Quantcast
Faith

Hobby Lobby appeals contraception mandate ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 20, 2012 8:18 p.m.

    Don't blame me. I voted for Romney!

  • Mint Julip KAYSVILLE, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:00 a.m.

    Thank me. I voted for Obama!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby has another possible course of action if the court rules against them. They can make all their employees part-time and not have to violate their beliefs to run their business because then they won't have to buy Obamacare for them.

    Actually BO is a genius with this plan (or whoever it was that drafted it). Retailers and restaurants and other low-wage employers will all have to cut ALL their employees to part time so they won't have to buy Obamacare, thereby creating more part-time job openings and reducing the apparent unemployment rate. Of course, all those people will be even poorer and MORE dependent on big brother and therefore more likely to vote for the dependency party - uh, the dem party - and BO therefor even more solidifies his party's base. So what if the people are poor just so long as the dems maintain power?

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    So it's all about keeping the poor people poor...? Brilliant!

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 21, 2012 8:59 a.m.

    r.e. NedGrimley. That's the way that Obama designed the program. Actually, in his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama said that he would organize a committee or group of health care professionals, insurance people, and other specialists who would design a good health care program. I thought this was a good idea. But, like so many of his promises, once he was elected, this group never materialized. He lied and just turned it over to congress and we ended up with a 2600 page monstrosity. Obama bragged in the debates that he knows how to work in a bipartisan way, but Obamacare was passed without even one Republican vote! Like Benghazi, just another Obama deception to add to the long, and growing list. I am amazed that so many people can't see how non transparent he is. Or maybe they just don't care.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    Do you think Hobby Lobby is aware that their so-called "Christian beliefs" are not in harmony with the Bible? On multiple occasions, biblical passages give divine approval to the termination of unborn human life.

    I'm glad that my own church does not condemn contraceptive use but allows members to decide for themselves about using them.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    Those who claim to be pro-choice - but refuse to allow anyone the choice to say NO to participating in an abortion (or providing abortifacient drugs); are merely faux-choice hypocrites

    They personify everything they claim to despise.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    Steve C. Warren - "On multiple occasions, biblical passages give divine approval to the termination of unborn human life."....

    Uhhhh... Not in the bible the rest of us read.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    @Mint Julip
    You admit to that? LOL!

    Hobby Lobby should not be forced to provide health coverage for things they feel are immoral. What a nightmare.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    JSB:

    Did he really renege on that promise? The law was endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Mayo Clinic, and the Cleveland Clinic.

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    Ok, So I don't get how birth control is the same as an abortion. It stops the process before it ever starts. Men have nocturnal emissions if they don't have sex. Using the hobby lobby logic that's the same as an abortion as well.

  • Mint Julip KAYSVILLE, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    @Belching Cow,

    Would you feel the same way if you were employed by someone who is religiously opposed to scientific medicine, believing only in faith healing via their God? Would you feel the same way if you were a female employed by someone that believes it is immoral for women to work or to show their faces? These beliefs exist and fortunately so do laws that require employers to follow certain rules despite their religious beliefs.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:10 a.m.

    Noodlekaboodle:

    I agree with your view of birth control. But, it is against his religion and because of the 1st amendment he should not be forced to violate his religious beliefs. The government is getting involved in a lot of things that are not its business and it is limiting people's rights.

    People have argued here that Democrats are socialists. I disagree, if anything they are on the other side of the political spectrum and they seem to be moving us towards a "kinder, gentler" fascism.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle

    "So I don't get how birth control is the same as an abortion."
    Therein lies the Obama obfuscation: Although the law is billed as a contraception mandate, the offending portion of the mandate includes abortofacient drugs, commonly known as abortion pills, that cause miscarriage AFTER pregnancy occurs

    Hobby Lobby is not suing over birth control, they are suing over abortion pills

    Even if they were suing over contraception - there are religious denominations (Catholics) that prohibit contraception and their tenets are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom.

    Those who myopically argue that everyone should obey the law continue the obfuscation; there is a vast difference between telling a religious person they CANNOT do something that is OK with their religion and telling them they MUST do something that violates their religion ( i.e telling someone they CANNOT have a polygamous marriage is vastly different than telling them they MUST have one).

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    Why should a company be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees?

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi

    If this business owner was Jehovah's Witness, would you deem it acceptable for him to refuse blood transfusions as part of his employees health care, since it would mean forcing him to 'violate his religious beliefs'?

    At what point does a business owners religious belief system supersede the religious rights of his employees? In my opinion, they are completely separate. My religious beliefs are between me and my church, not me and my employer. If I am a devout follower, it doesn't matter if my company insurance provides contraception...it's up to me to choose not to use it if it violates my belief system.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    @Mint Julip
    "Would you feel the same way if you were employed by someone who is religiously opposed to scientific medicine, believing only in faith healing via their God?"

    That is a false narrative. Just because the employer does not pay for your "scientific medicine" does not deny you the right to get it on your own; either by paying for it directly or getting supplemental insurance yourself.

    Your argument is a rather passive/aggressive backward way of saying that simply because YOU want something means that someone else must provide and pay for it. When the real question is; why don't YOU do it yourself and leave them out of it.

    YOU are making the argument of the perpetrator, imposing YOUR values onto others - you are not the victim because you have not been harmed - you merely weren't successful in manipulating someone else to do what you want (and they don't want) rather than do it yourself

    So how would I feel if I were employed by someone who is religiously opposed to scientific medicine (or anything else)?
    I would respect their opinion, live with it, get my own insurance or find another job

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:35 a.m.

    mintjulip, you raise an interesting comparision, though you may not be aware of some of the exceptions given to Muslims for their religious beliefs.
    The other point is the fact that the government is using our taxes to pay for abortions that most Americans don't approve of or believe in.
    It's outragious to think that someone can get pregnant, not have the money to pay to have the living infant aborted, but they can ask the government to pay to have it done and they can use my taxes to pay for it.
    And they can force medical personnel to perform the abortion against their beliefs if the hospital performs abortions.
    Now tell me that is a fair and just way of running the government.

  • IJ Hyrum, Ut
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    "The government is getting involved in a lot of things that are not its business and it is limiting people's rights."

    Tek,
    How right you are! But that is where BO wants to be. He wants to be the king of America. He is a power grabbing narcicist and wants to control everyone; under the guise of helping. He claims to be a constitutional attorney - and yet he violates it every chance he gets. During and before the debates, he claim to support the 2nd amendment and now is pushing for the UN resolution to turn gun control over to them. Everything he has done and is doing is in violation of his sworn oath as POTUS. I can't blame the secessionists. It's 1776 all over again.

  • Mint Julip KAYSVILLE, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    Women have the right to good and proper health care with decisions made between them and their medical providers. Hobby Lobby does not have the right to interject their morality into that decision making process.

    IUD's that inhibit the implantation process of a fertilized egg are used for far more than birth control. Just ask my sister who nearly died from a rare blood disorder that causes life threatening bleeding. Her IUD saves her life every month. As if that's not enough, just this week a women in Ireland lost her baby and her own life because religious influence stopped doctor's from giving her what would have been a life saving abortion.

  • Abe Sarvis Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Once you accept corporation status, you become a semi-governmental agency. If Hobby Lobby were a sole proprietorship, they would have a case - but when you become a corporation, you accept certain governmental regulation in exchange for significant legal protection from individual responsibility. Bottom line is, you can't have ti both ways. Once you sell your soul to the government, you don't get to whine about your owner.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    Freedom of religion is everyone's right until it comes up against the goals of the Obama administration and the liberal agenda. I'm so afraid for my country.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    When will Americans say NO to the encroachment of organized religion up our freedom, rights and privileges. Will it be before or after the war of religions and their haste to bring about the end of our world.

    Amendment I:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Can the phase “an establishment of religion” be extended to a business owned by a church or even a religious individual who has an intense belief in God? Can an individual’s intense belief be his religion even if he doesn’t believe in God? Does a person have the right to believe and exercise his belief as he pleases even to the refusal to abide by the civil laws and rules of our society?

    Could an atheist ban his employees and customers from wearing or displaying any sort of other religious clothing, jewelry or activity, or race, or anything else. Because his personal belief says he should.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    @Henry Drummond
    "Why should a company be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees?"

    To begin with Hobby Lobby is not imposing their religious beliefs on anyone, no one is forcing their employees to work there and no on is stopping his employees for paying for their own contraception. There is a rather elegant solution. Don't work for them. Yvon Chouinard the founder of Patagonia put it well. Patagonia gives money to Planned Parenthood. Some of his employees where not comfortable with that because of their religious beliefs. Yvon basically stated that if they have any heartburn over it then they shouldn't be working for him. I agree. If you don't like the way your employer does things then don't work for him. They have a right to do with their business as they think is correct and moral. If you don't like it tough, start your own business or work elsewhere. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    @IJ

    "I can't blame the secessionists. It's 1776 all over again."

    Not only 1776 but also 1861

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    Either you and I have a different definition of what an abortofacient is or you don't understand the law. Because the law only mandates coverage for drugs that prevent a pregnancy, like IUD's, pill birth control, plan B, hormone injections etc. Some people call plan B an abortofacient, but that shows a lack of understanding of that drug. The plan B pill is nothing more than a large dose of standard pill birth control. If the egg has already been fertilized it does nothing to the pregnancy.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    Chik-Fil-A----off my list.
    Hobby Lobby, see ya.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:57 a.m.

    An employer should not be required to provide health insurance at all. If he provides any, it should be up to him to decide what he covers and what he does not. He also should not be told who he should or should not hire or how much to pay. This is the spirit of free market. It is his business. If he makes a bad decision, let the free market punish him. If you think he is making a bad decision, start a competing business and prove it. If we want America to be great we need to stop having a dependent mentality where we constantly expect somebody else to solve our problems.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 12:00 p.m.

    To PP: In response to my comment that biblical passages give divine approval to the termination of unborn human life, you wrote: "Not in the bible the rest of us read."

    I read the King James version.

    The God of the King James Bible very clearly allows--even commands--the termination of unborn life. In Numbers 5:11-31 we read that God authorizes the use of "bitter water" to abort a fetus. At other times, prophets order the putting to death of adulteress women, some of whom would have been pregnant. Prophets also order the slaying of pregnant women in Ssmaria and elsewhere.

    The LDS Church has a responsible position on abortion, allowing it in four different circumstances, and on contraception, leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 21, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    OHBU: Endorsing is not the same thing as participating in writing the law. And those organizations didn't do that because no one had read the law until after it was passed and signed by the President. Which is another example of Obama's willingness to deceive. He said that all bills would be put online 48 hours before he signed them. I'm still very glad that I don't have it on my conscience that I voted for him. I wonder if the Benghazi mess bothers his conscience? OHBU: Doesn't the Benghazi fiasco give you second thoughts about Obama?

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    @Mint Julip
    "Women have the right to good and proper health care with decisions made between them and their medical providers."

    No one has said otherwise. Hobby Lobby is providing it's employees with good and proper health care.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    @Mike in Sandy
    Ahhh come on Mike the fine folks at Hobby Lobby are going to miss you.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    Mint Julip,

    I don't speak for Belching Cow, (which is a hilarious name I love) but I think religious freedom, which is not inflicted on others, is what the constitution protects.

    If the employer doesn't believe in medical care, he/she shouldn't have to provide it. The employer would have to disclose to potential employees, and then potential employees are free to choose to work for them or not. This in no way inflicts religion on anyone.

    People who don't like that their employees don't get insurance, don't have to shop there.
    Again, no one is forced to participate in any religion. Everyone gets to choose, religious and non-religious alike.

    I oppose restricting religious freedom, except in extreme circumstances where people are harmed in the practice of religion, as in human sacrifice, virgin sacrifice, eliminating the infidels, etc. You get the idea. I would also oppose kidnapping people to make them go to church.

    Religious of freedom for all! (including those who want no religion)

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    @JSB -- The Benghazi fiasco bothers me as much as did the slaughter of over 200 Marines by terrorists in Lebanon when Reagan was president and the murder of thousands by terrorists when Bush was president. Did those killings also bother you or are you only bothered when a Democrat (aka to you: Marxist, Socialist Kenyan) is President. Didn't see any Republicans calling for a Watergate style investigation or screaming to high heaven when those atrocities occurred. And you also did not see any Democrats doing it either. Democrats have the common sense to know that attacks on our country are a time to pull together, not a time to score one for the partisan team.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:35 p.m.

    As a business owner very concerned with my bottom line, I would be willing to believe in all the non-sense written in these comments if I could save a dime.

    What a bunch of non-sensical positions.

    All of you who criticize President Obama so harshly, what about Congress that doesn't stop him "taking over the country?. What about the Supreme Court? the GOP controls both of them.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    Sasha Pachev.

    Business is owned by the society of people wherein the business is operated.

    A private person may own all the buildings, processes and inventories of a business operation but he does not own business. He can only operate his business operation with the permission of the people who have the right, authority, and the means to regulate the business operation.

    The people give their permission by a document called a business license. The business license is given in return for a commitment to operate the business operation according to the wishes of the society. Those wishes are codified as laws and regulations and apply to all businesses operations equally. The laws specify to the businessman the what, how and when of the business operation, right down to the hours, pay and working conditions of employees. The people’s agent in this is their government.

    However, businessmen using their financial power to influence government can and do thwart the wishes of the people and use the power of government to favor some business operations over others. It is for the people to fix this if they can.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:56 p.m.

    Actually JSB, Obama did meet with representatives from those organizations when the law was being drafted, and when they read it, they endorsed it. Even if they hadn't participated, upon reading it they still found it beneficial. It's a pretty impressive list within the healthcare industry.

    As to Benghazi, I'm not sure where you think Obama has something weighing on his conscience. In the immediate aftermath, the nature of the attack was mischaracterized, though with the heavy disclaimer that the investigation was ongoing. As further evidence came to light, the official statements reflected that. You are making the mistake of thinking that evidence of emails with the correct story means the administration knew what happened. In the immediate aftermath, a lot of contrary information pours in, and it is then the task of those who receive it to judge what seems most probable. Do you remember 9/12 when it still was widely speculated that Palestinians were responsible? Congress reduced embassy security budget by $300,000,000, than proceeds to blast the administration when someone dies? That's like blaming an underfunded police force for not stopping every single murder.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:10 p.m.

    "If he provides any, it should be up to him to decide what he covers and what he does not. "

    Hmm. Can you imagine the outcry if a business owner decided the insurance he provided would only cover the first 2 children?

    Or if they only wanted to cover the birth of males?

    Or if they refused to cover STD related issues.

    How about if only providing health coverage for white people.

    My, we could go on and on.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    re: Mint Julip

    Explain again why Hobby Lobby has to pay for those choices when those choice violate the owners' personal morality. Seems to me you have it flipped. "I want to do (insert whatever moral choice you want here), therefore you MUST pay for it even though you view that choice as morally wrong." Who is interjecting whoms morality on the other in this case?

    Read an article that you can get a month's supply of birth control pills at Target for $9. Seems an awful small price to trample the freedom of others who don't agree with your particular brand of morality.

    And...the discussion is on contraception, not lifesaving measures. That's a totally different point and off-topic for this discussion.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Nov. 21, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    The owners of Hobby Lobby are attempting to control the lives of their employees and force their beliefs on others -- something most of the conservatives here would decry, if it were a Muslim or an atheist cast in the role of employer.

    It's all spin anyway. Hobby Lobby would not be forced to pay for abortions. Hobby Lobby would pay for an insurance benefit, period. What the employee does with that benefit is their business and their right to private, personal religious conviction.

    Are the owners of Hobby Lobby equally concerned about men who may use contraception in order to have extra-marital affairs, without pregnancy complications? Are the owners of Hobby Lobby worried about employee benefits paying for drug treatment or STDs?

    If this were about religious freedom, then why should an employer's right to their particular faith brand trump the employee, who has earned that benefit and who then owns the right to use it?

    I am sickened by those who wave the flag and parade their faith in public in order to gain privilege and oppress their fellow men, women and children.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 5:00 p.m.

    GiuseppeG. Asks:

    “Explain again why Hobby Lobby has to pay for those choices when those choice violate the owners' personal morality. ...

    Answer:

    When you voluntarily choose to live in a civilized society and take part in the benefits and obligations of that society you are not going to agree with everything that society does. You have to weigh the good against the bad and make your own decision. No one can make you do anything you don’t want to do, but they can impose consequences on you if you do the undesired things.

    The Constitution gives special status to churches and religions of God, but it does not give any such special status to business operations. However neither churches, business operations and especially individuals may be exempt from the law of the United States of America.

    The idea of freedom of religion is to not allow any one to impose his religion on others.
    The idea of being an American is to fairly share all the benefits and costs that come with the membership. But without agreement on being different, America would be a sham.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 5:04 p.m.

    To Belching Cow 12:07 p.m. Nov. 21, 2012

    @Mint Julip
    "Women have the right to good and proper health care with decisions made between them and their medical providers."

    No one has said otherwise. Hobby Lobby is providing it's employees with good and proper health care.

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

    Unless and until Hobby Lobby provides its employees with insurance for them and their families that includes all forms of contraception, incluing emergency contraception, it is not providing its employees with good and proper health care.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Nov. 21, 2012 6:31 p.m.

    Hobby Lobby is imposing NOTHING on anybody. They simply do not wish to pay for contraception for their employees. They should not be forced to do so.

  • Abe Sarvis Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:14 p.m.

    I would simply urge any corporation that wishes to have full control of their employee relationships to take the company private and surrender the protections of corporate status. Then they can do what they want. As long as they are a corporation, with the legal protections included in that status, they exist at the pleasure of the government and are subject to any and all regulation thereby.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:28 p.m.

    Ultra Bob says, "Business is owned by the society of people wherein the business is operated."

    That is a socialist attitude, plain and simple. If we enact laws to that extent, we will be a socialist country.

    You quote the first amendment, but then ignore the "free exercise clause". This does not mean just behind closed doors. That would be the Soviet Union style freedom, which was not freedom, and was socialism, to the extreme.

    You ask, "Could an atheist ban his employees and customers from wearing or displaying any sort of other religious clothing, jewelry or activity, or race, or anything else."

    Sure, it is a free country, and it is his business, despite what you may think.

    Many businesses have taken moral stands, and they glean some customers and lose others. That is called freedom.

    What he cannot do is force people to work for him or patronize his business.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 8:02 p.m.

    @JoeBlow

    IF the employer pays, provides coverage for medical insurance,
    then they have every right to make decisions regarding what they pay for.

    IF you don't like their coverage then don't work for that employer,

    let the free market work.

    The best employers with the best package will get the best employees.

    and other employers get what they get.

    Good and smart employers will make adjustments.

    It's amazing the fears the left keeps shoving in everyone's face,

    freedom means there will be risks and challenges.

    But I would rather have freedom than live under leftest government control of everything and everyone.

  • L Central, Utah
    Nov. 22, 2012 12:44 a.m.

    Would this set any precedent that the goverment would require an employeer to cover assisted sucide activities. Would objections have to be on religious grounds,or could an employeer determin that they just didn't want to be a part of that practice?

    Maybe that is a "way-out" comparison, but say a half century ago the idea of covering a church for someone to have an abortion would have been considered 'way-out."

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Nov. 22, 2012 8:31 a.m.

    IF a worker earns a benefit, including medical coverage, then they have every right to make decisions regarding what now belongs to them.

    The free market only works when there is real competition. Today, monopolies exist everywhere and there is a surplus of workers. Labor is unorganized. All of the options are on the side of big corporate power.

    Good and smart employees can’t always afford to make adjustments.

    I am amazed at the lack of empathy on the part of some who feel safe and comfortable. No person is an island. There are some who need to remember that.

    Freedom does involve risks and challenges, but big money in America today stacks the deck in their favor. The attack on voting rights should be evidence enough to show that the common man’s freedom is not the goal. There are more options and outcomes than the choice between freedom and government control. The new corporate, oligarchical plutocracy is not free, nor fair, nor good for the future of our country.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    Remind me again why I a private business has to buy your birth control? For crying out loud! Take some responsibility! It doesn't cost THAT much money that you need it subsidized by your fellow Americans. There is also a sure-fire way NOT to get pregnant. When did we become animals?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    @Mint Julip

    You are so wrong. Hobby Lobby is a PRIVATE business!!! Women who want contraception can buy it! Who are YOU to impose your beliefs on the rest of us?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    @Midwest Mom

    "IF a worker earns a benefit, including medical coverage, then they have every right to make decisions regarding what now belongs to them. "

    If an employee signs a contract and agrees to certain benefits, that's the deal. Don't use the federal government to impose your values on everybody else. You are under the assumption that a company exists to provide jobs and benefits. A company is in business to make money for the owner. The job and benefits are a by-product of that goal. If a company wants to provide certain benefits, the woman seeking those benefits can apply for that job. It's the governments role to impose your will.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Christian 24-7., A1994

    I can only ask that your seek the real facts for yourself.

    Think of business as a highway. You may drive your own personal business on the highway but that does not give you ownership of the highway. The rules of the road are made by the owner of the highway.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 22, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    It is not that the employer does not want to pay for contraceptives; it is their belief that providing those contraceptives makes them an accessory to what they believe their religion teaches is a sin.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Nov. 23, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    If Viagra is covered, so should birth control.