure this will come up again - or maybe it will be negated by
@lost in DC – “I read some of Ginsburg’s dissent. Her evident
disdain for the religious protections included in the first amendment is
disconcerting.”I found no disdain for religion in her dissent.
What I did find was a brilliant dismantling of the Court’s
“logic” in arriving at their decision. She demonstrated quite
clearly that not only is there zero case law precedent to support the
Court’s claim that for-profit corporations can “exercise their
religion,” (the can of worms this unique ruling opens up is mind
boggling!), but she goes on to show how these so-called Originalists and
Contextualists grossly misinterpret RFRA. This decision is painful
in its application of personal belief (and the deep sympathy they felt for the
Plaintiffs) combined with a total disregard of the law, and Ginsberg shows with
stunning clarity just how arbitrary today’s decision was. Two big silver linings in this decision will hopefully be 1) to speed up the
decoupling of healthcare from employment and 2) to energize the Move To Amend
movement which seeks to make clear – by constitutional amendment –
that We The People does not mean We The Corporations.
I can imagine the people who are happy about this are strutting around and
pointing their fingers at those who oppose it. Better get off your pedestal
before it breaks and remember the other three fingers are pointing back at you.
@techpubsI know exactly what types of contraception the ruling was
referring to tech. I just used the general term because it was easier. While I
thought your answer to the question about transfusions and vaccines fairly
reasonable I still think it seems that this one area of religious freedom is
getting preferential treatment.
These creation of these "Corporations" into these fictous
"people" protected with constitutional "rights", but not being
"real" --- IMHO -- Pretty much sums up each and every
prophesy of "the Beast" mentioned in the Book of Revelations...
CMO BeaverBeaver, UTif you don't like it then you don't
have to work for hobby lobby, we are all free agents9:31 a.m. June
30, 2014========== Agreed.Since WE don't like
it then WE won't have to SHOP at hobby lobby either, we are all free
Sad.The Supreme Court has ruled badly over the last 10 years -- Corporations are "people", they now have unlimited Free
Speech, and of course legalized bribery or our popliticians, and
now - sadly - they have Religous Freedom as well.America will
rue the day they cheered the Corpoate Gadianton's took total control of the
Country right out from underneath their noses.BTW -- This
would've have even gotten to this point with a Single-Payer Healthcare
system like the rest of the Civilized world enjoys...
@Bleed Crimson: "Everything the government touches fails miserably!"Like the military? The government is incredibly inefficient for many
things, which is why the Founding Fathers preferred leaving things up to private
enterprise as much as possible, but there are some things that might be done
more efficiently by the federal government than the private sector. I'm not
saying that healthcare/health insurance is one of those areas but sweeping
generalizations don't help the discussion much.
Re: Henry Drummond "The justices ruled that the federal government can
require insurance companies to provide contraceptives as long as there
isn't a separate line item charge for it. Its just included in the overall
plan. They specifically stated this doesn't violate religious
freedom."Thanks for the clarification.
Now, perhaps the politically correct crowd members will practice what they
preach when it comes to freedom of conscience (Or practice what they used to
preach during the 1960s when they were protesting against the Draft and the
@ Mike RichardsMy 83 year old Dad living in Canada also
"needs" a hip replacement. He eats whatever he wants, has high blood
pressure and high cholesterol and didn't exercise when he was healthy
enough to do it. These things have made him a non-candidate for the surgery.
They don't want him dying on the operating table, so he'll take his
pain meds, and he'll live as long as he has (by his choices) chosen to. I
love him. but I understand why the doctors make the choices they do. Find out the reasons why they aren't giving your aunt the surgery. Could
be the same kinds of reasons as my Dad. Those decisions are not made by the
government, they are made by the educated doctors who can and do order
procedures based on greatest need and least risk. I promise, they have her best
interest at heart.If you're bothered by it, why not bring her
to the US for a second opinion and if warranted, pay for her surgery out of your
pocket for her here? Just a thought.
I read some of Ginsburg’s dissent. Her evident disdain for the religious
protections included in the first amendment is disconcerting.Mr. J,
yes, religion is STILL under attack – read ginsburg’s
dissent.I cannot believe some think forcing me to pay for your
contraceptives is me forcing my beliefs on you. What terribly twisted
“logic” that is. NOTHING the employer is doing prevents an employee
from purchasing their own contraceptives. To argue otherwise is intellectually
dishonest and morally bankrupt.
Tyler D - I agree entirely. To me, the Executive and Legislative
branches have used their responsibilities in appointing SC judges for political
gain for years. This is true for both the right and the left.Sure
makes life interesting, doesn't it? :)
Hutterite,"Among others, this is a reason we need a single payer
health care system."______________________________Agreed.
That would void religious freedom claims in a case that is not about religion or
beliefs. Freedom of religion was never intended to grant religion(s) a special
dispensation from the rule of law.
Wow! How far have we come. To so many on the left, a decision by the SC to
prevent the government from FORCING a company to pay for something that the
owners objected to on moral grounds is the same as allowing a company to
"discriminate" against their employees. To them, Hobby Lobby is somehow
also imposing their religious beliefs on others by refusing to cough up the
dough.If I won't give a beggar on the street $10 of my hard
earned money because he is sitting in front of a bar (and the sign says
"need a beer!", please give) and I don't want my $10 to go to buy
alcohol, then I must be guilty of discrimination and trying to force my
religious beliefs on that guy, right??? Such is the twisted logic of those who
think Hobby Lobby should be forced to pay for abortion drugs.
The headline is misleadingIt wasn't for religious freedom; The
government failed to show the had exhausted all avenues, and had a backup plan
in place. The Supreme Court simply said to go with the backup plan. The women
still get their coverage (on the government dime, so instead of Hobby Lobby
being asked to violate their conscious, it gets moved onto the taxpayer)Interestingly pointed out that "A few judges can override the will
of the people")
@Bleed CrimsonPeople who have never lived with a single-payer system
only think they don't want it because they don't know or are afraid of
how good it really is. It isn't completely "free" in Canada either
- other than the fact that knowing you always have it regardless of your
employment status makes your life worry "free". Taxes and the cost of
living are higher in Canada, because everyone pays in to it, the premise being
you or your loved ones will need it at one or another, just like freeways in
Utah. You still need blue cross insurance for your meds, eye care, dental and
private hospital rooms. But you never have to decide between feeding your
family or getting your health care needs met. I can still choose my doctor in
Canada, and the absence of malpractice law suits gives doctors the freedom to
focus on being really good doctors without fear of being sued. They use state
of the art equipment and help develop new methods that in turn US doctors use
also. Doctors in Canada drive expensive cars and live in gorgeous giant houses
on large properties.
The probable truth is that Hobby Lobby will be paying for birth control. Most
or all of the things they sell are purchased from other business operations.
Some of those other business operations may not choose to exclude birth control
from their employees insurance. Therefore, they will be paying for the birth
control of employees in other companies while denying such to their own
employees. Using the argument that it is against their religion should cover
all their disbursements. China has much stronger birth control than
us, do you think that that they should refrain from buying things from China for
their business and their home?
I have an elderly aunt living in Canada who needs a hip replacement. She will
never receive that hip replacement. She has been put on "pain"
medication and she will remain on that medication until she dies. Someone in
the government decided that she is "expendable". Someone decided that
others are more "deserving" than she. She paid the exorbitant taxes
that would guarantee her health care all of her life, but she is
"expendable". Obama has already shown us that 10 year olds are
expendable. What about the rest if us? Are all conservatives expendable?
The scary thing about this SC is that it is almost impossible to tell, based on
either the Constitution or past precedents, how they will decide politically
charged cases. A far better predictor is simply to note which party/ideology
each judge adheres to.Admittedly it was the liberals who started us
down this road towards a black robed dictatorship with the Warren Court, but
today’s conservatives have raised this strategy (of politicizing the
judiciary) to a new level, starting with Bork. Gone are the days of judicial
restraint and if the Constitution is silent on an issue, deferring to the
legislature (and our right of self-government).If a SC Justice like
Scalia can decide Employment Division v Smith one way and today’s case
another, then legal principles would appear to play little part in his
jurisprudence.The SC may now be the most political branch of our
@ Hutterite"Among others, this is a reason we need a single
payer health care system"No,we don't need a single payer
health care system. Everything the government touches fails miserably! Why would we want the Washington bureaucrats be in charge of our health care?
Let the private sector take care of health insurance which will give
potential consumers a choice in what kind of coverage they want. Open up state
borders which will create competition among insurance companies which will lower
premiums.Give people the right to choose their health care plan and
not force them to buy one. Nobody should be entitled to "free
stuff". If you want it that bad, then you should pay for it yourself.
@ HutteriteI agree 100%. By your screen name, I assume you are from
Canada, I'm from Alberta, now in American Fork. Yes, I have happily lived
the benefits of the Canadian Health Care system, and though there is some
(albeit minimal) wait time for elective and non-life threatening procedures, it
is still a superior system than we have in the US. If Obamacare puts us on the
path to "Socialized" medicine, I say, "bring it on"! But
Obamacare is a train wreck the way it is and it may take several years to become
something that resembles a truly good system.It is obscene that the
"working poor" loose their homes or go bankrupt when health issues
arise. Health care should never go through the employer. My husband is in
construction. When he is laid off, we loose not only income, but health
insurance. When there is no income, there is not $700/month for COBRA either.
If you loose your job to an illness, how do you buy health insurance in any
I wonder how many posters have bothered to read the Constitution, or whether
they , like Obama, have already decided that the Constitution is invalid?Article 1, Section 8 enumerates (lists) the duties of the Federal
Government. Health care is not on that list of 17 duties. The 10th Amendment
requires all duties not SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution to be left to
the States or to the people. Contraception is a "duty" best left to
those who have sex. If they don't want to bring a baby into the world, the
responsibility is theirs.The 1st Amendment protects our right to
live our religion without government interference. God's commandment to
multiply is fundamental to many religions. The 1st Amendment prohibits
government from changing that doctrine.
I wonder if the fans of Hobby Lobby realize that it manufactures most of its
items in China and pays taxes in China that are used in part to fund the forced
abortions for women who have more than child. Until Hobby Lobby fights for the
right of the unborn child in all countries, I will not spend one dollar in that
Actually this is an ingeniously written opinion that in the end will give the
Obama Administration exactly what it wants.The justices ruled that
the federal government can require insurance companies to provide contraceptives
as long as there isn't a separate line item charge for it. Its just
included in the overall plan. They specifically stated this doesn't violate
religious freedom. If the administration does this, then everyone including
Churches will be providing the coverage and paying for it. Apparently its only the accounting that violates the First Amendment. In the
end everyone can claim victory. Nicely done!
1. Corporations have more rights than individuals.2. The only
religious freedom this upholds is that of the employer. For the employees,
rights were taken away.Conservatives, will you whine when the issue
cuts against you? This will cut both ways down the road.
@ The Wraith:Please read the decision. It specifically mentions that this
only applies to specific forms of BC such as Plan B and Ella as well as
IUD's. It also clearly states that women have other sources for these forms
such as Planned Parenthood or paying for them out of pocket. As to blood
transfusions there are no alternate sources at this time and vaccines are like
the other forms of BC that are not linked with abortion.
It was a good decision by the Supreme Court, but I am a little concerned that
the decision was essentially split along the lines of gender. All of the women
on the court dissented as did one of the men. I am concerned that there is
increasing antagonism between men and women in this country. It is
unquestioningly to our detriment.
@ one wife onlyHobby Lobby isn't being asked to pay for the gay
marriage. I'm sure they hire gay people, because it would be against the
law to discriminate a qualified gay person from the job based on his/her sexual
orientation.Hobby Lobby won't be firing anyone who has an
abortion either. That's none of their business. They just don't want
to have to pay for an abortion. On a side note - anyone who
can't admit that abortion is murder is lying to themselves. Anyone who
chooses to have an abortion (rape, incest, mother's life in jeopardy aside)
is committing murder, and either is so far removed from their natural sense of
right and wrong or just doesn't care.
Take that....Obama, hope more like it are coming your way.
Since when are abortion-inducing medicines considered "health care"? In
a culture war, words make all the difference. Abortion != health care. If you
want an honest debate, you all need to first agree on ground rules, terms and
definitions, and goals. A goal you will never accomplish here is changing
one's mind, as adults are most assuredly cemented in their way of thinking.
But back to the program: pushing your beliefs on your employees would include
forcing all males to wear Jewish head coverings because the owner is Jewish.
What the Supreme Court decided was that corporations could not be forced to
offer certain types of abortion inducing drugs to employees provided the
business owner is religiously opposed to it. Besides, there are lots of
corporations probably more than happy to employ you who will gladly provide this
Why is contraception so important and special? How can the court possibly say
that "religious freedom" only applies to contraception and not blood
transfusions or vaccines? Are these lower down on the evil scale or something?
Re: byronbcaSalt Lake City, UTWhy does my boss get to make important
decisions regarding my love life? ...... Why does somebody else's religious
beliefs get to dictate what is covered on my health care plan?The
answer to your question is simple. It is because the GOVERNMENT has mandated
it.When the people are left to make their own decisions then the
government is not in control of you and your family.So, go any time the
issues arise and vote to keep government out of your life.
If a medical professional states that a woman (such as my daughter) needs these
hormones for a medical condition, will they be covered?
Among others, this is a reason we need a single payer health care system.
It's the 4th of July and time to celebrate our Freedom!Remember
the Alamo!You would think the government would be there to protect
With this, and the ruling on union dues, we head back to the gilded age (almost
there), when men were men and women were chattels.
The ruling grants religion a special exemption from compliance with the law. A
ruling of such magnitude is bound to be controversial when the vote is only 5-4.
@Frozen Fractals "Birth control isn't an abortion." Not everyone
agrees with you. Besides, the birth control at issue in this case is primarily
the "morning after" pill, which many view as abortion. If
"personhood" begins at conception (and eventually develops into a
corporation, apparently), being forced to cover morning after pills is being
forced to cover abortions - that's the issue. Others believe
"personhood" doesn't start until birth or after (hence the long
history of infanticide). There is no clear consensus other than the fact that
most people believe personhood begins in the period between and inclusive of
conception to birth. That's about 9 months of variability in beliefs.
People are free to exercise their beliefs. A woman who wants contraception can
purchase it. A person is not required to provide contraceptive coverage for
others. Again, freedom applies to everyone.
It's a pretty narrow ruling with a split decision. It's not really a
suprising ruling given the activist SC we have had since the Roberts appointment
a few years back. It's the world, country we live in. Progress continues
to be made and for every small step backwards we continue to progress with more
liberities and freedom.
@EliyahuSo by your arguments we get rid of "person" status
for unions as well (see Citizen's United ruling which applies as much )?Corporations have been regarded as having similar rights as individuals
in the United States since at least 1819 with the ruling of Trustees of
Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Back then, corporations were more difficult to
form (usually needing legislation rather than registration) but that was the
start of them explicitly being "persons". The major "corporate
personhood" SCOTUS decisions were in the late 1800s and mid to late 1900s.
For all those saying "just go to the drugstore and buy it" there are two
HUGE issues (which unless you are celibates you should already know):
women's contraception sold over the counter is not that effective and
condoms require the participation OF THE MAN who many times does not bear the
burden of the pregnancy. If you're REALLY against abortions (which I am)
help women prevent them!
@RedShirt"All that changes is that women are being made more
responsible for the sexual behavior."Yes, a group of all men
decided what womens responsibilities include/exclude. That's not exactly a
new concept this week.
To "Furry1993" and how will women suffer? The ruling does not eliminate
all contraceptives from being covered by insurance. This only is allowing Hobby
Lobby to NOT pay for pills like "Plan B" and other similar drugs that
will abort a viable baby.The question is, do you believe that the
government can force you to do something that goes against your religious
belief? More specifically, would you pay for women to abort viable babies that
are only seeking abortion because they don't want to be pregnant?Plus, you and your ilk forget that women can still go to Target and other
pharmacies and get birth control pills for $15/month.Tell us how not
having insurance pay for the drugs impacts the women? They are still able to
purchase the birthcontrol pills or else get them for free from Planned
Parenthood.All that changes is that women are being made more
responsible for the sexual behavior.
Our government is the organization that controls everything that goes on,
outside of personal bodies, that is humanly done, in the United States of
America. It is the ultimate employer.As the ultimate employer,
every business operation in the USA, with the exception of churches as shielded
by the First Amendment, should be regarded as employees of the society and their
government. They should have the same status and rights as other human
employees. They should be governed by rules and regulations made by their
employer and have the same recourse if they cannot abide as human employees.
They can QUIT.
Wow - we have become completely unhinged as a country - when an employer not
paying for birth control is equated with denying access to birth control. Since
I have a constitutional right to free speech, I guess my employer should be
forced to pay for my home internet connection so I can post of facebook. If my
employer is unwilling I can scream about how my employer is denying my right to
free speech. Oops! I better not suggest this. Undoubtedly GaryO or the like
will advocate requiring employers to pay for internet service.If
what you do on your own time is your own business, do not ask someone else to
pay for it.
@byronbcaIf you don't like what your employer's rules are,
you have every right and freedom to find another employer whose rules suit you
better. There is no law that says you have to keep your job. Business owners
should have some say in the direction they want their company to run. Why is it
such a big deal to allow religious freedom to a business owner? Why should we
force them to do something they think is immoral? If people don't like
what they do, nobody is forcing anybody to do business with them or work for
them, so why does it really matter?
Win-win. Private employers' religious liberty is protected, and employees
may get their birth control anyway, courtesy of taxpayers.
@Rocket Science"It specifically does not allow opting out of blood
transfusions,all forms of BC etc. "Then there's no logic to
this ruling. Why only allow one religious exception but not others?
@CougarColby" They just are paying for women to be
promiscuous."The vast majority of women use birth control for a
variety of purposes. A friend of mine used it to reduce cramping, another used
it because her sister got pregnant from a rapist and she didn't want that
happening to herself too, others use it because they're married and just
don't want a kid (or additional kid depending on how many they have) now.
Why do you have to assume they're sleazy? @Seldom Seen Smith"if you could force a company to pay for the death of a fetus"Birth control isn't an abortion.
GaryO,How is forcing a corporation to pay for birth control or
abortion freedom? Forcing one person or entity to do something for another
person is not freedom - it is a form of slavery. Every penny a corporation pays
for birth control, or even health insurance, is a money out of the pocket(s) of
the owner(s). You have no more right to force me to pay for your birth control
than I have to force you to pay for my auto insurance. If you want to engage in
that behavior, pay for it yourself, just like I pay for auto insurance because I
want to drive a car.
byronbca,You're not suffering medically from lack of a love
life. If you want one and don't want to have kids - you can pay for your
own birth control.There is no more reason for me to pay for your
birth control than you should have to pay for my trip to Hawaii, which my doctor
recommends to help with my stress level.Yay!
Byronbca - The real question is why does your employer have anything to do with
your love life at all. Progressives argue that what they do outside of work is
none of their bosses' business. So why should your boss have to pay for
it? For that matter, why should your boss have to pay for your health insurance
at all. If you want something, pay for it yourself. Stop using the government
to force companies to do something that you should be doing for yourself. With respect to corporations being people, I have no problem with
corporations not having a voice in government - just as soon as government has
no say over corporations. The old "taxation without representation"
statement applies pretty well here. If the government is going to tax my
company and tell it what it can and cannot do - then it has every right to
petition government and defend itself from the looters. Corporations
without a voice is what every progressive wants (except left leaning
corporations which funnel large amounts of cash to democrats). That way they
can take what ever they want to have benefits they do not have to pay for.
Gary O and others this in no way sets a religion up to rule. It simply gives
people a way to say no, this is objectionable to me, I should not have to
provide an abortion pill.Gary in case you don't know there was
an actual extermination order issued in Missouri against the mormons in 1838.
That law existed on the books until 1976. I was wrong in 1838, in 1976 and that
type of things is never OK but it is now way shape or form similar today
decision. Dont create hysteria on false premise.
Hobby Lobby does have birth control available to their employees already. This
ruling reflects that Hobby Lobby does NOT have to make FOUR (4) meds available
to their employees....these 4 birth control meds are for abortions. Only those
employees who want an abortion will have to pay for that. Get it straight
people! I sat and listened to all the readings this morning with an open mind
and I agree with the SC that the right thing has been done.Stop your
_ithching and go read it! Thank you.
@dmcvey:"A terrible ruling."I wouldn't worry too
much about it. SCOTUS knows that Obama's goal is a single payer healthcare
system... which is coming just around the corner. Then Hobbt Lobby and other
businesses won't have to worry about employer provided insurance.
"I hope this who are crowing victory will be happy when they go to order a
wedding cake and the baker refuses to make one for Mormons. Or to take pictures
after their child's baptism."How would they know when the
cake is ordered that it was for Mormons? Who pays for a photographer at
someone's baptism especially since everyone has a camera? Really?
RE:GaryO, " It’s a victory for “The right to life”. No,
it's a victory for the right to impose one's peculiar religious
beliefs upon the whole nation, at the expense of everyone ultimately. What about the unborn child? Gary, If you could ask the child in the womb,
"Life” or death, which one do you think he or she would choose? Your
parents chose life.When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the
baby(John the Baptist) leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the
Holy Spirit.(Luke 1:41)
GaryOThis ruling does not weaken the separation of church and state. It
strengthens it. Your statement that it was weakened only shows that in your
mind that separation means religion can't enter the world of government,
but government can interfere with religion whenever it wants. You want religion
contained in church buildings never to affect everyday life outside the building
and to you anything outside the church building is government domain.Corporations are started and run by people who establish goals and standards
for their business. They hope to make money while running the business in
keeping with their ethics and beliefs. For government to step in and tell them
they have to violate those beliefs or face huge fines weakens the separation of
church and state, allowing government in where it doesn't belong.
@Mikhail – “It may be a legal fiction, but that is the reality since
corporations have existed.”Not true…Corporations prior to the late 1800’s were typically chartered for
specific purposes and in the days of the Founders those purposes were always
finite (i.e., the corporation was dissolved when the project – like
building a canal – was complete). By the way, the Founders and
people like Adam Smith were highly suspicious of corporations because they
recognized they are by definition amoral and have only one goal – enrich
shareholders. Nothing wrong with that except when that goal runs counter to the
public good, which it often does and then needs to be checked.These
brilliant figures of the Enlightenment would find the power of corporations
today (over all areas of our society) pathological. Of course they would likely
say similar things about the power of the Federal government.For
better or worse we are a totally different society than any of the Founders
envisioned (Hamilton notwithstanding) and they would have much to criticize
about both liberals and conservatives, much to the ironic dismay of the Tea
@OneWifeOnlyAn employer can refuse to provide health insurance as
they often do. And just like Hobby Lobby, you can refuse to work there. This
is nothing new, and so far the sky has not fallen because of it.
I am not really surprised how many liberals obviously did not read the article.
Many liberals just jump to making comments about how there will be legalized
discrimination and that this is a WMD in what they want to call a war on women.
This ruling specifically allows for the payer of insurance cost, PERSONS who
own a business, to opt out of the abortion pill forms of birth control. They
dont have to provide the morning after or week after pill. It specifically does
not allow opting out of blood transfusions,all forms of BC etc. But
then liberals like to try to spread hysteria with uninformed rhetoric, half
truths or out and out falsehoods.
Modern day employment is the current version of slavery. The notion that it is
voluntary is far from the truth, it is only voluntary if you don't want to
eat. Throughout most of American history, employment, voluntary
slavery, has progressed much, but has much to go. Even if we could get to the
point where the employer is excluded from the personal lives of their employees
we would still have the control over time and methods.The Supreme
Court of the United States in recent actions seems to be taking us backward in
the progress to bring freedom to voluntary slaves.
Liberals would have been much happier if Hobby Lobby had lost the case, shut the
company down, closed the stores, and laid off all the employees. Then just
think of all the wonderful free time those employees would have! Freedom to
pursue their passions and deepest interests--once again, at the expense of the
taxpayers, the economy, and society in general. I still say that anyone who
actually believed that Obeymecare would make things better has a very poor
understanding of government, politics, economics, "health" (medical)
care, and insurance. Surprise, surprise . . . a bunch of liberals working
feverishly to come up with thousands of pages of a bill that was hastily passed
with NO support of Republicans was supposed to be a miracle for us, but somehow
it didn't work--even with the myriad of changes, delays, and last-minute
modifications by the administration.
I see that many commenters are reacting to an understanding of the ruling that
is not correct. This ruling applies only to family-run private corporations
(e.g., Hobby Lobby). Publicly-traded corporations cannot have this exemption.
Further, 2 of the "liberal" justices sided with the majority regarding
the role the Religious Freedom Restoration Act plays in this ruling. Hobby Lobby
and Conestoga Wood Specialties subsidize other birth control methods - they were
specifically protesting "morning after" pills and specific kinds of
intrauterine devices, by the way, not all contraception methods.I
love this quote by Harry Reid: "We will continue to fight to preserve
women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the
examination room" - so Democrats want to keep bosses "out of the
examination room" by requiring them to pay for more health care for their
employees? I think the irony is lost on Sen. Reid. By requiring "bosses"
to provide access to all forms of "contraceptive care" Democrats are
forcing bosses into "the examination room."This ruling is a
huge win for liberty and the Constitution.
@MikhailALPINE, UT"By the way, corporations are people.
That is the whole idea behind a corporation."Corporations are
only "people" because the Supreme Court said so early in the Twentieth
Century in a badly-written bit of dicta in a corporate lawsuit. If corporations
are really people, please demonstrate how a corporation can get married, adopt
children, be convicted of a crime and either sent to prison or be executed,
etc.. If that corporate person can be a church member, I'd be fascinated
to see how it is baptized and receives sacraments. Does it require unanimous
consent of the board of directors for any of the above things? The
reality is that they're only "persons" when it's financially
convenient or profitable for them to be seen that way.
Finally, a flicker of sanity. Maybe we actually have a functional supreme court
We would be one seriously depraved and decadent people if you could force a
company to pay for the death of a fetus, or in the parlance of politically
correct liberal doublespeak, unwanted tissue disposal.
I hope this who are crowing victory will be happy when they go to order a
wedding cake and the baker refuses to make one for Mormons. Or to take pictures
after their child's baptism. Now that discrimination based on
religious belief is legal, the sky's the limit.
Wonderful, Wonderful Day!
Response to TechpubsSouix City, IA:Hobby Lobby does not want to
provide insurance coverage for certain contraceptives to their female employees.
SCOTUS agrees based on religious grounds. Now any corporation who has a
religious belief can claim exemption to a law on religious grounds. Obviously,
they will also need to fight the case through the court system but I do not see
what would stop a religious corporation with deep convictions against the LGBT
community from acting on their religious conscious with regard to their
employment practices. This is not about an employer being forced to pay for a
marriage ceremony. It's about a corporation being allowed to choose how
its female employees will use the wages and benefits (in this case it's all
about insurance benefits) she earns. Imagine a religion who has proclamations
which state that children are best raised by a mother who does not work outside
the home. The religious corporation supports that same religious belief. As a
result, pregnant females are promptly fired so they have the opportunity to
raise their children instead of working outside the home. The possibilities of
religious corporations imposing their belief on their employees are now endless.
Do you know if Hobby Lobby provides for Viagra or any other ED drug in their
insurance policy? If it's like mine they do but the cost to me would be
over $90 for 5 tablets. Not exactly "providing" (I know this because was
curious and called to find out). In other words they "provide" it but
pay nothing on it. This was not about NOT providing birth control but only
about not providing abortofacients, ie. the "Morning After Pill". If a
woman needs hormonal birthcontrol pills to control her cycle those were provided
under the policy. At least get your facts right before you rant.
@byronbca - "Why does somebody else's religious beliefs get to dictate
what is covered on my health care plan?"It isn't solely
"your health plan" if the boss is paying all of part of it.It is notable that the ruling didn't stipulate all contraceptive
coverage, just those few methods that kill a fetus. Also, it didn't make
them unavailable, just available through alternate funding by the employee or
How does this ruling interfere with women's or men's reproductive
rights? If you want contraception you go to the nearest drug store and buy it.
If you want it for free you go to the nearest planned parenthood and get it. If
you are unable to do either of these two things you should reconsider engaging
in the activities that may require contraception.
Re Gary 0You must play baseball because you are so far out in left field
on this. The SC did not say the women may not have the desired contraceptives,
but that a privately held corporation does not have to pay for them on religious
grounds. There are federal programs available to them and /or they will have to
pay for them. Finally, I found your remarks about Mormons being killed in
Missouri and Illinois offensive. Because their religious rights were not
protected by the government hundreds of "Mormons were killed because of
their beliefs including many of my ancestors.So please save your diatribes for
some other cause you missed this completely.
I am saddened by the loss of individuals freedom of religion and the
strengthening of religions control of government. Perhaps this nail
in the coffin of religious freedom for individuals will be the nail that strikes
the firing pin in a new quest for freedom.
Tekakaromatagi: I would conclude that the real liberals are the ones who support
Hobby Lobby's freedom of conscience.You are confusing
'liberals' with 'neo-liberals'. The former are interested in
social issues, the latter in economic.
Liberals are bent out of shape about this saying that the employers are forcing
their religion on their employees by not paying for contraceptives. This
wasn't an issue until King Obama declared that they had to pay for
contraceptives. There are lots of things my insurance and your insurance
doesn't pay for, why is this any different. This is more about King Obama
than Hobby Lobby.
GaryONo, it's a victory for the right to impose one's
peculiar religious beliefs upon the whole nation, at the expense of everyone
ultimately.Now we have much more in common with Jihadist States than
we ever did."How is Hobby Lobby imposing their beliefs? They
aren't proselytizing at their store. They just are paying for women to be
promiscuous. If they want to have sex, they can go and buy their own condoms.
What is the big deal about that?Give me a break, we aren't
anywhere near a Jihadist State, but then again somebody who has never been to
one is making that statement. You liberals "what if" a situation to make
it look like the end of the world. Get over it, this Supreme Court decision will
not effect your life at all.
Abstinence is still free.I thought it was important to keep
government out of our bedrooms. Why do you want government there now?Medical insurance used to be a benefit that the employer used to attract the
best employees. Now the government is mandating that employers provide coverage
or pay a fine. I believe that is an overreach of power that still needs to be
reversed.If these drugs are not covered the cost of the plan to the
employee will be less so the employee will be better able to afford to purchase
the drugs.I am much more concerned about forcing people into plans
that do not provide access to medical care within a reasonable distance from
The court seems to have made a clear distinction of the employer paying for a
"lifestyle" insurance service that does not agree with their principles,
and life saving insurance, which they deemed as not optional - regardless of
religious beliefs. It is a very fine precarious line they have tried to
create.I wonder if Hobby Lobby would allow its employees to pay the
difference for the upgrade in policy.. akin to the cafeteria style plans many
employers provide. Or is this that the owners of hobby lobby don't want
their employees on birth control at all?What would be interesting is
to see how this is used a precedent with regards to other business rights - for
example the right of that Oregon photographer to not shoot a gay wedding. At
what level does a business have the right to deny benefits or service based on
religious beliefs. This is hardly the end of this discussion. Can an employer
restrict benefits for interracial adoptions?
Another 5-4 ruling. It would appear that four justices are determined that the
government will always be right (except when the president violates the recess
appointment laws)when it comes to determining what is best for the people.By the way, corporations are people. That is the whole idea behind a
corporation. The shareholders of the corporation create a "person" that
is to be treated like a separate individual for all purposes. It may be a legal
fiction, but that is the reality since corporations have existed. When
attributing morals to corporations, might it not be even-handed to treat
corporations as individuals. Some subscribe to your moral thought, some do not.
@ 1978Well put....that is the bottom line
What ridiculous whining from the liberals. Why should a private corporation be
required to pay for something they don't want to pay for anyway? The truth
is when employers work out medical insurance plans to offer their employees
there are already things that are negotiated as covered and not covered so why
should birth control be the one thing exempt from that?I am amused
by the entitlement mentality of the modern liberal, they all seem to think that
just because something exists and they want it that they are entitled to it and
they are entitled to have someone else pay for it for them.If you
want to kill a baby then pay to kill that baby yourself, don't expect that
others should have to pay for your desire to kill babies.
I thought courts couldn't overrule the will of the people? Oh wait, that
argument only gets pulled out by conservatives when they lose something, not
when they win.
I applaud the Supreme Court's ruling today. They got it right!No employer should be forced to pay for their employees birth control. If an employee wants to sleep around they have to options. 1) They can
purchase their own birth control or 2) Don't have sex!It's
been enjoyable watching the liberals squirm over this ruling. It's like
they lost their minds.
yet a bakery is required to make a cake for a LGBT wedding.
It is hypocritical of the supposed religious who oppose birth controls and
then fight against social programs to assist mothers who can't afford to
support their unwanted children.
The supreme court seems to have figured out it constitutional duties although a
5-4 decision, it was an appropriate one.Seems like they found a previous
law than was some how overlooked in the obamacare mess of let us pass it to see
what's in it method of making rules and laws.The guy in the white
house can't blame this mess of obamacare on the republicans, no matter how
tired he gets of them.Nice to have some wins for the Christians, very
To all liberal posters on this article - The supreme court did not say a women
can't purchase contraceptives it simply said that an employer is not
required to pay for it. What is the objection to that?The more I
see in the thought process of the current liberal (PC) crowd I realize that
freedom is not valued at all. Forced compliance to their idealogy - for
everyone - is their end goal.
So my boss's religious convictions can overrule my own, but it still pays
for Viagra. Still, you have a choice to work for or shop at Hobby Lobby. Some
may decide to do neither as a result of this action. It is easier to vote with
your pocketbook than to cast a ballot.
First, corporations became people.Now corporations can dictate or at least
influence the life style a/o health issues of their employees.Therefore the SCOTUS has made Corporations "more people" than humans.
We are definitely not created equal anymore.
if you don't like it then you don't have to work for hobby lobby, we
are all free agents
@A Quaker 9:13 a.m. June 30, 2014I agree with your comment (with one
exception -- I'm a true conservative, i.e. a moderate mainstreamer, and not
a liberal). You said it well. Good job.
RE:GaryO, it's not a victory for "religious freedom." It’s a
victory for “The right to life”. Human life should be protected in
the womb, because every unborn child is a special creation of God.
You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my
mother’s womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your
workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. You watched me as I was being
formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You
saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every
moment was laid out. before a single day had passed.(Psalm 139 13-16)
This SC continues to establish itself as the true rulers of our country by
handing down one Solomon-like decision after another (usually the 5-4 variety).
These arbitrary decisions (e.g., D.C. v Heller) contain lots of line-drawing
language that make it extremely difficult for future parties to know, on
principle, where those lines are, and will likely have the effect of increasing
litigation requiring the SC to once again (likely often) to play Solomon and
tell us where those lines are.The Justices said this decision does
not apply to blood transfusions or vaccinations. Why? Well, because they said
so. There is no principle that can be derived from this ruling that
would establish those boundaries by definition. Those boundaries apparently can
only be provided by the wisdom of nine (or five) unelected philosopher-kings.That said, the practical effects of this ruling are nil as the
government will simply open up the same avenues provided to already exempt
non-profit employees to obtain birth control, so this is all much ado about
nothing.But as legal precedent it is a big deal… and not in a
The Supremes are WRONG! This is the second move by the Supremes to interfere
with a woman's reproductive choices! Employees are Hobby Lobby are NOT
members of a church because Hobby Lobby is not a church.I am sure
that Cialis and Viagra will continue to be covered under Hobby Lobby's
insurance.These "Christian" owners are certainly
anti-abortion. To prevent abortion, one needs to take precautions against
getting pregnant. Women need to be able to obtain birth control through their
health insurance. Birth Control pills are used in my medical practice and by
other LDS Ob-Gyns for other reasons.. such as menorrhagia, uterine fibroids.
Birth control is expensive...don't blame the doctors or Nurse Practitioners
for this. Pharmaceutical companies continue to overcharge for BC pills,
estrogen/progesterone shots, and IUDs. An IUD can cost hundreds of dollars!
Hobby Lobby pays their employees a pittance.It's as if the
Supremes consider any intercourse that does NOT result in pregnancy to be a sin.
We might as well live under Sharia Law! Shame on these justices!
Corporations are not people. The only reason for corporations to exist is to
create wealth for the shareholders, whether the company shares are publicly
traded or privately held. Check it out in any basic finance textbook.Religious people never seem to be happy with just practicing the religion of
their choice in this free country where they can. They seem always to need to
impose their religions on everyone around them. I find it frightening. And
what arrogance to assume you can tell a woman whose personal situation and fears
you cannot possibly fathom that she must do as you decide. I find compassion
lacking and self-righteousness overpowering in most religious people.
It's interesting how conservatives view this as an issue of conscience or
freedom when, in reality, the net result is that an employer was stepping in
between an employee and her health care provider to demand that she abide by the
employer's social construct. Freedom is the ability to
determine one's own actions whereas this ruling gives employers the ability
to force their employees to do as the employer wishes - the opposite of freedom.
This case negates the will of the employee in favor of subjecting them to the
haphazard religious views of their employer.
As Alito notes in his opinion, this case has nothing to do with the
Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. It hinges entirely on two
things:1) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a Congressional
piece of legislation which can be repealed or amended by any Congress.2) The fact that HHS already worked out a "Plan B" (pun not exactly
intended, but oh well) for religious non-profit corporations which could easily
be extended to cover companies like Hobby Lobby. Under that plan, the
government and insurance companies work something out directly that covers women
for contraceptive coverage without the employer being involved. While, as a liberal I'm concerned that the ruling unfairly disregards the
secular and religious values of employees of such companies in favor of their
employer's, as long as a compromise is available that provides the same
benefit, and this narrowly-written decision doesn't open a pandora's
box of religious exemptions for any other laws, I think we can live with it.
Women won't suffer and employers won't be able to discriminate based
upon religious grounds. Employees who want this type of contraception can just
buy it themselves. What in the world did we do before King Obama and the ACA
went into effect? My goodness, the sky isn't falling. No one is forcing
these employees to work for this corporation and the banter about a plan of
salvation for corporations is just silly.What if the government
decided everyone had to paint their building some shade of green? Would that be
oppressive or illegal? (Remember that in the old Soviet Union there was very
little color allowed in buildings.) This is a free country and you can work
where you want and up until now buy the insurance you wanted. In fact, you
could even choose your own doctor and then keep him. Does that sound at all
On the surface, this appears to be a victory for religious freedom.
Unfortunately, it is another ruling towards the concept that "Corporations
are people too". "And on the eighth day, God created
Corporations" is a punch line to a joke. It shouldn't be public
OneWifeOnly San Diego, CAThis ruling opens the door for
corporations to discriminate based on religious beliefs on all sorts of things.
Imagine being able to not hire or to fire someone because your religion is
opposed to gay marriage.Can you please explain this reasoning? I
don't see where the employer is being forced to pay for the marriage
ceremony to base the refusal to hire or the reason to fire on. The SC was
fairly clear that there were plenty of other options for women to obtain Birth
Control inexpensively without the employer having to pay for it.
Why does my boss get to make important decisions regarding my love life?
According to this ruling my boss gets to decide if my health care covers birth
control.If I have a boss whose religion is against drinking coffee can that boss
now deny me health care if I get an ulcer that is related to drinking coffee?
Why does somebody else's religious beliefs get to dictate what is covered
on my health care plan?
Liberals will have to go find a new hobby!!
I guess this means that religion isn't under attack?
per EliyahuThis morning, CNN said that the Citizens United ruling
may set a precedence for ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.Other than
the slippery slope that Citizens United & Kelo v New London rulings are, I
did not have a dog in this fight and really don't care.
@Robert Riversong"...these so-called Christian profit-makers
want to force their religious beliefs onto their employees..."No
different than the Atheist/Agnostic profit-makers wanting to force their
religious "beliefs" onto their employees. It's all about your
point of view, and whether you have the inner strength to see others' point
of view as well. Pretty sure I can guess where you fit in.
Glad to know that sometimes the little guys win!
@Darrel8:30 a.m. June 30, 2014I must confess myself a bit
surprised.Both sides definitely had a case, but the Government
failed to prove theirs.-----------------\Agreed. And,
as a result, women will suffer. For the general welfare of the country,
it's time for the feds to step up and mitigate this issue. Perhaps having
the medical insurance companies, as they do for other basic preventative health
care issues, provide coverage without charging a premium would be the best way.
That would certainly be more economical for the insurance copanies -- they would
pay a lot less for basic contraception than they would for pregnancy care,
neonatal care for the fetus, and then medical care once a birth has occurred and
there is a baby. Plus people like the Greens wouldn't have to fake
"religious liberty" to force their beliefs on their employees. Problem
This is a good decision. Mandating all forms of health care and requiring
employers to fund them is an overreach.It is nice to see that
religious freedom not completely dead, although there are certainly many federal
court judges looking to kill it....
A terrible ruling. This isn't about religious freedom it's about
forcing your religion on your employees.
@Chris B:"Can't wait for the liberals to squirm and get made over
this one."Reading some of the recent comments supporting Hobby
Lobby vs those who think that the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby have some
hidden, devious agenda, I would conclude that the real liberals are the ones who
support Hobby Lobby's freedom of conscience.Liberals like you,
Chris B.Woohoo! I applaud this decision. Let freedom ring!
Ironic that Jesus was pretty clear that money and morality don't mix, but
these so-called Christian profit-makers want to force their religious beliefs
onto their employees.
This ruling opens the door for corporations to discriminate based on religious
beliefs on all sorts of things. Imagine being able to not hire or to fire
someone because your religion is opposed to gay marriage. That is just the
first that came to mind. I'm sure there are many other areas that DN
readers will point out in these comments. I wish we could create a new type of
corporation: Religious For Profit. That way those of us who would prefer to
not support these types of entries could easily tell which corporations were
overtly religious and which simply wanted to run a business in the marketplace.
I'll be shopping elsewhere.
That's too bad; but the Court has ruled.
Apparently corporations are not only "people", but they're
religious people. Does it follow that there is a plan of salvation for
corporations so that the corporation can go to heaven, and, in the likely
absence of such a plan, that corporations are going elsewhere in the afterlife?
How does this ruling apply to a corporation owned by a
Jehovah's Witness or a Christian Science believer? Can they provide health
insurance that, in the first case, doesn't cover blood transfusions or, in
the second case, only covers "divine healing"? Health insurance is
supposed to cover the medical needs of the employee; not just what the employer
might approve of.
I must confess myself a bit surprised.Both sides definitely had a
case, but the Government failed to prove theirs.
Finally, common sence wins out.