• 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

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 providing the large, spinning, riveted dildos is a completely different story.

The company is providing health care. What if that is against their religion too?
 
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.

That begs the question of what counts as a religion or a religious belief for policy purposes. The Romans judged such things based on the antiquity of the tradition. If the United States defines any belief a person asserts is religious to be religious belief, than any number of bizarre or unethical behaviors may receive constitutional protection.
 
Last edited:
The company is providing health care. What if that is against their religion too?
The company is providing health care, and I don't know any religion that considers health care a violation. The morning after pill is a pill to cure the "pregnancy disease" in their minds, which violates their religion. I am absolutely baffled as to why the hobby lobby workers can't simply buy it for themselves in the off chance that they need it.
 
That begs the question of what counts as a religion or a religious belief for policy purposes. The Romans judged such things based on the antiquity of the tradition. If the United States defines any belief a person asserts is religious to count as a religious belief, than any number of bizarre or unethical behaviors may receive constitutional protection.

Then again, if the gov't refained from making rediculous, unfunded mandates that wouldn't be an issue at all. ;)
 
The company is providing health care. What if that is against their religion too?

Why is that a good question? There is no justifiable reason to compel them to provide it.
 
If you are forcing me to cover your birth control that puts me firmly in your bedroom. Practice some logic, ok?

Part of many women's healthcare includes using birth control. Why should a company choose for them? Especially since it is a cost saving benefit. Hobby Lobby does not pay one extra dime for it. It is also a purely religous issue that is subject to seperation of church and state. A company may not impose their religous views on their employees.
 
The company is providing health care. What if that is against their religion too?

Then they have the freedom to structure said company so they don't have to provide health insurance.
 
The company is providing health care, and I don't know any religion that considers health care a violation. The morning after pill is a pill to cure the "pregnancy disease" in their minds, which violates their religion. I am absolutely baffled as to why the hobby lobby workers can't simply buy it for themselves in the off chance that they need it.


What I don't understand is why it doesn't violate their religion when an employee purchases a morning after pill themselves. After all the company paid the salary that paid for the purchase. It is still their money that bought the thing.

And you are wrong..there are many religions that forbid medical treatment. Someone who practices any one of them could deny ALL healthcare coverage on religous grounds same as Hobby Lobby.

These churches and movements have religious beliefs against some or most forms of medical care:

■Followers of Christ
■Faith Assembly
■Church of the Firstborn
■Christian Science
■Faith Tabernacle
■End Time Ministries
■The Believers’ Fellowship
■Jehovah’s Witnesses
■Church of God of the Union Assembly
■Church of God (certain congregations)
■First Century Gospel Church
■Full Gospel Deliverance Church
■Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God
■Jesus through Jon and Judy
■Christ Miracle Healing Center
■Northeast Kingdom Community Church
■Christ Assembly
■The Source
■“No Name” Fellowship
■The Body
■1 Mind Ministries
■Twelve Tribes
■Born in Zion Ministry
Since 1980 children have died in these sects without medical attention for:

■pneumonia
■meningitis
■diabetes
■diphtheria
■appendicitis
■measles
■gangrene
■dehydration
■blood poisoning
■Wilm’s tumor and other cancers
■perinatal suffocation or strangulation
■diarrhea
■respiratory infections
■kidney infections
■Rocky Mountain spotted fever
■epilepsy
■pericarditis
■strangulated hernia
■bowel obstruction
■sepsis
■thalassemia

Churches with religious beliefs against medical care |
 
Last edited:
Part of many women's healthcare includes using birth control. Why should a company choose for them? Especially since it is a cost saving benefit. Hobby Lobby does not pay one extra dime for it. It is also a purely religous issue that is subject to seperation of church and state. A company may not impose their religous views on their employees.

Nonsense. Dental and vision are more legitimately a part of everyone's health care need, and yet there is no requirement to provide either.
 
Part of many women's healthcare includes using birth control. Why should a company choose for them?

Separate issue. Doc's that proscribe birth control to treat other conditions code it differently...You know that.

Especially since it is a cost saving benefit. Hobby Lobby does not pay one extra dime for it.

It's not a cost issue, it is a religious one...You can't have it both ways. You can't scream separation of church and state when it suits you, and ignore it when it suits you.

It is also a purely religous issue that is subject to seperation of church and state.

Absolutely, so you should be railing to get government out of religion.

A company may not impose their religous views on their employees.

What views are they imposing? Does Hobby Lobby have a clause that prevents their employees from purchasing birth control with their own money?
 
Part of many women's healthcare includes using birth control. Why should a company choose for them? Especially since it is a cost saving benefit. Hobby Lobby does not pay one extra dime for it. It is also a purely religous issue that is subject to seperation of church and state. A company may not impose their religous views on their employees.

1. It doesn't matter if it is part of women's healthcare. I don't care and neither does the issue at hand.
2. No one is saying that women can't take birth control. The issue is not over them choosing to take whatever they want, but over someone else being compelled to cover it for them.
3. I don't care what Hobby Lobby has to pay and that is not the issue that is brought up by mandating behavior.
4. No, it is not just a religious issue.
 
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 am so torn by this. I think churches and their employees have a point. In private industry? No.

I'm Christian Scientist. We aren't providing anything close to the coverage Obamacare calls for my auto parts company employees because my religion strictly regulates my going to doctors and what I can go to them for.

No. Just. No.
 

Ah, look at that. There are more ignorant religious organizations than I thought. Doesn't really change my premise. I don't support the government punishing someone for not buying someone else something, especially if it violates their religion. The government forces the corporations to pay because the government has failed to provide healthcare itself. It's passing the buck.

The company pays their employees a wage, and they can do what they want with that wage.
 
That's what they're trying to do, but the governement wants to require the business to fund those bedroom activities.

Except that's not how it works. The employer pays a flat fee per month per employee. They are not paying any more to pay for contraceptives than they would be not to. It is then up to the employee whether or not they want to take advantage of the contraceptive coverage or not. What's really happening here is that the employer wants to tell the employee what they can and cannot do in their off-hours, in a bedroom which is none of the employer's damn business.

That's the reality.
 
Why is that a good question? There is no justifiable reason to compel them to provide it.

They're not being compelled to provide it, the plan that is offered simply includes it and they are making a big deal of insisting it is removed from the plan offered by the insurance company.
 
What I don't understand is why it doesn't violate their religion when somebody purchases a morning after pill themselves. After all the company paid the salary that paid for the purchase. It is still their money that bought the thing.

And you are wrong..there are many religions that forbid medical treatment.



Churches with religious beliefs against medical care |

As a rely to the bolded part of your question: It is mandated by PPACA to be at "no out of pocket cost to the patient", in other words, directly, and fully, funded by the employer; the personal choice of "abortion pill" use, by the PPACA insured, is thus covered totally by the employer's contribution. Had the employee decided to use only their own funds for that purpose, the employer has no direct knowldge or control over that choice, any more than if the employee gave part of their pay to a satanic cult.
 
Except that's not how it works. The employer pays a flat fee per month per employee. They are not paying any more to pay for contraceptives than they would be not to. It is then up to the employee whether or not they want to take advantage of the contraceptive coverage or not. What's really happening here is that the employer wants to tell the employee what they can and cannot do in their off-hours, in a bedroom which is none of the employer's damn business.

That's the reality.

Except that's NOT the reality. If it were, the employer would have a choice to choose a plan that doesn't include the funding of private sexual activity. Want to hold your bedroom activities private? - pay for them yourself.
 
Part of many women's healthcare includes using birth control. Why should a company choose for them?

Part of any persons healthcare is personal hygiene. Should the employer have to pay for soap, toothpaste , etc.?

When did personal responsibility end?
 
Except that's NOT the reality. If it were, the employer would have a choice to choose a plan that doesn't include the funding of private sexual activity. Want to hold your bedroom activities private? - pay for them yourself.

But they don't. Deal with it. These are the plans that are available. Pick one. An employer should no more be able to pick and choose whether contraceptive coverage is available than they should be able to cover whether lung cancer treatment is available.
 
I sometimes want to be not-sober as a personal choice.

The government should mandate free booze for me.
 
Then they have the freedom to structure said company so they don't have to provide health insurance.

Or they can move overseas and have the same people who created these laws shaking their fists as they leave.
 
Nonsense. Dental and vision are more legitimately a part of everyone's health care need, and yet there is no requirement to provide either.

Unlike contraception coverage, dental and vision coverage would cost quite a bit more but if you say it needs to be covered I won't argue. Maybe next year.
 
Part of any persons healthcare is personal hygiene. Should the employer have to pay for soap, toothpaste , etc.?

When did personal responsibility end?

Pedicures are covered under Medicare because it is cheaper than paying for amputations from infected toenails.
If we could save HC money suppying soap I'de be for it too.
 
But they don't. Deal with it. These are the plans that are available. Pick one. An employer should no more be able to pick and choose whether contraceptive coverage is available than they should be able to cover whether lung cancer treatment is available.

See post #34.
 
I sometimes want to be not-sober as a personal choice.

The government should mandate free booze for me.

Cool, I want the government to pay for my medical marijuana too. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom