Companies Using SCOTUS Ruling To Eliminate All Birth Control In Their Health Care Plans...

originally posted by: MOMof3
Giving corporations human rights the same as an individual is a bad idea. Now, a powerful self preserving entity can force its will on an individual, like religion. I can see how the last anti-christ can get all powerful, thanks to christians.

and you have it backwards, unless you concede all your rights and liberties to admiralty and corporate law. The crime is in the words and what is a person. In the context you use a person iS a corporate entity, an officer. You represent your strawman fiction thereby making yourself equal to any other corporation. You concede all rights and everything is commerce at this point, including the fruit of your marriage, your children. You prove this by signing them into the laws of the sea with a birth (as in to dock and birth from the sea of the womb) certificate. So, it is when you submit to it that you become just like a corporation. Not the other way around. Pick a law you are refering to and lets identify who a person is in that reference. The definition of person changes from law to law, legality to legality. It is very important to identify this to understand any of it.

a reply to: manna2

....because the world needs more hypocrits running around justifying atrocious act in the name of God???

and one why does one to be affiliated with any paticular religion to have moral beliefs?
all those doctors out there took an oath to become doctors
regardless of religious affiiation I think that there are many of them who would honor that oath

the more people, businesses, companies not to mention the gov't step in between that doctor and the patient
and the more power they have to enforce their wil on that doctor
the more that doctor has to lay aside that oath

the trick is to remove the power that is standing between the two in the medical profession as well as many other areas in life and help and encourage others to do the same

I think you must be replying to another post and poster. Who is the hypocrite you are refering too? I am refering to corporate law vs common law. a reply to: dawnstar
Oh, and modern medicine is alot like it was in the dark ages now. You have much more faith in it than I do for sure. They are good at running tests and setting bones and stitching flesh together. But they have also become the leading cause of wrongful death in this country. The best I can tell you too see fatal flaws in the aca?

In history, the last time religion and government had equal power, we got the Dark Ages. We are no different from an Islamic country anymore, only our fanatics are christians. Now is time for division.

originally posted by: MOMof3
In history, the last time religion and government had equal power, we got the Dark Ages. We are no different from an Islamic country anymore, only our fanatics are christians. Now is time for division.

then youhave waged a war where peoplemust die. You are an enemy combatant. I know you not. You are not my countryman and yourallegianceis to a foreignpower. Agenda 21 and its proponents will murder 10's of millions in the next few decades and all their peons that they use to create derision and division deserve the fate of traitors. May Yah have mercy on your soul.

a reply to: manna2

I am choosing a side. The last anti-christ won't need to war to achieve his ends. The path has been opened for him/her to take over your body and mind through our government that we just gave over to the religious fanatics.

The people are so wrong about this issue it isn't even funny..... This case is at the basis not about religion but the fact that corporations have been given more rights that an average citizen has....

Do you realize that an individual can not opt out but has to take the coverage but corporations have "special" rights you the average person has ..... Doesn't anyone see this? .....

a reply to: fnpmitchreturns

Very few see this.

The are very good at playing this game. The average American well still blame the 'other team' for this. Few also realize both parties do the same thing in regards to selling out to corporate America.

Duh.

How about we just do this: Go to a single payer system and get rid of both employers and insurance companies getting the flock our of our business.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

This an excellent idea and could potentially help the US catch up to the rest of the industrialized world.

The problem is convincing the masses, too many still believe socialism is the devil.

We also have another problem with the health insurance industry. The are a powerful lobbying force and this would dissolve their business model. The oligarchy simply will not allow this to happen.

originally posted by: fnpmitchreturns
The people are so wrong about this issue it isn't even funny..... This case is at the basis not about religion but the fact that corporations have been given more rights that an average citizen has....

Do you realize that an individual can not opt out but has to take the coverage but corporations have "special" rights you the average person has ..... Doesn't anyone see this? .....

Yes, I do. This may very well be the beginning of individuals suing for that same right to not have BC coverage.
I think this is an interesting twist on the topic. Corporations were invented to be legal entities owned by shareholders with the intent of protecting those owners from personal loss should the business fail, be sued, violate laws or regulations, etc. That's it. The "legal fiction" of Corporations being "corporeal" has been stretched now to include a special exemption, due to an argument of "second hand sin." (By that I mean "sin by enabling someone else to sin.")

As a corporation, the argument was that they were providing something for others through purchasing the plan that might end in "sin" and they too would be guilty should that possibly happen, therefore, providing it caused them to not be able to fully practice their religion and endangered their sense of religious practice.

I think the main difference is that if you are an individual or family, you are simply choosing not to use that coverage based on your religious preference rather than providing it for others outside your own family, but you COULD say that contributing to a plan that allows OTHERS to obtain BC is against your religion because of how they MIGHT use it.

Of course, this is a tricky argument that relies on something that MIGHT happen. A whole big sticky can-o-worms there, for sure!

- AB

a reply to: manna2

the hypocrites would be those who would jump on the religious bandwagon so they could get out of the taxes also!

As far as today's doctors go I don't have much faith in them either!!
I'd have to go back to the 80's before I come to a doctor that I visited that I felt deserved my respect! But is this because today's doctors have been corrupted or that the insurance companies and gov't is dictating to them how they should treat their patients? I think it's a little of both! Anyone can be bought if the offer is high enough!

I've often spoken of the doctor that I had when I was a child. He lived about four houses up the street from me not in a mansion in the burbs. His daughter and me used to go into their cellar and play when we thought we could get away with it. That was where he kept all his medicine which if you were sick you'd get an envelope with your medicine in it. No pharmacy, no outrageous extra cost! Then again he was just as apt to tell you to go home and make a wintergreen tea or something.

There are 71 companies now, according to what I've been able to find, that are taking advantage of the SCOTUS ruling, and claiming a religious exemption from the BC mandate, either partially or entirely (i.e. a few methods or all BC). The following article (from an admittedly liberal source) lists those sources and some of the reasons given by company leaders for their decision.

A quote from the article:

The plaintiffs maintain that the federal government, by requiring contraceptive coverage under the ACA, is infringing on their religious views. Like Hobby Lobby, many of these companies had already covered birth control under their insurance plans, but they oppose the ACA's rules requiring health plans to cover contraceptives including the drug Plan B, which they argue causes abortions. The Thomas More Law Center, a law firm "dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians," has filed 11 cases on behalf of 33 plaintiffs against the ACA contraceptive mandate. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the center asserts in an amicus brief supporting Hobby Lobby, protects employers fighting the mandate "from being forced, under threat of ruinous government fines, to fund products and services that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs."

"Forced" is not quite accurate, though, as my colleague Stephanie Mencimer reported last week. An employer doesn't have to provide health insurance to its employees at all; in fact, it's probably cheaper for a company to instead pay the tax that would help subsidize its employees' coverage obtained through the exchanges or Medicaid

71 Companies - Mother Jones article

(emphasis is mine)

I find this quote very interesting. It is clear there is more to this than a violation of religious belief, as the companies were just fine with having it in their plans before. They are reacting to the Mandate - i.e. do this or you will be fined - aspect and using the BC methods they believe are akin to abortion for the justification of their protest. It makes this more complicated - if they were ok with providing it before, how could it suddenly be religiously abhorrent to them? Did they not know it was available to their employees before this? Or is it merely a reaction against what they feel is government overreach and the religious claim is how they are combating it? While some companies may have already walked-the-walk before this ruling, many were providing BC with no objection prior to the Mandate.
Something to think about... I find this, personally, suspect. Why was this not considered in the Hobby Lobby ruling??? How can something be ok with one's religion one day and not ok the next??? And how can that sudden change be justified?????

***ETA - I cannot find where a company that previously provided BC is now claiming ALL BC is against the owners religious beliefs.


The list of companies includes Eden Foods, an organic food company. This is a special case, as there is a backlash in the form of boycotts for companies making this choice. With an organic foods company, this could have a serious impact on their bottom line, due to the large percentage of folks who use their products being against the ruling - or will it?? Hard to say...we shall see what this does or does not do to their bottom line.

***ETA
In the case of Eden Foods, the "religious belief," according to one Judge, was more akin to anti-government sentiment:

6th Circuit's Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey later wrote in her opinion on the case, showed that Potter's "deeply held religious beliefs more resembled a laissez-faire, anti-government screed."

Interesting. (From Mother Jones article)


Eden Farms in the Wake of Hobby Lobby