Hobby Lobby ruling

[OsuMj]

What are the opinions of the crowd?

I'm a little torn right now on what I think, but I think I would like to be convinced one way or the other
 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-contraception-mandate-108429.html

 

[Bad324]

I'm not sure how it's much different from an employer not wanting to cover dental or eyes so I'm also intrigued to listen to the fight that's going to ensue to learn more

[banditj13]

I'm not sure how it's much different from an employer not wanting to cover dental or eyes so I'm also intrigued to listen to the fight that's going to ensue to learn more

 

If I understand correctly, the affordable care act made a blanket requirement of coverage for all 20 birth control drugs, and at argument were 4 of them.

 

Hobby Lobby was not asking to be exempted from providing coverage for all birth control...they actually already cover 16 of the 20 FDA approved birth control medicines.

Hobby Lobby was seeking exemption from the 4 supposed abortifacient drugs, under the idea that their "Christian principles" stand against abortion.

 

The difference is that they are not asking to not have to provide all medical coverage, or even all birth control coverage.

 

 

The Supreme Court seems to have based their ruling on the RFRA (religious freedoms restoration act)  - in my opinion, that act was to protect the individual's right to religious freedom, not a corporate entities right to show me how I should believe, etc.

 

What is more troubling to me in this is what I feel was an improper application of a individual assignment or protection of rights to a corporate structure... my right, as an individual, to have religious freedom, now applied to a corporation, could seem to mean the refusal of service, based of skin color, hair color or length, etc.

So my religion could say that men can't have long hair, therefore, a corporate entity that espouses to hold to the same belief system could now refuse service to a long haired male?

 

 

I am honestly not sure how I feel on this...  Will be interesting to watch this thread... I wonder what derailment it will become?

[OsuMj]

If I understand correctly, the affordable care act made a blanket requirement of coverage for all 20 birth control drugs, and at argument were 4 of them.

 

Hobby Lobby was not asking to be exempted from providing coverage for all birth control...they actually already cover 16 of the 20 FDA approved birth control medicines.

Hobby Lobby was seeking exemption from the 4 supposed abortifacient drugs, under the idea that their "Christian principles" stand against abortion.

 

This makes me feel better about it.  It seems like a bunch of reports are implying that all birth control can be exempted - which, if we are forced to use this health care system, seems super shitty for women who use "birth control" for health issues that don't include not getting pregnant (serious cramping, endemitriosis, high risk reproductive organ cancers, etc.).  If a company is to claim all birth control is against their religion due to it causing temporary infertility, they should also want to be exempt from chemotherapy and a host of other drugs that can cause temporary/permanent infertility.

 

[just_some_dude]

Okay...

 

Option 1)

1.) Employer says I will hire you for a job and pay you $1 per hour and give you a pack of gum.

2.) You say okay.

3.) You go to employer and say, I want birth control too.

4.) Employer says no.

5.) You go get a job somewhere else.

 

Problem solved.

 

Option 2)

1.) Government disregards constitution and forces people (ultimately with violence) to do as they are told.

 

Hmm... slave comes to mind...

[banditj13]

Just_some_dude:

  I get where your going... but the problem is that as of now, option 1, number 4, employer says no... is no longer an option. 

The ACA mandated that employers provide coverage for birth control.

 

That is why this Hobby Lobby case garnered so much attention... 

[magley64]

1. The idea that a corporation can have a religion is stupid.

2. There are medical reasons that women might need these drugs other than to prevent pregnancy. (I know of one who takes a particular birth control pill to prevent ovarian cysts, as opposed to having them surgically removed)

[OsuMj]

Okay...

 

Option 1)

1.) Employer says I will hire you for a job and pay you $1 per hour and give you a pack of gum.

2.) You say okay.

3.) You go to employer and say, I want birth control too.

4.) Employer says no.

5.) You go get a job somewhere else.

 

Problem solved.

 

Option 2)

1.) Government disregards constitution and forces people (ultimately with violence) to do as they are told.

 

Hmm... slave comes to mind...

 

sure, but that is a reason to be against 'obamacare', not a reason to be against upholding the requirement to provide medications to a particular group of people under the current system...

I know people who are against government intervention, obamacare, and mandates on businesses in general are saying that this is a success.  In a way, I think they are right, but the success seems like its from the perspective of dishing out a blow to the general idea of obamacare, not necessarily a success for the people who are forced to use the system. 

[magley64]

Then there is the blatant hypocrisy of the plaintiff... http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

[just_some_dude]

Just_some_dude:

  I get where your going... but the problem is that as of now, option 1, number 4, employer says no... is no longer an option. 

The ACA mandated that employers provide coverage for birth control.

 

That is why this Hobby Lobby case garnered so much attention... 

 

My opinion is, mandate means nothing. Shouldn't have forced something in the first place.

 

sure, but that is a reason to be against 'obamacare', not a reason to be against upholding the requirement to provide medications to a particular group of people under the current system...

I know people who are against government intervention, obamacare, and mandates on businesses in general are saying that this is a success.  In a way, I think they are right, but the success seems like its from the perspective of dishing out a blow to the general idea of obamacare, not necessarily a success for the people who are forced to use the system. 

 

If you want Obamacare, then go get Obamacare. Don't force me to offer Obamacare and everything I don't believe in.

 

Just because the government mandates you to suck their balls, doesn't mean you have to.

 

So let me change this...

 

Option 1:

1.) Employer says I will give you $1 per hour plus a pack of gum and I'm willing to let the government force me to give you specific benefits, but one that I refuse to offer (birth control) because it is against my 1st amendment right (freedom of belief (or religion)). - *religion does not have to be Christian versus, muslim, etc. It just means belief.*

2.) You say okay.

3.) You go to employer and say I want birth control.

4.) Employer says no.

5.) You go get a job somewhere else.

 

Problem Solved.

 

Option 2:

1.) Employer says I will give you $1 per hour plus a pack of gum and I'm willing to let the government force me to give you specific benefits, but one that I refuse to offer (birth control) because it is against my 1st amendment right (freedom of belief (or religion)). - *religion does not have to be Christian versus, muslim, etc. It just means belief.*

2.) You say okay.

3.) You go to employer and say I want birth control.

4.) Employer says no.

5.) You go to government and say I want you to force the company to give me something I am entitled to.

6.) Government says I force you to give birth control.

7.) Employer says no.

8.) Blah blah blah

9.) Government applies force and violence to get what they want.

 

Still a slave. No freedom. We the people don't exist. The mass overrides the individual. Freedom fails in terms of government.

[OsuMj]

Isn't that kind of a moot point though?  Whether you want the new healthcare system or not is kind of irrelevant because it is in place. 

To me, I think this can only be a victory if you think (or if it comes to happen) that the new healthcare laws will be reversed to the previous system or a system in which businesses can choose to give you whatever healthcare that they want and you consider as part of the perks of employment with that company (how I think it should be) as a result of this step-stone ruling.  If that's the case, hooray, back to individual freedom.  If it is not, then as of right now, we have women who require certain medical treatment who are being forced to partake in the new healthcare laws AND not necessarily able to benefit from them.

Again though, it seems that the people who call this a victory seem to be the people who are opposed to the new healthcare laws, the people who call it defeat are people who are forced into the system or otherwise support the system and foresee the negative effects on women's healthcare.



Also, where are the boundaries?  If a company says they won't pay for birth control should vasectomies be eliminated as well?  Should the company have to prove that they are wholly committed to their beliefs (magz post on hobby lobby investing in companies that produce IUDs)?  or do they just get to be hypocrites for the sake of saving money for the company?  All of this WITH regard for the current health care laws!  Because what we SHOULD be doing and what we are ACTUALLY doing are/could be two different things, and quite frankly you can argue till you are in blue in the face about what we should be doing, but that doesn't make it so *sad face* so it makes more sense to discuss what is actually relevant rather than ideal situations.
 

[whaler]

Company's or corporation's do not exist to provide you a job, they exist to make money... Period!

Hobby Lobby just as Chick Felet are owned and operated by families who are Christian and run their company's with the same belief as they live and operate there lives. Understand I may not believe in nor live how they live, but I do understand in a free society they should be able to run "THEIR" company as they see fit. Our government has no right to define and mandate what free indevidules or companies have to offer, especially if it has to do with personal belief or religious belief.

It is very easy to not shop or work for a company if you do not like how they conduct business.

The market will take care of companies who do not take care of employees or do not offer a product that people want. This is the whole idea around free markets. If another company pays better or provides benefits that people want or need, they will attract talent and prosper. The exact opposite is true for the company who does not provide for employees.

Bottom line the government should not be allowed to dictate something that is really not nesicary.

[Tonik]

The debate in this thread is stupid, it was over about three posts in when someone else mentioned this. This is a VERY narrow ruling and only impacts 3 types of 'birth control'. All of the rest, condoms, pills...all of that stuff is still covered and still mandated.

 

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

 

All three of the above are viewed as blockers. They block an already fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. It is not unreasonable for people to have a religious objections to this type of 'birth control'. Many, myself included who is not religious view that as a very early term abortion. I'm sorry but that is what a fertilized egg is. And I am not opposed to abortion.

 

And it is not unreasonable for the courts to tell the government to honor those religious objections.

 

This ruling is a very narrow exception for some very specific drugs for some very specific people. It is a compromise, which is much needed in today's political climate. Both sides should be honest about what it really means and embrace the wisdom of the court.

 

My hate for all of you is justified. The examples and arguments you are presenting don't have a damn thing to do with the issue or the ruling.

[OsuMj]

Many birth control pills also claim to work in a way that changes the lining of your uterus to make it less likely that a fertilized egg will attach.  When a company knows that a pill form of birth control can also cause this 'early term abortion', do they get the right to take these off the list as well?

[OsuMj]

  (kinda) sorry for trying to stir the pot, I like hearing people's opinions.

[Tonik]

Many birth control pills also claim to work in a way that changes the lining of your uterus to make it less likely that a fertilized egg will attach.  When a company knows that a pill form of birth control can also cause this 'early term abortion', do they get the right to take these off the list as well?

 

Read the ruling, not the 'news' reports, and you tell me.

[just_some_dude]

I think this was jacked up to begin with. So, now they are going to decide what freedoms you can and can't have. I don't know why my argument is so wrong. I think the ruling is just as stupid as the thing was to begin with. I'm just pointing out that the ruling is simply a result of infringement on rights. My opinion.

 

So, you have a bunch of people scurrying around trying to 'fix' something that was broken to begin with. Rather than being butt raped with a jar of peanuts, you are finger banged with a middle finger with a goth ring with spikes. Super cool.

 

 

Isn't that kind of a moot point though?  Whether you want the new healthcare system or not is kind of irrelevant because it is in place. 

To me, I think this can only be a victory if you think (or if it comes to happen) that the new healthcare laws will be reversed to the previous system or a system in which businesses can choose to give you whatever healthcare that they want and you consider as part of the perks of employment with that company (how I think it should be) as a result of this step-stone ruling.  If that's the case, hooray, back to individual freedom.  If it is not, then as of right now, we have women who require certain medical treatment who are being forced to partake in the new healthcare laws AND not necessarily able to benefit from them.

Again though, it seems that the people who call this a victory seem to be the people who are opposed to the new healthcare laws, the people who call it defeat are people who are forced into the system or otherwise support the system and foresee the negative effects on women's healthcare.



Also, where are the boundaries?  If a company says they won't pay for birth control should vasectomies be eliminated as well?  Should the company have to prove that they are wholly committed to their beliefs (magz post on hobby lobby investing in companies that produce IUDs)?  or do they just get to be hypocrites for the sake of saving money for the company?  All of this WITH regard for the current health care laws!  Because what we SHOULD be doing and what we are ACTUALLY doing are/could be two different things, and quite frankly you can argue till you are in blue in the face about what we should be doing, but that doesn't make it so *sad face* so it makes more sense to discuss what is actually relevant rather than ideal situations.
 

 

 

The debate in this thread is stupid, it was over about three posts in when someone else mentioned this. This is a VERY narrow ruling and only impacts 3 types of 'birth control'. All of the rest, condoms, pills...all of that stuff is still covered and still mandated.

 

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

 

All three of the above are viewed as blockers. They block an already fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. It is not unreasonable for people to have a religious objections to this type of 'birth control'. Many, myself included who is not religious view that as a very early term abortion. I'm sorry but that is what a fertilized egg is. And I am not opposed to abortion.

 

And it is not unreasonable for the courts to tell the government to honor those religious objections.

 

This ruling is a very narrow exception for some very specific drugs for some very specific people. It is a compromise, which is much needed in today's political climate. Both sides should be honest about what it really means and embrace the wisdom of the court.

 

My hate for all of you is justified. The examples and arguments you are presenting don't have a damn thing to do with the issue or the ruling.

[Tonik]

I think this was jacked up to begin with. So, now they are going to decide what freedoms you can and can't have. I don't know why my argument is so wrong. I think the ruling is just as stupid as the thing was to begin with. I'm just pointing out that the ruling is simply a result of infringement on rights. My opinion.

So, you have a bunch of people scurrying around trying to 'fix' something that was broken to begin with. Rather than being butt raped with a jar of peanuts, you are finger banged with a middle finger with a goth ring with spikes. Super cool.

You are missing one point. We elected a president that said he was going to do this and gave him a majority in the House and Senate. We, as a country, got EXACTLY what we voted for. All the court did was make sure we didn't f up constitutional rights along the way.

Nobody is taking away anything we didn't elect them to take away. We have met the asshats, and they are us.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Tonik

[Bad324]

You are missing one point. We elected a president that said he was going to do this and gave him a majority in the House and Senate. We, as a country, got EXACTLY what we voted for. All the court did was make sure we didn't f up constitutional rights along the way.

Nobody is taking away anything we didn't elect them to take away. We have met the asshats, and they are us.

woah woah woah...The poor and lazy got what they wanted and showed they far outnumber the middle class and rich everyone is always crying about Edited July 2, 2014 by Bad324

[smccrory]

Tonic you should read up on how IUDs work. I thought the same thing but but there are multiple classifications of IUDs and at least one class blocks fertilization to begin with. Also, I'd advise extreme caution against classifying life as starting with fertilization because if you apply existing personhood laws to a 1-day old egg person that aborts itself due to any reason than can be traced to a man or woman's knowing endangerment of the egg, they could justifiably be charged, fined and jailed.

[whaler]

When did we lose commonsense?

Edited July 2, 2014 by whaler

[magley64]

When did we loose commonsense?

How is babby formd?

[Tonik]

Tonic you should read up on how IUDs work. I thought the same thing but but there are multiple classifications of IUDs and at least one class blocks fertilization to begin with. Also, I'd advise extreme caution against classifying life as starting with fertilization because if you apply existing personhood laws to a 1-day old egg person that aborts itself due to any reason than can be traced to a man or woman's knowing endangerment of the egg, they could justifiably be charged, fined and jailed.

 

smccory, you should read up on the actual ruling. It does not impact all IUD's, it only impacts two SPECIFIC IUD's that act as a morning after pill along with two SPECIFIC morning after pills. Let me be clear what SPECIFIC means because everyone seems to be having a problem with this word., it means the make and model and manufacturer of four drugs were listed exactly in the ruling.

 

And I would advise against putting words in my mouth. I didn't classify a one day old egg as life, I classified terminating it as an abortion. And I clearly said I was not opposed to abortion, in fact I am in favor of it for most everyone here.

 

I am sure you can figure out that if I did think abortion terminated a life I would not be in favor of it.

[banditj13]

1. The idea that a corporation can have a religion is stupid.

 

<OFF TOPIC> This is probably my biggest issue with many of the "religion" based cases that make it into the legal system... I can understand that a business entity can be formed around, and ran based on, the principles that are laid out within a set of religious beliefs, but the business itself is only "Christian" on the basis that the owners or founders are...</OFF TOPIC>

 

Isn't that kind of a moot point though?  Whether you want the new healthcare system or not is kind of irrelevant because it is in place. 

This...

 

The debate in this thread is stupid, it was over about three posts in when someone else mentioned this. This is a VERY narrow ruling and only impacts 3 types of 'birth control'. All of the rest, condoms, pills...all of that stuff is still covered and still mandated.

And This....

 

We, as a country, got EXACTLY what we voted for. 

Nobody is taking away anything we didn't elect them to take away. We have met the asshats, and they are us.

And This...

 

All the above quotes should equal /END THREAD... but then again...

 

...You should read up on the actual ruling...

 

 And I clearly said I was not opposed to abortion, in fact I am in favor of it for most everyone here.

 

What a minute... stop the presses.... you said what... we should what...READ? Oh my... 

 

<Insert random picture of random sport biker in flipflops, shorts and no helmet> = Best birth control and abortion package available! 

[redkow97]

The premise of this case was dumb.  It assumes that the mandate in the ACA is constitutional, which I flatly disagree with.  There is no "right" outcome when the basis for the decision is predicated on a wrong policy...

 

 

I do laugh at the people who are trying to make this a feminism issue though.  I keep asking outraged women, "So you're telling me a woman should have an unrestricted right to choose her form of 'birth control' that is provided by her employer - women should always have the right to choose ...unless that woman is a business owner choosing what insurance coverage her company should offer (or not offer) to her employees?  Am I getting that right?"

 

this notion that it's a bunch of men conspiring to keep women down is laughable to me.  The Catholic Church is a bunch of old white guys making decisions, but the government isn't responsible for their views...

 

Repeal the ACA mandate for employers to provide health care coverage, and this problem goes away completely.

Edited July 2, 2014 by redkow97