This was a great rulingIt's hard to even have rational
conversations with liberals who insist on being disingenuous at best. No one is saying a woman shouldn't have access to birth control. Such is
the lie we hear from the left. If you want to engage in sexual
activity and you want to not get pregnant, that is your decision. I won't
pay so you can do those things. You can pay for it.
It's pathetic that the very thing our original settlers fled to this
wilderness country to obtain had to be re-validated by a 5-4 court ruling which
should have been 9-0 vote with the same outcome. The idea that a person has the
right to concience is core to the american ideal of freedom and our own
government set up to protect that right now seeks to enforce its own definitions
of morality on people you might as well have a state sponsered religion then.
There is no difference wether it has a reiligous label or a secular one. For
years we have honored the beliefs of widely different opinions from
Jehovah's witnesess stance on blood transfusions to Quakers and Ahmish
pacifism to not be forced to military service. If you work for an organization
that has specific stated beliefs you accept that going in. If you don't you
are not compelled to affiliate with them. I wonder how all atheists would feel
if they were compelled through law and taxes to directly support churches as
charity organizations by legal definition you might then understand how they
feel about issues like abortion then. tolerance is a 2 way street.
No reason why a business, non profit or religous organization should have to
provide birth control. Why do we let them have tax exempt status as well?
Let's be honest most of the religous organizations are run as a business,
to generate wealth, acrue power and influence goverment. Why do I have to pay
for their services? If they want to use our roads, be defended by our military,
etc they can pay their own way as well. They need to stop infringing on my
rights and expect me to pay for their well being.
It sets a precedent. A regressive one, as individuals lose a bit of religious
freedom in order that it be given to a corporation. One which, if we had the
proper national single payer system we should have, no corporation or employer
should even have. Religious freedom was pushed back in this ruling. As for
the issue at hand, birth control, I should imagine that it is an incredibly
minute component of any health insurance plan, in terms of cost. An unwanted
pregnancy, on the other hand, can present a burden on not just an insurer but
society. Prevention is not only a far more sound idea, but more cost effective.
It should not be denied to anyone based on mythology.
"Hobby Lobby sets a precedent for religious liberty"WRONGHobby Lobby sets a precedent for religious oppression.In a
landmark decision, the Supreme Court destroyed the Separation of Church and
State, a long-standing principle designed by the Founders to help guarantee our
freedoms.Once again, our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court trampled
on the Constitution and made a horrible decision that resulted in a reduction
of our freedoms.Face it folks, the implementation of
"Conservative" ideology does no good for this nation or its citizens.
As articulated by Julian Sanchez from the CATO Institute, liberals are
essentially claiming that believers with religious objections are underserving
of respect when they are forced to act against their convictions, regardless of
whether this makes any real difference to the outcome. "The
ruling seems to provoke anger, not because it will result in women having to pay
more for birth control (as it won't), but at least in part because it fails
to send the appropriate cultural signal. Or, at any rate, because it allows
religious employers to continue sending the wrong cultural
signal—disapproval of certain forms of contraception—when sending
that signal does not impede the achievement of the government's ends in any
way."Liberals believe they have a "right" to employer
compensated contraception, even though they are free to access it by other means
(that doesn't matter to a liberal) and this entitlement should trump the
religious views of the employer.Furthermore, liberals have invented
an evil boogeyman called a corporation, labeled it as an inanimate object with
no connection to people, and then ironically claim a hypocritical right to a
GaryOthanks for your daily dose of humor.business owners can,
as a result of this ruling, NOT have the government dictate that they choose
between feeding their families and abiding by their convictions. a FABULOUS
re-affirmation of religious liberty and reinforcement of the separation of
church and stateOnce in a while, the SCOTUS actually gets it right
and protects freedom.Face it folks, the implementaiton of
"liberal" ideology does no good for this nation or its citizens.BTW, did you see the Quinnipiac University survey published today that
shows your hero BO as the worst president since WWII? Worse even than carter or
liberty or ...?: "For years we have honored the beliefs of widely different
opinions from Jehovah's witnesess stance on blood transfusions to Quakers
and Ahmish pacifism to not be forced to military service."Quakers and the Amish are provided a conscience exemption from DIRECT action
(i.e. military service) in opposition to their beliefs. The law does not allow
them a waiver from INDIRECT action. They are still compelled by law to pay
taxes for weapons and war against their moral principles. No one compelled
Hobby Lobby, the Green family, or their employees to buy or use contraceptives.
They were only required to pay premiums into an insurance pool, some of which
MIGHT be used for contraceptives. If Quakers can be compelled to pay indirectly
for wars, Hobby Lobby can pay indirectly for contraceptives.The
tortured hairsplitting in the Hobby Lobby decision specifically limited the
ruling to contraception and explicitly excluded blood transfusions from
conscience protection. In doing this the majority established a state religion.
It said, in effect, that if you are Catholic or evangelical Protestant, the
court will honor your religious beliefs. But if you are Jehovah's Witness,
your deeply held religious beliefs carry no weight.
@Cletus from Coalville – “religious objections are underserving of
respect when they are forced to act against their convictions…”Except this case had nothing to do with the owners of Hobby Lobby being
forced to pay for anything (and the plaintiffs in the case tell us that paying
for birth control was their motivation for filing, because they told the SC they
have no problem facilitating the insurance policy that covers these products as
long as they don’t have to share in the cost). Health
insurance is a payroll expense deducted from revenue before profit (the part
that accrues to the owners), therefore if anyone was paying for health insurance
for the employees it was the customers of Hobby Lobby. This case was
motivated by one thing only – a right wing attack on a liberal
president’s main policy achievement. It had nothing to do with religion
and everything to do with politics.All the rest is rhetorical smoke
& mirrors… but it sure made for good theater.@LagomorphBest summary I’ve seen yet!
Thank goodness we have companies willing to stand up to the Government bullies
who are taking our freedoms away.Freedom to Choose baby!Celebrate the 4th of July. Let's get rid of the terrorists that are in
our own country.
Hey Cletus –“As articulated by Julian Sanchez from the
CATO Institute . . . “The Cato institute?The Cato
institute is just one more phony think tank funded by the Koch brothers. And
Julian Sanchez is just another Koch brother’s employee repeating
Koch-Brothers’-approved rhetoric for the consumption of
“Conservatives.”The ruling provokes concern from
Americans who believe the principle of the Separation of Church and State
should not have been tampered with, and the Constitution should not have been
trampled by Right Wingers bent on taking away American freedoms.
Hey Red -" . . . the Government bullies who are taking our
freedoms away . . . "And that's exactly what happened.Right Wing oppressors in black robes took our freedoms away.That's what we get for electing Republican Presidents.Anti-government "Conservatives" are right about the dangers of
government.Ironically though, those dangers are only present when
"Conservatives" get their way in government.
@LagomorphThe Court in no such way "established a state
religion" and such a declaration is nothing more than hyperbole. Furthermore, your Amish and Jehovah witness example demonstrates unfamiliarity
with the Court's decision. The Court held that the government
cannot burden a person's exercise of religion unless the government
demonstrates that the application of such a burden is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest.Requiring a citizen to participate
in the defense of our nation clearly demonstrates the furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest--protection of both the pacifist and the
non-pacifist citizen despite the religious belief of the pacifist.Pray tell--how does compelling an employer to pay for employee contraception
despite their religious beliefs and under threat of government penalty
demonstrate a furtherance of a "compelling" governmental interest? @Tyler DThe employer still provides the insurance and
employee contributions come nowhere near covering the cost incurred by the
employer. Furthermore, customers don’t "pay" for employee
insurance; they pay for a product that "cost" the employer to
provide.Hey GaryOTypical liberal--throw in an ad hominem
attack at the messenger (CATO) rather than address the message.
Hey GaryO....have you seen the latest gallup and pew polls showing the POTUS as
the worst since WWII and Reagan as the best? ......Didn't
think so....The fourth of July belongs to the GOP and those who
fought and died for our freedom......not the Bill Ayers/Obama types who saddle
us with tyranny and escaping to Canada and cut off their trigger fingers to
avoid serving in the armed services!
In my opinion, this was not a ruling about birth control. It was a ruling about
whether or not the owners of corporations can impose their religious belief upon
their employees. There are many subject matters where religious belief and
secular law collide as evidenced daily on the pages of this newspaper. It is
my belief that SCOTUS has opened the door for corporations to claim religious
objection to other secular laws they disagree with. Furthermore, while this
particular ruling affected only 4 particular types of birth control the next
case up will be brought by a Catholic organization and will be about all types
of birth control. What might be next?
@TRUTH“The fourth of July belongs to the GOP…”Can
I watch the fireworks and share a BBQ with my neighbors or do I need to change
my voter registration first?
@Cletus:The government has a clear and compelling interest in protecting
the health and safety of its citizens. Enabling women to control their
fertility is one way to accomplish this.Pacifists are compelled to
pay for weapons and wars "despite their religious beliefs and under threat
of government penalty," too, and the linkage of causality is much more
direct and certain for them than what Hobby Lobby is facing with insurance
policies. A sizable portion of a citizen's taxes will most definitely pay
directly for arms and wars. Hobby Lobby might never pay for a contraceptive if
its employees choose not to use them or not to pay for them with insurance.When it comes to conscience and sin, how far does the chain of
culpability extend? As I noted, insurance premiums are pooled. Money is
fungible. It would be difficult or impossible to trace a dollar spent on a
contraceptive back to the books of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby can opt out of
insurance based on a very tenuous indirect connection to contraception, then
equity demands that pacifists be able to opt out of their much more substantial
indirect connection to war through taxation.
@TRUTHThanks for your daily dose of humor.
I heard a rumour that the Church is going to add a new Official Declaration next
conference entitled "Free agency and how to get the SCOTUS to enforce
TRUTHSalt Lake City, UTHey GaryO....have you seen the latest gallup
and pew polls showing the POTUS as the worst since WWII and Reagan as the best?
......Didn't think so....The fourth of July belongs to the GOP
and those who fought and died for our freedom......not the Bill Ayers/Obama
types who saddle us with tyranny and escaping to Canada and cut off their
trigger fingers to avoid serving in the armed services!A-- It was a
right winger poll, not a GallupB-- Bush did a "phone in"
enlistment, and Romney suffered by having French people laugh in his face,
rather than either one going to Vietnam, when Obama was in grade schoolThe worst President? The one who cost us our economy, gained us the hatred of
the Muslim world, and started a war so his rich oil friends should get richer?
Or maybe Nixon?
@ TRUTHDoes it count if I have on occasion voted for a member of the
GOP? Does this make me pure enough? Please let me know. I don't want to
fly the flag unless you think I'm entitled to do so.Let freedom
@Lagomorph"The government has a clear and compelling interest in
protecting the health and safety of its citizens. Enabling women to control
their fertility is one way to accomplish this."That's the
unfortunate misinformation being advanced by you and others who simply
don't understand the facts of the POTUS decision – that women no
longer have control over their fertility. This kind of
misinformation about women's fertility and health rights is staggering. Women are still free to choose what they want to do with their bodies,
what means of contraception they want to use, and work with their doctor to make
fertility and any other health decisions that are in the best interest of the
female patient. SCOTUS simply removed the government mandate that
employers MUST provide contraception coverage in their insurance plans under
threat of government penalty.The irony here is that most
corporations will still offer all kinds of contraception and fertility coverage
for employees; they just won't be forced to do so under threat of
Just a couple questions.Did the Greens change religions in 2012, because
before the ACA they paid for the birth control they just sued over?If you
make money by investing in the Pham. Company that makes these birth controls
that's within your morals?When you stock your store with goods made
in China, whom has such a great record on abortion and human rights to increase
your profit, that's alright.But to allow your employees to
choose for themselves what is right, is absolutely unacceptable, and an
infringement on Corporate Religion that has no soul to save, no body to
incarcerate, and is immortal.
When Congress passes a law and then the Supreme Court over turns part or in
whole of that law, its not regression, it is called a "legal review."
Congress has passed many laws that the Supreme Court has later
overruled or struck down completely, it just part of the legal process. With
Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS said that a corporation could decide what types of brith
control they would support and which they would not, just as some companies
decide what types of insurance they will provide or not. Companies also
discriminate against men when they don't provide medical services for
Viagra for those with diagnosed with ED. Women can choose a wide variety of BC
including condoms, but what type of BC do men get to choose under their
So now a Muslim owned business could refuse to pay for insurance that covers
medications that use pig gelatin or other parts of pig. So now a
Jehovah Witness owned business could refuse to pay for insurance that covers
blood transfusions. This Supreme Court ruling is not a win for the
people, but now opens a serious can of worms. Any business can refuse any
medical procedure or medication now on the basis of religious belief. I imagine a lot of small business owners businesses will suddenly find
religion if it means healthcare will be cheaper for their organization.
The rights of women were not hampered at all: Bill Hatley:
"Hobby lobby did not encroach upon anyone's right to chose abortion.
They merely resisted be forced into participating in that choice." They
have a right to choice, too. Women have the choice to not work for them.