• 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

When did women "decide" to develop polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, or amenorrhea?

And the Morning After Pill is the only treatment for these? :lamo
 
And the Morning After Pill is the only treatment for these? :lamo

Birth control pills are widely regarded as the best option to treat those conditions and I'd put more faith in a doctor on these matters than some guy who hocks cheap art supplies for a living. The point is that you don't know why an employee may need birth control. It could be for one, or more, of the aforementioned medical conditions or they may not use that benefit at all. The religious argument rings hollow. You can't claim a religious exemption because of an imagined action which doesn't involve you directly, hasn't occurred, may never occur, and which you would never know if it had occurred.
 
Last edited:
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
.

yep let them pay the fine for their idiocy.

While i admit im not so found of government mandating what insurance a company offers I am all on board that no company should pick an insurance based on their "religious beliefs" once that is done they are 100% in the wrong.

this is like everything come up with a better reason, say the insurance you picked is the most financially sound for your company, but as soon as you admit (or it can be proven) you are picking the insurance based on religious beliefs you will lose and rightfully so. Thats just basic rights.
 
I am sympathetic to your view here. However, the inclusion of such as contraception and birth control in Obamacare mandates is the stuff of pure politics. And the stupidity of the American public in expecting an ever expanding nanny-state, magically paid for by aliens it would seem.

Health coverage should mirror such as auto insurance. Where all basic maintenance is on the owner. Insurance is for the "accidents", and even then, with a range of deductables.

I believe myself a realist. I could accept a single-payer system that covered all if modeled similarly to auto insurance. Such as a catastrophic-coverage "single payer", morphed with Medicaid for the indigent. Minimal coverage, where longer lines would be expected if one relied only on single-payer for care. Beyond that, folks could then purchase better-care insurance out of pocket. Voluntarily. Via employer if offered, or otherwise.

The problem is that liberals want health care as a right. They want full-coverage single-payer. As evidenced by this contraception mandate.

Like you and I ought to be able to get the oil changed in our car tomorrow and bill it to Allstate. :roll:

Actually what most sane people want is good care at reasonable costs. Providing birth control without a co-pay is simply one way of reducing costs. Data has shown that the costs of pregnancy and childbirth far outweigh the costs of providing the preventative service of contraceptive pills. It also reduces abortions.
A large part of the AHC is aimed at cost control and most of the preventative services are being implemented to REDUCE costs.
Of course being one of the "status quo mongers" you have no interest in cost savings. You love our health care system just the way it is .Twice as expensive as most other western nations with no better care


Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by 62 percent to 78 percent over the national rate, a new study shows.

The research, by investigators at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, appears online Oct. 4 in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Among a range of birth control methods offered in the study, most women chose long-acting methods like intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants, which have lower failure rates than commonly used birth control pills. In the United States, IUDs and implants have high up-front costs that sometimes aren't covered by health insurance, making these methods unaffordable for many women.

"The impact of providing no-cost birth control was far greater than we expected in terms of unintended pregnancies," says lead author Jeff Peipert, MD, PhD, the Robert J. Terry Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology. "We think improving access to birth control, particularly IUDs and implants, coupled with education on the most effective methods has the potential to significantly decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country."

Unintended pregnancies are a major problem in the United States. Each year, about 50 percent of all U.S. pregnancies are unplanned, far higher than in other developed countries. About half of these pregnancies result from women not using contraception and half from incorrect or irregular use.

Providing no cost birth control can reduce unintended pregnancies, abortion rates in women
 
Last edited:

this makes ZERO sense?

in one case you are choosing to ALLOW the government in your bedroom and womb and in the other case government would be FORCING thier way in your bedroom and womb.
THis poster is an epic failure lol, whoever created it has no idea what hypocrisy means.
 
this makes ZERO sense?

in one case you are choosing to ALLOW the government in your bedroom and womb and in the other case government would be FORCING thier way in your bedroom and womb.
THis poster is an epic failure lol, whoever created it has no idea what hypocrisy means.

The way I take that is, if the government is going to pay your way for your birth control (and health care in general), then don't get upset if the government tries to tell you what to do with your body. You want them to pay your way, then your business becomes their business. It's like people who live in government assisted housing and then get pissed off when the government doesn't let them smoke cigarettes in their home.
 
Last edited:
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
.

Do we really want to get into the whole, insurance mandating **** that's easily affordable, debate?

Because for me, that's the issue here.
 
You really think it's not hypocrisy? Those are both demands. When one makes the choice to engage in behavior that has consequences, then one should not coerce others who disagree with that choice to remove those consequences. You are pro-choice, right? Ohhh, that's only when its convenient for you.
 
The way I take that is, if the government is going to pay your way for your birth control, then don't get upset if the government tries to tell you what to do with your body. You want them to pay your way, then your business becomes their business. It's like people who live in government assisted housing and then get pissed off when the government doesn't let them smoke cigarettes in their home.

you could take it that way but it would be totally inaccurate and illogical :shrug:
theres ZERO hypocrisy present

the people that say they dont want the government in their bedroom or womb are referring to them FORCING their way in their and the other way they are being INVITED.

the government makes laws to protect my home it doesnt mean they get to come in it for any reason :shrug:
your example is also horrible as a house is not a womb or your body. those people are stupid, and that is nothing like the subject here.

sorry the poster is a huge failure as no hypocrisy exists, for hypocrisy the examples have to be identical opposites would they not?
 
The way I take that is, if the government is going to pay your way for your birth control, then don't get upset if the government tries to tell you what to do with your body. You want them to pay your way, then your business becomes their business. It's like people who live in government assisted housing and then get pissed off when the government doesn't let them smoke cigarettes in their home.

Thank you for making obvious stupidity obvious. For some reason I can't get a "like" button here.
 
you could take it that way but it would be totally inaccurate and illogical :shrug:
theres ZERO hypocrisy present

the people that say they dont want the government in their bedroom or womb are referring to them FORCING their way in their and the other way they are being INVITED.

the government makes laws to protect my home it doesnt mean they get to come in it for any reason :shrug:
your example is also horrible as a house is not a womb or your body. those people are stupid, and that is nothing like the subject here.

sorry the poster is a huge failure as no hypocrisy exists, for hypocrisy the examples have to be identical opposites would they not?


Dude, you have a serious problem with logic. You are not inviting…you are coercing an unwilling portion of the populace.
 
you could take it that way but it would be totally inaccurate and illogical :shrug:
theres ZERO hypocrisy present

the people that say they dont want the government in their bedroom or womb are referring to them FORCING their way in their and the other way they are being INVITED.

the government makes laws to protect my home it doesnt mean they get to come in it for any reason :shrug:
your example is also horrible as a house is not a womb or your body. those people are stupid, and that is nothing like the subject here.

sorry the poster is a huge failure as no hypocrisy exists, for hypocrisy the examples have to be identical opposites would they not?

It's not hypocrisy, that's correct.
The problem is really, someone wanting all these choices, but not wanting to pay the full cost of said choices.

It makes it out to be the demands of a selfish child.
 
1.)You really think it's not hypocrisy? 2.)Those are both demands.
3.)When one makes the choice to engage in behavior that has consequences, then one should not coerce others who disagree with that choice to remove those consequences.
4.)You are pro-choice, right?
5.)Ohhh, that's only when its convenient for you.

1.) it has nothign to do with what i "think" there factually isnt any "per the poster"
one has FORCE involved
on is an invitation

2.)the demand part is absolutely meaningless
3.)This is broken hypocritical logic right here. Leaving your house could have consequence of getting mugged, killed or raped lets not force others punish those that do that then right? of course not thats illy
4.) yes i support pro-choice but i dont personally agree with all of it
5.) my convenience is a meaningless factor, you arent making any sense.
 
Do we really want to get into the whole, insurance mandating **** that's easily affordable, debate?

Because for me, that's the issue here.

Sorry Harry, but I disagree here. It's coercion that I have an issue with. I couldn't give a plug nickel about the cost.
 
1.) it has nothign to do with what i "think" there factually isnt any "per the poster"
one has FORCE involved
on is an invitation

2.)the demand part is absolutely meaningless
3.)This is broken hypocritical logic right here. Leaving your house could have consequence of getting mugged, killed or raped lets not force others punish those that do that then right? of course not thats illy
4.) yes i support pro-choice but i dont personally agree with all of it
5.) my convenience is a meaningless factor, you arent making any sense.

Whatever….
 
1.)It's not hypocrisy, that's correct.
2.)The problem is really, someone wanting all these choices, but not wanting to pay the full cost of said choices.


3.) It makes it out to be the demands of a selfish child.

1.) correct
2.) opinion, nothing more, it has some logic behind though and MANY things could be judged this way
3.) opinion again, this also has some support and i have no issues with it but it also could be said about many things just like above, but again, its opinion that's all it is :shrug:
 
1.) correct
2.) opinion, nothing more, it has some logic behind though and MANY things could be judged this way
3.) opinion again, this also has some support and i have no issues with it but it also could be said about many things just like above, but again, its opinion that's all it is :shrug:

Of course it's my opinion, but the recent changes to the insurance benefit and cost structure, tend to support my argument.
 
Dude, you have a serious problem with logic. You are not inviting…you are coercing an unwilling portion of the populace.

LMAO im sure you think that but the problem is i can support what im saying with logic and facts and you can not :shrug:
if you disagree please prove me wrong

factually prove the hypocrisy, ill wait
 
Last edited:
Well hypocrisy, it is not.
An internal contradiction of beliefs maybe, but not hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy requires the intent to deceive.

Harry, one does not have to have an intent to deceive to be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy in at least one definition is a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. In this case, those who claim to love freedom are demanding that others give their's up. In this case, Objective-J is proving this quite nicely.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's my opinion, but the recent changes to the insurance benefit and cost structure, tend to support my argument.

I also agree it has some support, and i said as much but the fact is many things could be judge like you judge this. Im not sure what your argument is?

i could make your argument about healthcare in general?

smoking, drinking, not eating healthy, not exercising, participating in physically dangerous activities etc.
 
I also agree it has some support, and i said as much but the fact is many things could be judge like you judge this. Im not sure what your argument is?

i could make your argument about healthcare in general?

smoking, drinking, not eating healthy, not exercising, participating in physically dangerous activities etc.

I don't like the fact that they eliminated gender based pricing, but extended benefits for mostly, one gender.
 
I don't like the fact that they eliminated gender based pricing, but extended benefits for mostly, one gender.

?????
not sure i understand but ill take a guess and its possible i may agree or disagree

are you saying you dont like that some insurances dont separate premiums based on gender which could cause your premiums as a man to go up when you will never need cover for anything maternal? birth costs, pill costs etc?
 
Back
Top Bottom