Hobby Lobby Ruling

[Woodruff]

If I'm against smoking, should I be forced to offer the nicotine patch or be at risk for being hypocritical?

If you are sincere about wanting to end smoking, then you should be doing everything you can to end smoking, which certainly would include offering the nicotine patch in your healthcare plan (never mind that it would be smart business too, from a healthcare costs standpoint). If you're not concerned about being sincere, then of course not...of course, that's when the image of hypocricy can take hold.

Access to contraceptives is really not a hard thing to do if it's something that is a priority to you.

I happen to agree with that statement. I also don't believe it changes my point in the slightest.

There are 716 Planned Parenthood locations across all 50 states. You can get discounted rated contraceptives through PP if you are poor / less fortunate.

Planned Parenthood is very much "under the gun" for being shut down. In fact, it has essentially BEEN shut down in a number of states. Sadly, that option is dwindling...usually due to the same folks who are against abortion, ironically.

As far as relationship to contraceptives and abortions; there are many variables in this. If all things were equal, obviously contraceptives prevent more pregnancies while that would theoretically drop abortions. This thought alone should not force one to have to provide it. Do more people engage in sexual activity thinking their ok because they have contraceptives? Has the culture of sex caused more abortions than complete access to contraceptives would have prevented?

The culture of sex? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Woodruff]

crispybits, what confidence do you place in government when it comes to optimally planning the lives of 300+ million?

This doesn't directly answer your question, but it does touch on it...the United States military runs what is essentially a completely socialized healthcare system via the military base hospitals. And it's run incredibly well.

To be clear, this is not related to the VA system at all, is it? I assume not given all the news about the VA system in the last couple months but wanted to verify.

The VA system is competely different than the military medical system. The VA system is badly underfunded (though there are a few specific sites that are incredibly well-managed), whereas the military medical system is well-funded and well-run. The news of the VA being poorly-funded and mismanaged are not at all new news...I was hearing about it when I had first joined the military, back in the 80s.

OK, cool. I'm not up on all the military medical system so I'll take your word on that. Just wanted to make sure myself and others knew there was a lesser known system out there that you were referencing.

It's lesser known that the military provides full medical care for military members and their immediate families? It's probably the #1 benefit to joining the military.

[patrickaa317]

If I'm against smoking, should I be forced to offer the nicotine patch or be at risk for being hypocritical?

If you are sincere about wanting to end smoking, then you should be doing everything you can to end smoking, which certainly would include offering the nicotine patch in your healthcare plan (never mind that it would be smart business too, from a healthcare costs standpoint). If you're not concerned about being sincere, then of course not...of course, that's when the image of hypocricy can take hold.

Access to contraceptives is really not a hard thing to do if it's something that is a priority to you.

I happen to agree with that statement. I also don't believe it changes my point in the slightest.

There are 716 Planned Parenthood locations across all 50 states. You can get discounted rated contraceptives through PP if you are poor / less fortunate.

Planned Parenthood is very much "under the gun" for being shut down. In fact, it has essentially BEEN shut down in a number of states. Sadly, that option is dwindling...usually due to the same folks who are against abortion, ironically.

As far as relationship to contraceptives and abortions; there are many variables in this. If all things were equal, obviously contraceptives prevent more pregnancies while that would theoretically drop abortions. This thought alone should not force one to have to provide it. Do more people engage in sexual activity thinking their ok because they have contraceptives? Has the culture of sex caused more abortions than complete access to contraceptives would have prevented?

The culture of sex? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Its because sadly planned parenthood has become less about planning parenthood and more about performing abortions. A lot of former employees have reported some horrible views from the team that runs it. Not to mention how much they target minorities, especially blacks. Anyway, getting off topic. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this hobby lobby thing.

[Night Strike]

They STILL HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM to own their business. But the thing is, they have never had a Constitutional right to run their business counter to the law - that's just the facts (well, until this ruling opened up that can of worms). The idea that it is a Constitutional right for someone to be able to run a business in any way they see fit simply doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for quite some time - I thought you liked the Constitution, Night Strike - why do you want to try to abuse it?

Constitution > law. The law (actually, it wasn't even a law....it was yet another regulation illegally written by a department of the executive branch) was found to violate the Constitutional rights of people, therefore the law was in the wrong. People don't have to follow unconstitutional laws like that.

[AndyDufresne]

They STILL HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM to own their business. But the thing is, they have never had a Constitutional right to run their business counter to the law - that's just the facts (well, until this ruling opened up that can of worms). The idea that it is a Constitutional right for someone to be able to run a business in any way they see fit simply doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for quite some time - I thought you liked the Constitution, Night Strike - why do you want to try to abuse it?

Constitution > law. The law (actually, it wasn't even a law....it was yet another regulation illegally written by a department of the executive branch) was found to violate the Constitutional rights of people, therefore the law was in the wrong. People don't have to follow unconstitutional laws like that.

--Andy

[Woodruff]

If I'm against smoking, should I be forced to offer the nicotine patch or be at risk for being hypocritical?

If you are sincere about wanting to end smoking, then you should be doing everything you can to end smoking, which certainly would include offering the nicotine patch in your healthcare plan (never mind that it would be smart business too, from a healthcare costs standpoint). If you're not concerned about being sincere, then of course not...of course, that's when the image of hypocricy can take hold.

Access to contraceptives is really not a hard thing to do if it's something that is a priority to you.

I happen to agree with that statement. I also don't believe it changes my point in the slightest.

There are 716 Planned Parenthood locations across all 50 states. You can get discounted rated contraceptives through PP if you are poor / less fortunate.

Planned Parenthood is very much "under the gun" for being shut down. In fact, it has essentially BEEN shut down in a number of states. Sadly, that option is dwindling...usually due to the same folks who are against abortion, ironically.

As far as relationship to contraceptives and abortions; there are many variables in this. If all things were equal, obviously contraceptives prevent more pregnancies while that would theoretically drop abortions. This thought alone should not force one to have to provide it. Do more people engage in sexual activity thinking their ok because they have contraceptives? Has the culture of sex caused more abortions than complete access to contraceptives would have prevented?

The culture of sex? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Its because sadly planned parenthood has become less about planning parenthood and more about performing abortions.

Whether that perception is accurate or not, of course.

A lot of former employees have reported some horrible views from the team that runs it.

A lot have? Define a lot...because I've definitely not seen any sort of an overwhelming number.

Not to mention how much they target minorities, especially blacks.

You'll have to explain how they're "targeting" minorities.

Anyway, getting off topic. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this hobby lobby thing.

I'm ok with that, I suppose. You never did clarify what you meant by "the culture of sex"...

[Woodruff]

They STILL HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM to own their business. But the thing is, they have never had a Constitutional right to run their business counter to the law - that's just the facts (well, until this ruling opened up that can of worms). The idea that it is a Constitutional right for someone to be able to run a business in any way they see fit simply doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for quite some time - I thought you liked the Constitution, Night Strike - why do you want to try to abuse it?

Constitution > law. The law (actually, it wasn't even a law....it was yet another regulation illegally written by a department of the executive branch) was found to violate the Constitutional rights of people, therefore the law was in the wrong. People don't have to follow unconstitutional laws like that.

Of course the Constitution is greater than the law. Yet you seem astonishingly willing to only acknowledge that when it supports something that you're in favor of or works against something you're not in favor of. That's my point about why you want to try to abuse it.

The fact of the matter is that the Constitution does NOT allow for a BUSINESS WHICH IS NOT A SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS BUSINESS to be able to use (and yes, I use the term "use" intentionally) religion as an excuse to avoid things within their business that they don't want to have to deal with. I do believe, as does at least one of the Supreme Court Justices, that this opens up a very large can of worms regarding the abuse of religion in business. But you're ok with that because, in this one specific circumstance, it supports your view. All I can say is that you should be very careful about what you wish for...because I suspect you'll be unhappy about future similar situations (of course, they will probably be different religions, which makes all the difference in the world to people like you).

[PLAYER57832]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

Good... already done, just read back. Not everyone has the money to pay outside of insurance, particularly not when they are already paying for insurance coverage.

AND, this is NOT about "refusing to buy someone else's contraceptives". No one is asked to buy anyone else's contraceptives. EMPLOYERS are required to provide some portion of insurance as part of an employeee's compensation. Full women's health coverage is part of that mandated coverage.

[a6mzero]

I gave up on this topic a while back. It's just sad to see folks so gleeful about another terrible decision handed down by John Roberts and the 4 corporatists.Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rolled over in their graves when this one was handed down.

[patrickaa317]

If I'm against smoking, should I be forced to offer the nicotine patch or be at risk for being hypocritical?

If you are sincere about wanting to end smoking, then you should be doing everything you can to end smoking, which certainly would include offering the nicotine patch in your healthcare plan (never mind that it would be smart business too, from a healthcare costs standpoint). If you're not concerned about being sincere, then of course not...of course, that's when the image of hypocricy can take hold.

Access to contraceptives is really not a hard thing to do if it's something that is a priority to you.

I happen to agree with that statement. I also don't believe it changes my point in the slightest.

There are 716 Planned Parenthood locations across all 50 states. You can get discounted rated contraceptives through PP if you are poor / less fortunate.

Planned Parenthood is very much "under the gun" for being shut down. In fact, it has essentially BEEN shut down in a number of states. Sadly, that option is dwindling...usually due to the same folks who are against abortion, ironically.

As far as relationship to contraceptives and abortions; there are many variables in this. If all things were equal, obviously contraceptives prevent more pregnancies while that would theoretically drop abortions. This thought alone should not force one to have to provide it. Do more people engage in sexual activity thinking their ok because they have contraceptives? Has the culture of sex caused more abortions than complete access to contraceptives would have prevented?

The culture of sex? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Its because sadly planned parenthood has become less about planning parenthood and more about performing abortions.

Whether that perception is accurate or not, of course.

A lot of former employees have reported some horrible views from the team that runs it.

A lot have? Define a lot...because I've definitely not seen any sort of an overwhelming number.

Not to mention how much they target minorities, especially blacks.

You'll have to explain how they're "targeting" minorities.

Anyway, getting off topic. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this hobby lobby thing.

I'm ok with that, I suppose. You never did clarify what you meant by "the culture of sex"...

Abortions account for 15% of their revenue. As with basically any company, revenue is always a top goal.

Fair enough on the "a lot" statement. I'll withdraw that comment. There have been enough former employees that have gave some insight on how the company works to make a person sick to their stomach. Well at least a person that views the unborn as actual people.

As far as targetting the minority, 78% of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods. Blacks account for 35% of abortions performed. Here is a quote from the founder:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Also, some good info in here, probably some obvious bias but the numbers are numbers. http://www.protectingblacklife.org/pdf/ ... 0-2012.pdf


As far as the culture of sex, compare things like primetime tv today to 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago. Can you name more than a couple prime time shows now that don't make sex jokes or show people hooking up like it's not a big thing? Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of shows like How I Met Your Mother but the message portrayed there is probably not the best one. The "cool guy" in there, his goal was always to dupe some chick into sleeping with him. Sex jokes used to be tactful and occasional. Now they are blunt and constant. Perhaps I'm just getting old.

[Night Strike]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

Good... already done, just read back. Not everyone has the money to pay outside of insurance, particularly not when they are already paying for insurance coverage.

AND, this is NOT about "refusing to buy someone else's contraceptives". No one is asked to buy anyone else's contraceptives. EMPLOYERS are required to provide some portion of insurance as part of an employeee's compensation. Full women's health coverage is part of that mandated coverage.

So why aren't employers forced to pay for food, housing, clothing, and all other types of insurance? Are people denied those things because the employer doesn't directly pay for them? Of course not! No person has been denied the freedom to buy contraceptives simply because their employer doesn't pay for that medical choice. There are many medical choices that employers don't pay for, and that doesn't mean the employee is then denied from buying it themselves.

[a6mzero]

The whole crux of the matter is the supreme court reversing 200 years of rulings regarding separation of church and state. Now apparently a business can claim exemptions from the law based on the religious beliefs of the owners. The Roberts court already has ruled corporations are people so now corporations can invoke the same rights a group of people can invoke. So any corporation (group of people) can enjoy all the benefits of personhood minus the fact they can't be incarcerated and that they received corporate tax breaks and incentives.The Roberts court should be lined up against the wall and shot for treason.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

Good... already done, just read back. Not everyone has the money to pay outside of insurance, particularly not when they are already paying for insurance coverage.

AND, this is NOT about "refusing to buy someone else's contraceptives". No one is asked to buy anyone else's contraceptives. EMPLOYERS are required to provide some portion of insurance as part of an employeee's compensation. Full women's health coverage is part of that mandated coverage.

So why aren't employers forced to pay for food, housing, clothing, and all other types of insurance?

#1. They are.. .its just called money., a paycheck
#2. As I noted earlier, because employers could offer more benefit at lower cost. They got to write off the health insurance premiums in ways they could not fully do for wages.

Are people denied those things because the employer doesn't directly pay for them?

You are arguing that you don't think employers should be in the health insurance business. I agree. However, the law states that employers still must offer insurance. Hobby Lobby is seeking an exception SOLELY because some employees might choose healthcare with which the owner does not agree.

Of course not! No person has been denied the freedom to buy contraceptives simply because their employer doesn't pay for that medical choice. There are many medical choices that employers don't pay for, and that doesn't mean the employee is then denied from buying it themselves.

Actually, people ARE denied things when they don't have money to pay. The only difference here is that an employer is required, still, to provide health insurance. Hobby Lobby wants to claim the right to not pay this simply because employees and policy holders outside of the organization might use coverage they disagree with.

So, what is to stop them from saying they will now opt out of taxes because they morally object to places some of it goes.. or will no longer pay for Medicaid on "moral" grounds. How long before vaccines for children are no longer covered because so many firmly believe, despite evidence, that they cause autism?

How long before its not the contraceptives that are denied, but coverage of births and treatment of birth defects. Ih you have the right to deny women birth control insurance coverage, then why shouldn't someone who strongly believes that the Earth is over-populated be able to opt out of materinity care? Why should people who firmly believe that God and not medicine should decide if a child lives of dies opt out of all kinds of coverage -- not for themselves, but for their employees?

[Woodruff]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

Good... already done, just read back. Not everyone has the money to pay outside of insurance, particularly not when they are already paying for insurance coverage.

AND, this is NOT about "refusing to buy someone else's contraceptives". No one is asked to buy anyone else's contraceptives. EMPLOYERS are required to provide some portion of insurance as part of an employeee's compensation. Full women's health coverage is part of that mandated coverage.

So why aren't employers forced to pay for food, housing, clothing, and all other types of insurance?

Because it's not the law? Why isn't that obvious, again?

[Woodruff]

For those stating that "at least Hobby Lobby is providing 16 of the 20 contraceptives" as if that means this won't be a problem...the real unintended effect of this ruling comes home to roost a bit, as now businesses in Wisconsin can simply claim a religious position of not providing contraceptives at all within their insurance plans, if Governor Scott Walker has anything to say about it:

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/ ... efit-rule/

One has to wonder what the militant states' rights folks on this site think of his position...

[Phatscotty]

I gave up on this topic a while back. It's just sad to see folks so gleeful about another terrible decision handed down by John Roberts and the 4 corporatists.Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rolled over in their graves when this one was handed down.

You imply Thomas Jefferson or James Madison would support government mandated abortion coverage?

I really have heard it all now!

[Phatscotty]

For those stating that "at least Hobby Lobby is providing 16 of the 20 contraceptives" as if that means this won't be a problem.....

no, it means this isn't about a firm all or nothing stance against contraceptives at all, it's about the most extreme and controversial methods of contraceptives, namely abortion and the federal government mandating abortion coverage.

[Metsfanmax]

Can we go back to talking about how there's not actually any real evidence for the argument that these "controversial" methods cause abortions?

[Night Strike]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

Good... already done, just read back. Not everyone has the money to pay outside of insurance, particularly not when they are already paying for insurance coverage.

AND, this is NOT about "refusing to buy someone else's contraceptives". No one is asked to buy anyone else's contraceptives. EMPLOYERS are required to provide some portion of insurance as part of an employeee's compensation. Full women's health coverage is part of that mandated coverage.

So why aren't employers forced to pay for food, housing, clothing, and all other types of insurance?

Because it's not the law? Why isn't that obvious, again?

And the current law was ruled unconstitutional, so it's not a law either.

The whole crux of the matter is the supreme court reversing 200 years of rulings regarding separation of church and state. Now apparently a business can claim exemptions from the law based on the religious beliefs of the owners. The Roberts court already has ruled corporations are people so now corporations can invoke the same rights a group of people can invoke. So any corporation (group of people) can enjoy all the benefits of personhood minus the fact they can't be incarcerated and that they received corporate tax breaks and incentives.The Roberts court should be lined up against the wall and shot for treason.

The court didn't rule that corporations were defined as people......Congress did that a long time ago. 1 US Code S 1. You progressives should figure out reality before going on your diatribes.

By the way, did you know that individuals also receive tax breaks and incentives?

[PLAYER57832]

For those stating that "at least Hobby Lobby is providing 16 of the 20 contraceptives" as if that means this won't be a problem...the real unintended effect of this ruling comes home to roost a bit, as now businesses in Wisconsin can simply claim a religious position of not providing contraceptives at all within their insurance plans, if Governor Scott Walker has anything to say about it:

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/ ... efit-rule/

One has to wonder what the militant states' rights folks on this site think of his position...

Actually, the impact goes even further, because if one employer can object to providing one type of coverage, then what is to stop others from doing so on religious grounds.

Or, as I said from allowing people and companies to avoid taxes because they "have religious objections" to where it goes. Even the Amish have to pay some taxes. They are allowed to opt out of some specific types of coverage, such as social security, because they have proven successfully that they will not be using those services, at all. They do generally have to pay other taxes, because they use roads, etc. (even if not with cars -- usually, though sometimes they do drive) IN this case, its not the universal lack of use by a class that is in question, its whether the boss can dictate whether the employees get covered by this insurance or not.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

Good... already done, just read back. Not everyone has the money to pay outside of insurance, particularly not when they are already paying for insurance coverage.

AND, this is NOT about "refusing to buy someone else's contraceptives". No one is asked to buy anyone else's contraceptives. EMPLOYERS are required to provide some portion of insurance as part of an employeee's compensation. Full women's health coverage is part of that mandated coverage.

So why aren't employers forced to pay for food, housing, clothing, and all other types of insurance?

Because it's not the law? Why isn't that obvious, again?

And the current law was ruled unconstitutional, so it's not a law either.

The whole crux of the matter is the supreme court reversing 200 years of rulings regarding separation of church and state. Now apparently a business can claim exemptions from the law based on the religious beliefs of the owners. The Roberts court already has ruled corporations are people so now corporations can invoke the same rights a group of people can invoke. So any corporation (group of people) can enjoy all the benefits of personhood minus the fact they can't be incarcerated and that they received corporate tax breaks and incentives.The Roberts court should be lined up against the wall and shot for treason.

The court didn't rule that corporations were defined as people......Congress did that a long time ago. 1 US Code S 1. You progressives should figure out reality before going on your diatribes.

By the way, did you know that individuals also receive tax breaks and incentives?

Not quite, though you might wish that were true.

Also, you keep trying to claim that Hobby Lobby is paying for the insurance, as if the employees were not. The truth is that the miniscule portion paid by Hobby Lobby for this particular coverage is so small its not even a matter of cents. To claim that this small contribution to an overall INSURANCE plan means they get to dictate what portions of the paid INSURANCE employees can and cannot use is ridiculous.... and that any court agreed is yet further proof that our freedom is being taken away by corporate money interests.

Religious freedom is not a one-way street, as you try to claim. If Hobby Lobby gets to deny this particular contraceptive coverage, then others with absolutely opposing views get to have their say as well. THAT is why religious NEUTRALITY by large employers is important. We are not supposed to be a monarchy where the king gets to declare the religion of the entire kingdom, or to effectively limit the ability of those not agreeing to do reasonable commerce, live where they wish, etc. This ruling is taking us toward even further the realm of corporate monarchy.

[Woodruff]

For those stating that "at least Hobby Lobby is providing 16 of the 20 contraceptives" as if that means this won't be a problem.....

no, it means this isn't about a firm all or nothing stance against contraceptives at all, it's about the most extreme and controversial methods of contraceptives, namely abortion and the federal government mandating abortion coverage.

Do everyone a favor, and go read the article before parading your ignorance.

[Woodruff]

Can we go back to talking about how there's not actually any real evidence for the argument that these "controversial" methods cause abortions?

They've tried VERY, VERY HARD to ignore those posts - please respect their intentional ignorance.

[Woodruff]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

Good... already done, just read back. Not everyone has the money to pay outside of insurance, particularly not when they are already paying for insurance coverage.

AND, this is NOT about "refusing to buy someone else's contraceptives". No one is asked to buy anyone else's contraceptives. EMPLOYERS are required to provide some portion of insurance as part of an employeee's compensation. Full women's health coverage is part of that mandated coverage.

So why aren't employers forced to pay for food, housing, clothing, and all other types of insurance?

Because it's not the law? Why isn't that obvious, again?

And the current law was ruled unconstitutional, so it's not a law either.

Because businesses now have religious rights. You claim to support the Constitution, and yet you favor this? That is why I state fully that you, Night Strike, only want to abuse the Constitution - you don't actually believe in it except when you get your way.

[Night Strike]

Because businesses now have religious rights. You claim to support the Constitution, and yet you favor this? That is why I state fully that you, Night Strike, only want to abuse the Constitution - you don't actually believe in it except when you get your way.

That's because businesses, especially privately owned ones, are owned by individuals. There is no difference between the mom and pop store down the street and the national business of Hobby Lobby when it comes to the fact that their businesses are owned by individuals. People don't give up their religious freedoms just because they own a business of arbitrary size. We're not talking about publicly traded companies like Walmart that are owned by millions of shareholders....we're talking about individuals and families who own their own businesses. Individuals don't lose their religious freedoms just because they own and run a business, so you can't force those individuals to take actions that go against their religious freedoms. I thought all of you progressives were for "separation of church and state", so why aren't you keeping the state out of people's religious beliefs?