• 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!

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What if...? said:
So does that religious group that doesn't do doctors get to skip health insurance completely since they believe god should decide who lives and dies?
Click to expand...

They do.

Any bets theres gonna be a mass "conversion" to christian science??
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

HenryChinaski said:
Then you feel that this procedure shouldn't be covered through employer sponsored insurance either correct?
Click to expand...

What I feel is irrelevant, but since you asked - if HL were my company and this ruling came through just now, I'd have no problem covering vasectomy since there is no unborn child being aborted when a vasectomy procedure occurs. If there were, no - it would not be covered.

You are aware that HL is covering the vast majority of contraceptives.... or is that fact escaping you?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:
Post where I accused someone of being sexist in this thread.

I stated that it's funny how men fight against birth control but as shown by personal and online experience, alot of times they do not actually help to take care of the baby. I roll my eyes at the thought of women just wanting birth control to have tons of sex yes but I did not at any point call out someone.
Click to expand...

You didn't just post complaints about 'husbands'?

Why would men fight against birth control, thereby allowing sex without responsibility, when it's been the greatest thing that's happened for men in their social history?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Grant said:
I could make a similar list about women doing drugs while pregnant, abandoning their children, murdering them, etc. but what would be the point?
Click to expand...

So then we would both agree that both men and women should take caution, contraceptives really, to avoid unwanted pregnancies that result in the mistreatment of a child.

btw, comparing a man not wanting to change diapers to a woman abusing a baby is kind of a stretch, or no?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ockham said:
What I feel is irrelevant, but since you asked - if HL were my company and this ruling came through just now, I'd have no problem covering vasectomy since there is no unborn child being aborted when a vasectomy procedure occurs. If there were, no - it would not be covered.

You are aware that HL is covering the vast majority of contraceptives.... or is that fact escaping you?
Click to expand...
What birth control methods cause abortion?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

zgoldsmith23 said:
It gives someone / something with religion the decision-making power over those who might be a follower of a different religion or even someone who is non-religious. Sure, HL can practice their beliefs, no one is forcing them to take BC (last I checked ;) ). But, how is it in their right to tell someone else they cannot because it will not be paid for?
Click to expand...

a. you have the choice to work for hobby lobby or not to work for them
b. you have the choice if you do work for them, to pay for those 4 drugs yourself
c. all others forms of birth control are covered, and will continue to be covered

am i wrong on any point?

does a company have to provide what (you) want, or what they think is right? in this case, because they are basically a family held company, they can assert their religious beliefs into their decisions

it in no way, precludes anyone on their payroll from obtaining those 4 disqualified meds themselves, out of their own pocket
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Grant said:
Why would men fight against birth control, thereby allowing sex without responsibility, when it's been the greatest thing that's happened for men in their social history?
Click to expand...


That is exactly what I am wondering.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
That's not true at all. The court ruled on a set of facts, but the ruling is much broader than the narrow set of facts before it. They don't waste their time resolving issue of which of 20 options must be covered, and in fact conceded that covering all options serves a legitimate purpose. So HL or any of the dozens of others suing, and the thousands or 10s of thousands of other small businesses, could decide to cover 1 or 4 or zero or 19 of the available options and the ruling says that is OK.
Click to expand...

Actually no, the court ruling was VERY narrow on 'closely held companies' and the two drugs HL considered abortion causing as opposed to the others that are simple blockers.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

LowDown said:
There is a tendency of left wingers to conflate the issue of access to contraceptives with free contraceptives. The former was never in doubt, the latter was never in doubt for the vast majority of women and still isn't, at least by the provisions in the ACA.

People take their religions seriously.
Click to expand...

The point was there were and are good reasons to make access to contraceptives 'free,' (although these women work for their benefits, same way they work for all the other health benefits they earn on the job) same as routine medical visits, wellness visits. Instead of addressing them, you pretend they don't exist and assert that including them for 'free' in medical plans was some kind of liberal plot to anger religious conservatives. There is a ton of research on copays and what if finds is even small ones have significant effects on use, which is why the last two plans I've been in cover (pre-ACA) routine physicals for 'free' - that eliminates a big obstacle to people getting them, and insurers WANT patients to get an annual physical. The medical community WANTED women to have the easiest possible access to contraception to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

And, yes, people take religion seriously, and people take health issues seriously. There is a conflict between them in this case, not the biggest one of all time, but important enough for the SC to concede the state had a compelling interest to provide access for free, and to rule in favor of HL in large part because this important issue could be resolved without the employer mandate on that one narrow part of the ACA baseline package.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

HenryChinaski said:
What birth control methods cause abortion?
Click to expand...

Supreme Court Brief said:
“Four of the twenty approved methods —two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the emergency contraceptives commonly known as Plan B and Ella
—can function by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.” 2 Pet.App.10a.This requirement to cover FDA-approved drugs and devicesis the contraceptive-
coverage mandate at issue here."
Click to expand...

http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/wp-co.../Hobby-Lobby-Supreme-Court-Brief-Feb-2014.pdf
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Gathomas88 said:
I may have been a bit hasty in reading your original post. My apologies. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to covering BC as a form of hormone therapy, or if a woman's health could legitimately be shown to be poor enough to warrant it. Otherwise, however, I'd argue that the responsibility falls upon the woman to pay for her own treatment.
Click to expand...

Well as several women have pointed out- the BC methods are not 'free', these women have a co-pay like most every other drug covered by insurance. A friend of mine gets allergy meds on his insurance for the family and there is a co-pay. There is no threshold of need for that, many (too damn many IMO) get pain killers routinely under insurance and there is no need to show 'legitimately' the need for such- it is at the Doctor's discretion....

I'd say the threshold for 'legitimately be shown' is as prescribed by doctor- be it BC, Lortab, or Viagra... :peace
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Gathomas88 said:
Which is exactly why men have to pay out of pocket for Viagra and other ED meds if they want them. They simply are not "necessary" medical expenses.
Click to expand...
Weren't you the one that just said that ED was a "legitimate dysfunction"? The ACA covers vasectomies and Viagra. But of course you're free to pay for it yourself.

Regardless, however, the fact of the matter remains that it makes far more sense to treat ED as a "disease" than pregnancy. ED actually tends to legitimately indicate that there is something wrong with a person's body.
Click to expand...
Pregnancy isn't a "disease" but it is a condition that requires medical care and it can be prevented with prescription drugs.

It's not an employer's, or the state's, duty to subsidize your sexual habits.
Click to expand...
I suggest you stop trying to make this personal.

I hold to that much on general principle alone. It simply adds additional burden to an already overtaxed and overextended system
Click to expand...
Too bad employers have to be involved in the health insurance business at all. But they are, so almost everyone who works for an employer is paying for their own health insurance. That basic fact seems to elude you.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

notquiteright said:
Actually no, the court ruling was VERY narrow on 'closely held companies' and the two drugs HL considered abortion causing as opposed to the others that are simple blockers.
Click to expand...

I read the opinion and you're wrong about that. Here's the final order: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA."

They didn't say, the contraceptive mandate for drugs, X, Y, Z and A violates RFRA.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ockham said:
I agree, however that doesn't preclude the employer from paying for it. Obamacare actually put HL in the middle of a woman and her doctor by requiring HL to pay for it. I'd agree that no employer should have to pay for ANY birth control - thereby preserving the doctor patient relationship and employers can stay 100% out of it.
Click to expand...

The employees earn their health insurance and companies that provide it get huge tax subsidies.

I fail to see how the courts decision benefitted anyone except business owners. Can employees just start praying and chanting during business hours if they feel the spirit in them...or will they get fired?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Grant said:
Which men are you referring to then?
Click to expand...

The ones that are acting like I want free birth control so I can screw the entire Belgium football team.

I can and do pay for my birth control but it sucks that my employer like hobby lobby doesn't cover iud's. It sucks but I suck it up and just use pills, which are covered with a copay. But because I would like for them to cover all types of contraceptives doesn't make me an irresponsible whore just as lazy dads out there doesn't make you one.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

HenryChinaski said:
Plan B has nothing to do with abortion.
Click to expand...

Plan B allows the contraceptive forms that HL opposed, which the SCOTUS agreed with in the 5-4 ruling.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
Weren't you the one that just said that ED was a "legitimate dysfunction"? The ACA covers vasectomies and Viagra. But of course you're free to pay for it yourself.
Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out, Viagra generally requires a co-pay. It is not "free."

Pregnancy isn't a "disease" but it is a condition that requires medical care and it can be prevented with prescription drugs.
Click to expand...

It does not require preventing, on either medical or practical grounds in the vast majority of cases. Some women simply happen to desire it.

I suggest you stop trying to make this personal.
Click to expand...

I'm not making anything "personal."

You've already told us what you're after point blank. You want "sexual liberation" for women with someone else footing the bill.

I'm sorry, but you're simply not entitled to that. :shrug:
Too bad employers have to be involved in the health insurance business at all. But they are, so almost everyone who works for an employer is paying for their own health insurance. That basic fact seems to elude you.
Click to expand...

How are you "paying for your own health insurance" when your employer pays your medical bills for you? :roll:

Are they not already paying you an honest wage or salary?

Every additional expense beyond that only cuts into their bottom line more, and therefore the number of employees they are able to hire.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
The employees earn their health insurance and companies that provide it get huge tax subsidies.

I fail to see how the courts decision benefitted anyone except business owners. Can employees just start praying and chanting during business hours if they feel the spirit in them...or will they get fired?
Click to expand...

It's even a smaller benefit than that. It will benefit only those closely held corps, which also have similar religious beliefs regarding some contraceptives. And this has nothing to do with the employees beliefs but the closely held corporation's beliefs. I would think religious freedom for chanting or praying is already settled law as part of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.


Burwell v Hobby Lobby said:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results
from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern
-mental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42
Click to expand...

It's actually the first paragraph of the Syllabus in the HL court case. Here's the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:
You are missing the big picture.
Click to expand...

I misspoke, they'll have access to 16 kinds of contraceptive. If you can't find one that works for you, stay out of the bedroom.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:
The ones that are acting like I want free birth control so I can screw the entire Belgium football team.
Click to expand...
You might get a great return on the video.

I can and do pay for my birth control but it sucks that my employer like hobby lobby doesn't cover iud's. It sucks but I suck it up and just use pills, which are covered with a copay. But because I would like for them to cover all types of contraceptives doesn't make me an irresponsible whore just as lazy dads out there doesn't make you one.
Click to expand...

Why can't the covering of iud's be part of the negotiating agreement when you begin work or as part of a union negotiation? There are a great many things we want our employers to pay for but when you get a benefit other employees may not be receiving the same, which means they should get an extra pay allowance for whatever these birth control payments costs. Things actually were much easier, and cheaper, when we were responsible for ourselves.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:
Your government? When did you take over the Govt. to make it yours? It is our govt. and Freedom OF Religion doesn't mean Freedom FROM religion, you seem to not understand the difference between of and from. Your disdain for religion is your choice and you expect that choice to be respected yet do not seem to respect others who have their own money invested in a business to exercise their freedom of choice. That seems to be the problem with liberals today, no respect for opposing points of view as well as no respect for other's freedoms.
Click to expand...

From the same guy who said lefties are burning down Hobby Lobby no less.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
From the same guy who said lefties are burning down Hobby Lobby no less.
Click to expand...

He said that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom