What do you think of the Supreme Court "Hobby Lobby" ruling today?

1. 37

   ChristinSposted 9 years ago

   What do you think of the Supreme Court "Hobby Lobby" ruling today?
   
   Should healthcare decisions not be between a woman and her healthcare provider? Why should your boss essentially get to tell you what medicines you can take? This is a slippery slope.  Contraceptive pills are used for far more than birth control.  They are given to women with PCOS, fibroids, hormonal issues during perimenopause etc.  If men were denied Viagra would there be a bigger push back?

   report
2. 57

   retief2000posted 9 years ago

   Is she purchasing her own healthcare? The car owner usually decides the destination? Isn't the purchaser and the owner the same? No one is preventing her from procuring what ever medicine she desires. This is also a complete canard, Hobby Lobby provides for contraceptive pills. Their objection was providing abortofaciants.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      contraceptives aren't abortion pills and it's not hobby lobbies business what medications are prescribed to their employees. No, Hobby Lobby does not "own" the insurance nor the people they employ.

      report
   2. 66

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree with ChristinS.  They are NOT abortion pills.  Religion needs to promote the truth not a bunch of lies so they can control women.

      report
   3. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Contraception and abortofaciants are two different medications performing different functions and Hobby Lobby did not object to contraception. Hobby Lobby does own the insurance if they are paying for it. For what does one pay that one does not own?

      report
   4. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So if my religion doesn't like blood transfusions - should my company refuse to buy insurance that pays for that? there are religions that don't believe in that. Slippery slope. No employers shouldn't be making our healthcare decisions.

      report
   5. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think your company should be forced by any government to provide any insurance, at all, ever. You would be free. They would be free. It would be as nature intended. The problem is people are infantile and refuse to be weened.

      report
   6. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      you didn't answer my question - you stated an opinion. My question was about blood transfusions which many religions are also against.  It is a slippery slope when you allow employers to dictate what medicines you can't have.

      report
   7. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That is my answer, gov't stop forcing employers to provide insurance.Solves all of those annoying FIRST AMENDMENT issues.

      report
   8. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      providing insurance has nothing to do with the first amendment.

      report
   9. 0

      mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hobby Lobby is NEITHER an insurance provider nor a pharmacy and WRONGLY equates all birth comtrol with abortion---total crap. Hobby Lobby has benefitted from constitutional rights it seeks to deny others. Hobby Lobby equals reprobates, hypocrites.

      report
   10. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Hobby Lobby has benefitted from constitutional rights it seeks to deny others.  -  SO MUCH THIS! typical and completely morally bankrupt and irresponsible.

       report
   11. 0

       mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Maybe I am naive, but do "Christian" men and women really have sex for procreation only? Do Christian men really believe the sex-panicked religious teachings in their Bible OR is this just really a way to control the sexuality of "their" women?

       report
   12. 61

       Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I am and continue to be horrified that we are being forced to purchase a product.  Where is my right to opt out? Where is HL's right to opt out?  It is a slippery slope when you allow govt to require you to purchase anything.  Social Engineering.

       report
   13. 0

       mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Is universal healthcare part of current "exopolitical" negotiations or other new world order conspiracies? Just wondering...

       report
   14. 61

       Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       actually it is apart of the current discussion on NWO conspiracy.  Would you like a front row seat?  I can add you to a researcher BCC list and you may enjoy the eye-opener.

       report
3. 45

   Ericdierkerposted 9 years ago

   Interesting that some of my medications were not provided for when I had cancer. Certainly not enough alternatives would be paid for by insurance. So I paid myself or otherwise provided. Did they have that right? Yes. Why should reproductive matters be different than the rest of life and death?
   
   The SCOTUS is telling us that they will not play religious games that this is no different than anything else. Insurers can exclude certain healthcare factors --- end of story.

   report
   1. 66

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      THAT is the problem within this US...insurance companies think they know better than doctors.  That is the GAME they are playing.  We need to stop the games for real.

      report
   2. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If you think that insurance companies trump doctors now wait until every medical provider is a government employee. A government monopoly will be far more dictatorial and far less personal.

      report
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Lady Guinevere I couldn't agree more.  BC pills are used to treat many women's health issues where other alternatives do not exist. Employers should not have a say in our healthcare decisions - period.

      report
   4. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Then don't expect them to pick up the bill. The Gov't is compelling them to pay for your insurance and therefore your health decisions. If you don't want that then don't use the insurance they are forced to provide. Wait until all is Gov't insurance.

      report
   5. 66

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wait a minute..govnmnet has always picked up the bill in many case other than employer ins companies.  Where have yo been for the lat 30+ years?

      report
   6. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Gov't was paying nearly half of every health care dollar before Obamacare and making a hash of it.I have been watching,like everyone else,as gov't push inflation continues to drive health CARE costs.Remove the gov't(&insurance) from the equation.

      report
   7. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'd be happy to have Universal Health Care like Canada, England, France, Italy, and numerous other countries where the quality of care trumps ours in the US.

      report
   8. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You suppose it trumps care here.What is the life expectancy of a woman diagnosed with breast cancer in the US v. Italy?France?Cancer death rates,overall, are higher in all of those countries than here-that is just one measure, there are many more.

      report
   9. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Cite credible sources if you are going to make generalizations and broad sweeping statements retief, otherwise I call nonsense.

      report
   10. 0

       mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I am amused by any man who would seek to restrict any coverage for birth control or abortion. I would be laughing were this not so very serious---particularly to women's health unrelated to prevention of pregnancy. Do some research boys, then talk.

       report
   11. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       My small family has had 3 employer provided health insurance plans. Each one excludes the majority of costs related to child birth. They can exclude birthing but not contraception? Seems anti family to me.

       report
   12. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       With the current new health care laws they cannot exclude birth - that was another issue entirely though that we dealt with in the past "family planning" includes contraception and birth.

       report
   13. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Only 4 types of the 20 available are affected and they are abortive in nature. Regular birth control pills are still covered and the other 4 can still be purchased.

       report
   14. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       IUD's do not equate to abortion, but that's besides the point. The point is they are targeting contraceptives under a ploy of religious freedom. If they were that concerned they wouldn't invest in the companies that produce them. It's all lies.

       report
   15. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       They aren't against contraceptives. Don't know how many have to point out to you that they are only against what they consider abortion inducing like IUDs and the morning after pill.

       report
   16. 66

       Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Sassy and how many times do you need to know that IUD are not abortion things.

       report
   17. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with you on the IUDs but that isn't for YOU to decide how others' feel about it. There must be enough proof on their side that they are allowed to exclude them.

       report
4. 66

   Lady Guinevereposted 9 years ago

   This is opening a can of worms here.  First we have Insurance Companies usurping the Doctor's diagnosis and treatments.  They do not know medicine or surgery and all that. Second we have individual companies with their own insurance companies who think they are allowed to tell a women what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.
   One thing that is not being discussed here that I am going to bring up is Rape by men.  Refusing abortion drugs is in essence opening the door to those horrible men  who like to have power and control over women.  Now I am not saying that they will , but you cannot rule out the fact that someone might and will leaving the women to what?  This act definitely closes the door to a women who has been raped and therefore has to carry that child to term.  Is the rapist going to adopt that child?  Heck no.  Who else will?  She will have all kinds of issues with that child and who is going to help her through that?  I can bet you 99 out of 100% that no one will.  If you say that it is a religious thing, then you have not read the bible enough to know that they did use abortion herbs back then.  If a woman does not want the child then she will find alternative ways to get rid of it, weather by coat hangers or throwing the child in the trash.  That will never stop.

   report
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So religion is only back then and isn't now?Interesting.I find it disturbing that many are undisturbed by gov't insinuating itself into everything.But it is as I wrote before, people are infantile and refused to be weened.

      report
   2. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      My concern is with companies being given power over anyone's health decisions - you're so right about it opening a can of worms. What next? Employers are required by law to insure full time workers. If they can't hack that, don't own businesses.

      report
   3. 66

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      U took my words and twisted them.  I dnt say religion wasnt now.  Maybe we should go back to before there was insurance at all.  Doctors went to houses to treat and they didnt have some1 breathig down their necks or making em use meds like BigPharm

      report
   4. 0

      mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      35 years ago I taught at a Catholic high school. They provided health insurance coverage to all employees and without restrictions. Every women working there of child-bearing age used birth control paid for with our CATHOLIC employer insurance.

      report
   5. 61

      Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      35 years ago the Catholic Church in America didn't know the first thing about the underground eugenics movement which supplied the birth control.

      report
   6. 0

      mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Underground eugenics movement"...really? Give me a break! Do you know why women and men---at least the overwhelming majority of them, use birth control?
      
      Answer: Sex without unwanted pregnancy.

      report
5. 61

   Cyrellysposted 9 years ago

   So if you have a medical reason for needing those medicines then find an employer who accepts that coverage.  Employees are not slaves.  You do not beg for jobs; you go to an interview and that interview is an exchange of information.  You should be interviewing your prospective employer for compatibility just as clearly as the employer interviewing you.  This isn't just about religious freedom.  It's about self-management.  You own and run your own life like a successful business in which you are the CEO.  If you are begging for a job that offers incompatible benefits and you can't find one elsewhere then you need to rethink how you are running your personal business.  People need to cease approaching everything in a subservient manner.  If you can't find what you are looking for, then for pete's sake, build it yourself.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you and I am self-employed. It doesn't change the fact that employers should not be determining what medicines we can/can't take. It's not their business. nor should they push their religion on their employees.

      report
   2. 66

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly ChristinS.  It is obvious that Hobby Lobby want all male employees or those who are very religious.  That is not working in much of today's working world.

      report
   3. 61

      Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      At ChristinS, I agree with your stance, fundamentally.  However when we allowed government to mandate healthcare by law which the employer must provide and all citizens must purchase then WE pushed our socialist burden onto them first.

      report
   4. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There is nothing "socialist" about our current healthcare system. It was a  handout  to the insurance companies,  but that's another subject. Doesn't change the fact employers have no right making healthcare choices for their employees.

      report
   5. 61

      Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is a socialist principle that brings people to believe health care is right rather than a service.  Social engineering has been a tool of conquest for the last 70 years.  Additionally it increases societal tension and economic strain, by design.

      report
   6. 0

      mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So which is it: Employers have to provide insurance coverage OR citizens must buy coverage? And exactly what is "socialist" about making people or businesses by insurance from private companies? Do you have any idea how absurd your comment really is?

      report
   7. 61

      Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The comment is not absurd at all.  These are things that you should have learned when you studied communism/marxism, unrestricted warfare, and the post war nazi international in public school.  But most schools ceased teaching these.

      report
   8. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There is nothing at all socialist about being forced to buy from private insurance companies. The people who demonize "socialism" in this country know very little about actual socialized medicine. "Corporatism" might be a more apt description.

      report
   9. 61

      Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hey all, the comment section being too short for an adequate rebuttal about this being socialism, here's the article  http://cyrellys.hubpages.com/hub/Back-a … ptive-case

      report
6. 69

   Aime Fposted 9 years ago

   As a Canadian, I find the health care/insurance situation in the US to be pretty mind-boggling in the first place, and this particular ruling just makes it worse.
   
   I know a few Americans who are perfectly happy with the way things work there, so that's obviously just my opinion... but I cannot imagine living somewhere where I couldn't apply for certain jobs for fear of not having things covered because of the employer's religious/personal beliefs.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly right. Our "healthcare" system here is a disaster. The people who are happy with it usually have not experienced another system to compare it to, or they wouldn't be so keen on it trust me.

      report
7. 78

   junksellerposted 9 years ago

   It is always interesting watching people support something that is wrong simply because it jives with their own views. If, for example, this was something very different such as a Muslim owner requiring all women to wear burkas and work in the back, I am a tad skeptical that many Christians would be rallying behind the Muslims in support of their religious freedom. In fact, to be honest, I think in general they'd be talking about the evil infiltration of Sharia law and the destruction of America, etc.
   
   It is also interesting that people who on one hand often source their position to history, such as referencing the founders, also often seem to completely ignore much of history. In a way, the whole American experiment, began with a revolt that was as much against a corporation (East India Company) as it was against the British state. In part that was due to special power afforded the East India Company by the state.
   
   Freedom from government is well understood in our lexicon. A government can amass significant power and that power must be kept in check. Why people can be so adamant about that necessity, but then completely unconcerned about the power of corporations (which is in many cases significant) is baffling to me.
   
   A handful of individuals who run a corporation have no business being afforded special power such as what was handed out in this case. It is a dangerous precedent (for all of us).

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely! baffling indeed! What about other Christian sects for that matter who don't believe in blood transfusions or preventative medicine? We don't even have to explore the other religions to show dangerous precedent. Scary.

      report
   2. 61

      Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      good comment.  To add clarification to my comments above is here: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm  and in this http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/art … _and_piven  written by an M.D.

      report
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      and I can find interviews with MD's who are all for Universal Health care, that's not a study.

      report
   4. 61

      Cyrellysposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The links are meant to provide the support for why I called it socialism.  It's the directives behind the use of Cloward and Piven.  I've written an article addressing some of this because I realize it does seem inaccurate on the surface.

      report
   5. 78

      junksellerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You can beat up your strawman all day long. It will never say anything about actual socialism, collectivism, or communism. The only thing you ever find down CT rabbit holes is a mad hatter and a crazy hare drinking tea. No thanks.

      report
   6. 0

      SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What power? The power to deny to pay for something that goes against their beliefs? Yes they have that right. They are not banning anything or denying access to anything. They just aren't footing the bill.

      report
   7. 78

      junksellerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The power is in allowing the individual religious belief to be broadcast throughout a corporation, thereby requiring a large group of people to make choices they wouldn't otherwise make. That isn't good for freedom.

      report
   8. 0

      SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh I see. So now if you work for a corporation you aren't allowed free speech either? No religious freedom, no free speech if you want to own a business. Ridiculous.

      report
   9. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      how is this denying corporations free speech? Hobby Lobby can say whatever it wants - what it shouldn't be allowed to do is dictate the private health affairs of its employees.HL doesn't provide the coverage the insurer does.

      report
   10. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       See the above comment I was responding to. They aren't supposed to talk about it throughout the corporation. HL isn't dictating - they are just not paying, which is their right under the First Amendment.

       report
   11. 78

       junksellerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       As I said, the issue is whether we want an individual belief to be amplified through a corporation. Someone having the freedom to personally dislike BC is very different from them being allowed to ignore a law for everyone who works for them.

       report
   12. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The question wasn't about ignoring the law - it was about the Constitutionality of the law. It was found to infringe, in this case and similar ones, on their freedom of religion.

       report
8. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 9 years ago

   Hobby Lobby had already agreed to pay for contraceptives as part of their insurance plan.  They specifically objected to 4 types of prescriptions that were viewed as abortion drugs.  They had no objection to the use of birth control medicine that is used for medical treatment.  The same is true of the Catholic church.  Their mandate is they are opposed to all forms of birth control that would prevent the creation of life.  As a catholic I don't agree with that interpretation.  But even the church has no issue with providing birth control for treatment of medical illness such as some of the ones you referenced. And they do provide this already to employees of catholic organizations.
   
   I don't see any reason why men should be provided viagra, condoms or any such service, and I would be quite upset to see my premiums go up because I have to pay for someone else's condoms. Unless this is medically necessary.  I would like to know what illness one could have that would require the treatment of a condom for their survival, or basic maintenance.
   
   It seems to me that we have lost sight of the definition of insurance.  Insurance is by definition:
   
   "The equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment"
   
   It is designed to make someone "whole" in the event of a loss.  The use of birth control for the purpose of sexual activity is not the transfer of risk from a financial loss.  It is subsidizing ones personal behavior. And asking a 60 year old man or woman to subsidize the cost of a 21 year old girls sexual activity with higher premiums seems ridiculous to me, and hardly meets the definition of insurance.
   
   We have come to expect that health insurance in general should mean basic maintenance, which is why we have runaway costs in the health insurance field.  If we expected our auto coverage to pay for oil changes, car washes, new tires and windshield washers...we'd pay 15-20k a year to insure a car as well.  Instead we have high deductibles for catastrophic events, and the cost to insure a vehicle...which is a huge potential liability...is fairly reasonable. 
   
   This is not only an issue of religious freedom, but the fact that the whole country thinks that every want should be provided to them. If we want to treat insurance as maintenance, then birth control should be covered when it is for legitimate medical treatment of a disorder. However, expect   inexpensive birth control to skyrocket in price with less price discovery.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with a couple of your points, but it doesn't negate the fact that HL is pushing their religious beliefs on others. The medicines their employees take are NOT their business. should your employer interfere in your private life? No.

      report
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If they are asked to pay for it...then yes.  It is not uncommon for the employer to pay a substantial part of the premium if no the majority.  I see know reason for the employer to subsidize your personal choices that are not medically necessary.

      report
   3. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am stunned you can't see how dangerous a precedent it is to start allowing our employers to dictate our private lives. Their insurance better not cover the little blue pill for men then!

      report
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I hope it doesn't cover it for men either.  I don't want to pay for anyone's personal life...man or women...other than my own family. I think forcing other people to pay for someone else's sexual conduct is a much bigger slippery slope.

      report
   5. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Contraception is far less expensive than the welfare to support unwanted children though, so I see it differently. I get your point, but I don't happen to agree with that aspect of it. Lowers abortion rates too.

      report
   6. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And perhaps if we didn't subsidize all those issues as well, there would less of them and more personal accountability...as it once was. Rule # 1 in economics...If you subsidize something...you get more of it.

      report
9. 55

   Leyla Harrellposted 9 years ago

   But I bet no one has a problem with medicare spending 172 million on penis pumps....ya room get's real quiet when you start talking about men's health care needs, because we all know that little johnny's start to get droopy round about 65.

   report
   1. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps there is no religious justification to stop that? Who knows? I'm baffled by this state of affairs for sure! double standards never cease to amaze.

      report
   2. 70

      junkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The Court"s decision reflected Conservative politics and agenda. Private Sector employers are considered to have Religious rights to deny women their constitutional and human rights. All Conservative members of the court thinks, that's O'k.

      report
   3. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What Constitutional rights are being infringed? Cite the specific part of the Constitution where it states a person in unconditionally guaranteed a product or service from another person or entity...

      report
   4. 37

      ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's not the point Mitch, different subject entirely.  The issue here is employers interfering in the private decisions of their employees which establishes a dangerous precedent.

      report
   5. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Junko brought up the Constitution, I merely responded. How is anyone's personal choice affected? Only the question of payment/coverage of 4 items was in play. And those 4 are still available to purchase. And the Constitution is in play here.

      report
   6. 60

      teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      This is no more about penis pumps ad coverage of viagra than it is about the man on the moon.  No double standard. The company has the right to cover what they want to cover b/c it is privately held, not a corporation, I believe.

      report
10. 0

    SassySue1963posted 9 years ago

    No worries because the lawsuit was not about birth control pills, which are the only ones given to women with the issues you mention.  It was about IUDs and the morning after pill which Hobby Lobby believes equivalent to an abortion.
    You fail to realize that it does not matter what YOU believe about them. You should not have to abandon your beliefs in order to do business in America.
    Let's also be clear that the decision does not mean that tomorrow Wal-Mart can stand up and claim religious grounds for not providing same. In the decision it clearly talks about an ESTABLISHED history of religious beliefs, which Hobby Lobby has.
    It is no slippery slope. Truly necessary medicines or procedures (such as transfusions) would never fall under the same category because they are actual life saving procedures. In fact, I would go so far as to say if the mother's life was in danger, even Hobby Lobby would have to pay for an abortion despite this decision.
    I love how the libs always like to throw Viagra around. Viagra cannot in any way be considered akin to an abortion. See the difference?

    report
    1. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       IUD's aren't akin to abortion either. I had one for five years - how many "aboritons" did I have - zero.  It is not Any employers business what healthcare decisions their employees make. If they can't tolerate that don't own a business.  Simple.

       report
    2. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It is about what a policy covers. Not about ability to chose or privacy. Policies routinely exclude certain procedures. That is the norm.  Pay more and get it covered is always an option. (talking elective here and not lifesaving) Plastic Surgery?

       report
    3. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No Eric, this situation is about an employer sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. They are "morally opposed" to BC but have no problem profiting off the same companies they are against. Their 401ks tell a whole other story.

       report
11. 37

    ChristinSposted 9 years ago

    A lot of interesting conversation everyone! Thanks so much for keeping it mostly civil.  I appreciate that.
    
    A few more points to add.  This isn't about the insurance and what they cover/don't cover - this is about an employer dictating what your insurance that you pay into also, can and cannot cover.  This is overstepping bounds and invading privacy - which no matter how you look at it is indeed a slippery slope.  When we allow our employers belief systems to impact our personal healthcare decisions there is a problem.
    
    Also, this was not the big moral objection that HL made it out to be.  They have been profiting off the very companies that provide morning after pills and IUD devices.  To say they are hypocritical is a very fair statement.  Here is a link to more information on this http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … objection/  If you want to tell your employees they can't have something with the benefits they also pay for - then don't you DARE pretend it's about moral superiority while your company profits off the same companies.
    
    They should be more worried about "picking and choosing" their investments... but they would rather do an end run around the current healthcare laws and say it's about religious freedom.  It's a power grab plain and simple - one that should not have been allowed.
    
    If religious people do not want to follow the laws of this country, they should either not own businesses, or own businesses where they don't employ so many people that they have to provide healthcare etc.  There are other workarounds besides pushing your beliefs on others - they don't like it - why should the employees that make them money have to tolerate it?
    
    When the SCOTUS makes a ruling one must also pay close attention to the door it opens, not just the ruling itself. This opens a door to a potential wave of privacy invasion by employers. That's not political "lib" 'conservative" etc. That's common sense!

    report
    1. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Um that's how it's always been. Employer picked company, you got what they covered or you paid extra for add't coverage. Only difference - employer didn't have to claim any religious grounds. Suddenly it's wrong?

       report
    2. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Employers pick the insurance provider - not what the provider can cover. It has not always been that way. It is wrong period for employers to interfere in personal health care decisions of their employees.

       report
12. 79

    Mitch Alanposted 9 years ago

    This decision does not make the 4 out of 20 types of contraceptives in question illegal or ban them in any way. It simple does not force a person or business to be required to offer them in a benefit package to it's employees. The case is a win for liberty and freedom. The employees, who with the employer, have entered into a voluntary arrangement where they exchange labor for reimbursement are still allowed to consult with their physician and purchase any birth control they decide is best for them. The only difference after this ruling is that a person or company can't be forced to offer the payment of those items. And, before the "war on women" card is played, I would also be fine with a company not offering Viagra in it's plan if it chose not to...or ANY service or product.

    report
    1. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It is not "freedom" when employers feel they have the right to force their beliefs onto the same employees who are making their business profitable. No, employers shouldn't have a say what medicine you take, they aren't doctors or insurers.

       report
    2. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The ruling only limits 4 of the 20 available contraceptives. Those other 4 can still be purchased by the employee. The benefit plan still covers the other 16 types. This is not a ban, simply a win for liberty. No one is being forced to do something.

       report
    3. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       it's allowing an employer to meddle in one's private affairs (not freedom) based on so called "moral objection" when same said company profits off the very companies they object to - so it's hypocrisy at best.

       report
    4. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       How are they meddling in private affairs? The items are still available and they can still consult with their doctor...freedom is not forcing a person or entity to pay for or offer something they do not agree with.

       report
    5. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Fine. I don't agree with the last two illegal wars we've waged. I don't believe in killing. I'd like my tax dollars refunded.  See how ridiculous? where does it end?

       report
    6. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The constitution clearly provides for the authority of congress to declare war.  You can disagree with the reason, rationale or execution of the wars...but there is no constitutional legal basis for asking for tax refunds on the cost of the military.

       report
    7. 78

       junksellerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The constitution clearly provides authority for Congress to pass laws as well, which you can now sidestep using religious whim. The constitutional legal basis is the same: supporting murder violates my religious freedom.

       report
    8. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The courts job is to determine constitutionality when there is ambiguity, religious or otherwise. There's no ambiguity for you to challenge on any grounds the war powers of congress which are clearly enumerated.

       report
    9. 78

       junksellerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I don't see any ambiguity in the notion of a corporation following the law, yet here we are. Corporations are people and their religious views now trump secular law. That makes lots of things ambiguous as far as I am concerned.

       report
    10. 0

        SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The decision was very concise. Closely held corporation, established history of religious beliefs. They do not lose their individual rights to religious freedom simply because they started a business.

        report
    11. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The issue wasn't whether or not the corporation has to follow a law, but whether the law itself was legal under the constitution.  And yes...many things are ambiguous when not specifically enumerated.  Which is why we have a judicial branch.

        report
13. 60

    teamrnposted 9 years ago

    Healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and provider.  However, in this instance the provider, Hobby Lobby, is a FAMILY owned business, owned by people (a privately held) who have rights, personal rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. Their right to freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution. They have chosen that they don't want the insurance that their company holds, to cover certain medication which violates their personal right.
    
    Violating their personal right would open up another can of worms; if personal rights can be violated, that brings us to a REAL SLIPPERY SLOPE of violation of freedom of choice/speech and questioning what other rights the government might seize. The Greens made a decision and if employees can't live with that decision, they have the RIGHT to work at a different facility whose insurance DOES cover the 4 contraceptive methods which the Green family denied. What is innuendo, that ALL birth control methods are denied coverage, is-may I say it politely-A BUNCH OF HOOEY.
    
    This ruling by the SCOTUS does not exclude ALL contraceptive devices. It excludes 4, which directly affect life another right that the Constitution determines inviolate that the Company (owned by people) not a corporation has. It would have been a slippery slope had the SCOTUS ruled AGAINST this right: the right to self-determination.
    
    It must also be noted that INSURANCE companies make decisions DAILY as to what they cover and what they won't. It's called a formulary. Not in the formulary? Not covered. Or we'll (insurance company) cover it, but instead of 100%, maybe only 50%. True for tons of chemo meds. We bicker and moan when an insurance company doesn't cover a med we take. But do you hear of a WAR ON INSURANCE COMPANIES? Possibly a strand dislike/disdain, but a war? Dear Lord.
    
    The thing about men being denied Viagra is a different issue than Hobby Lobby's denial of SOME birth control methods.

    report
    1. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Very well stated.

       report
    2. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Well stated and correctly worded...

       report
    3. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Hobby Lobby is not the provider of health care - once it pays its insurance premium- the insurer is the provider. They don't mind their 401k's making money from BC manufacturer though.A lot wrong with insurance companies - that's a different subject.

       report
    4. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I wonder if HL will have to sue the 401K administrator next. Maybe they can to get them to stop investing in those companies. Probably they just have to get another administrator.

       report
14. 41

    Borsiaposted 9 years ago

    Regardless of anyone's views on abortion or birth control, or religion for that matter, if you are going to have some form of universal health care law, IE Obummercare, you can not have anyone picking and choosing what will be covered.
    It makes no difference what their reason might be. It makes no difference who they are or why they want to modify that care. If you allow one you must then allow everyone to do otherwise would be unconstitutional. Not that Obummercare is particularly constitutional to begin with.
    Universal health care means equal to all by definition and birth control, even abortion should be covered for everyone enrolled no matter who their employer is or what they wish to believe.
    
    I have to say that the current SC is the worst I've seen in my 60 years and they should be ashamed of themselves for many of the decisions they are handing down.
    Things like "corporations are people" or "imminent domain" can be used to boost tax base by private entities or government to take over private property. That pro-life protester have a right to interfere with clinics as part of their free speech but patients have no rights no to be harassed?
    Just a few of their bad decisions.
    
    Sadly this SC is on the auction block just like the rest of Washington,,, sad,,, very, very sad!

    report
    1. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Of course you can and no where in the world is that not true. Elective procedures and medications are more excluded than included. It is just plain and simple. All policies exclude certain things, including government ones.

       report
    2. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Sad indeed - bought and paid for like the rest of them I'm afraid.

       report
    3. 60

       teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I thought NOTHING of abortion or BC when I wrote my post. Was I supposed to?

       report
15. 84

    M. T. Dremerposted 9 years ago

    This whole situation reminds me of the Citizens United decision. The one that classified corporations as people and opened the floodgates for super pacs. An individual can't have their religious freedoms infringed, but what of a corporation? Well, I suppose if corporations are people, then it applies to them as well. Except corporations aren't people, as anyone with common sense can tell you. Yes, it is run by people, but as an entity it has no thoughts or feelings, in much the same way that a gun has no thoughts or feelings. Neither a corporation nor a gun can vote in an election, yet both can be used to persuade others to vote a certain way.
    
    What's most frustrating about this is it's another example of Christian 'values' being forced on everyone else. The owners of Hobby Lobby don't believe in contraception so they're forcing their employees (who may have different beliefs) to follow that code. Sure, they could get it through a healthcare loophole or buying it out of pocket, but what if the owners didn't believe in hospitals at all? What if they believed in praying the sick away? Could they have an exemption to provide no healthcare at all? This is exactly why Obamacare happened, because corporations and insurance companies failed to provide common sense care for their employees. Our health shouldn't be tied to profits and it shouldn't be governed by outdated religious doctrine. Period.

    report
    1. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I completely agree. Also where does hobby lobby get off dictating to insurance companies what they can and cannot cover? Citizens United was a disaster, this will be too. Corporations can use "religion" as an excuse to not adhere to healthcare laws.

       report
    2. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Again they are not dictating what they can cover. They are dictating what they have to pay for. What a crime someone has to pay for contraceptives. I paid for them when I needed them. It is not an infringement on anyone's rights.

       report
    3. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, they are. Insurers/doctors should be deciding what medications women need - not Hobby Lobby. What if your employer decided it violated their religion to cover blood pressure medication due to gluttony for example? ridiculous to deny coverage.

       report
    4. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No they are just not footing the bill for it. If an employee wants coverage for those things then they can pay the extra for that coverage. It is not your employers' job to raise and keep you.

       report
    5. 37

       ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       These employees pay into this health insurance too it's not just the employer, therefore HL should not be forcing its view on others who also pay for the insurance and make HL profitable by working there.

       report
    6. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So what is the issue? They want it, they pay for it. Just HL isn't paying for it.

       report
    7. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The issue is the free lunch mentality is at the root of this.People in general want something for nothing. Except there are no free lunches. In fact if the decision stood...in the long run birth control would just get more exp for people with no ins.

       report
    8. 0

       SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah I'm beyond tired of the free lunch crowd. They act like this is the norm. It isn't. Benefits are called that because they have always been at the company's discretion. It is their "giveme" attitude that changed that.

       report
    9. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I notice that the employees did not join in the lawsuit to make the employer pay for the coverage. What the employees want is apparently what the employer wants but the Government was going to force it on both of them. That changes the issue.

       report
    10. 0

        SassySue1963posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        You are correct but it doesn't change anything. This is just the left attempting to reignite an old stand by "war on women" because they know they're about to lose big at mid-terms.

        report