• 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

The ACA is a poor excuse for wanting to push the religious beliefs and morals of the employer onto the employee. I could just as easily say this is employers, bitter over being legally required to assist in their employees healthcare, shamelessly using their beliefs to fight a battle they've lost countless times. And because freedom of religion is one the founding principles of this country, SCOTUS doesn't want to just say "too bad" and steamroll them.

Why are vasectomies covered? they provide nothing but the risk associated with any procedure and the ability to have sex without risk of conception(or incredibly low risk, like most birth control methods). Sex is supposed to be strictly for reproduction right? Why no moral obligation to make it more difficult for non believers to have risk free sinful intercourse?

Let's try this again.

No employer is trying to push their religious beliefs on anyone.

The ACA MANDATED certain medical coverage and, as such, infringed on the religious liberty of certain employers who fought against that infringement and won.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

HL objected to coverage for abortifacients, not contraceptives, they won the case. You're playing word games.
You're wrong once again ... any company that can show they qualify, as did HL, should not be forced to cover something they object to on religious grounds, as does HL. Don't play word games.
There's probably many things poor people can't get because they can't afford it. Actual healthcare isn't one of them.

I'm not sure what word games you're talking about. The SC has already approved six orders that have the effect of allowing companies to deny coverage of ALL forms of contraception, not just abortifacients. You can read about them here: Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

And if you think the poor aren't priced out of "actual healthcare," you should get out more and actually maybe talk to a poor person every now and then?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The odds are that the healthcare package in question is worth well more than your objective value to the company already, which is why there is no reason to go jacking up the prices paid by employers on unnecessary luxuries.
Nonsense. A healthy employee is a productive and happy employee and don't cost nearly as much as someone who can't control their alcohol or bad eating habits or bad driving habits.

Christ, what's next? Employer mandated plastic surgery?
Some employers do require health exams and drug testing which is understandable. But they don't have a right to decide what the best remedy for your personal health problems are. If a doctor says an IUD is the best remedy for a woman who can't take hormonal drugs to prevent pregnancy then who is the employer to say otherwise? Who are you to judge a woman who might die if she gets pregnant and needs to prevent getting pregnant from her husband? Why is that even your business at all?



Do whatever you want. Just don't expect anyone else to foot the bill. I fail to see how this is difficult concept.
Likewise on your vasectomy and Viagra.


The simple fact of the matter is that there are means of avoiding pregnancy out there which do not cost a dime. You simply desire the luxury of not having to make use of them.
They aren't very reliable methods.

Furthermore, yes, what you're advocating here does ultimately come down to "sexual liberation." You are basically saying that is your employer's responsibility to ensure that you are able to have sex without risking pregnancy.
Actually, I think you are suggesting that married men should abstain from sex unless it's to get their wife pregnant. Unless you want the employers to pay for the man's sex life outside the marriage and run the risk of getting STDs and passing it on to his wife and children. That would be quite a burden on the employers bottom line too, don't cha think?

They are "entitled" to do so only on their own dime. You do not have the right to demand that anyone else pay for it.
Isn't that the point of having "insurance"? :roll:



It is mandated by law. :roll:
The private market likes it that way.

Realistically speaking, very few employees actually put in the productivity necessary to legitimately "earn" it.
Business and labor are a two way street and work best when there is an equilibrium. Currently, the equilibrium is out of balance.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Realistically speaking, very few employees actually put in the productivity necessary to legitimately "earn" it.

I love it - contempt for working people on full display! Beautiful.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I chose not to comment on this decision right out of the box, and instead decided to read the decision, sleep on it and let the dust settle. Well, the dust has settled, so...

I agree that the religious rights of closely held companies like Hobby Lobby should be respected, when those religious beliefs are part of a companies charter, well established and woven into the fabric of the company. This does not mean that every religious kook has the right to claim everything is against their religion just to save a buck.

In this case I agree with the Supreme courts decision because I believe Hobby Lobby's objection to those 4 drugs in question is valid, and even if I didn't think it violated their religious beliefs, I still think they should have won. Let me put it this way... It's not so much that I think Hobby Lobby should have won the case, but more a belief that HHS and the Administration should have lost. I don't say that from a "Repeal Obamacare" perspective, it's based on principal and accountability.

Remember the heated debate about whether abortion would be included in Obamacare? Obama stated quite clearly while campaigning for the passage of Obamacare that it would not cover abortions, because he knew that if it did, it would cause a firestorm of public outrage and stop Obamacare in it's tracks. So what does HHS turn around and do? They include 4 contraceptive types in Obamacare that HHS acknowledges don't prevent conception, but instead destroy a potentially fertilized egg after conception...

What was Sebelius thinking?

I'm sorry, but HHS should have been content with the 16 preventative types of birth control and never included those other 4 in the first place. This is either another example of this administrations incompetence, or a demonstration of their arrogance. Either way, as far as people of faith and the pro-life movement are concerned, the inclusion of those 4 types of contraceptives in Obamacare was in effect an end-around by the Administration.

In my opinion, I think HHS should have just removed those 4 contraceptives from their mandatory contraceptive coverage as soon as the Hobby Lobby case built up steam, instead of stubbornly sticking to their agenda and causing all this controversy and mess. Since HHS and the Obama Administration weren't smart enough, or respectful enough of religious rights to do that, they fully deserved to lose this case.


There is one other thing I'd like say about this... The court decision does not diminish the availability of contraceptive products, prevent anyone from obtaining contraceptive products, nor did it have the potential to do either of those things from the outset.... Therefore it needs to be pointed out in no uncertain terms, that the SCOTUS decision yesterday does NOT violate women's rights, does NOT in any way effect women's rights, and from the very beginning NEVER had a damned thing to do with women's rights... Anyone who says this is a womens rights issue is doing so purely in the name of partisan politics in order to advance their liberal agenda.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm not sure what word games you're talking about. The SC has already approved six orders that
have the effect of allowing companies to deny coverage of ALL forms of contraception
, not just abortifacients. You can read about them here: Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

And if you think the poor aren't priced out of "actual healthcare," you should get out more and actually maybe talk to a poor person every now and then?
What's wrong with you?
You better read your own link.
It says what I said.
HL's objection was specifically to abortifacients on religious grounds.
Those other cases were also based on religious reasons and the SC sent them back for review given their ruling.
If those companies can't make their case given the SC ruling they will fail ... if they can they will succeed ... that's as it should be, right?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That's not enough just to be closely held, as you already know. The ruling was specific and narrow. What percentage of that 90% are religious. What % of that % has a problem with certain types of contraception?
I think the law is supposed to take an individuals religious convictions on 'faith'. That means any business owner can claim religious exemption from whatever might offend his religious convictions.

I'm sure the government, if they see a benefit to government in doing so, will try. However, that is not germane to this topic.
Sometimes I think the first amendment was intended to protect the government from religion rather than the other way around. lol
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I love it - contempt for working people on full display! Beautiful.
You sound like you're a lot of fun to be around.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I have not paid much attention to this topic, but decided to read up on it a bit.
So Hobby Lobby offers regular birth control to it's employees,
But feels the morning after pill and IUE's, are forms of abortion which it opposes.
Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?
The Supreme Court agrees to a very limited extent.
Are they making too much of this issue?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I chose not to comment on this decision right out of the box, and instead decided to read the decision, sleep on it and let the dust settle. Well, the dust has settled, so...

I agree that the religious rights of closely held companies like Hobby Lobby should be respected, when those religious beliefs are part of a companies charter, well established and woven into the fabric of the company. This does not mean that every religious kook has the right to claim everything is against their religion just to save a buck.

In this case I agree with the Supreme courts decision because I believe Hobby Lobby's objection to those 4 drugs in question is valid, and even if I didn't think it violated their religious beliefs, I still think they should have won. Let me put it this way... It's not so much that I think Hobby Lobby should have won the case, but more a belief that HHS and the Administration should have lost. I don't say that from a "Repeal Obamacare" perspective, it's based on principal and accountability.

Remember the heated debate about whether abortion would be included in Obamacare? Obama stated quite clearly while campaigning for the passage of Obamacare that it would not cover abortions, because he knew that if it did, it would cause a firestorm of public outrage and stop Obamacare in it's tracks. So what does HHS turn around and do? They include 4 contraceptive types in Obamacare that HHS acknowledges don't prevent conception, but instead destroy a potentially fertilized egg after conception...

What was Sebelius thinking?

I'm sorry, but HHS should have been content with the 16 preventative types of birth control and never included those other 4 in the first place. This is either another example of this administrations incompetence, or a demonstration of their arrogance. Either way, as far as people of faith and the pro-life movement are concerned, the inclusion of those 4 types of contraceptives in Obamacare was in effect an end-around by the Administration.

In my opinion, I think HHS should have just removed those 4 contraceptives from their mandatory contraceptive coverage as soon as the Hobby Lobby case built up steam, instead of stubbornly sticking to their agenda and causing all this controversy and mess. Since HHS and the Obama Administration weren't smart enough, or respectful enough of religious rights to do that, they fully deserved to lose this case.


There is one other thing I'd like say about this... The court decision does not diminish the availability of contraceptive products, prevent anyone from obtaining contraceptive products, nor did it have the potential to do either of those things from the outset.... Therefore it needs to be pointed out in no uncertain terms, that the SCOTUS decision yesterday does NOT violate women's rights, does NOT in any way effect women's rights, and from the very beginning NEVER had a damned thing to do with women's rights... Anyone who says this is a womens rights issue is doing so purely in the name of partisan politics in order to advance their liberal agenda.

basement says right on bruh - lower case.jpg
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Let's try this again.

No employer is trying to push their religious beliefs on anyone.

The ACA MANDATED certain medical coverage and, as such, infringed on the religious liberty of certain employers who fought against that infringement and won.

Commandment 11? "thou shalt not enable the sinning of heathens". You have to convert them first, then you're free to push the moral end of things. You can't just push the morals on the unconverted masses.

The religious beliefs in question concern the use of contraceptives by those whole follow said beliefs. Heathens/pagans/non believers do not factor in anywhere. Just because you've been legally mandated to provide health care does not mean you have a say in heath care standards, regardless of your beliefs.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I have not paid much attention to this topic, but decided to read up on it a bit.
So Hobby Lobby offers regular birth control to it's employees,
But feels the morning after pill and IUE's, are forms of abortion which it opposes.
Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?
The Supreme Court agrees to a very limited extent.
Are they making too much of this issue?

There's a War afoot, haven't you heard?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

no one is asking hobby lobby to use contraceptives, nor is it hobby lobbies moral imperative to make sure others don't.

No, you're just forcing them to pay for abortions. HL has no interesting keeping others from having abortions as a business practice. If they did then they'd threaten to fire their employees or something for having them. HL just doesn't want to contribute to the act on their own part.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Hobby Lobby owners should be forced to do things that are against their religious beliefs, but people should not be forced to do things against their religious beliefs. Got it.

This is a key difference in how the two sides view it. HL's owners aren't being asked to do anything against their beliefs. The law mandates insurance with certain coverage, they provide the insurance. They don't have to approve, endorse, use, or even know about women who choose to use an IUD. They're providing a neutral service, which is a comprehensive medical package per the law.

The argument is they're 'paying' for that IUD. Well, they're paying wages, and employees can use those wages to get IUDs or even abortions. The difference between the act of paying for an IUD through a standard insurance product mandated by law, versus paying for an IUD through wages is VERY small. We know this is at least partly true for HL because their insurance DID cover methods they now say they cannot without violating deeply held religious views. Presumably, they didn't use these products in their own homes, but didn't worry enough about others' use to check.

The Court said it isn't their job to determine whether that difference is substantial, only take the word of the litigants that it is to THEM. I suppose that's OK, and proper, but for purposes of this debate we can challenge that assumption in my view, because whether that difference is 'substantial' was in fact a key part of the ruling and where the two sides frequently diverge.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

If all the Founding Fathers suddenly rose from the dead and read this thread, what percentage would immediately put a gun to their heads?

All of them probably.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

no one is asking hobby lobby to use contraceptives, nor is it hobby lobbies moral imperative to make sure others don't.

Hobby Lobby never told anyone not to use contraceptives.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

BTW, part of this is definitely optics and politics, but the right wing has done itself no favors so far. The all male hearing on the mandate for contraception for women was a telling example, and five old male Catholics issuing an extremely narrow ruling, against 3 women and a Jew on the other side, doesn't help the optics either, and comments like many in this thread that treat preventing pregnancy as somehow not a legitimate medical need for women is just piling on.

Spoken like a member of the party of the Klu Klux Klan.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, you're just forcing them to pay for abortions. HL has no interesting keeping others from having abortions as a business practice. If they did then they'd threaten to fire their employees or something for having them. HL just doesn't want to contribute to the act on their own part.

preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterine wall is very very different than abortion. Somewhere between 25-50% of fertilized eggs don't make it under optimal circumstances.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You sound like you're a lot of fun to be around.

I am, I'm poking fun at what looked to me like a laughably arrogant statement. Do you believe very few employees earn their pay?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I have not paid much attention to this topic, but decided to read up on it a bit.
So Hobby Lobby offers regular birth control to it's employees,
But feels the morning after pill and IUE's, are forms of abortion which it opposes.
Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?
The Supreme Court agrees to a very limited extent.
Are they making too much of this issue?

Who are the "they" you refer to?

You summed up the situation nicely.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Sure.
The SC decision was based on the Freedom Of Religion Act so their ferocious response to the ruling shows the Democrat Party faithful are waging a War On Religion.

Actually, since the issue is based on HL's objection to contraceptives, the Democrats seem to be focusing more on the GOPs War on Women. I've heard they're already fund raising off of it. lol
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Commandment 11? "thou shalt not enable the sinning of heathens". You have to convert them first, then you're free to push the moral end of things. You can't just push the morals on the unconverted masses.

The religious beliefs in question concern the use of contraceptives by those whole follow said beliefs. Heathens/pagans/non believers do not factor in anywhere. Just because you've been legally mandated to provide health care does not mean you have a say in heath care standards, regardless of your beliefs.

Let's say you're an atheist who owns a business and employees a few thousand people. You don't limit your employees beliefs in any way and even provide a small room where employees can exercise their religious beliefs in a reasonable manner during regular, paid breaks. You think you're being plenty fair and amenable to your employees and your employees aren't complaining at all.

Then, one day, a court case comes down that says you have to provide religious symbols and amenities for your employees. Now, you aren't opposed to employees bringing their own religious artifacts to use at work as long as they keep it private and limit their use to the designated break time but you're kind of bent out of shape by having to provide crucifixes, prayer mats, statuary, etc. The cost isn't really the issue but you're starting to feel like this might be an imposition on your religious freedom so you decide to sue the government.

Finally, after spending a ****load of money and suffering much unwanted publicity you win your case. That day, however, someone comes in and says the decision is screwed and you're getting over on people...forcing your beliefs on them....because you refuse to provide them with the articles of their faith.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is a key difference in how the two sides view it. HL's owners aren't being asked to do anything against their beliefs.

Wrong. They would be forced to pay for abortifactants.

The argument is they're 'paying' for that IUD. Well, they're paying wages, and employees can use those wages to get IUDs or even abortions. The difference between the act of paying for an IUD through a standard insurance product mandated by law, versus paying for an IUD through wages is VERY small.

They don't see it that way.

The Court said it isn't their job to determine whether that difference is substantial, only take the word of the litigants that it is to THEM. I suppose that's OK, and proper, but for purposes of this debate we can challenge that assumption in my view, because whether that difference is 'substantial' was in fact a key part of the ruling and where the two sides frequently diverge.

No, the issue of whether religious objections should result in a waver hinge on whether the government has a compelling interest in implementing the law and whether they are using the least restrictive means reasonably possible. It's clear that the Court's problem with how HHS did things was that they had a less restrictive alternative available and didn't offer it to HL.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Spoken like a member of the party of the Klu Klux Klan.

No it's not at all. Catholics have a very restrictive, well known, well publicized view of contraception and sex. It's for procreation, period. And five MEN, with those personal religious views, decided to allow employers to restrict access to the contraception their religion tells them is sinful.

I'm just stating the optics, particularly of FIVE MEN holding a decidedly minority view on contraception, deciding the healthcare needs of women, and on top of the GOP holding an all MALE panel on the contraceptive needs of WOMEN. If you can't see the optics look bad to women, then you're not paying attention. I can just tell you because I've read it 1,000 times that many women would just rather ignorant old men who have no clue about the healthcare needs of women keep their old man noses out of their lady parts business. Those old men don't have to live with the consequences. Disagree if you want, but that feeling is out there.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What's wrong with you?
You better read your own link.
It says what I said.
HL's objection was specifically to abortifacients on religious grounds.
Those other cases were also based on religious reasons and the SC sent them back for review given their ruling.
If those companies can't make their case given the SC ruling they will fail ... if they can they will succeed ... that's as it should be, right?
Hobby Lobby might have objected to only 4 types, but they explicitly argued the case on the basis of a religious objection being able to trump all forms of birth control.

Frankly, this is easily the worst Supreme Court decision in at least my lifetime. How can you segregate women’s reproductive healthcare from everything else? What about Scientologists? Can they do away with their prescription drug plan? What about pacifists, should they be refunded the portion of taxes spent on military? What is the fundamental difference between paying into a fund that pays into a fund that pays into something you don't like and paying taxes which goes toward appropriations which goes to something you don't like? Why is a religious objection to womens health care different from a religious objection to drone attacks?

Also, remember this is a for profit corporation that no longer has to pay for something required by every other employer. They gain a competitive advantage because of their religious beliefs. As many as 90% of all US Businesses fall into the "closely held" category as defined by the SCOTUS. So we should expect them to start all "joining" the religion which opts them out of anything to give them a competitive advantage.
 
Back
Top Bottom