• 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!

Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

I don't know. You will have to ask them. But post #61 should help you understand their objection better.
I find it extremely hard to believe that you don't have an opinion. Cat got your tongue?
 
From what i understand is that Plan B does not allow the egg to attach to the uterus. so if the egg is fertilized and try's to attach it can't therefore it aborts. If you believe that life begins at conception like most Christians and Catholics do then that is considered an abortion.

a fertilized egg would be considered an existing pregnancy.


In that case they should be objecting to all hormonal contraceptives as they all function the same way. They (low dose monthly oral contraceptives and Plan-B) prevent pregnancy by: (A) preventing ovulation, (B) preventing fertilization by increasing the mucus of the cervix, and (C) preventing implantation.

So if preventing implantation is an abortion (which one can argue) then Hobby Lobby should be rejecting ALL oral contraceptives low dose, pre-sex, over the course of a month and high dose, post-sex, taken in one shot.




Birth Control Pills - Types, Effectiveness, and Side Effects of Birth Control Pills


>>>>
 
In that case they should be objecting to all hormonal contraceptives as they all function the same way. They (low dose monthly oral contraceptives and Plan-B) prevent pregnancy by: (A) preventing ovulation, (B) preventing fertilization by increasing the mucus of the cervix, and (C) preventing implantation.

So if preventing implantation is an abortion (which one can argue) then Hobby Lobby should be rejecting ALL oral contraceptives low dose, pre-sex, over the course of a month and high dose, post-sex, taken in one shot.




Birth Control Pills - Types, Effectiveness, and Side Effects of Birth Control Pills


>>>>

There is a difference in not allowing a pregancy to happen and killing an existing pregnancy. if you don't know the difference then i can't help you.
plan b kills an existing pregnancy. typical birth control doesn't kill existing pregnancies it simply doesn't allow them to happen.
 
Excuse me, but I didn't make any "claims".


I'm sorry, did you not post the following:

The ACA requires that insurance include 20 specific forms of contraception. 4 of them contain FDA warnings that they may cause a formed fetus to abort.


The FDA information I linked to specifically says Plan-B does not function to terminate a pregnancy.

I mean you were wrong, you should man up and admit it.



>>>>
 
I find it extremely hard to believe that you don't have an opinion. Cat got your tongue?

I can't have an opinion on what they are going to object to in the future, Moot. I'm not them.

To be honest, I don't care generally speaking about this particular case because the issue doesn't impact me personally.
 
There is a difference in not allowing a pregancy to happen and killing an existing pregnancy. if you don't know the difference then i can't help you.
plan b kills an existing pregnancy. typical birth control doesn't kill existing pregnancies it simply doesn't allow them to happen.


I take it you didn't read the link to how oral contraceptives work. They prevent ovulation, they prevent fertilization, and they prevent implantation.

Now, take Plan-B, it functions by preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and preventing implantation.



#1 So functionally how are they different?


#2 The FDA information specifically says that Plan-B does not terminate existing pregnancies. (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf)


#3 If it is the implantation issue, then why does Hobby Lobby provide low dose oral contraceptives that can prevent implantation?




>>>>
 
I'm sorry, did you not post the following:



The FDA information I linked to specifically says Plan-B does not function to terminate a pregnancy.

I mean you were wrong, you should man up and admit it.



>>>>

When I'm a man, I'll man up. I'm a woman.

I posted what they are arguing about. It isn't my opinion, it's theirs. So I'm not "wrong" about it. I'm neither their attorney, nor their employee. You asked what they're objecting to, and I posted it for you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kindly stop asking me to defend the Hobby Lobby case. We aren't litigating it on this board.
 
First, capital letters and punctuation are usually deemed necessary if you want to have a reasoned debate.

Second, I fail to see the point of your entire post, except wasting my time trying to decipher this gibberish:

sorry, their is no proper English on forums, if you looking for it ,forget it.

i dont post is para's , not every one has the same size screen.

i post in line form, where it is easier to read, if you dont like it, then your free to skip over my post and rebuttal someone else.

your little rant, is noting more of a attempt to make yourself feel better, instead of sticking to the subject.

Thirdly, rights are always weighed in contrast to others. My right to speak is weighed against the harm certain types of speech may inflict on your reputation (although in this case, you've done a pretty good job of shattering that yourself, no help needed). And exactly what right do you have here to say that businesses should not be held accountable for the wages and benefits (or the lack thereof) they provide to their employees? And so help me God, if you cite the 9th and 10th Amendments, I will personally tattoo those words on your forehead so the next time you argue against abortion rights, you can read them time and again.

rights are not weighted, my rights are vast, and they only end when they meet yours.

what do you mean accountable?....what is that supposed to mean?......a business owner has right to property, and association, right to his beliefs, when i hire you i offer you a wage, and sometimes benefits, you either accept or reject them, you dont get to change them.

your silly little rant is sicking, and it shows you have not reached maturity, because you debate on emotional contend, which is always a losing position.

Fourth,. Enough said.

yes it is enough said, from your emotional rants.

so if you can act mature when speaking to me...dont engage me!
 
Last edited:
I take it you didn't read the link to how oral contraceptives work. They prevent ovulation, they prevent fertilization, and they prevent implantation.

Now, take Plan-B, it functions by preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and preventing implantation.



#1 So functionally how are they different?


#2 The FDA information specifically says that Plan-B does not terminate existing pregnancies. (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf)


#3 If it is the implantation issue, then why does Hobby Lobby provide low dose oral contraceptives that can prevent implantation?




>>>>

again you don't seem to understand the difference between preventing a pregancy before it happens (IE sperm meets egg) and aborting an existing pregnancy (after sperm meets egg).

i am not going to get into a tit for tat. there is nothing wrong with their stance. it is in perfect alignment for their religious beliefs and forcing them to supply something that violates that is against the constitution.

whether you agree with their view or not doesn't matter. the constitution does, and when talking about law that is the only thing that matters.

as for the OP of the topic. the fact remains that it isn't the company that invests it is the employee's that do. i am sure that you have investments that would go against your belief systems. more so if you are invested in mutual funds. does that make you a hypocrite? no. the point of investing is to make more money.

now if you don't believe in making more money or don't think other people should and still invest then yes you are a hypocrite.
 
Exactly why should they have done that?

I mean I get that this is a political forum and there are bound to be plenty of partisan hacks on this website but the idea that they've done something wrong because they didn't know their employees 401(k)s contained mutual funds that contained companies who make whatever it is they disagree with is foolish.
Why I agree with you, Sir. This whole thing on it's OK for Hobby Lobby to invest in companies that makes profit in birth control and not seeing anything wrong with that, but that same company (Hobby Lobby) turns around and does a double-take and all of a sudden says that they (Hobby Lobby) are not going to pay for contraceptives that they helped invest in is one h*** of a contradiction that's quite noticeable.

It's like having your cake and eating it too. I guess the best way to describe this is integrity; it does say a lot about a person or a company. :shrug:
 
Why I agree with you, Sir. This whole thing on it's OK for Hobby Lobby to invest in companies that makes profit in birth control and not seeing anything wrong with that, but that same company (Hobby Lobby) turns around and does a double-take and all of a sudden says that they (Hobby Lobby) are not going to pay for contraceptives that they helped invest in is one h*** of a contradiction that's quite noticeable.

It's like having your cake and eating it too. I guess the best way to describe this is integrity; it does say a lot about a person or a company. :shrug:

again hobby lobby doesn't invest in anything.

employee's are offered a wide variety of mutual funds to invest in. a single mutual fund may have 10 or 20 companies in which it invests in or buys stock.
i don't even know all the companies in my mutual funds. i don't care. all i care about is how much return they bring in at the end of the year.

the employee is the one that invests in the mutual fund. the company might match but it is the employee that buys it.

there are only 4 contraceptives that they disapprove of because they consider it an abortion if taken.
the provide other basic forms of BC.

what it says is that people don't understand the topic and are just making stuff up.
 
Stop with the fake outrage.

In all likelihood Hobby Lobby had no idea their employees 401(k)s invested in mutual funds that invested in companies that make emergency contraceptives. I have no idea what companies make emergency contraceptives myself.

SO your defense is HL's ignorance

Not sure if that's a legally valid defense, but it sure is a credible one
 
When I'm a man, I'll man up. I'm a woman.

I posted what they are arguing about. It isn't my opinion, it's theirs. So I'm not "wrong" about it. I'm neither their attorney, nor their employee. You asked what they're objecting to, and I posted it for you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kindly stop asking me to defend the Hobby Lobby case. We aren't litigating it on this board.


I'm not asking you do defend their case, I'm asking you to support your claim that "The ACA requires that insurance include 20 specific forms of contraception. 4 of them contain FDA warnings that they may cause a formed fetus to abort."


The FDA information specifically says it does not a pregnancy to end. I link to the FDA information that said specifically that and you tried to hide behind "contraindications" because women who are pregnant shouldn't be taking hormones when their hormones are already in-flux. Low does, pre-sex monthly oral contraceptives have the exact same contraindicator (also shown with an FDA link).


>>>>
 
Has the SCOTUS ruled on any of the 99%ers protests? If they have, I'll bet it was in favor of business and not the rights of the individual.
I dont think the Supremes have ruled on this case either. Sotomayor DID offer this gem though...

"No, I don’t think that that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement. There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all. And in that case Hobby Lobby would pay $2,000 per employee, which is less than Hobby Lobby probably pays to provide insurance to its employees. So there is a choice here. It’s not even a penalty by – in the language of the statute. It’s a payment or a tax. There’s a choice."
 
no they didn't rule that way ....did they?, however it seems many people believe they have a right to certain things, which is a falsehood no human being has a right to a material good or service.
I think when people pay taxes they expect "certain things" in return.

The company has contracted with a health insurance company, to provide coverage, the employes do not own or control the plan...... the company does....freedom means... you accept what they offer ...or you seek your own plan.

The company doesn't own the insurance plans, either. Nor do they get to pick and choose what is covered in a group plan(s).

For instance, BCBS only offers three plans and the company accepts what is in those plans or they find another insurance company. Nor does the company give a fig whether the employee chooses Plan A or Plan C because it's the employees that are paying for their own insurance plans via a fee that comes out of their paychecks. If they chose Plan A more money is deducted from their paycheck than if they chose Plan C.

It's the insurance company that decides what is covered in Plan A, Plan B and Plan C...not the company.

Its the insurance company that the employees have to deal with when they make a claim...not the company.

It's the empolyees that decide which insurance plan they want.

It's the employees that pay the deductibles and co-payments, not the company.

Other than being a middleman, the company has no say in what the insurance company offers or what plans the employees can choose or what the employees can claim on their insurance.


the constitution states its unconstitutional, for government to force a person or business to provide a material good or service people.
The commerce clause, the taxation clause, the general welfare clause and the supramacy clause say the government has the authority and there is plenty of precedence to back it up.

the constitutions states government does not have the authority, the constitution limits governments, ..not people or business.
So where does the constitution say that the government doesnt have the authority?
 
again hobby lobby doesn't invest in anything.
Are you telling me that Hobby Lobby didn't do anything at all about forming a 401K plan for it's employees and not use the same ethics that they used in making sure they stay in accordance to their religion on contraceptives and health care? Please. That is either a lot of carelessness or down out right ignorance. Either way, it doesn't say too much for HL's integrity.

employee's are offered a wide variety of mutual funds to invest in. a single mutual fund may have 10 or 20 companies in which it invests in or buys stock.
i don't even know all the companies in my mutual funds. i don't care. all i care about is how much return they bring in at the end of the year.
That's fine. But you are probably not worried about contraceptive items like Hobby Lobby is supposed to be doing.
 
I dont think the Supremes have ruled on this case either. Sotomayor DID offer this gem though...

"No, I don’t think that that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement. There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all. And in that case Hobby Lobby would pay $2,000 per employee, which is less than Hobby Lobby probably pays to provide insurance to its employees. So there is a choice here. It’s not even a penalty by – in the language of the statute. It’s a payment or a tax. There’s a choice."

I thought she made an excellent point. Hobby Lobby does have a choice.....and so do their employees. I think it's a good compromise.
 
again you don't seem to understand the difference between preventing a pregancy before it happens (IE sperm meets egg) and aborting an existing pregnancy (after sperm meets egg).

Both low dose, pre-sex monthly oral contraceptives and high dose, post-sex oral contraceptives prevent fertilization (IE sperm meets egg).


As a matter of fact BOTH prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization, and prevent implantation.

i am not going to get into a tit for tat. there is nothing wrong with their stance. it is in perfect alignment for their religious beliefs and forcing them to supply something that violates that is against the constitution.

No it's not.

It's inconsistent though to provide contraceptives that prevent implantation and deny others that prevent implantation. If their convictions are religious and based on the "implantation" standard then, for consistencies sake, they should be arguing about having to provide ANY hormonal contraceptives to women.

Why is one group OK but not the other group that works the same way?


whether you agree with their view or not doesn't matter. the constitution does, and when talking about law that is the only thing that matters.

Actually I think that private businesses should be able to select what to have or not have in their insurance policy irregardless of Hobby Lobbies religious stance.

See that's a measure of believing in smaller less intrusive government. Many are fine with big government as long as it's not their Ox being gored. Secular disagreements with mandates - "Oh, those don't count. Go ahead mandate it." Religious disagreements with mandates - "Oh, we deserve special treatment from everyone else.

BTW - you should read Justice Scalia's written opinion in Employment Division v. Smith where he states: " We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940): 'Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.'"


as for the OP of the topic. the fact remains that it isn't the company that invests it is the employee's that do. i am sure that you have investments that would go against your belief systems. more so if you are invested in mutual funds. does that make you a hypocrite? no. the point of investing is to make more money.


I agree, go back and read Post #16.


now if you don't believe in making more money or don't think other people should and still invest then yes you are a hypocrite.

I believe in making money.

I believe other people should make money.

I believe anyone can invest in any legal enterprise they want.

I haven't once criticized Hobby Lobby on this topic because it's manufactured faux outrage that has nothing to do with the pending case.


Next?



>>>>
 
Last edited:
I'm not asking you do defend their case, I'm asking you to support your claim that "The ACA requires that insurance include 20 specific forms of contraception. 4 of them contain FDA warnings that they may cause a formed fetus to abort."


The FDA information specifically says it does not a pregnancy to end. I link to the FDA information that said specifically that and you tried to hide behind "contraindications" because women who are pregnant shouldn't be taking hormones when their hormones are already in-flux. Low does, pre-sex monthly oral contraceptives have the exact same contraindicator (also shown with an FDA link).


>>>>

It isn't "my" claim, for the 3rd time. I don't have to support any claim. I am not the one making the claim. Hobby Lobby did.

Please, for the love of God, understand that and stop asking me to defend or argue Hobby Lobby's opinion.
 
I thought she made an excellent point. Hobby Lobby does have a choice.....and so do their employees. I think it's a good compromise.

I think in the end it's probably going to be the only compromise, although I can't say I am convinced that it costs Hobby Lobby an average of less than $2000 per employee for their contribution. That seems awfully low, but I have no idea what their plans look like.
 
I can't have an opinion on what they are going to object to in the future, Moot. I'm not them.
Based on HL beliefs and actions ...it is possible to form an opinion about their objection to one drug and not others that could do the same thing. It shows an inconsistency in their belief and actions. From that observation an opinion can be easily formed that Hobby Lobby owners are either hypocrites or can't read labels.


To be honest, I don't care generally speaking about this particular case because the issue doesn't impact me personally.
But it could impact the society you live in...and you're participating on this thread because....why?
 
I think when people pay taxes they expect "certain things" in return.

taxes are to go to pay for the powers of congress, article 1 section 8.

none of congress powers, have anything to do with the personal life's of the people, that is a state power.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal powers ]will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State"

The company doesn't own the insurance plans, either. Nor do they get to pick and choose what is covered in a group plan(s).

For instance, BCBS only offers three plans and the company accepts what is in those plans or they find another insurance company. Nor does the company give a fig whether the employee chooses Plan A or Plan C because it's the employees that are paying for their own insurance plans via a fee that comes out of their paychecks. If they chose Plan A more money is deducted from their paycheck than if they chose Plan C.

It's the insurance company that decides what is covered in Plan A, Plan B and Plan C...not the company.

Its the insurance company that the employees have to deal with when they make a claim...not the company.

It's the empolyees that decide which insurance plan they want.

It's the employees that pay the deductibles and co-payments, not the company.

Other than being a middleman, the company has no say in what the insurance company offers or what plans the employees can choose or what the employees can claim on their insurance.



but the company is contracting the plan, ...true, the company cannot dictate too the insurer, and demand a certain plan., .........they can negotiate a plan...

the point i have been trying to make is, people cannot demand things out of other people or business insisting it supply money or labor for material goods or services, and government has no authority to enforce any demand.



The commerce clause, the taxation clause, the general welfare clause and the supramacy clause say the government has the authority and there is plenty of precedence to back it up.

So where does the constitution say that the government doesnt have the authority?

commerce clause-- meant to be used on state governments not the people, to prevent states from creating legislation affecting commerce of others states, never meant to be used inside the states on the people.....the constitution does not limit people

tax clause --are meant to be used on powers which congress has in article 1 section 8, done of those powers gives congress authority over the lifes of the people.

supremacy clause, -- to be used, when their is a conflict of law, between state powers and federal powers, ..with federal-being supreme.


i stated that the government does not have any authority to force a person or business [a] to give a person a material good or service, because to do so would make party [a] in servitude to which is unconstitutional.

Section 1.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
I think in the end it's probably going to be the only compromise, although I can't say I am convinced that it costs Hobby Lobby an average of less than $2000 per employee for their contribution. That seems awfully low, but I have no idea what their plans look like.

The $2000 fee is probably lower than what HL pays for the cheapest employee insurance plan. So the excuse that it would cost more to pay the fee than to insure the employee is bunk. I think that is the point Sotamayor was making.
 
Based on HL beliefs and actions ...it is possible to form an opinion about their objection to one drug and not others that could do the same thing. It shows an inconsistency in their belief and actions. From that observation an opinion can be easily formed that Hobby Lobby owners are either hypocrites or can't read labels.



But it could impact the society you live in...and you're participating on this thread because....why?

Because this thread is about their employees 401K investments and Mother Jones' obsession with the case - two things that interest me.

I am interested in the case itself - but not the outcome. I won't lose sleep if they can only get 16 forms of contraception. That's just me.
 
Back
Top Bottom