• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
An attorney for Hobby Lobby Stores said Thursday that the arts and crafts chain plans to defy a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill, despite risking potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day.

I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Article is here
.
 
When I bought it, the MAP was $50. Currently it ranges from $10-70 according to the Planned Parenthood website. There's no justifiable reason for mandating that a company's insurance policy cover it.
 
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Article is here
.


Is abortion a religion?
 
Is abortion a religion?

Those who practice "religion" are claiming that "contraception", as a morning after pill, is abortion, and is against their religion. That is the reason Hobby Lobby is defying the Supreme Court ruling.
 
They are a private employer, they have ever right to deny the morning after pill being on covered insurance plans. If having birth control coverage is a make or break deal then find another job or purchase your own plan. If not, keep $50 in your account to pay for Plan B if you ever need it.

This whole issue of mandated birth control coverage makes me sick and is completely medically unethical.
 
They are a private employer, they have ever right to deny the morning after pill being on covered insurance plans. If having birth control coverage is a make or break deal then find another job or purchase your own plan. If not, keep $50 in your account to pay for Plan B if you ever need it.

This whole issue of mandated birth control coverage makes me sick and is completely medically unethical.

No, they DON'T have the right to refuse it. It is LAW, so far upheld by the Supreme Court, although this case is going to be on the docket later this year.
 
No, they DON'T have the right to refuse it. It is LAW, so far upheld by the Supreme Court, although this case is going to be on the docket later this year.

I think it's a violation of rights in my view and if upheld the law needs to be repealed. They should fight it just as others do. I don't think the "law of the land" has stopped too many groups from fighting for what they believe is their right.

The whole notion that the government is going to force private employers to pay for birth control is just ludicrous and insanely medically unethical.
 
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

It seems clear that big government is imposing its views on Hobby Lobby while Hobby Lobby is not imposing its views on anyone.

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Anywhere else that would be gouging and/or extortion. The government will not reduce the deficit through extortion or having people put out of work. This 'might makes right' philosophy at one time only occurred elsewhere in the world, not in the United States.
 
Those who practice "religion" are claiming that "contraception", as a morning after pill, is abortion, and is against their religion. That is the reason Hobby Lobby is defying the Supreme Court ruling.


I know...But your post read like the morning after pill was also a religion...just sayin'
 
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Article is here
.

How is your free exercise of religion not impacted if you, as an employer must provide a benefit against your religious beliefs to others, or pay a fine not to do so? The SCOTUS will hear this case and that fine will never be paid. Giving the gov't power to order anyone to pay for a private service that they do not wish to offer, or to buy a private product that they do not wish to have should be unconstitutional. The silly opinion of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires that the income tax law allows for added taxation based upon what you did not "voluntarily" spend your income on is absurd. Today that may be only private medical care insurance (details to be specified later), tomorrow it might be little "green" electric carts and solar/wind chargres. Allowing the gov't to mandate personal or business income allocation for any private product/service is way out of Constitutional bounds.
 
Last edited:
No, they DON'T have the right to refuse it. It is LAW, so far upheld by the Supreme Court, although this case is going to be on the docket later this year.

Well, they could go others ways, but those are far less pleasant. They could:
1) not insure anyone (and pay the fine, which is less than the cost of the insurance).
2) restructure the company into franchise so that each location becomes it's own business and they don't run into the 50 employee requirement to insure.
3) close their doors and put all those folks out of work. I'm sure the owners have enough money to retire comfortably.

Businesses should not have to be responsible for funding their employees sexual exploits.
 
And with smoking being one of the leading causes of death in the US, nobody ever gets upset that health insurance won't generally cover smoking cessation drugs/aids.
 
Those who practice "religion" are claiming that "contraception", as a morning after pill, is abortion, and is against their religion. That is the reason Hobby Lobby is defying the Supreme Court ruling.

At least now we have an honest portrayal of the "anti-abortion" movement. It's just like the Popes. All birth control is "murder" and every sperm is sacred.
Good luck selling that, over 90% of Catholic women are murderers then.
 
Last edited:
And with smoking being one of the leading causes of death in the US, nobody ever gets upset that health insurance won't generally cover smoking cessation drugs/aids.

Because they don't work. None of the "aids" have over a 10% success rate. Can you imagine a birth control method that unreliable?
Oh wait... that would be the "rhythm method"
 
At least now we have an honest portrayal of the "anti-abortion" movement. It's just like the Popes. All birth control is "murder" and every sperm is sacred.
Good luck selling that, over 90% of Catholic women are murderers.

People are entitled to their beliefs, including the idea that Barrack Obama has the right to tell Americans what they must do with their own after tax money. Others have different beliefs.

Perhaps this is best left to the conscience of the individual, or has that idea become too old fashioned in the United States today?
 
Well, they could go others ways, but those are far less pleasant. They could:
1) not insure anyone (and pay the fine, which is less than the cost of the insurance).
2) restructure the company into franchise so that each location becomes it's own business and they don't run into the 50 employee requirement to insure.
3) close their doors and put all those folks out of work. I'm sure the owners have enough money to retire comfortably.

Businesses should not have to be responsible for funding their employees sexual exploits.

Or they could just keep their noses out of their employees bedrooms.
 
People are entitled to their beliefs, including the idea that Barrack Obama has the right to tell Americans what they must do with their own after tax money. Others have different beliefs.

Perhaps this is best left to the conscience of the individual, or has that idea become too old fashioned in the United States today?

That's exactly what the law does. It leaves the choice of using birth contol up to the individual not a Corporation.
 
Because they don't work. None of the "aids" have over a 10% success rate. Can you imagine a birth control method that unreliable?
Oh wait... that would be the "rhythm method"

Okay, well, one of the leading causes of accidental death and injury is still slipping in the tub. Should employers be required to fund tub stickies?
 
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

What I decide to offer others is my choice. Deal with it.
 
Or they could just keep their noses out of their employees bedrooms.

That's what they're trying to do, but the governement wants to require the business to fund those bedroom activities.
 
That's exactly what the law does. It leaves the choice of using birth contol up to the individual not a Corporation.

That is just stupid. No one involved is stopping people from using birth control.
 
That's exactly what the law does. It leaves the choice of using birth contol up to the individual not a Corporation.

Don't people own that corporation? Are there those still trying to sell the idea that corporations aren't made up of people?
 
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Article is here
.
I'm an atheist and as such I find nothing more despicable than the government enforcing religious principles. However, the exact opposite is happening here. The government is using the threat of violence to force private citizens to comply with a law that directly violates their religion. That I find disgusting.

No, they DON'T have the right to refuse it. It is LAW, so far upheld by the Supreme Court, although this case is going to be on the docket later this year.
So just because it's a law, that also makes it just? If they made a law that the president gets to bang your wife, would you be cool with that? I mean, it would be law.
 
Or they could just keep their noses out of their employees bedrooms.

If you are forcing me to cover your birth control that puts me firmly in your bedroom. Practice some logic, ok?
 
That's exactly what the law does. It leaves the choice of using birth contol up to the individual not a Corporation.
Or they could just keep their noses out of their employees bedrooms.

Not quite. Hobby lobby pays their employees a salary. They are free to do with that salary what they wish. They could buy large, spinning, riveted dildos with it, that's their choice. The company being forced to provide the large, spinning, riveted dildos by threat of government violence, on the other hand, is a completely different story.
 
Back
Top Bottom