Hooray for freedom of thought and expression!! :o)I'm
especially happy that the Supreme Court voted to allow that in the case of
owner's of Hobby Lobby and their right to NOT be the purveyors of death
that these people demand they be.I share the view that insisting
that someone violate the most sacred tenets of their religion is a violation of
the first and, apart from the right to life, the most important of the few
enumerated and unalienable rights. I dread the day if ever the views of these
few ever become realized. For their sake as well as the rest of us.
Great article, great sentiments. And I don't understand how anyone can
argue with it.
Those girls wouldn't take a job paying $10 an hour for one day that in turn
would pay for their annual contraception supply.......instead they protest
expecting those of us who work to pay for their irresponsibility and
stupidity......these kind of women give women a bad name!
Kerissa Anaya: “My ovaries are my business and nobody else's."Me: Correct! So why are you asking Hobby Lobby/taxpayers to pay for your birth
control??Anaya: “This sets us back for women's rights,
and it completely sets us back as a country.”Me: You’ve lost
no rights. You can still buy those contraceptives with your own money. Or choose
not to have sex. Do you think “women’s rights” means we all
have to pay for your birth control? I thought it was your own business and
nobody else’s.Topher Mehlhoff: “I don't believe
that your religion should limit my choices.”Me: Again, you can still
buy any birth control with your own money. Your choices have not been limited.
Why should I have to pay for your birth control? Some forms aren’t even
that expensive.Mehlhoff: "To limit health care choices just for
women is patently sexist and not something Christ would do."Me: Christ
would ask you not to get pregnant unless you are married, and then, to buy your
own birth control. Ideally not a type that kills a fertilized egg. You are a
pastor and don’t understand this?
It is difficult to understand how the advent of ACA suddenly created an expanded
freedom of one of the persons interviewed regarding the her choices in the
"use of her ovaries", unless she is expressing the idea that there is an
inherent right to require others to contribute financially in support of her
choices. Unless the SCOTUS decision has been grossly misrepresented, there is
nothing in it to limit a woman's choice of sexual activity. The protest
reported by the Deseret News seems to be little more than the growing demands of
a portion of society for greater entitlements, without concomitant
I live in Canada, where we have "universal" health care. Funny thing,
the very kind of birth control that Hobby Lobby does not want to cover (the IUD)
is also not covered by our "universal" health care insurance. Even the
private plan we have through work does not cover the IUD. If we want it, we buy
it. All the insurance will cover is the necessary appointment with the
doctor.So when someone says that they "don't believe that
your religion should limit my choices" I'd say in reply that this does
not limit choice. They (like us in Canada) can choose to get an IUD, just not on
someone else's dime.I understand that some would like Hobby
Lobby to pay for this (just like I'd like the provincial government to pay
for it here -- especially given the high taxes), but I think that it is a bit of
a stretch to suggest that "that these judges are being allowed to dictate
health care for entire families". Not true. Yes, there may be an extra cost
-- but the ultimate decision is yours as it is for those of us with universal
It has never been the resposibility of business to bankroll employees who treat
sex as a recreational activity to be engaged in at any time with any person. No
truly reasonable person would claim that it is.Business pays for
standard health care because healthy, responsible employees are a benefit to the
business. Employees who engage in irresponsible lifestyles are a detriment to
business, and no business can prosper if it is forced to pay for its own
Thank heaven that the Supreme Court still respects freedom, at least 5-4. We
are increasingly encountering new "rights" that everyone and their pet
bird supposedly has, and, in the process, are removing freedom of choice from
someone else. We should have a free-market of ideas, including the freedom for
Hobby Lobby to choose to not offer contraceptive coverage, and the right of
those who work for Hobby Lobby to 1) buy it with their own money, or 2) choose
to work elsewhere.The U.S.A. used to be about limited government
protecting the freedom of all. Increasingly, however, it is turning into the
majority voting themselves an ever expanding list of rights. In the end, it
will leave all of us worse on economically, and will limit all of our ability to
pursue happiness as we see fit.
John Charity Spring - So married couples who engage in sex, but do not wish to
become pregnant (which I suppose makes sex a "recreational activity"),
are engaging in irresponsible lifestyles? Just want to clarify.
Hurrah for freedom of speech!It is great to see these women out
there protesting (too much, methinks) about wanting to get their ovaries into
everyone elses's wallets. This give us proof that some people,
indeed, can be fooled all of the time into believing that it is always someone
else's responsibility to provide them with birth control, but not a
husband, an income but not a job, and sex without consequences for the woman but
not an "unviable tissue mass."We need to point out these
people to our children and show them what happens if you fall for all the
My only regret is that the Supreme Court once again voted 5-4. I'm glad
they came down on the rare side of freedom, instead of mandated payment for
When did Hobby Lobby tell them they could or could not have sex? When did Hobby
Lobby tell them that they could or could not buy birth control?I
would love to wear contact lenses instead of eye glasses. My health insurance
will not pay for contact lenses. Yet, I wear contact lenses. How? I paid
for them myself.... It was my RIGHT to pay for them myself.
I sure hope they had police around to control all those protesters.
Liberals were all for freedom of conscience during the 1960s when they were
protesting against the Draft and the Viet Nam War. This commitment has
mysteriously diminished, though, when people started disagreeing with them on
issues like abortion. The politically correct community tells us that
corporations should display a conscience. When Hobby lobby proceeded to do
exactly that, however, they changed their tune in a hurry.
Far cheaper to pay for a pill or two per month than a late term abortion once or
twice per year.
Hobby Lobby does not limit contraceptives from their health plans! The core
issue of this case was about post-conception drugs, those that are used after
conception to destroy life. These drugs are deceptively marketed as
emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. The truth
is these drugs are used by the unprotected individual wanting to rid itself of
any possible inconvenience as a result of their irresponsibility of not taking
precautions beforehand against conceiving another human being. Of
course, the NOW folks believe its just a tissue mass unless its viable outside
the womb on its own, much less a fertilized egg looking to implant on the
The scary thing thing is the vote was still 5-4. What are the 4 thinking? I
guess they are in favor of forcing all of us to pay for the activities and
choices of a few. On the flipside nobody lost any choice here.
Duh! Can they still not choose these methods of birth control?The
only choice Liberals lost was once again the "choice" to use someone
elses money to pay for their choices. No wonder they are outraged. Every day they scheme how to get access to other peoples money.
@Topher Mehlhoff: “I don't believe that your religion should limit my
choices.”To you I reply that I do not believe that your belief
systems (atheism, or whatever) should dictate my choices and what I have to pay
for. It's ironic that so many anti-religionists want their philosophies
and believe standards to tell the rest of us how we should live our lives
through their activism or the activism of their liberal un-elected judges. Well
guess what - we religious types can be activists too.
So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court,
corporations have religious freedom, but women don't.This
imbalance can't hold for long. I support the women who are protesting this
I won't comment on the moral side of the decision. But
instead, a short comment on capitalism. The more we let government determine
how businesses operate, the more we move from freedom, democracy and capitalism
and the more we move toward socialism a.k.a. communism. Democracy is what makes
America great and the reason why hundreds of thousands try to come to America
every year (some legally and some illegally). Keep government out of business.
If these workers think this benefit is important, go find a job with another
business that offers it. If my employer doesn't give me the pay and
benefits I need / deserve, I would find a job with another company.And for those who are mislead to think this benefit is "free", open
your eyes. The cost of benefits like "free" contraception, or mandated
coverage for up to 26 year olds are just hidden or passed along in the form of
higher premiums. It is not "free".
There are/were 16 different kinds of contraception discussed in the documents I
have read about. Hobby Lobby has been willing all along (even before the law
suit) to fund 12 kinds of them...just not the four kinds which Hobby Lobby
considered inappropriate from their perspective. They HAVE NOT denied
contraception to employees. @Jan Jones...married couples who engage
in recreational "activity" and don't want to become pregnant have a
myriad of contraception available to them. They can plan ahead or pay for their
own "morning after" pills. It's basic personal responsibility.@Kerissa Anaya...my ovaries are my business"...I couldn't agree
more. Businesses have no business being forced to pay for your
"business." There is no war on women...just war against
individuals and companies willing to take a stand.
Hurray for Freedom!Remember the Alamo!
These protesters need to put a cork in it, and they can pay for it themselves.
According to the Supreme Court, the rights of a corporation trump the rights of
individual citizens. Figures.
Most of the women I know who are on birth control are married and monogamous.
The idea that birth control is only for "recreational sex" is absurd and
demeaning. Imagine if Hobby Lobby declared that the life style
choices that lead to high cholesterol are against their religious principles and
refused to pay for cholesterol treatment? Would people be railing against the
irresponsible "recreational eaters," calling them names and putting them
down? This decision has already expanded, from four items to all
birth control coverage to groups demanding the right to discriminate against
GLBT employees. One restaurant owner, in North Carolina, said the decision meant
he could refuse service to people of color based on his belief on the Bible.
Dear Protesters,A privately held company owned by 5 individuals has
the right to not pay for for your birth control when it violates their moral
and/or religious convictions, just as you have the right to not work or shop
there.It really is that simple.Sincerely,Common Sense
So since employers now get to pick and choose how we use our healthcare
coverage, why not our paychecks as well?
It's nice to see people standing up for rights of individuals above
So does a business owned by Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to refuse to
pay for employees' blood transfusions? Does a business owned by Christian
Scientists have the right to pay only for Christian Science healing for
The ignorance displayed on this topic is appalling!
Entitlements! Entitlements! Entitlements! We have become a nation of
Your company paid insurance is part of your compensation. And you probably pay
a portion of your insurance anyway. Nobody gets insurance for free, unless you
are the chief executive.So, even though your insurance is part of
your compensation, and even though you most likely pay a portion of it, your
employer now has the right to say no to your personal choices.Sounds
like a totalitarian statist view to me. Where are all of you strict
constructionist, conservatives out there? Aren't you afraid of what your
employer will decide is best for you next? When will your employer tell you how
to spend the other portions of your compensation? When will a Mormon owned
company you work for tell you not to buy that wine you like on Saturday night
with your wife. Not much difference. Or a Christian Scientist company deny
transfusion benefits? Or a Southern Baptist company dock your pay for fishing
on Sunday. Or...you ought to get the point.
The "war" on babies continues unabated.
@Jeff Harris"So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the
US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women
don't."Please explain how religious freedom is taken away
if people pay for their own contraceptives. This should be good.
Brava! I especially appreciate the under-30 age group (mostly, anyway!)
exercising their rights to free assembly and free speech. Onward.
The more government intrudes in our personal lives the more common this type of
problem becomes. Government needs to get back to what it is supposed to do,
roads and military. And leave people to shape their own destiny.
What utter non sense and political theatre.There is no loss of
benefit. Now, under the act, the insurance companies pay for the benefit that
Hobby Lobby objected to being charged for as the employer.Has anyone
read the opinion?
To Jeff Harris: re: "So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on
the US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women
don't."This is a really weak argument - and essentially a
red herring. Women have religious and personal freedom, and can purchase
contraceptives if they desire. But there is not a "constitutional
right" to contraceptives, nor a right to force someone else, particularly a
private employer, to provide it free of charge to its female employees. And
forcing a private employer to provide contraceptives, particularly if the
employer has a moral sense that it is not right, is a violation of that
employers freedoms (personal and religious).I have no problem with a
business offering contraceptive coverage to their employees. In fact, it is a
valuable benefit that most companies have offered for decades. And the
marketplace may demand higher wages from firms who don't offer such
benefits to offset this added cost to their employees. But it is not a
"right", and should not be forced on employers. This is simply not the
American way, and harms our system - and all of us - in the process.
Interesting. Why is it always about controlling women's healthcare. If a
company was all up in their male employees healthcare I'm sure people
wouldn't be so complacent about it.
Back in the olden days of the 60's some number of people tried to reduce
their 'tax' bill by the percentage of the then military budget as a
means of protest of the Vietnam War.It didn't work... they were
charged with tax evasion no matter their 'moral beliefs, some of which were
based on their religion.Ah, but now, we have 'religious
freedom', perhaps we can revisit that sort of thing, and for those who do
believe that the example of the Christ figure in found the New Testament, such
people can claim a tax exemption based on such a religious understanding.As it is there is plenty of 'craft stores' to compete with
"Hobby Lobby". While specific protests may benefit publicity on Hobby
Lobby's policies, I'd recommend 'protesting' with dollars
and patronizing other craft stores.
You go RG I totally agree with your comments. Thank you.
"...My ovaries are my business and nobody else's." I think everyone
recognizes the hilarious hypocrisy of this statement followed by demanding your
employer pay for your abortion drugs. Well, except for these protesters. The
price of the fuel to drive from Brigham City could've paid for a
month's supply of birth control. These people are acolytes of
the Liberal religion. Too blinded by their faith to see how nonsensical their
demands truly are.
This country believes in rights for all. Ms. Anaya has a right to "control
her own sex organs". However, she does not have a right to force her views
on others. Hobby Lobby was plain in its acceptance of birth control while
paying for some 16 of 20 contraceptive procedures. They balked at paying for
four which have been construed as a form of abortion. If they were forced by
the 4 left wing justices plus another left wing appointee to pay for abortion,
then we would become a dictatorship. We are just one vote away.
pay for your own birth control
Who cares that twelve people protested the Supreme Court ruling? Doesn't
the Deseret News have more important things to do than to create a story from
the actions of twelve people? I'm sure that they could easily find
thousands who supported that ruling, but they decided that people who were
imported into South Jordan to protest was the important thing to report.How about reporting on how many Americans believe that our religious
doctrines cannot be changed by Obama? How about reporting on how many
Americans believe that destroying the life of an unborn baby is NOT the duty of
an employer and NOT the duty of the government? How about reporting on how
many Americans believe that paying for contraception is NOT the responsibility
of the employer? How about reporting on how many Americans are totally fed up
with a government that has turned decency into a crime and that has turned
abortion into a requirement - if you want to run a business?Make no
mistake about it, catering to those who demand that others pay for their sexual
activity is obscene and is no business of Obama or of the government.
One comment I read I can fully sympathize with --- regarding consensual intimacy
between a married couple. Wonderful, awesome. Still, why is someone else
responsible for covering the costs of preventing a pregnancy or a birth?I recognize that many here have assumed that the noted intimacy was
reckless, irresponsible and even immoral and that certainly isn't always
the case. But again, this court decision isn't shoving women under the
bus, it's not returning us to the stone age, it is simply saying that a
business does not have to be financially responsible for all of the private
decisions of its employees. As so well stated by others, no one is forcing
employees to work for Hobby Lobby -- the minute that happens, there isn't
much freedom left.
Do some research. Hobby Lobby does cover some birth control. Just not the type
that "control" things after conception.
1. Why are people so worked up about Hobby Lobby only having to pay for 16 out
of 20 types of birth control? Find another job if you are irresponsible enough
to not care about prevention rather than damage control after the fact. No one
is telling you that you have to get pregnant. There used to be a thing called
self-control and responsibility. Are you saying that females are so
irresponsible that they can't figure out how to prevent pregnancy? Birth
control is widely available, even to minors. 2. Is Hobby Lobby such
a large corporation that people have no other choice for jobs and different
benefits? Do they pay more than anyone else? Why don't you find another
job if you object to their health coverage?3. The government is
mandating a lot of extra health care coverage at a huge cost to corporations and
individuals. I now pay $1800 a month for worse coverage than what used to be
$1200 a month. I do get birth control though, even though I am menopausal and
have had my tubes tied! Thank goodness the government cares more for my ovaries
than my wallet.
It seems ironic to me that the non or anti religious groups that are crying foul
want to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats. What if I believe
differently? What if I think abortion is killing a fetus? What if I think that
if someone isn't responsible enough to try to prevent pregnancy that I
shouldn't have to pay for them to eliminate that pregnancy? What if I
think someone else's poor choices should not be paid for by me? We
aren't talking about eliminating access to choices. We are talking about
who has to pay for those choices. The government may say that the corporation
will pay, but really each one of us pays for a society that no longer values
personal responsibility. We seem to only value personal choice. "My ovaries
are my business" is a statement of choice, not responsibility. If it was a
statement of responsibility, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
@J Thompson 4:46 p.m. July 6, 2014And how about the Americans who
see the issue clearly and recognize that none of the things you allege in the
second paragraph of your comment are happening or have happened. The government is not trying to change anyone's religious doctrine. The contraceptives in question in this issue do not terminate the live
of an "unborn baby" in the womb or anywhere else -- they at most merely
keep a pregnancy from starting, just like nature does for between a third and a
half of all fertilized eggs (if you have an issue with that, take it up with
nature). Americans are not having to "pay for
contraceptions" -- they are just included as necessary and basic
preventative health care medications (reducing death/maiming by preventing
unwanted pregnancy/childbirth) available in the insurance coverage that is part
of the remuneration for working people.The government has not
"turned decency into a crime and abortion into a requirement". Nobody is being paid for sexual activity. I recognize you
are just ranting, but there is no truth in what you say.
You want to abort a baby either by pill or by going in for a
"procedure", pay for it yourself.
"I can't think of a better way to spend the day after Independence Day
than to exercise our constitutional right to protest," said Chelsea Kilpack,
president of the Utah Chapter of the National Organization for Women."Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a 'right'
to protest? I guess in the same section that says we have a 'right'
to make others pay for killing our babies.....Right to lawful
assembly? Sure, but that was originally violated by this group. Right to free
speech? Sure, even when that speech is misleading and inaccurate, as with this
group.Somebody needs to start reading the Constitution, and not
hiding behind it.
You are right, Jeclar2006, If my religious beliefs tell me that
paying for war is wrong then this ruling says I do not have to pay taxes that go
to pay for war. They say this is a narrow ruling, yet it's not. If the
owners of hobby lobby have the religious freedom to not pay for things they
religiously disagree with, then why not me? Why not anyone? And why would the
key to not paying be owning a corporation? It's the religious freedom that
is the issue, not the corporation, according to this ruling. Why do the hobby
lobby people get more religious freedom then anyone else just because they own a
corporation? Logically they shouldn't. I have just as much right as them
not to pay for things that are objectionable to my religious belief. In fact if my religious beliefs tell me that paying ANY taxes is religiously
objectionable, then, according to this ruling, I should NOT have to pay them.
Again, why do the hobby lobby owners religious beliefs, and freedoms, take
precedence over mine? They don't.This is a terrible ruling.
Not paying for Birth Control is not restricting it.
I think the obvious solution is to work somewhere that gives you the benefits
you want. I want to work somewhere with tuition reimbursement so I can get my
master's degree. I should find an employer that decides that it's
something they want to offer based on what they believe. I can still go to
school and pay for it myself regardless of what my employer does, that freedom
is not taken away from me in any way. I know exactly what I'm getting when
I apply. I don't feel like Hobby Lobby's situation is really all that
different! Another point of interest, I could be wrong but it seems
to me that it's not Hobby Lobby's employees that are making such a big
fuss, but rather those outside the company who aren't even affected by the
supreme court's decision.
"it is simply saying that a business does not have to be financially
responsible for all of the private decisions of its employees."Ulvegaard, it is saying nothing of the sort. This ruling does not apply to all
businesses, if it did THEN you would be correct. But it doesn't. The ruling
is saying that RELIGIOUS people do not have abide by the law; that RELIGIOUS
people are exempt from following the law. If you are NON religious
then you STILL have to supply insurance that provides ALL of the contraceptives.
This ruling said that a certain subgroup of people get to choose NOT to follow
the law, and to specifically determine, for themselves, how they do not want to
follow the law. Let's be clear, the law was NOT requiring ANY
of the hobby lobby owners to pay for anyone's birth control, or even
insurance. The owners get paid salary and shares. NONE of THEIR money was
required to be used for ANY insurance or contraceptives for ANYONE. Their
religious freedom was not burdened one iota. Five SCOTUS justices
made a terrible ruling.
If your ovaries are your business (and of course they are), it's your
business to pay for what you do with them. My business = my responsibility;
your business = your responsibility.Not one liberal in ten
protesting this ruling has a remotely accurate conception of the facts and law
involved, nor has read one-tenth of the decision itself.
Does anyone feel like they are having a discussion with a child. "I want
it, I want it." "No, I am not going to buy it." "But I want
it, I want it." "Then you need to save your money." "But I
want it now!" I tell my kids that if you want to be treated like an adult,
act like an adult. That means paying your own way. If you want to be an adult
and be sexually active - be an adult and pay for it. Keep your employer out of
your bedroom and away from your ovaries.Also, why are opponents
repeatedly misstating what it says. As Jeff notes: "So according to the 5
conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court, corporations have
religious freedom, but women don't." Where do you get that women do
not have religious freedom. I am not aware of any religion that believes
"thou shalt use birth control paid for by your employer."What if Congress passed a law requiring businesses to pay 10% of an
employee's income to a church, temple or mosque of their choice. Can the
business refuse to do so without violating the employee's freedom of
It's easy enough to say that all the other kinds are covered, but different
birth control types work better at different times of a woman's life. Pills
only work well until age 35, with a few caveats thrown in, then it may be time
to switch. This is anecdotal to me, but an IUD stopped migraines and cramps.
There are other medical reasons to be on a specific kind of birth control. Funny, I was on the other side of this argument until I realized the relevance
to my life. And those who say, "Quit having sex"? Sure, you tell
that to your husband. It's not just young and unmarried women this affects.
"Does anyone feel like they are having a discussion with a child. "I
want it, I want it." "No, I am not going to buy it." "But I want
it, I want it." "Then you need to save your money." "But I want
it now!" I tell my kids that if you want to be treated like an adult, act
like an adult. "Yep. When I read you stating that in relation to
this issue it sure does make me feel like I'm talking to a child.