• 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

Is your reproductive healthcare now in jeopardy?

How were you paying for it before the ACA passed?

It CLEARLY violates a persons constitutional right to have all the sex they want, free from consequences, financial responsibility or moral obligation... I forget which amendment that was... Let me look that up and get back to you.

:)
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I respect pro-life people, as well as respect religious rights and beliefs. But in my view when it comes to the issue of preventitive contraception, they don't have a leg to stand on. Prevnting a pregnacy may be ofensive to them, but it's not a violation of their religious rights as far as I'm conserned It's one thing to end a potential life after conception, but quite another to prevent conception from happening.

In my opinion, this case should have never reached the Supreme Court in the first place. The Obama Administration and HHS should have just removed those 4 methods of contraception, and stuck with the 16 preventitive ones. They could have avoided this controversy and prevented this decision from ever happening, but for what ever reason, they dropped the ball on this one.

Like I've pointed out, several litigants objected to ALL of the available options, not just the 4, and some of them won their cases at the Appeals Court level. If HL didn't have to sue, those others would have eventually made it to the SC.

I just don't believe changing the list would have mattered. If they'd offered an out for anyone, THAT might have worked better, but again, people are suing to not comply with what it takes to get HHS to assume the contraception coverage.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

There are other religions besides yours. If you're viewing this as an ability for fundamentalist Christians to make everyone else live in a way which is more pleasing to fundamentalist Christian beliefs than you're likely to be surprised.

I'm not too interested in getting into a big discussion, but I am curious and don't feel up to reading thorugh all the pages here...

I've read a couple of op-eds from people to the left who claim that this ruiling is taking away rights from women.

So, then I wonder.. Did women not have rights prior to obamacare? Aftrerall, prior to Obamacare busiensses were not required to purchase BC.

Then I also wonder.. What right was taken away. Women can still purchase as much BC as they want, they can even see a doctor to get a prescription. The only thing that has changed, as far as I can see, is who will pay for it.

I really don't want to get too into it, but I am curious about those questions... and the opeds I read didn't seem to get into specifics as to what right they thought was being removed.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Over the following decade brings us to today. I always paid for my own birth control pills when I used them. And I never complained about it.

Prior to my state or my wife's union (i'm not certain which) got BC covered by insurance with a small co-pay, my wife and I used to pay for them every month. I didn't realize my rights were being violated at the time.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

When is HHS going to order my insurance company to provide me all kinds of healthcare preventatives?

I want tooth brushes, dental floss, sunscreen, soap, hand sanitizer, etc.

How come it's all about birth control, and nothing else? The ACA discriminated against menopausal women.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I have a religion? That's funny. And a new one on me since neither my husband nor I practice a religion, don't attend church, don't pray, and didn't have our 3 sons baptised and/or christened.
Then you're fine with other people making decisions for you based on their religious beliefs which circumvent US law? Because that's what we're talking about here.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Like I've pointed out, several litigants objected to ALL of the available options, not just the 4, and some of them won their cases at the Appeals Court level. If HL didn't have to sue, those others would have eventually made it to the SC.

I suspect if Hobby Lobby hadn't narrowed their scope, they probably wouldn't have won the case... One thing I'm significantly more confident of, is if HHS had just dropped those 4 contraceptives in the first place, nobody could have won a case to be exempt on religious grounds.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Then you're fine with other people making decisions for you based on their religious beliefs which circumvent US law? Because that's what we're talking about here.

Who made a decision for me? I missed that.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

He's obviously got more time to educate you than I have today.

Oh please. If you had been capable to discern what was applicable and what was not, you wouldn't have written a post that was at its most basic, Irrelevant.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm not too interested in getting into a big discussion, but I am curious and don't feel up to reading thorugh all the pages here...

I've read a couple of op-eds from people to the left who claim that this ruiling is taking away rights from women.

So, then I wonder.. Did women not have rights prior to obamacare? Aftrerall, prior to Obamacare busiensses were not required to purchase BC.

Then I also wonder.. What right was taken away. Women can still purchase as much BC as they want, they can even see a doctor to get a prescription. The only thing that has changed, as far as I can see, is who will pay for it.

I really don't want to get too into it, but I am curious about those questions... and the opeds I read didn't seem to get into specifics as to what right they thought was being removed.

I wouldn't say liberal, I'd say disenfranchised ex-conservative.

And like any Supreme Court case, the direct effects of the rulings aren't really all that significant. Yes, there will be a few people who are negatively impacted; but the broader picture is what else can be justified with this ruling. And you're left with two scary options. Either women's health care is somehow special in that employers may veto their legal obligations to pay for it, or the door is opened for any deeply held religious belief to override any legal obligation.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Over the following decade brings us to today. I always paid for my own birth control pills when I used them. And I never complained about it.

The point was if your employer didn't cover contraception, you'd have been in the minority before the ACA was established, because only 10% by 2010 didn't provide coverage.

And whether you paid or your employer did, and whether or not you complained, really isn't the issue. The fact is about half of all pregnancies are unintended, resulting in millions of abortions and all kinds of social problems. The question that matters is whether an employer mandate to cover contraception, to better allow especially poorer women to have easy, affordable access to the most effective options, serves a compelling or legitimate purpose. The research seems to indicate it does and that society is better off when women can plan pregnancies. And the SC says they agree.

I guess more than anything I don't get the comments that seem to suggest that this issue isn't important, that providing easy and affordable access to women is really about them being able to have sexy fun time whenever they want instead of trying to do something about the REAL problems of unintended pregnancy in this country.

If the women get it from HHS, that's good, but if they don't then what comes with that is KNOWING that we'll have many more unintended pregnancies because for some reason women just DO have sex and without contraception DO get pregnant when they don't want to, and that leads to predictable problems like abortion and babies born to mother unprepared to adequately care for their children. We can wish it wasn't so, but that would be just burying our heads to the problem, not facing it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm not too interested in getting into a big discussion, but I am curious and don't feel up to reading thorugh all the pages here...

I've read a couple of op-eds from people to the left who claim that this ruiling is taking away rights from women.

So, then I wonder.. Did women not have rights prior to obamacare? Aftrerall, prior to Obamacare busiensses were not required to purchase BC.

Then I also wonder.. What right was taken away. Women can still purchase as much BC as they want, they can even see a doctor to get a prescription. The only thing that has changed, as far as I can see, is who will pay for it.

I really don't want to get too into it, but I am curious about those questions... and the opeds I read didn't seem to get into specifics as to what right they thought was being removed.

They actually were, if they covered prescription meds of any kind.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The point was if your employer didn't cover contraception, you'd have been in the minority before the ACA was established, because only 10% by 2010 didn't provide coverage.

And whether you paid or your employer did, and whether or not you complained, really isn't the issue. The fact is about half of all pregnancies are unintended, resulting in millions of abortions and all kinds of social problems. The question that matters is whether an employer mandate to cover contraception, to better allow especially poorer women to have easy, affordable access to the most effective options, serves a compelling or legitimate purpose. The research seems to indicate it does and that society is better off when women can plan pregnancies. And the SC says they agree.

I guess more than anything I don't get the comments that seem to suggest that this issue isn't important, that providing easy and affordable access to women is really about them being able to have sexy fun time whenever they want instead of trying to do something about the REAL problems of unintended pregnancy in this country.

If the women get it from HHS, that's good, but if they don't then what comes with that is KNOWING that we'll have many more unintended pregnancies because for some reason women just DO have sex and without contraception DO get pregnant when they don't want to, and that leads to predictable problems like abortion and babies born to mother unprepared to adequately care for their children. We can wish it wasn't so, but that would be just burying our heads to the problem, not facing it.

I didn't realize that an employer had some sort of obligation to keep the unwanted pregnancy rate down. I was raised to believe that it was my responsibility to not get pregnant. I never heard that it was my employer's.

Is this a new way of thinking?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Who made a decision for me? I missed that.

Before today, no one. But moving forward it's entirely possible. Supreme Court decisions aren't done in a vacuum. They are the guidance lower courts use to make rulings.

This ruling says that the owner of a for profit corporation is allowed to object to and avoid paying for something they deem morally objectionable. The SCOTUS said that this was limited to Women's reproductive health care, but unless there's something different about women's health care then this case can be used to object to anything. That's the real problem, the decision is breathtakingly broad. Why would this deeply held religious belief trump this particular law, but other deeply held beliefs not trump other laws?

I think there is too much emphasis made on the argument of should employees be required to provide birth control as part of the ACA. That is a policy issue. The question at hand is can the government enforce a law, not is that law good policy.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I suspect if Hobby Lobby hadn't narrowed their scope, they probably wouldn't have won the case... One thing I'm significantly more confident of, is if HHS had just dropped those 4 contraceptives in the first place, nobody could have won a case to be exempt on religious grounds.

But businesses DID win, and they won even when they objected to ALL contraceptive options. Read the cases in the link. Catholic business owners, objected (naturally) to all forms of BC, sued to provide NONE, and they won, and the SC denied cert with left the lower court rulings intact.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Before today, no one. But moving forward it's entirely possible. Supreme Court decisions aren't done in a vacuum. They are the guidance lower courts use to make rulings.

This ruling says that the owner of a for profit corporation is allowed to object to and avoid paying for something they deem morally objectionable. The SCOTUS said that this was limited to Women's reproductive health care, but unless there's something different about women's health care then this case can be used to object to anything. That's the real problem, the decision is breathtakingly broad. Why would this deeply held religious belief trump this particular law, but other deeply held beliefs not trump other laws?

I think there is too much emphasis made on the argument of should employees be required to provide birth control as part of the ACA. That is a policy issue. The question at hand is can the government enforce a law, not is that law good policy.

The only thing that was decided globally that I'm aware of was HHS deciding that all Americans have to purchase a third party service or pay a tax. Not something I ever saw in my lifetime. I have insurance because I want it, not because the government ordered me to get it, but that isn't the case with people who chose not to buy insurance.

The government overstepped its bounds. That is a bigger issue than religious rights being upheld (Constitutionally and legall protected rights, I might add).

I gather you were equally offended when Obama & HHS removed your right to buy what you want, and not what they ordered you to buy?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I suspect if Hobby Lobby hadn't narrowed their scope, they probably wouldn't have won the case... One thing I'm significantly more confident of, is if HHS had just dropped those 4 contraceptives in the first place, nobody could have won a case to be exempt on religious grounds.
Some of you people on the right are getting it wrong, the decision involved all 20 methods.

Justices act in other health law mandate cases
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I didn't realize that an employer had some sort of obligation to keep the unwanted pregnancy rate down. I was raised to believe that it was my responsibility to not get pregnant. I never heard that it was my employer's.

Is this a new way of thinking?

Well, first of all, it's the government's job to set policy in a way to achieve broad goals agreed to by the public who elected them. If you don't think the employer mandate to provide contraception, and hopefully reduce unwanted pregnancies, is a wise decision, that we should accept millions of abortions and all the problems that come about because of unwanted pregnancies, that's fine, state that. I guess then in the face of the problem of unwanted pregnancies, we should do nothing? Just pay for the fallout?

I guess we could scold young women and tell them to not have sexy play time because it's sinful and bad. It will fail, but we might feel better doing it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Well, first of all, it's the government's job to set policy in a way to achieve broad goals agreed to by the public who elected them. If you don't think the employer mandate to provide contraception, and hopefully reduce unwanted pregnancies, is a wise decision, that we should accept millions of abortions and all the problems that come about because of unwanted pregnancies, that's fine, state that. I guess then in the face of the problem of unwanted pregnancies, we should do nothing? Just pay for the fallout?

I guess we could scold young women and tell them to not have sexy play time because it's sinful and bad. It will fail, but we might feel better doing it.

The goverment's job is to control the population? When did they get that responsibility?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moderator's Warning:
Stop talking about each other. Start talking about the OP, and the OP only. If you decide to talk about each other instead, you will be thread banned at the very least. There are now two in thread warnings.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Some of you people on the right are getting it wrong, the decision involved all 20 methods.

Justices act in other health law mandate cases

Well, it looks like a lot of women who are desperate for insurance that gives them birth control will have to look elsewhere if they think their employer will not cover it. Or sign up for Obamacare.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The goverment's job is to control the population? When did they get that responsibility?

Well, I guess to an extent it is. Laws against murder are ONE attempt to control the population. Reducing teen and unwanted pregnancies seems to me a pretty unobjectionable goal, as is providing healthcare. You know about Medicare? How about Social Security, where we had a goal to provide some small amount of money in old age and disability. Child care credits control the population by reducing taxes on parents. The EITC controls the population by incentivizing work over welfare. I could go on....

Is reducing unwanted pregnancy something you think society should ignore, and just throw up our hands about? Those kids will need more social services, more likely to become criminals, etc. I guess do nothing is the right approach.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Well, I guess to an extent it is. Laws against murder are ONE attempt to control the population. Reducing teen and unwanted pregnancies seems to me a pretty unobjectionable goal, as is providing healthcare. You know about Medicare? How about Social Security, where we had a goal to provide some small amount of money in old age and disability. Child care credits control the population by reducing taxes on parents. The EITC controls the population by incentivizing work over welfare. I could go on....

I never heard that the government was responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I wouldn't say liberal, I'd say disenfranchised ex-conservative.

And like any Supreme Court case, the direct effects of the rulings aren't really all that significant. Yes, there will be a few people who are negatively impacted; but the broader picture is what else can be justified with this ruling. And you're left with two scary options. Either women's health care is somehow special in that employers may veto their legal obligations to pay for it, or the door is opened for any deeply held religious belief to override any legal obligation.

Thank you for the response. So, for you.. It's not this decision that led to any potential lost rights.. but future decisions that may..
 
Back
Top Bottom