Hobby Lobby Hypocrisy

Hobby Lobby, in fact, did not provide birth control/contraceptive coverage to their employees. Please see my prior post/response for the truth and facts.

Not at all, Hobby Lobby is simply doing what they have been doing all along...notifying their employees that birth control and contraception coverage will not be included in their employer provided healthcare insurance.

Which brings me full circle & back to my original point...Do you want Birth Control coverage ? Ok, then pay for it yourself. But please, do not expect other members of society to subsidize or provide it to you for free. Why not you may ask ? Because Birth Control is a Choice, it is not a medical condition.

rickynews
Hobby Lobby, in fact, did not provide birth control/contraceptive coverage to their employees. Please see my prior post/response for the truth and facts.

edit on 5-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)

They sure did provide birth control, and probably still will. This is about the morning-after pill primarily.

I'd agree that the abortion pill is also a likely and potential motivating factor for Hobby Lobby, as it is also a motivating factor by the Fed Government in an attempt to dictate to organizations to provide said coverage. I disagree that Hobby Lobby provided abortion inducing birth control prior to ACA mandate. That's why the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the case.

reply to post by rickynews

The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." [Source]

Hobby Lobby already covered 16 of the 20 methods of contraception mandated under the Affordable Care Act, but it didn’t cover Plan B One-Step, Ella (another brand of emergency contraception) and two forms of intrauterine devices. This is because the owners of Hobby Lobby have incorrectly labeled these methods of birth control and emergency contraception as “abortifacients,” a claim popular among anti-choice ideologues but refuted by scientific evidence and major reproductive health associations. [Source]

So, apparently, until 2012 when ACA made it a hot topic, they covered all means of contraception for their employees and didn't even know what types of contraception coverage their policies had.

Then a lawyer from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty called and them asked if the company wanted to file a lawsuit. Then I'm sure they got horrified and said yes. But not horrified enough to divest of the people who make the product they have such an issue with.

God bless the lawyers. How ever would we survive without them?

Sources: Washington Post is fairly credible (although liberal leaning to be sure) but Salon.com is a well-known Liberal hack organization, so I can see now where the political motivations are forming.

You want to have an abortion ? As much as I and others may advise against it for any number of reasons, you are free to do so, but please, don't expect the rest of society to subsidize or pay for it. This clearly is a Religious Freedom issue - Article I of the U.S. Constitution, protecting We the People from Federal Government over reach.

reply to post by rickynews

I just didn't have time before dinner to find you a "credible" source. The fact is they provided birth control via their insurance provider for a very long time and never even thought to look into this before the lawyers got their hooks into them.

If they cared this deeply about this issue, they probably would have checked to begin with, both on the insurance and on the investment. Clearly they didn't care enough until someone talked them into it.

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and do respect their beliefs, but ignorance is really no excuse either.

I think Washington Post is credible enough. What this is going to come down to is whether the U.S. Supreme Court views ACA birth control, including RU 486 prescription coverage requirement as Constitutional or Unconstitutional based on Article I and Freedom of Religion.
My guess is that Religious organizations will be exempt, but probably not corporations.

I stand corrected. It appears that Hobby Lobby did have some birth control prescription coverages for their employees prior to ACA.
I think the game changer for by Lobby was the RU486 abortion pill prescription coverage mandate in the ACA law, which is what they are objecting to based on Article I of the U.S. Constitution - Freedom of Religion. In any case, my opinion is that the Federal Government should not force any person or entity to participate in a practice that they find morally wrong. This is but one battle among many more to come regarding the ACA.

reply to post by rickynews


Yes, and the danger here for them is that they may be opening a bigger kettle of worms on the whole religious issue, as in there may be more and more scrutiny on the whole having it both ways thing, because they take all the secular benefits of being a corporation (privately held or not) there are benefits) yet also want their religious protections and benefits when it suits. I'm not sure they want to bring that kind of scrutiny down on themselves. But we shall see.

They probably view it as a calculated risk.

reply to post by rickynews

I think the game changer for by Lobby was the RU486 abortion pill prescription coverage mandate in the ACA law,

Wrong again!

In federal law and medical terms, pregnancy does not begin with a fertilized egg, but with a fertilized egg that has implanted in the uterus. The contraceptives in question--Plan B, Ella, copper and hormonal IUDs--do not cause abortions as the plaintiffs maintain, because they are not being used to terminate established pregnancies.

NPR: Contraceptives Are Not "The Same As The Abortion Drug." As NPR reported, studies have shown that contraceptives such as the "morning-after pill" do not terminate pregnancy like RU-486, which "isn't considered a contraceptive and isn't covered by the new insurance requirements".

What Hobby Lobby, and all pro-lifers, are doing is claiming that science and the medical community be damned, because "GOD" told them, or they believe that somehow, women are pregnant when they're not. They insist that fertilized eggs are sacred, even though the Bible itself appears to promote that life begins at first breath, and that their own God gives instructions for abortion by priests, and commands the "ripping of babies from their mother's womb" and the death of pregnant women all throughout the Old Testament.

To me, that's where their hypocrisy begins.

Life begins at conception. It's well-known and proven science. Rationalize all you want, but it does not change the truth.

reply to post by rickynews

Life begins at conception. It's well-known and proven science. Rationalize all you want, but it does not change the truth.

And chanting that over and over doesn't make it true.

The fact is science doesn't know when life started or when it ends. Egg and sperm are alive. Life is a cycle with no beginning or known end.

The idea that "life begins at conception" is not a scientific one. Since the disproof of 'spontaneous generation' (1668-1859), we have known that life only derives from life. Life arose billions of years ago and has continued since as a cycle. Assigning a beginning to a cycle (like the year) is arbitrary.
oyc.yale.edu...

This Yale professor of micro-biology explains it to you within the first 5 minutes. Educate yourself!

Science has confirmed as fact that human life begins at conception, including some of the most pro-abortion choice scientists. Its also common sense. But, don't just take my word for it....

Check this out: www.azrtl.org...

And this: clinicquotes.com...

Hobby Lobby is in no way being hypocritical, as the ACA mandate is trying to force abortion funding onto individuals and organizations that vehemently oppose any type of abortion, including prescription coverage for the RU486 abortion pill. It was the Federal Government that opened up this pandora's box, not Hobby Lobby.

Scientists Speak before the Senate: Human Life Begins at Conception

A Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception – and they told their story with a complete absence of opposing testimony. (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

*** Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

***”Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

*** Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified:

“The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”

*** Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded,

“I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being….I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

***Dr. Richard V. Jaynes:

“To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”

***Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes

“Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”

And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade,

“To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”

*** Professor Eugene Diamond:

“…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”

***Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester:

“By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception…Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

** C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine:

“When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists.”

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

reply to post by rickynews

the ACA mandate is trying to force abortion funding onto individuals and organizations that vehemently oppose any type of abortion,

WRONG! The ACA has no abortion mandate. It's the constitution of the United states that protects a woman's right to contraception and abortion, according to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Roe v. Wade

Eisenstadt v. Baird

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

There is also overwhelming agreement that Jesus rose from the dead! But we all know that's impossible, don't we?

There is no hard science, only opinions on when life starts. What we DO KNOW is that life begets life and we don't know exactly when it began. We know that an egg and a sperm are both alive before conception, ergo, ipso facto, life doesn't start at conception, no matter what kind of pseudo science we hear from Congress and those they call to testify! The pro-life community is not beyond lying to make a point, as we have seen.


LIES


LIES

Swanson: Wombs of Women on Birth Control 'Embedded' with 'Dead Babies'
LIES

The pro-life community uses pseudo science to promote their lies!

The pro-life community wants you to believe their definition of life is fact, it is NOT!

The Pro-life community wants to redefine what a pregnancy is! They may not!

The pro-life community wants you to believe that a fertilized egg is a person, it is NOT!

There is no "life fairy" that endows a previously dead cell with magical life! There is no point when science can say, "This is when life began".

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


Great response....could not have said it better......

Every human life begins at conception. Nothing changes that simple scientific and moral fact.

reply to post by rickynews


FACT: Zero percent of humans are born without first implanting into the uterus wall.

FACT: More than 50% of fertilized human eggs are naturally flushed away every month when women bleed, without the help of contraception. That means that over 50% of human "life" is considered worthless by nature.