• 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

If it's more than zero, then it's one too many.

How many women from Hobby Lobby are complaining about this decision? Heard anything about strike notices?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This a lot blather meaning absolutely nothing.
I guess you get what you dish out, eh?

For the vast majority of women, birth control is not a necessity to ensure life, limb, and livelihood. It is a luxury.
Is working and supporting a family considered a luxury, too? 45% of all households are headed by women who are the breadwinners.

For the vast majority of women birth control is the very essence of liberty and the great societal equalizer. Birth control allows women to participate equally in the economy and society. It gives them control over their own lives and destiny...aka 'individual liberty'.

"The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." - Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992)

They could get the same results just as easily simply by abstaining from sexual activity.
I could argue the same about Viagra and host of other male enhancement drugs. Men wouldn't need them if they just wore boxers. But if women abstained from having sex except to have children men wouldn't need enhancement drugs at all.

If they want birth control, they can pay for it themselves.
They'd still need a job in order to pay for it. Employees will often stay at a low paying job if it offers health insurance. So one could say that employees are paying for their health insurance with their labor.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Your statement is bull****, it's untrue. Hobby Lobby employees will be able to get 12 kinds of contraception.

You are missing the big picture.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

How many of the HL employees are poor? How many demanded these 4 drugs? If there is no data on that, we're discussing something that neither one of us knows about.

The requirement of providing abortion-causing birth control violated the RFRA which is a law that has existed since 1993. If that's a bad law, then change it. The ACLU was one of the biggest advocates of the RFRA when Clinton signed it into law in 1993. The decision was very black and white here.
Barrack Obama cancelled provisions of Obamacare with a wave of the hand while this decision went through the courts. Therefore it has a great deal more legitimacy than whatever Obama's additions and subtractions, post-Congress, might have.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Maybe its time to make abortion illegal. In fact I would take it a step further and make abortion felony murder.

Sorry...but that isn't ever going to happen. America is not going to return to the days of back-alley abortions. The problem is.....the extremist far-right agenda will not be satisfied until ALL birth control is illegal.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Serious question ... why not?

I think that even the most hard core pro-choice people would like to see as few abortions as possible. It starts will education and making birth control more available. Abortion is an extreme choice that should really be a last resort, not a primary choice.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I just find it amusing that contraceptives fall, for the Administration at least, into the category of "disease prevention". A little top heavy with the radical feminists, perhaps?

There are all kinds of medications that prevent missing work due to all kinds of problems. Anti-diarrheal medications, or anti-migraine medications, for example. But none of them are free. You have to pay a co-pay for all of them.

No, the only reason contraceptives were free was because the Administration deemed them disease preventatives. And that, I suspect, was mostly for political, "we're your good buddies, honey pie," sort of pandering.

Pregnancy isn't a 'disease' but it is a serious medical condition. Furthermore, there are simple reasons why providing women access to effective birth control is in all our best interests - it's better for the mother, and the child, and society, when pregnancies are planned and wanted. But about HALF of all pregnancies are unintended, and as we know many of those end in abortion, many others to mothers clearly poorly equipped to raise children. So clearly, abstaining from sex or relying on failure prone methods of birth control weren't working. The reason contraceptives were included were to bring that number of unintended pregnancies DOWN, and if it's successful, take some positive steps to solving a bunch of related social problems, among them children born to addicts, young teens unprepared to care for their children, etc.

I guess I don't mind that people disagree about including BC in the package of health benefits available for 'free' but it's just deliberate ignorance to claim there is no medical or practical reason for that decision beyond angering a bunch of folks on the religious right wing.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Planned Parenthood can accommodate you and your IUD.
Women's healthcare? Oh, you mean abortion. Not healthcare.
Because men don't get abortions.

This decision will lead to rusty coat hangers in back alleys.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But you do raise an obvious point ... are you and the Democrats waging a War On Religion?
I mean, there is a Law & a Constitution protecting Religious Rights and everything.
Pretty bold of you.


Are Republicans trying to blur the line between corporate profits and religion? Because that's what it looks like.

Does anyone who doesn't own a company benefit from this decision?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I love how Hobby Lobby says it goes against their religious beliefs to "PAY" for contraceptive, but they have no issue buying products from a country that supports abortion.

Yeah, their soooooo religious alright. :roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, it is not simply believing that seeing a doctor isn't necessary. They believed it is a form of sin that causes disease, and that seeing a doctor circumvents god's plan. Wriggle wriggle wriggle. Is that wriggling I hear going on?

Nevertheless, I believe that a private business (not publicly traded) should be allowed even this religious freedom. I stand on principle, unlike conservatives who try to disingenuously limit the meaning of this SCOTUS decision. Conservatives like to apply the law where they like its consequences and not where they don't.

No wiggling. It's not the same argument and you don't have to worry about the slippery slope on that. I'm surprised at how hard it is for liberals to comprehend this decision.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I think that even the most hard core pro-choice people would like to see as few abortions as possible. It starts will education and making birth control more available. Abortion is an extreme choice that should really be a last resort, not a primary choice.

Actually... while I agree it should be a last choice due to health considerations for the mother, I have zero dislike for abortions. If the health considerations were removed, I wouldn't care if a woman used it as her primary form of birth control.

However, I agree that the vast majority do not feel as I do.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No wiggling. It's not the same argument and you don't have to worry about the slippery slope on that. I'm surprised at how hard it is for liberals to comprehend this decision.

What is different about the argument? And... I am not worried about the slippery slope.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

More than a few Protestant sects are against all birth control, The Eastern Orthodox Church is as well as the Amish communities. I dated a girl briefly in High School who was pentecostal and was taught by her church that every sperm was sacred. I attended her church with her once and the minister/preacher gave a speech about the evils of masturbation. I dropped her like a hot skillet.

Oh, I know that among the multitude of various sects some would cling to the Catholic views on birth control. I'm just saying they're the exception rather than the rule.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I love how Hobby Lobby says it goes against their religious beliefs to "PAY" for contraceptive, but they have no issue buying products from a country that supports abortion.

Yeah, their soooooo religious alright. :roll:

They do pay for contraceptives.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

For the vast majority of women birth control is the very essence of liberty and the great societal equalizer. Birth control allows women to participate equally in the economy and society. It gives them control over their own lives and destiny...aka 'individual liberty'.

Great. So pay for it yourself.

Even assuming what you say was necessarily true in the first place, liberty and equality are not things given, but earned.

I could argue the same about Viagra and host of other male enhancement drugs. Men wouldn't need them if they just wore boxers.

ED is a legitimate dysfunction, caused by advanced age, ill health, or some other pre-existing medical condition.

Pregnancy is a natural process, which comes about as a result of normal sexual intercourse, healthy or no.

There is no comparison.

They'd still need a job in order to pay for it. Employees will often stay at a low paying job if it offers health insurance. So one could say that employees are paying for their health insurance with their labor.

Not my problem.

Your unnecessary sex pills. Your money.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I think that even the most hard core pro-choice people would like to see as few abortions as possible. It starts will education and making birth control more available.
Abortion is an extreme choice
that should really be a last resort, not a primary choice.


And I'm asking you why you feel that way and you're dancing around instead of answering.
Doesn't look good.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This decision will lead to rusty coat hangers in back alleys.
Has anyone said that yet?
Hillary?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz perhaps?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Planned Parenthood can accommodate you and your IUD.
Women's healthcare? Oh, you mean abortion. Not healthcare.
Because men don't get abortions.

That's pretty funny, "This group that the same people who oppose contraceptive mandates have been working like heck to shut down in just about all the red states will, if we don't shut them down first, help women get necessary contraception."

You have to admit that's a pretty odd response.

And, no, contraception =/= abortion, and it's a normal part of women's everyday healthcare.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What is different about the argument? And... I am not worried about the slippery slope.

I already pointed it out. Aside from the fact that this isn't any mainstream religious belief we're talking about, there is no religious directive from God to the effect of "Thou shalt not pay for modern medical treatment". The belief that using doctors demonstrates a lack of faith isn't equivalent to a conflict of conscience regarding providing medical care for others. You aren't responsible for their faith. The argument wont' fly. With abortion drugs, you are complicit in murder. The difference is not slight. It's great gulf that can't be bridged with specious arguments.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Oh, I know that among the multitude of various sects some would cling to the Catholic views on birth control. I'm just saying they're the exception rather than the rule.

This entire argument demonstrates how juvenile the left in America has become. They're helpless to care for themselves unless the government and/or their employers give them around the clock protection. A country once built on hard work and self reliance has now come to this in just a couple of generations.

But, quite apart from these discouraging attempts to avoid life's realities, the decision is just 'smoke and mirrors' anyway.

A meaningless decision. The less restrictive alternative that the majority settled on is a certification by Hobby Lobby that it opposes contraceptive coverage, after which the insurance company must provide that coverage for free. Meaning that the premium charged to Hobby Lobby will necessarily include the cost of the free contraception. All smoke and mirrors.
Conservative Supreme Court Majority Prevails In Two Key Cases [UPDATE: Is Hobby Lobby So Narrow As To Be "Meaningless"?] | Power Line
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Are Republicans trying to blur the line between corporate profits and religion?
There's that War On Religion I was asking about
Because that's what it looks like.

Does anyone who doesn't own a company benefit from this decision?
Why, yes ... yes they do ... anyone and everyone who has been alarmed by big Government overreach by unelected bureaucrats and elected radical leftists.
They see this as a small retrenchment of the perfidy brought to us by the Democrat Party.
For those who don't recognize it, they most likely ARE the Democrat Party.

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

Yeah you men all sure know what's best for us irresponsible sexpots women.

Goodness what I hear from a number of my female friends, relatives, coworkers, or even vague acquaintances about how their male partner does not want anything to do with feeding, changing, getting up at night, or even holding the baby it's kind of weird how they are so adamant about limiting birth control. For the most part they seem to want nothing to do with the actual baby, but yet fight to the end to prevent affordable access to good birth control. It's kind of strange actually. Now I am not saying all men are not helpful with babies, but in my experiences very few are.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yeah you men all sure know what's best for us irresponsible sexpots women.

Goodness what I hear from a number of my female friends, relatives, coworkers, or even vague acquaintances about how their male partner does not want anything to do with feeding, changing, getting up at night, or even holding the baby it's kind of weird how they are so adamant about limiting birth control. For the most part they seem to want nothing to do with the actual baby, but yet fight to the end to prevent affordable access to good birth control. It's kind of strange actually. Now I am not saying all men are not helpful with babies, but in my experiences very few are.

Most men are _________ (fill in the blank).

vs.

Most women are _________ (fill in the blank).

Is one any more or less sexist than the other? Inquiring minds want to know. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom