• 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

tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

just as there is no reason to mandate cancer coverage
or
care for heart attacks or stroke
 
danarhea said:
Great, I think it's a terrible law that allows the banksters to receive million dollar bonuses from the government, after they ran their banks into the ground. So I think I'll go out and rob a bank. Or, instead, I can realize that we are a nation of laws, even if I don't happen to like some of them.
Click to expand...
So you're equating not buying someone something to going out and violently robbing a bank? You don't see the fallacy in logic in that?

poweRob said:
I recall back in the day the Amish putting up a huge stink about the government requiring their buggies have a triangle relfector on the back of them so that cars could see them better. The Amish were pissed about that because they claimed that if they died from their buggy being hit by a car it was God's will. Basically making the claim that the reflector was interfering with their religious beliefs. Now buggies, by law, have a reflector on them... so the religous angle didn't work there either.
Click to expand...

The reflector was a matter of public road safety, and was the government mandating that all citizens who drive have some kind of reflector. This is the case of the government forcing someone to buy someone else something. Not even remotely similar.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your first statement is correct but unfortuantely for you, it refutes the very argument you are trying to make. The owner of Hobby Lobby is a free man with the freedom to practice his religion. For some reason, you feel that you have some 'right' to impose your views upon him. I wont ask you where you derive such a 'right' because you wont be able to answer. The fact is, if his religious beliefs lead him to restrict the coverage he voluntarily offers his employees, it is none of your business. If those employees feel that contraceptive coverage is a necessary condition of their employment somewhere, then they can work elsewhere. The owner is not imposing his religion on anyone, and for you to claim he is is absurd.

As for your second point, you are simply applauding state tyranny. Bravo.
 
Your Star said:
First off, saying "just find another job" in this economy is an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to do.

Secondly, it is ridiculous to claim that it is medically unethical.
Click to expand...
You first point is correct. Your second point is not. With your second point all you're doing is trying to force your opinion on others, which is also what you are saying you find unethical.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The reflector was a matter of public road safety, and was the government mandating that all citizens who drive have some kind of reflector. This is the case of the government forcing someone to buy someone else something. Not even remotely similar.
Click to expand...

It's the government mandating people who claim something is against their religion. So in that sense, it is precisely similiar. If you want to take the "buying other people something"... Any tax-funded program could be said to be that. Social Security... you are paying for someone else's social security. This argument is tired and resolved a long time ago.
 
By the way, the argument of the owner is that the morning after pill is an "abortion causing drug" which is wrong, so this entire discussion of "ethics" is irrelevant.
 
radcen said:
You first point is correct. Your second point is not. With your second point all you're doing is trying to force your opinion on others, which is also what you are saying you find unethical.
Click to expand...

How is she forcing her "opinion" of something NOT being medically unethical, any different than you forcing your "opinion" that it IS being medically unethical on others?
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. For example, no one has the right to impose on Hobby Lobby the religious view that the morning after pill is morally acceptable, or force them to take part in what they perceive as evil, any more than we have the right to force Muslim grocers to carry and sell pork. Hobby Lobby, in turn, has no right to impose their religious views on anyone else, and has no right to stop their employees from going and getting birth control on their own.

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.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Disagrees.
 
poweRob said:
How is she forcing her "opinion" of something NOT being medically unethical, any different than you forcing your "opinion" that it IS being medically unethical on others?
Click to expand...
Where did I say in unequivocal terms, or in any way really, that I feel it is medically unethical? :shrug: Assumption fail on your part.

I was merely pointing out the fatal flaw in her definitively stating something as being undeniably true when it is in fact nothing more than her individual opinion, yet she portrayed it as undeniable fact when it is nothing of the sort.
 
cpwill said:
I agree. For example, no one has the right to impose on Hobby Lobby the religious view that the morning after pill is morally acceptable, or force them to take part in what they perceive as evil, any more than we have the right to force Muslim grocers to carry and sell pork. Hobby Lobby, in turn, has no right to impose their religious views on anyone else, and has no right to stop their employees from going and getting birth control on their own.



Fortunately the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Disagrees.
Click to expand...


I agree. I think this is a larger test, a toe in the water if you will...think about it, the government is seeing how far they can go through force with an item easily affordable by the mass public. The only reason to push so hard is to set a precedent.
 
j-mac said:
Is abortion a religion?
Click to expand...

The morning after pill is not anything close to an abortion.

The morning after pill delays ovulation which means the egg never gets fertilized in the first place. If you still consider that an abortion you're probably for legislation against masturbation as well. There are some which just make the uterus inhospitable for the egg to attach to the uterine wall which results in a regular menstral cycle

http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html

http://www.ehow.com/about_4587245_what-zygote.html
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
I'd say Corporations are people but most of the people have no say in corporate policy.
Click to expand...

Nor should they if the corporations are operating legally. Corporations are not people in that it is some communal organization where all get a vote. Armies are people however privates are rarely asked their opinion. ;)
Click to expand...

A group of people gathered together in a common interest are still people. That is true of any organization.

I see the religion dodge as bogus,
Click to expand...

That really doesn't matter.
 
j-mac said:
I agree. I think this is a larger test, a toe in the water if you will...think about it, the government is seeing how far they can go through force with an item easily affordable by the mass public. The only reason to push so hard is to set a precedent.
Click to expand...

As well as a red herring. The government gives in on this issue and they appear benevolent and well meaning, despite the horrendous costs and worsening health care that will result from Obamacare. People will forget about that part until they come to face the facts down the road.
 
poweRob said:
It's the government mandating people who claim something is against their religion. So in that sense, it is precisely similiar. If you want to take the "buying other people something"... Any tax-funded program could be said to be that. Social Security... you are paying for someone else's social security. This argument is tired and resolved a long time ago.
Click to expand...

If you hire someone to mow your lawn, shouldn't you have the obligation to buy him condoms and other goodies? Or would it be better if you just paid him the agreed upon $20/hr and he can buy those things on his own if he wishes? Why does the government need to step in, nullify the original terms of the contract, and force you to buy him something? (It's an example, so don't go off on the <50 employees or temp rules, I know.)
 
iguanaman said:
That's exactly what the law does. It leaves the choice of using birth contol up to the individual not a Corporation.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The law requires that the corporation pay for birth-control coverage. Whether birth control is used or not is not the issue. The corporation is mandated to pay for the coverage. That is what is being objected to.
 
radcen said:
Where did I say in unequivocal terms, or in any way really, that I feel it is medically unethical? :shrug: Assumption fail on your part.

I was merely pointing out the fatal flaw in her definitively stating something as being undeniably true when it is in fact nothing more than her individual opinion, yet she portrayed it as undeniable fact when it is nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

ok... I'll restate seeing how we are going to take the angle of a semantics battle here...

How is she forcing her "opinion" of something NOT being medically unethical, any different than an opposing person forcing their "opinion" that it IS being medically unethical on others?​

It might not have been your opinion but you clearly took to supporting the opposing view did you not?
 
radcen said:
You first point is correct. Your second point is not. With your second point all you're doing is trying to force your opinion on others, which is also what you are saying you find unethical.
Click to expand...

Um, how is it medically unethical to offer something through insurance? Makes no kind of sense.
 
The MAP is available over the counter in most places. Why should insurance cover that if they are not covering my Tylenol Sinus?
 
Your Star said:
Um, how is it medically unethical to offer something through insurance? Makes no kind of sense.
Click to expand...

Allowing people to make their own choices is the epitome of unethical. They might choose in ways we do not like!
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

You say you're no Republican because they're not conservative, but neither are you.
 
If Hobby Lobby wasn't such a hot bed of wanton sexual activity none of their employees would be needing a morning after pill....... Have any you ever been to a Hobby Lobby and seen the females working there?

Not trying to come off as a A- hole,,but seriously.
 
poweRob said:
ok... I'll restate seeing how we are going to take the angle of a semantics battle here...

How is she forcing her "opinion" of something NOT being medically unethical, any different than an opposing person forcing their "opinion" that it IS being medically unethical on others?​

It might not have been your opinion but you clearly took to supporting the opposing view did you not?
Click to expand...
It's the portraying the opinion as an absolute that is hypocritical because it doesn't allow for equal opinion on the opposing point-of-view.
 
radcen said:
It's the portraying the opinion as an absolute that is hypocritical because it doesn't allow for equal opinion on the opposing point-of-view.
Click to expand...

Ok... so if she took to the opposite in the same absolute fashion you'd be saying the same thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom