Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

a reply to: Destinyone

By mandating that BC must be in insurance packages, the cost will be much higher than through low cost clinics.

That's not true. Statistics show that when insurance companies cover birth control, it's cost is neutralized due to the money saved on cost of pregnancy and post natal care. Birth control saves money.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It feels like religious people are forcing their beliefs onto the unwilling.

That is exactly what is happening. The owners of HL is forcing their employees to live by their religious beliefs.

Religious freedom, as protected in the first amendment, is for PEOPLE

Good luck getting the five idiots on the Supreme Court to understand this.

Hobby Lobby surely is a "closely held" corporation - I was in one recently and they sell the "Founders" books and propaganda near the registers as a sort of point-of-purchase come-on.

An interesting ruling, and one that won't make that much difference in the long run, although the case was full of sound and fury signifying rutting.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer

So isn't all other types of healthcare the responsibility of the individual!

yes.

Which is more responsible??
Buying an insurance plan to cover the cost of your healthcare or running to family planning and hoping for a freebie?
And why should that insurance plan cover free tests for all kinds of possible future problems but not cover birth control???

As a private individual, I should not determine what another has to do.

Individuals should be able to determine the best policy for their individual needs.

It is not the role of government to take care of all of that and make the determinations for the individual.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I know I feel less inclined to accommodate religious beliefs because of this ruling. It feels like religious people are forcing their beliefs onto the unwilling. Religious freedom, as protected in the first amendment, is for PEOPLE. Hobby Lobby does NOT practice religion as a business.

In all honestly, you are starting to feel what I and others have been feeling for a few years now. I'm not suggesting your feelings or mine are necessarily right, wrong or well founded. That isn't the point any more than it was for the Court here. They are our feelings, they exist as such and neither of us has the right to force the other to do something against those. No further explanation of why, in what context or how it's objectionable is necessary. So says the Court at this point.

To actually put this into another context...How about Muslims? Lets say they run a medical and support center for special needs kids. Let's say, to be specific, they offer a lot for the blind and are really skilled and valuable about what they do. However, they are devout and pious Muslims first and foremost as the owners of the business.

Medical and Societal norms in the United States say seeing eye dogs/service animals are a standard part of the package of accommodation for the blind. They ARE supplied at state expense in many cases.

Given that, and again, to be totally fair about this....Should we have the right as Non-Muslims to say "Hey! You! We don't care that you view dogs as unclean or that intimate daily contact with them is not acceptable. WE say they are required to offer for special needs kids in a medical support business!"

....now I happen to work with special needs students and have a real soft spot for them. I PERSONALLY think that Muslim example should suck eggs and deal with it to offer what medical norms demand be available. Personal feelings should never play into State policy though. As an AMERICAN..I'd say that Muslim example has every right the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby do, to refuse to supply or handle ANYTHING which is directly offensive to their Faith....without need to explain further.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: thesaneone



Maybe this will make people more responsible when they want to knock boots.

Good luck with that. There have been unwanted pregnancies since time began, and there will be unwanted pregnancies right up until time ends.

I think people opposed to this ruling, better get off their hiney's and first figure out what to do about the 100's of thousands of girls and women popping out litters of babies by multiple baby daddies to collect welfare every month. They don't use BC on purpose.

When they have that problem solved, they'll have a better base to argue from.

Des

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


I will never go to a Hobby Lobby again. And I just might join a protest.

I'm with you, BH.

I'll only go to Michael's from here on out. And I know plenty who will do the same.

a reply to: buster2010

Is this irony? Louie Gohmert was screaming how the liberals were going allow Sharia Law take over our courts. Now the conservative court just opened the door.

a reply to: adjensen

So you are really objecting to them having an opinion?

When their opinion is nothing but BS that is forcing their beliefs on other people you bet I object to it.

What is your "proven health benefit" that those two IUDs and two post-conception pills provide to women that no other medication can?

They are using the term abortion as a basis for their argument but an abortion cannot happen unless the egg has been fertilized. You do know what abortion means right?
abortion = the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
So using BC is in no way abortion.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Destinyone

This limits government mandates.

This limits what a government can mandate.

I'll count this as a win.

Ditto.

You bunnies are all about reproducing anyhow.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic





I will never go to a Hobby Lobby again. And I just might join a protest.

I'm with you, BH.

I'll only go to Michael's from here on out. And I know plenty who will do the same.

I think I might pack up the family and do some shopping at Hobby Lobby tonight!! After some quick dinner at Chick-fil-A of course!!

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: buster2010

Is this irony? Louie Gohmert was screaming how the liberals were going allow Sharia Law take over our courts. Now the conservative court just opened the door.

Yes idiots like him constantly cry about Sharia Law but say nothing about things like this ruling that will allow Christian law to take over this nation. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

a reply to: Aleister

I disagree!
The basic concept of insurance is that if you get sick I have paid premiums to help pay your bills and if get sick your premiums pay mine! And well we all pay for the poors one way or the other!
If hobby lobby can be exempt from the a mandate to buy insurance that the gov't mandates to the insurance company has birth control coverage in it on the basis of religious belief.
Shouldn't that protection of religious rights be extended to all businesses and people? That none of us should have to pay for those things we don't belief in? Particularly birth control since the supremes made an attempt to confine this decision to just that issue? So if the belief must be protected than wouldn't it seem necessary to protect all those premium holders also? Not to mention the taxpayers???

It should go further! Probably won't but it should!

originally posted by: windword

No it doesn't. It limits who can be exempt from mandates.

No, it expands who can be exempt from mandates.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: buster2010

Is this irony? Louie Gohmert was screaming how the liberals were going allow Sharia Law take over our courts. Now the conservative court just opened the door.

Really? How in the hell do you equate not making a company pay for someone else's abortion pills to sharia law?

You do realize how silly you make yourself look by saying such idiotic comments don't you?

you know this set of justices do make good decisions from time to time don't they.

a reply to: buster2010

When their opinion is nothing but BS that is forcing their beliefs on other people you bet I object to it.

Can't you see the problem built right into that statement? Several years ago...YOUR opinion was B.S. and I say that as what United States policy was at the Federal Level under Bush, not my opinion of it.

At the moment..your opinion is politically representative of the majority holding leadership. That may revert right back again in a couple years as history shows has happened often enough in our nation.

Who decides what opinion is B.S. when we can see our leaders hold positions on opposite ends in terms of 4 year cycles and policy roller coasters?

Personally, I think the only right way to go is to set policy as a one size fits all, and that demands it be erring to the side of least offense to anyone involved. Here, that is tangible to say as which path demands an individual take action they otherwise wouldn't have and are opposed to? That option is the one to err away from, at least when the action crosses a Constitutional issue as well.

...lest we find how bad it can be to land on the OTHER side of the B.S. scale sooner than is decent. Power always swings back in this country.

a reply to: Destinyone

So they won.

I guess they can now refuse AIDs medication to gays now as well.

Since homosexuality is against their religion.

Need a blood transfusion? Better hope your employer isn't a Jehovah's Witness.

What if your employer is a faith healer follower? Does that mean no one gets health care?

A sad day.

a reply to: Destinyone

Teen pregnancies have declined dramatically in the United States since their peak in the early 1990s, as have the births and abortions that result; in 2008, teen pregnancies reached their lowest level in nearly 40 years, according to “U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2008: National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity,” by Kathryn Kost and Stanley Henshaw of the Guttmacher Institute.

A large body of research has shown that the long-term decline in teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates was driven primarily by improved use of contraception among teens.

www.guttmacher.org...

a reply to: Destinyone

ME: I'm past the age and don't need BC. But my daughter does, and her IUD copay was $800.


Destinyone
Then your daughter was way overcharged, probably by a private Doctor. Back in the day I paid $35.00 for an IUD via Planned Parenthood.

She does have a private doctor, and some pretty decent insurance too, through UCLA, where she works.

The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD, and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $1,000. That cost pays for protection that can last from 5 to 12 years, depending on which IUD you choose. In general, hormonal IUDs costs more than the ParaGard.
IUD :: Planned Parenthood