If your religious beliefs say, "Do not take contraceptives," then you shouldn't take contraceptives. You do not get to make that choice for others.

But, but, but... then I don't get to exercise control over the bodies of women that I secretly covet and can't have!!!

/sarcasm

No employers are harmed by employees having access to birth control - quite the opposite, really. They should compare how much an unwanted, unexpected or dangerous pregnancy may cost the company in premiums vs. how much it costs to prevent it in the first place.

No one is forcing anyone to take birth control - simply make it available for those who chose to use it. Newsflash to Christians everywhere: MARRIED people like to enjoy physical affection with each other - doesn't mean they want to be popping out babies.

Then call it hormone adjustment therapy instead of contraception.

Thank you Misscreant. You're exactly right and it's exactly that simple.

So pregnancy is a disease ?

No the disease is called conservatism.

I am against my tax dollars funding wars, too, but we still become involved in sickening dumb wars!

The My-Way-Or-No-Way crowd needs to grow up!

The 3-year-old running around here acts older! He even knows not only how to say: "co-operation," but he knows what it means and how to do it!

Contraception treats many medical conditions and diseases such as endometriosis, PCOS, and ovarian cysts.

Contraception CAUSED a medical condition in one of my workers here at the office.

Then start calling it hormone adjustment therapy. Health insurance should cover that.

Feisty - off topic but David Gregory is being investigated because he held up a ammo clip on MTP when he interviewed LaPierre that could hold 30 rounds. Apparently that's a no-no in Washington and he can face a $10,000 fine and 1 year in jail.

Contraception CAUSED a medical condition in one of my workers here at the office.

I call BS, jimmy-boy...

Feisty - off topic but David Gregory is being investigated because he held up a ammo clip on MTP when he interviewed LaPierre that could hold 30 rounds.

Seeking,

I saw that, maybe this will be what NBC needs to give Gotcha Gregory the heave-ho...

He is a disgrace who has NO business hosting that once great show!

That's the problem ... it adjusted her hormones TOO DAMN MUCH and made her sick for several months. She finally got off of what she was using and it still took months to readjust.

Ohh, and CONJURING CAT ... you can call bs all you want if it makes you feel happy ... I think she said it was Meridien or something like that.

So she had a reaction, and it took time to get the proper dosing correct. It happens with many medications. We do not deny everyone a medication just because one person had a reaction.

wait...you mean to say that drugs can have side effects? WOW I bet that's news to all of us.

Feisty - wouldn't you think the network executives would have looked into that before the show???? Seems pretty silly to me that they didn't know the law!

Soooo.....because one person had an adverse reaction, everyone should be denied access to contraception? If that is your reasoning, there is not a substance...I won't even narrow it down to drugs, because hell, I'm violently allergic to bell pepper, so that should be banned too.....on today's market that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE has not had an adverse reaction to so let's get rid of everything.

It is my right to take BC if I chose. What is NOT my right is telling others what they should do with their own bodies.... its their body not mine.

Hey Jim455434

your friend was obviously taking the wrong dose of hormones. She needed to go back to the doctor and get the right kind and dose of med. There are more then one kind of pill and sometimes it takes several changes to get the one that is correct for your system. I had to do this way back in my "child bearin days" before I got it right. I hope she is better now.

tkc, I nearly die of laughter every time I see a drug commercial on the internet (I don't own TV's any more, hehe.) Why would anyone take any of those meds with all of the adverse effects they list in the closing warnings? Some of those side effects are more dangerous than the "illness" or disease they are supposedly "curing." Then you get physicians prescribing all kinds of "cocktails" with no understanding of the potential explosions that can occur in the body from the combinations.

@elaine, my ex had to do the same thing. Even on the lowest possible dosage back in the early 70's, she had problems. That is why I chose the "permanent" form of contraception...a vasectomy.

@retired. I know what you mean. I'm now allergic to mangos and don't tolerate very well bell peppers and several other foods. As we grow older, our bodies often have metabolism changes that affect what foods we can tolerate and what ones we can't, often even our most favorite foods.

No employers are harmed by employees having access to birth control

More to the point, people have religious beliefs. Companies do NOT.

Gregory now runs the slight risk of going to prison, wow he may go from from Meet the Press to Press the Meat, maybe that thought will wipe that goofy inappropiate grin from his face.

TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:

"Contraception CAUSED a medical condition in one of my workers here at the office."

And you want us to believe that one of "your workers" discussed her personal, private, medical issues openly with you in intimate detail, her "boss" and now YOU are discusssing her personal, private medical issues on the Internet.

I would have to wonder what kind of a "boss" would sit there and listen to one of his employees "Vigina Mysteries" and then you call the cause of what made her sick -- her birth control pills.

So, is she pregnant now?

You would have to pay me a million dollars before I'd even being to believe that sack of crap.

No contraceptive nor any other treatment, medication etc. is completely safe and 100% effective. If we saw millions with problems resulting from a form of contraception we should rightly be concerned but one person in one office, if true, is hardly something to be concerned about except for the person(s) directly affected by that particular incident. It is time we stopped being nosy and telling other people what they should and should not do. If we worried half as much about our own business as we do other people's business we would all be better off.

A business has a right to what type of insurance they provide. If you don't like their insurance go somewhere else to work. The government does not have the right to require people to pay for procedures that are in direct contradiction to their faith.

floridamom1 - a business does not have the right to deny coverage for employees because of faith. If they wish to be dictators in the name of faith, they should move the business to a country that doesn't have religious freedom, like Iran.

Liberals seem to be the only people screaming for more free stuff from the government. Maybe free contraceptives will reduce the population of liberals as no more unwanted pregnancies from irresponsible behavior. Looking at it that way, it makes total sense. Although liberals are still going to have to be responsible enough to go get their free contraceptives, which most likely means that everyone will be paying more for insurance for absolutely no reason.

Never made any difference yet..... with the amount on money spent trying to help people NOT be poor...... we could just make it their job to be poor........... on, wait..... that's welfare..........

The government does not have the right to require people to pay for procedures that are in direct contradiction to their faith.

The mandate says that companies like Hobby Lobby must provide coverage for oral contraceptives.

It does not mandate use. The individual is still free to not use oral contraceptives in accordance with their faith if that is their choice.

To retired RN @2.17, Wow ! You sure can twist reality... you must be a liberal ! No one said anything about being denied access. If you want birth control and are willing to accept the risks... then you should be willing to accept the cost as well ! YOUR personal decision(s) should not become a Federal financial obligation !

To "appropriate dumb blonde avatar" at #2.22, Who really gives a crap what you believe ! This young lady is simply one of those people who talks OPENLY about certain things that others would keep to themselves. That is simply her nature. Furthermore, you don't know her name or her location so I fail to see your logic in your ridiculous diatribe about revealing personal information on the Internet. But then again, self-proclaimed "progressives" always shriek a faux indignation over things they don't understand.

Her and her husband are happily anticipating birth of their second child, a boy, around the end of February.

The article isn't talking about ALL birth control, just the ones that cause abortions.

crisp -

So, what does that mean? I mean, suppose the IUD prevents implantation through spasms in the uterus (it doesn't, but that's one of the popular lies out there). Does that count as an abortion? What if the pill prevented implantation after conception (it doesn't, but once again, one of the more popular lies out there). Does the pill get banned as an abortion inducer?

When the right stops lying, it might be worth it to take a look at different birth control methods and tweak them, replace them, etc. But, as the mission of the right seems to be to get everyone off birth control, because somehow overpopulation is a win for them, well, I say @!$%# right off with this bull@!$%# distinction. They aren't going to listen, anyway. You explain how the pill prevents ovulation, they get this dumb look on their faces. You tell them an IUD prevents sperm from connecting with ovum, they call you a liar. You tell them that condoms encapsulate sperm away from the vagina entirely? They start quoting made-up statistics about "failure rates" that were initially published in 1960, when people didn't even have the chance to learn how to use a condom correctly in any kind of standard way and the materials used were less durable and capable. And then they try to take away the classes that teach proper condom use as "slutt-factories."

The article is not talking about only abortion-inducing drugs. There are people out there who have a religious objection to ANY contraceptive, regardless of how it works, and they spread lies about how it works in order to convert others. That's why I ignore what they say. When they say it in law, then it's time to talk with something other than words anyway.

Paul: why are you so afraid of the word "contraceptive"?

Jim: my mother had an adverse reaction to Amoxicillin (penicillin); should that be banned too?

Other posters have made comments similar to what FloridaMom writes:

The government does not have the right to require people to pay for procedures that are in direct contradiction to their faith.

That's admittedly complicated. So if a Seventh Day Adventist or Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist (please forgive me if I'm wrong here) objects on religious grounds to blood transfusions or any other interventionary medical care, does that person have the right or moral duty to not pay whatever proportion of taxes go into such provisions, whether via MedicAid or MediCare or Affordable Care Act, etc.? When a person opposes war, or capital punishment, or any use of lethal force (even by police officers), or the killing of any living being, does that person have the right or moral duty to not pay whatever proportion of her/his taxes go into these 4 areas?

Apparently we accept that, for the sake of holding our social order together, government DOES have some right to require certain things that conflict with persons' religious/moral convictions.

Why should an orthodox Jew or orthodox Muslim be required to pay into supporting USDA inspections of pork processors, when such processing promotes the likelihood that other Jews or Muslims would be eating pork? And for Hindus, this could extend to USDA inspections of all meat processing. Why should someone who holds the conviction that the Lord's Day should not include commerce or work be required to pay into supporting governmental activity designed to ensure fair commerce & work conditions, when such efforts could promote the likelihood that other co-convicted individuals would thusly violate the Lord's Day?

IF IT WERE FEASIBLE for the nation to allow individual exemptions to whatever proportion of taxes supported issues that conflict with the individual's religious/moral convictions, consider the following: How does the government verify that the individual truly holds such convictions, and is not simply trying to avoid paying some tax that supposedly supports the public welfare?? And even if a person is being honest about having a religious/moral conviction that conflicts with some democratically processed issue that is claimed to promote the public good, what about the consideration that the same objecting individual might not hold herself/himself to other religious convictions of her/his religion, such as not working on the Lord's Day(s) (whichever day or days that might be) or maintaining certain dietary or sexual practices, etc.?

Yet we live in a nation of some 300 million humans. So somehow we must be able to find ways to accommodate others' convictions, lest our society be torn asunder. For those who insist on no accommodation of others, perhaps the only route is becoming citizens of a different nation or seceding and forming a new separate nation.

Yes, there are issues of degree of importance -- that here, for some persons, the discussion is considered to be an issue of life-&-death of human beings. SUPPOSING that the current provisions of the "Affordable Care Act" remain intact, what OTHER avenues might religiously/morally convicted business owners pursue? Here are some (surely others can be brainstormed) outside-the-box-thinking alternatives, not necessarily legal under current law:

(1) Provide with each paycheck a flyer discussing the owner's convictions, striving to communicate to all workers the importance of respect for human life as judged by the owner;

(2a) [Since there would be no guarantee that employees would pay any attention to such payday morality flyers,...] Require employees, as a condition of employment, to attend & --with good faith & civility-- participate in, some workforce workshop every payday discussing the issues of reproductive morality that the owner deems relevant;

(2b) Similar to (2a), participate --with good faith & civility-- in some similar online workshop every payday;

(3) Perhaps, as an "opt-out" alternative to the above, present evidence every payday that the employee has devoted some requisite time to other morally redemptive activity.

Perhaps, such activities as the above would be additionally justified as requirements of continued employment by the rationale that they are efforts to build unity & mutual understanding among the "family" of co-workers.

Janstince,

STRONG POST!

Still, IMO for the sake of civility & promotion of dialogue, I suggest replacing (or at least augmenting) "liar", "lies", etc., with words of the nature as "misunderstand" or "exaggerate" or "their claims occur only rarely (statistically), if at all", etc. Surely not all "pro-lifers" (indeed, I highly doubt that the majority of "pro-lifers") are trying to lie/mislead. IMO there are lots of persons on all sides of the discussions that fervently want to know the technical facts & statistics, so as to better inform their discernments of heart+mind.

TO: floridamom1 who wrote:

"A business has a right to what type of insurance they provide. If you don't like their insurance go somewhere else to work. The government does not have the right to require people to pay for procedures that are in direct contradiction to their faith."

So, if an office doesn't believe in taking any kind of medication at all and they only believe in "herbal" medicine, that means nobody can have any medicine other than the "herbal" kind, no matter how sick they get?

Math+etc. -

There are some rational people out there. But most of the people who hold these views are not rational - i.e., not willing to change their minds when new evidence is presented. They hold to these views and these views alone, and nobody is going to change their minds. They purposefully twist evidence, lie, and distort without any moral quandary whatsoever. I call them preachers, priests, pastors, deacons, imams, rabbis, Jehovah's Witnesses, and pretty much everyone else who holds religious authority over others.

The 'liberal' ones? Meh. The thing about them is that they still enable the others by pretending that the issue is still one of 'moral ascendancy' or whatever other bull@!$%# term they choose to spout out at the time. They still think that their deity should have some say in our laws, whether it should be "feed the hungry," "care for the sick," or "homosexuals can't get married." I say @!$%# their deity, and @!$%# them while I'm at it. These aren't issues considered in some moral vacuum where some special power can come down from the clouds and speak directly to them and only them, and we have to take their word for it. But that's how they always try to frame it, in my experience. Hence, @!$%# 'em.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." - Somebody or other.

Misscreant

If your religious beliefs say, "Do not take contraceptives," then you shouldn't take contraceptives. You do not get to make that choice for others.

Huh???? Who's doing that exactly??? Who EXACTLY is telling other people they CAN'T take contraceptives??? This is ONLY about who is going to pay for the contraceptives NOT who can take them. But I guess you don't have a legitimate argument for the actual issue so instead you just make up some BS that sounds good.

Math+Sci+JusticeFuelProsperity

Yet we live in a nation of some 300 million humans. So somehow we must be able to find ways to accommodate others' convictions, lest our society be torn asunder

Well now there is an easy fix for that. Have the Federal government go back to doing only the things it is supposed to be doing, provide infrastructure and defense. If we stuck to just those things we'd easily be able to provide a safety net for those truly in need and there would be no worries about accommodating everyone's personal beliefs because the government wouldn't be doing anything to cause a conflict.

Janstince

But, as the mission of the right seems to be to get everyone off birth control,

That's an interesting theory. If that is the case however perhaps you could explain why they pushed for and passed Title X which provides free or reduced cost BC to women below or near the poverty level?

Are any of you libs going to comment on the ACTUAL issue, which is who is PAYING for the BC not who's taking it? When you have to turn it into something it isn't it pretty much destroys the credibility of your position.

• Conservatives should be fans of effective birth control.

To the numbskull who commented that women want the birth control to be free because they are too lazy to pay for their own, how much more does it cost the state to have more unwanted pregnancies, which lead to hospital delivery (paid for by the government) and an unwanted baby (who will be fed, housed and clothed at government expense), will need 18 years of education (at the taxpayer's expense) and then may well never get a job, pay taxes and will probably have even more unfunded dependents.

Latest estimates put the cost of raising a child to 18 to be about a quarter of a million dollars. Each.

Would you rather pay a hundred dollars to keep that welfare mother from having more welfare babies? Think about the past thirty years. Birth control has reduced unwanted children, and the resulting scourges of crime and poverty. We are a richer country because we do not spend more than we can afford on babies no one wants, no one adopts, no one raises.

Backcountry..

The employee's health care premiums and the copays for the paid prescription plan is who is paying for the contraceptives. Nobody is getting anything for free, and this has NOTHING to do with taxpayer monies. This is purely the employee/employer premium based health care coverage thru health plans thru employment.

all of this discussion is moot.

There is a law which requires You to purchase your own health insurance so your employer is relieved of that responsibility now.

Backcountry -

The Right passed Title X? Sure. Whatever. Tell that to the thousands of women who can't get BC because the Right has also passed "conscience laws" in states that allow pharmacists to refuse to sell BC to women.

Also, funny how you had to go all the way back to Nixon to find something the Right has done for women. Just like you have to go back to Nixon to find something the Right has done for good international relations, or the environment. Also, Nixon, like Reagan, would be thrown out of today's Republican Party because they were way too liberal. What with all that caring about the environment, raising taxes, not killing enough brown people (at least for Nixon; he was killing those yellow people, though).

No, I don't believe that the Right had much to do with Title X, either. The Left under Nixon probably had more to do with it than he did, but he was known as a compromiser. A bitter, ruthless 'ruler', but still a real politician, not some hack with what he thinks of as a divine mandate to end the "baby murder."

Janstince

No, I don't believe that the Right had much to do with Title X, either.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that you don't bother with facts when deciding what you do or don't believe. After all a 10 second internet search would have verified what I said but instead you'll just stick with your preconceived bias. I'm not surprised, willful ignorance is pretty much all you've got to back your position.

But most of the people who hold these views are not rational - i.e., not willing to change their minds when new evidence is presented.

LOL! Oh the irony! Did you just call yourself irrational?? You do have a mirror in your house right! lol

Backcountry -

Okay, the information I found said that Title X was a bipartisan agreement. So, no, you don't get to claim credit for it on the Right. You have other information related to the specifics of the law, let's see it. Until then, I stand by my claim.

Not only that, but you refuse to address my other concerns, e.g. "conscience laws," the defacto outlawing of abortions (including adding the right to kill abortion doctors for members of a woman's family, yes, look at South Dakota), and others. Not to mention all the politicians claiming stupidity like "forcible rape vs. non-consensual sex," BC lies and propaganda, Plan B limitations that doctors disapprove of, Abstinence-only sex ed classes, etc. No, I don't give the Right credit for anything pertaining to sexual liberty. Hell, if the Right had its way, Lawrence would have been decided for state laws banning sodomy, still.

Janstince

Okay, the information I found said that Title X was a bipartisan agreement.

LOL! Of course it was a bipartisan agreement, did you think dems would vote against such a thing?

"Title X was approved in 1970, championed on the Hill by former President and then-Congressman George H.W. Bush and signed into law by Richard Nixon.

“We need to make population and family planning household words.” Bush said in 1969 when the legislation was being debated. "We need to take sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather are using it as a political steppingstone. If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter.""-http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0411/Primer_on_Title_X_the_fund_behind_the_Planned_Parenthood_rider_.htm

Not only that, but you refuse to address my other concerns

Ummm, I never claimed everyone on the right has the ability to think rationally but to lump them all into one group and then pretend that the extreme wackjobs represent every republican is rhetoric at it's finest and utterly discredits any valid point you may have. Now, to get back to my point-

But, as the mission of the right seems to be to get everyone off birth control,

This statement is utter bull @!$%# and if you actually believe it you need not bother defending it because all I will see is - "bahhhh bahhhhhh"

Liberals seem to be the only people screaming for more free stuff from the government.

Except for the oil businesses (Don't end our tax breaks even though our quarterly profits are twenty billion dollars!), religion (Don't tax us at all!) and the GOP (Taxes on people in the top 2% of income are ebil!).

Sure, it's only liberals who want "free stuff".

Backcountry -

Fine, if you want to live in the Nixon years and pretend that everything that's going on now doesn't exist, fine by me. Just remember that Southern Strategy always works.

All this after all the years (30? 40?) that their insurance companies have been covering it with no problems! And after all the years that some insurance companies have covered Viagra, but not contraceptives.

If they can get away with this, women need to begin passing laws about men's health and begin with Viagra! The 1st disqualifier for taking it should be if the male has ever abandoned or cheated on his family, his wife and children.

I am not exactly certain what that has to do with anything. Do insurance companies offer contraceptive coverage to some of their policy holders? Of course they do. Do insurance companies offer contraceptive coverage to all their policy holders? No they do not at least not prior to this bill going into place. What was or was not covered depended on what type of policy you wished to pay for. Most Churches and many "Christian" business owners chose policies that excluded contraceptive coverage. The fact that they had polices for decades that offered such coverage is not germane to the question at hand.

What about Christian Scientists, if they had their way no medicine would be included. Religion is a private and personal matter not a matter of business or politics.

Forrest Grump, good point! So should a business owned by Christian Scientists sue so they should not have to provide any health insurance because it is contrary to their beliefs?

It is no employer's business whether an employee even uses birth control. I am sick of the religious right saying "less government" while at the same time trying to pass federal laws to enforce evangelical Christian beliefs.

Even the church organizations should not be permitted to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives. There are many medical reasons for prescribing contraceptives (endometriosis comes to mind). Show me the clause in the Constitution that allows a church to oppress anyone - including members of their own congregations.

Great point, Forrest Grump.

Another baffling (okay, not really!) point....Everybody knows that so called 'Obamacare' is a carbon copy of 'Romneycare' passed in Massachusetts while he was governor there. No business in that state ever once complained about being forced to cover birth control (they complained about being forced to insure everybody and how it would bankrupt them. Of course, that never happened...it worked out great there.) The point is, for those who 'fail' to notice, is that there was no such outrage and lawsuits about birth control when the name 'Romney' was attached to the legislation, but hell to pay when the name 'Obama' is connected to it. Gee, whatever could the difference be???

That's a great observation, steel toed boot. They criticize Obama's health care overhaul but don't criticize an identical law when Romney's name is on it. It proves that the right-wing nutjobs have loyalties to uberconservatism instead of their country.

George Washington warned us about people like that in his Farewell Address.

ObamaCare is an exact copy of RomneyCare, now that was a good laugh. Many differences in the fine print, which by the way has yet to be completed on ObamaCare. But let us compare, most states have a balanced budget requirement, and yet most liberals claim that will never work for the federal government. In fact, every time a balance budget amendment gets voted on in Congress, it is the Democrats that defeat the bill. So if the argument from the liberals is that ObamaCare is a copy of RomneyCare so it is justified, why are liberals always so opposed to applying that same logic to a balanced budget amendment in Washington?

Rick,

All but one state have constitutions that require their budgets to be balanced. That is why claims by those 49 governors to have balanced their budgets for "X" number of years is so phony … by law they must.

It is improper to compare state or personal budgets to a Federal budget because only the Federal Government controls a sovereign nation. States can go bankrupt but a sovereign nation cannot.

The problem to having a federal balanced budget is how to pay for unexpected expenses. What happens if we get into a war that will require $100 Billion to fund? That $100 Billion must either be covered by cutting other programs or increasing taxes.

Ah, but the churches have invariably created corporations to dispense health care, both for their own employees and for hospitals they own; they almost have to, considering the liability entailed in that business (and it is a business, regardless of whether they are not-for-profit).

I say they can't have it both ways, unless of course they are asking the SCOTUS to declare that companies have souls. Either you're a religion or a legally organized entity for the purpose of the delivery of health care. So, is you is, or is you ain't?

Well, if you believe that Hobby Lobby should have to pay for an employee's contraception, then you should also believe in making them stay open on Sunday because everyone should have a chance to shop at their store every day of the week, right? We wouldn't want to exclude anybody now would we? Your arguments are illogical and bogus.

floridamom1: Sorry, your argument poses the 'straw man' logical fallacy.

A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.

Healthcare and store hours are not comparable.

How do you rationalize an alleged 'right' (as you name it) of a for-profit corporation to discriminate against its female employees on religious grounds? Do you think a for-profit corporation possesses a spiritual mind?

If a company professes a Christian faith, should it then be liable to civil suit when it fails to follow the teachings of Christ?

How do you explain the 'right' of a corporation to pick and choose medications for any of its employees?

And where would such a right end? Could a 'faith-based corporation' decide doctors must not provide heart medications, for example, because by extending life they interfere with 'God's plan'?

Could a 7th Day Adventist for-profit company deny blood transfusions for its employees?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that a company is capable of possessing religious values and let's assume further that it's legal for them to discriminate against gender-based medications.

Shouldn't a 'Christian' company then also ban Viagra on grounds that it leads to immoral fornication and adultery?

You believe a corporation has a 'right' to dictate to doctors which medications they can and cannot use.

Can you explain how faith justifies such a position?

FloridaMom, when you criticize others' posts as being illogical (which I sometimes agree on), I'd wish that you would hold your own posts to the same standard, and simultaneously purge them of name-calling & derision. Perhaps it would serve your goals better to fill in weakly-reasoned posts with potential clarifications/modifications, and thereafter take honest efforts to critique the patched-up proposals. If a majority of us keep thinking, keep listening, keep discussing, then there is hope for the lot of us.

And the darkness falls over your family.............

The day will come when you cry out for God's help.......

Hope He doesn't turn his back on you..........

Since when does God ever stop loving someone? turn a back on someone?

Steve,

What you believe in your little mind does not translate to others. Keep your paranoid fear to yourself.

@steve:

The same God who lets girls gets raped and demands they then raise the child? That God?

If that's what God is then it is we who should turn our backs.

I like what Jesus taught: All have sinned and all are forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus. That the ancient Old Testament laws of Kosher rules of the community are obsoleted by the New Covenant.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

S Williams as I noted before I never believed they would prevail but don't get ahead of yourself. What the Court said was that it needed to proceed through the lower courts first. They may still have a chance at getting it overturned.

These companies entered into the public domain. They do business with many companies and suppliers who may not have their same religious beliefs. They hire individuals who may not agree with their religious beliefs. They conform to the regulations for doing business in the various states that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. Same is true for federal time and pay regulations.

They did this voluntarily to make money from the citizens of this country.

What if they decide that their religious beliefs should cause them not to expect to have to meet hour or age or wage requirements?

No one is dictating to them that THEY, as individuals, must take contraceptives against their religious beliefs. Only to do the same thing that many states ALREADY require!

Sounds like the religious college that protested the same thing, only to find out that they ALREADY HAD that in their health policy!

I graduated from a college owned and operated by the Catholic Church. Not once did they challenge my beliefs. We had to write a religious autobiography which was inteded to make us think about ourselves and our belief system. Those who were not Catholic weren't hassled, harrasssed nor was anything said one way or the other. We had an athiest in our class and she actually had the easiest essay of all to write as she had already made her decision and knew why. Some were members of a church because that was what their family had been for generations. Why were their ancestors members of that church? Any number of reasons. They decided and now their successors may also be willing to make decisions. In this land of freedom of or from religion we must realize that religion is a personal thing and respect that.

I respect other's beliefs and expect the same in return. Not once have I ever been asked my religion when offered help, a job or anything else as it is nobody's business.

Sadly, the van Winkles are intellectually slow and paranoid.

........oh, and obviously morally and ethically compromised, too.

Yes, just wait while they knock themselves out.

If you actually read the article, it states the objection is not with birth control in general, but just the drugs that they believe cause abortions.

...sounds to me like "their beliefs" & not the FACTS are ruling their lives .

Hey, Chris--does that apply to Viagra too? Or is it only women's "lifestyles" you don't want to "pay for"?

And we're not at all paying for these things--the insurance companies are merely covering them without co-pay. But hey, don't let me stop you from posting your Rush Limbaugh talking-point BS...

Conjuring Cat

And we're not at all paying for these things--the insurance companies are merely covering them without co-pay.

And where does the insurance company get the money from? Premium payers; as in "we" Kemosabe.

M.J.-CT, so you don't think women pay any premiums?

Chris, my tax dollars AND health insurance premiums pay for other people's "lifestyles" all the time. But I don't get to tell them what to do with their own bodies or what religious beliefs they have to adhere to.

I would rather see everyone have access to birth control, whether they use it or not. That is a private matter, and no company has any business trying to take that option away.

Conjuring Cat: Viagra is sacred, it must be paid for.

Contraceptives kept my uncle's prostate cancer under control for years. By your logic he should have been denied too?

So if you get cancer from smoking I shouldn't contribute my insurance premiums to help you fight the cancer? If you need treatment for drug addiction or alcohol should my insurance premium go to pay for that or should you pay for it yourself? If you get the flu and, because I got a flu shot and don't get the flu, should my insurance premium pay for your treatment, doctor visit etc. ? If you need assistance in losing weight or to keep you from having a heart attack due to high colestoral should you have to pay for it alone as I don't want to pay for your treatment even though I many not need to take the same meds or have similar problems?

Hey conjuring cat, I think the government should tell you where you can eat, what you can eat, what you can wear, where you can buy it, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of house you can live in, what kind of children you can have, and if you don't have the kind they like, then they should have the right to make you abort that child so you can try again. Sounds like all the crazies here who think the government has the right to tell you how to live your life. If you can get an abortion whenever you want, Hobby Lobby can offer what kind of insurance they want. No difference whatsoever.

FloridaMom,

Problem with your argument is, if that insurance company and benefits covers prescriptions and has prescription coverage...then it has to cover ALL prescriptions for ALL employees using that specific plan...the business can't decide what prescriptions are covered, the insurance company does. Contraceptives are prescriptions prescribed by physicians...just like antibiotics, heart meds, diabitic meds, blood pressure meds. Get it, all prescriptions are covered. Your analogy would be that Hobby Lobby have the insurance company not have any prescription coverage which would be their right..I think you would find it hard to have an insurance company write that kind of benefit package that excludes all prescription coverage for all medications.

Face it, contraceptives are medications.....and medications are not free., and can't be given over the counter like allergy meds. Contraceptives are prescribed by physicians and come in a variety of strengths and dosages.

Hey floridamom

I think the government should tell you where you can eat,

They do, health inspections are mandatory

what you can eat,

They do, pesticides are restricted

what you can wear,

They do, things that catch on fire really easily are not sold legally

where you can buy it,

They do, Businesses are licensed

what kind of car you can drive,

Tey do, tey even make you wear a seatbelt and muss your crinoline!

what kind of house you can live in,

Thats called "building codes" and if you live in a high hazard area, you have to spend more!

what kind of children you can have,

And even the minimum eduvcation they should have too.

The problem is, you see all those things as evil. Righthinking people call it "civilization". Like recognizing that contraception is health care.

THE ENTIRE country is PAYING for the Neanderthal foot-dragging, afraid of the future Conservatives....

I whole heartedly agree with you on that one

Derek, are you forgetting that the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are 'people"? But you are right in the fact that the First Amendment DOES include freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion. And this is from someone who almost went into the ministry before I wised up to all of the fallacies of all brands of religion. I'm more like most of our founding fathers...closer to being a Deist.

You obviously haven't checked your constitution lately and have probably been fed the liberal left's view of history as well. You might want to read the document.

Oh stuff it, floridamom1. The Constitution was written by liberals.

Get over it - I'm worried about a dangerous increase in your blood pressure. I hope you have good health insurance.

Jim-3113262...(#14.3)...."The Constitution was written by liberals."

Yeah, those liberals you speak of were representatives of the original 13 Sovereign States, hell bent on Limiting the Power of the Federal Government they were creating....That the Ultimate Power in the Constitution was reserved to the States and the People of those States....

P.0bama has himself has complained The Constitution is a Charter of Negative Liberties on the Federal Government....I'll wager he likes the new Sharia Law based Constitution being enacted in Egypt, much more than our own.....Justice Ginsberg most prefers South Africa's Constitution

Cut the taxes paid to DC.....Keep the money in the States where it can be better watched over by the people, and makes elected officials more accountable, instead of sending it to DC where they take 25% right off the top to pay for the ineffective insatiable growing bureaucracies....the only kind of jobs P.0bama knows how to create.... Then force the States to claw back their money by wheeling and dealing, you fund my pork, I fund your pork....Money corrupts, Power corrupts ....Absolute Power over Money corrupts Absolutely.

Interesting Avatar....kinda resembles a neon neo-swastika

Mike,

Funny how the states all clamor for federal money when a disaster befalls their state. The Constitution was also written and states the different branches of the "federal" government along with "state" governments. Again, I find it humorous when someone wants all government to the states and then complain when the states don't have the funds to govern, and disasters occur, and most governors start asking for states of emergencies to be declared so federal dollars will come to their aid.

JackieK, independent....That's because the Federal Government has most of the money.....If the States had that money, they wouldn't have to beg Uncle Sugar.....

And I never said All Government at the State level....The Constitution clearly defines the role for DC, you should read it and the associated writings of The Founders....It has been twisted and turned by power hungry politicians for a long, long time.

I've always thought that any bill brought up in Congress should have the Section of the Constitution they believe gives them the Authority to pass such a law....

Mike,

Why do you think the federal government has most of the money....it's called taxes for the most part. If you want the states to get more, than the states would have to raise revenues for those individual states, meaning raising taxes for the individuals and businesses that reside in those states. Not sure where your argument is going.....you still have a representative government in the states just like in the federal government. Government by the people, for the people. State governments are modeled after the federal government. Are you arguing for making each state a responsible government independent of the federal government, whereby the states have differing laws from one another? Just wondering where you are going with your post.

I believe that the constitution does give congress the right and ability to legislate laws. Its called the legislative branch of the government; part of the 3 branches of government. Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of government.

JackieK, independent..."Why do you think the federal government has most of the money....it's called taxes for the most part."

What I am saying is we pay too much taxes to a Spending Out of Control Federal Government....The Federal Government was never meant to be the Everything for Everybody....Should Federal Law ALWAYS trump State Law....What then should they do to the States that just legalized Marijuana....Is it only "States Rights" when you agree and NOT a "States Rights" when you disagree ??? How about the Immigration SB1070 passed in Arizona or the Voter ID Laws. ( those in States not under the control of the last vestiges (Pre-Clearance) of Civil Rights Act have been let to stand, only where the Feds still have jurisdiction have they been challenged).....The 10th.Amendment has specific meaning....Where do you stand on the increasing amount of power the Federal Government is giving itself ???

Mike,

In answer to your first question...I think you would find that states would have out of control spending just like the federal government for all the states programs for the states individuals, just like with the federal government. State governments have programs for it's citizens...state's have been cutting and are broke, just like the federal government. I think that is what all the fuss is about in Washington, deficits and debt....the states would be in the same boat if they get control of spending and governing.

I believe that the federal governments laws supersede state laws and regarding immigration, if the federal laws were upheld and states followed through on not hiring illegal immigrants without proper ID and individuals weren't hiring cheap day labor and paying under the table things would improve. Our representatives need to start working together and for the betterment of the country, and not worry about what party politics is doing. I don't see how the government is getting increasing powers for it's self, any specifics that you are concerned about.

JackieK, independent...Where ??...The takeover of 1/6 of the economy with ObamaCare, the takeover of Student Loans ( also hidden in ObamaCare)...It's over $$ 1 TRILLION in Student Loan Debt...can Student Loan Forgiveness be a 2016 Campaign Carrot on a Stick ???.....That's lots of votes....

2 years of Payroll Tax Holiday....Social Security had a deficit of $48 Billion in 2012....first time in history paid out more than it took in....sure, folks got a few bucks extra in their paychecks, but were still given credit to their S.S. accounts as if they paid the full amount....Where does that money come from in the future ??....Seniors are gonna get the shaft....Medicare premiums (2013) went up to $104.00/month out of their checks.....and they're gonna switch to "Chained" CPI from CPI-W for COLA's....That means less to the seniors.

8,900,000 on Social Security Disability now....The Government added ridiculous things to the list of "disabilities" and people signed up in droves after their 99 weeks of unemployment expired....More dependency on Uncle Sugar....I could go on.....

The more money the Federal Reserve has The Treasury print.... each dollar in your pocket is worth less....how long till they become worthless ??....Wiemar Republic anyone ??....When the U.S. Dollar is no longer used to set the prices of oil and commodities worldwide....It's over....The IMF is considering issuing a new currency ....A World Dollar, so to speak....

Kinda done here.....

Mike in Delray -

Yeah, those liberals you speak of were representatives of the original 13 Sovereign States, hell bent on Limiting the Power of the Federal Government they were creating....That the Ultimate Power in the Constitution was reserved to the States and the People of those States....

Interesting Avatar....kinda resembles a neon neo-swastika

You're mistaken on that, Mike. That approach was tried and it failed - the Articles of Confederation gave more power to the states and hardly any to the federal government. It didn't work. It was too impractical to have each state issue its own currency, etc. The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments replaced the tenth amendment. States may pass laws, but those laws MUST conform to the federal Constitution.

Thanks for the compliment on my avatar (but not the snide comparison to Nazis) . It is the first letter of my name in an ancient alphabet.

Jim-3113262..." The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments replaced the tenth amendment."

What part of the 14th and / or 15th Amendments does anything about "replacing" the 10th. Amendment ??? ....I honestly don't see any connection.....

It still exists and will until it is Repealed, and good luck with that ......

I will however agree with you that The Articles of Confederation (1781) was too loose of a confederation between the States....It was recognized early on and the result was The Constitution ( 1788)...But was still in effect till all 13 States had ratified The Constitution (1790)....

A common currency, a single unified foreign policy and trade between nations and keeping "regular", trade between the States ( they couldn't impose tariffs or taxes on each other)....The Constitution most certainly did limit the powers of the Federal Government to those enumerated... The majority of the power was still to the States and the people.

My apology for the avatar snipe....And you shouldn't have.... "Oh stuff it, floridamom1."....

EVERY Conservative who cashes their Social Security check

is a RINO

because they are supporting a liberal-communist agenda

same for every conservative who depends on municipal garbage collection, Police, Fire protection

AND public schools.

The US Military is established on communism...everybody gets the same & everybody bows down to the "Czar" 5 Star .

How can you narrow minded people live with the rest of us happy Americans ?

Mike in Delray -

Check out the intent of the Equal Protection Clause.

No state (or its citizens) can pass any ole law whatsoever - any state law (even the results of a public referendum) MUST pass muster in the FEDERAL Constitution. I can understand your misinterpretation, as it is a common one. But that is the reason some folks can't understand some Supreme Court decisions, or worse yet, call them "activist judges" when in fact they are just doing their jobs and fulfilling their Constitutional roles.

A state is prohibited from passing or enforcing any law that is disallowed by the federal Constitution.

And floridamom1 deserved her retort 100%.

Ever since Mitt RawMoney said they were people, my friend! But seriously, folks...

@Alice -

WorldVision will only hire employees who are Christian. You may be one heck of a fund raiser but a non-believer, so you won't get a job there.

If it is truly personal as you say, and I agree, then why is it not "personally" paid for ? Why is it a government financial obligation ... other than being put in Obamacare ??

jim, it's NOT a "government financial obligation". It is a law that IF you have XX number of full time employees you are required to either offer health insurance to your full time employees or pay a fine of ZZ times XX number of employees you have. If you offer health insurance, that health insurance (paid for by the premiums paid by the company and the EMPLOYEE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT) must offer hormonal "contraception" with no co-pay from the employee. The employee is "personally" paying for it through their premiums. The government is not paying 1/10,000 of a penny towards it.

Please explain how something that is NOT paid for by ANY government money is a "government financial obligation".

Please explain how a FOR-PROFIT COMPANY has a religious belief. The OWNERS may have a religious belief or two, but since the FOR-PROFIT COMPANY that is NOT owned by a religion does not actually attend church, temple, grove or whatever it can not HAVE a "religious belief".

I will never set foot in a Hobby Lobby and will urge everyone I know to never darken their doorstep. If they have no customers, they will have no money and the business owner will no longer have to worry about providing his employees with health insurance because he will no longer have employees. Hopefully he would also no longer have a house, cars or anything else since his business decisions would thus be depriving his former employees of an income.

Hi Jim, ...because matters relating to pregnancy fall under the heading "health care". If people want to buy insurance to mitigate foreseeable personal health care related expense, why should they be denied the availability of coverage?

Well stated Cat....what part of For-Profit and health insurance premiums don't people get. If you are for profits...generating public business...then you are not allowed your personal beliefs to dictate how your employees medical decisions on their personal lives or how they believe. It's called business laws and labor laws....just like paying overtime and difference between part-time and full-time. Religion doesn't dictate those terms...labor laws and business laws dictate those terms.

Jim - You must be a great guy to work for. You don't want to provide health care benefits to your employees (particularly women) and you then come on here and discuss the personal issues of one of your female employees. When you grow a vagina, we may consider your opinion on birth control pills to be valid. I originally was prescribed "The Pill" for a medical issue unrelated to avoiding becoming pregnant. Who pays for your Viagra and medical care for those painful 4-hour erections?

KimH, You are so full of $hit, that I don't know where to begin.

First of all, genius, I am NOT an employer, I am an employee. We have health insurance for employees with the cost about 50/50. You don't know my employee's name (works in my dept and I am her boss) or her location ... so she is ANONYMOUS to all on the Internet. I have no intention of growing a vagina, and whether you shrieking liberals like it or not, I am allowed an opinion ... particularly when it affects the COST of health insurance premiums .... something liberals fail to understand !

I don't use Viagra or any such product so your last question is asinine .... as is your entire post. I suggest you grow up and realize the real issue is FEDERAL MANDATES FOR PERSONAL ISSUE of birth control at taxpayer expense.

Jim,

Can you explain to me how a company with a 50/50 employee/employer split paid premium has anything to do with taxpayers. This is about a company with paid premiums from employer/employees and the paid prescription medication portion of said health insurance policy. Where do taxpayers come into play?

So Jim; the cost of covering these contraceptives will raise your premiums substantially???? Just one little prescription! Wow!

How much will unwanted pregnancies by employees cost? You know, all those babies that are born and now have to be covered until the age of 18 or until they are out of college?

Do you even read your own posts?

Dildogirl, Where did I say substantially ? Typical lib... cannot accept reality, spins and twists instead.

Don't want pregnancy ? Do something about it yourself and quit expecting the government to pay for it.

Jim is melting down...ease up on him or we won't have him around to humor us anymore !

There is a company in watertown wisconsin called Johnsonville.

One day a hispanic man was pushing meat into a meat grinder and he lost both of his hands.

This hispanic man could not speak english and did not have a work visa.

The supervisor, Jeffery theder and his assistant Randy took the hispanic man to the "hospital" or so they said.

Several weeks later a body of a hispanic man washed up on the shore and some fisher persons found him. These fisherpersons were 12 and 13 years of age.

This body of a hispanic man had no hands.

So much for corporate health insurance.

Jim - Looks I really hit a nerve with you, little man. Exactly which part of my post pissed you off the most?

The fact that you aren't an employer...The fact that no one really cares how you feel about contraception... The fact that you don't have a vagina... Or the fact that you can't admit that you have ED.

Sorry it took me a couple of days to respond. I know you think that all liberals are on the dole but I work. Another myth destroyed.

Retired RN - LOL!!!! Good one!

@Retired RN -

and the fact that most of their merchandise is from China, irritates me!

China, the country that limited married couples to having only one (1) child.

China, a country in which working conditions of factory workers and wages of factory workers and environmental standards of factory owners are all three morally objectionable.

You are talking about Toyota correct? cheap tawdry merchandise. or is it Honda?

What about Wall-Mart? They offer the best healthcare for their employees...NOT. and they sell Lead toys and cheap chinese Junk.

they should provide contraception because the supervisors have sex with young female employees during working hours. Oral contraception is useless for Oral sex. so think about that when your daughter goes to work 3rd shift at Wall-Mart.

Thank goodness you still have the right to decide where you go to shop.

Not if the teaparty gets their way.

Oh yes! "Hooray for Obamacare" You have no clue what's coming do you? No you don't. Remember this, nothing is free. Remember those words.

XY -

and you do?

XYZYX Don't you get tired of being wrong?

You know the Conservatives said the same thing about every social program that has been good for the populace. I get the feeling they just don't like people, except their own! But I haven't heard of one of them giving up their Medicare or sending their Social Security checks back. And since the Red states are the biggest users of government aid ................Hummmmmmmmmmmm!

@ XYZYX, agreed that nothing is for free. Some strategies are more economically wise, such as an OUNCE of prevention is worth a POUND of cure. Another economically wise policy (not to analyze its ethics/morals balance sheet) is that of decreasing spread of various diseases in a wide portion of our population -- if fewer people contract diseases, then there will be reduced chances of others (even those who aren't careful or who don't directly pay for health care) contracting the diseases.

Perhaps if large struggling sub-sectors of our population begin feeling that our government "of the people, by the people, FOR the people" is doing more to support those in the population who are threatened with disease and/or poverty, then (perhaps) the general state of society will improve, with less resorting to alcohol or drug abuse, less resorting to thievery (whether white-collar or street-corner or breaking-&-entering), less violence (both crime and unaccounted-for domestic strife that propagates through generations), less inter-group animosity, etc. If the hopes of this last sentence materialize, even partially, there will be much to celebrate both economy-wise & morals/ethics-wise.

All of these conversations are moot.

There is a law which requires You to purchase your own health insurance now.

There will be a lot of corporate restructuring and a lot of LLC corporations will spring up.

if you get hurt at work it is your fault and your insurance should pay for it.

not the corporation's insurance. Limited Liability means just that, Limited Liability.

Time to eliminate LLC"s

A Limited Liability corporation is a structure that keeps the owners free from creditors coming after personal assets if the company goes out of business or bankrupt. It has nothing to do with providing insurance for their employees.

If you are injured at work, it is usually paid for through Workman's Compensation, a state-run program that, by law, almost all businesses must pay for. It has nothing to do with the company'sinsurance.

Also, the healthcare law only requires you to purchase your own insurance if you do not receive any through your employer.

Nathan, Equally spoken of the libs, just insert atheism in the place of "religious.".

XYZYX - funny, none of the liberals I know are atheists. However many of the conservatives I know are hypocrites!

Surely you jest! LOL And we all know that there are no liberal hypocrites!! LOL!!

XYZYX - no jesting here. I just love watching you post your ignorance for all to see!

I am sure you have comparable examples to the case above to prove your point?

Yes and everyone has it including those guys that run Hobby Lobby. You have it, and I have it. Religious freedom. The government does not have the right to force a particular religious belief in this case, atheism and liberalism, both religions not founded on gospel principals.

FloridaMom,

Since when is liberalism a religion??? The government isn't forcing any religion down anyone's throat. It's called paid prescription coverage in premium paid health insurance. Employee's are paying for their prescriptions and contraceptive meds, and the business doesn't have the right to state what prescriptions are covered and what ones are not.

floridamom1: Neither atheism nor liberalism are religions!

Your statement castigating any faith "not based on gospel principles" denies the spiritual validity of about half the world's population.

Your position is particularly unchristian and uncharitable. If you truly believe in gospel principles, why can't you practice what you preach?

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Gee, floridamom - why do you consider atheism a religion? Atheism is a religion like "OFF" is a TV channel.

Depends critically on one's concept of what "religion" is: Are Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai, Hinduism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, the Islam, Native American societies, etc., all religions?

Don't confuse RELIGION with BELIEF...

religions require a book of beliefs & that you CONTRIBUTE MONEY,

show me a "church" that doesn't use peer pressure & a plate to extract money from those who wish to purchase their redemption .

Dumba$$, Churches have electric bills, water bills etc. Then there are the mortgage payments. Then there are the costs of employees to be paid, insurance, etc ... not to mention the charitable work most churches do.

It is not a matter of "purchasing redemption" ... it is a matter of "PAYING FOR THINGS", something you liberals are incapable of understanding. That's part of the reason the National Debt will double under the reign of Obama ... while you clowns applaud the ever-deepening financial hole !

Jim-145etc: Reading through this thread, I find your first, middle, or last word is often an insult--this is the ad hominem logical fallacy in which, instead of presenting a logical thesis, one simply attacks the person putting forward an opposing idea.

Why do I get the feeling that if you had a vagina, you'd be demanding free abortions AND birth control?

85% of the comments on this thread are either ad hominem attacks, or off-topic.

Despite all the polarization, we are far more similar than not.

Try this: everywhere in your comments where you refer to contraceptives, erase that word from your mind and substitute some medication you take and must have to maintain good health.

Then read your arguments again, and ask yourself if you they still hold water for you. That's a better test of the strength of your opinions than insulting other people.

Btw, spending under Obama is the lowest since Reagan--please also check your facts.

Read:

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s by Rex Nutting, published May 22, 2012 at marketwatch.com

By the way, Jim--in answer to your off-topic remark about spending under President Obama, may I suggest you read:

"Obama spending binge never happened"

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

published May 22, 2012 by Rex Nutting, at MarketWatch.com

Your opinions might be more convincing if, when you go off-topic, your comments are at least fact-based.

Excuse the double post, please. The second half didn't show up when I pressed "post" and then later it was there but too late--I'd already retyped and reposted it. But the actual headline didn't post in the first, "Obama spending binge never happened" --Google that to find the article in marketwatch.com.

I also intended to type "since BEFORE Reagan," as Reagan spent far more than most!

Hobby Lobby is NOT owned by a religious group. It is owned by a single man who started it in his garage. It is not even affiliated with a religious group. It is a for-profit business and as such, with no ownership by a religion, it is not qualified for a religious exemption. The owner is free to have his own religious beliefs and his wife and daughters are free to NOT take hormonal contraception as their own consciences and religious beliefs dictate. However, since Hobby lobby is a BUSINESS, it fails the requisite HEARTBEAT test to be a person who is entitled to "religious principles".

i would tend to agree with you, but like i said, this issue hasn't reached the high courts yet. ------ in the end, it won't matter, because hobby lobby, or any other similar company, will simply restrict the number of hours their employees work, and avoid the issue entirely, if the court rules against them.

we don't have hobby lobby here, but at the one near where my folks live, many of the employees are already part-time, so it might not even make much difference.

Hobby Lobby is a business run by a man with religious convictions. It is his business not the governments. The government does not have the right to force any person to provide insurance that goes against their religious beliefs. By doing so, the owner will maybe close up shop and then you will have displaced hundreds, if not thousands of workers, which in the end doesn't help anybody at all. You don't have to work at Hobby Lobby if you don't want to. You can always work and shop somewhere else. This whole argument is about freedom and liberty. And some of you here don't seem to believe in those two ideals that this country was founded upon. In fact, I bet some people here would like to see this country fall into ruin so long as they get what they want. Funny how some people don't mind taking away your rights, but don't take away theirs.

FloridaMom,

Exactly what rights are being taken away?? If you run a for profit business, then you have to follow federal labor laws....meaning if you are providing health insurance coverage for your employees, you need to follow business laws that other businesses don't dictate what coverage another business is providing. If hobby lobby has contracted with another business, insurance company, and that insurance company has signed health care benefits to hobby lobby employees, than hobby lobby can't dictate what prescription coverage for what meds are covered. That is up to the insurance company that is providing the coverage, not hobby lobby.

Besides all that is being said, Hobby Lobby may lose a lot of business.

Seriously who cares about some whack job who currently doesn't provide health care coverage for 95% of the employees? If this guy goes out of business, that is his problem. Should we have Hobby Lobby Aid for this "poor" rich guy who let his business go (By the way, who the hell even shops at Hobby Lobby) because he is a cheapa$$ nutjob who wants to deny health care coverage to his employees? Imagine that a right wing, "Christian" Multi-Millionaire who says he can't "afford" to offer health care to his employees. WWJD?????????????

Typical Right Wing selfishness and Hypocrisy.

floridamom1: Actually, government DOES have "the right"--we know them as "laws." You're arguing for the rule of a single man (and men) over and above the rule of law. Taken to its logical conclusion, the result would be chaos. We are a nation not of men but of laws, or we fail.

While you're encouraging others to read the Constitution, I might ask you to read as well the hundreds of cases from the Supreme Court throughout its history which flesh out our Constitution and give it life.

There you will come to understand the critical importance of the rule of law over and above the rule of individuals.

You are correct in your assertion that it's about freedom & liberty. However, it's not about the freedom & liberty of the Hobby Lobby owner; it's about the freedom & liberty of women to make their own healthcare choices and the freedom & liberty of physicians to prescribe the medications women under their care decide are important for them.

At stake are the desires of one man (or of a few, with a non-medical agenda) versus the medical needs of American women--do you begin to see how justice must balance that?

Government has the far more critical interest, in this regard:

1) Because government currently pays half of all healthcare costs and is therefore the largest stakeholder in any healthcare debate,

2) Because government must protect healthcare from discriminatory practices that might infringe upon a constitutionally protected group, here, women of child-bearing age,

3) Because it is in government's, and society's, best interest to limit the number of unwanted children it would be obliged to pay for, and

4) Because it is government's obligation under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce, and health insurance falls within that sphere despite Justice Roberts' erroneous and tortured opinion in National Federation of Independent Business, et al., Petitionersv.Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., which arrogantly denied over 230 years of Supreme court jurisprudence with regard to the Commerce Clause for political reasons--the current conservative Court trying to eliminate congressional authority and give it to the Chamber of Commerce instead, inviting corporations in Citizens United to sue government whenever profits are threatened--the subject of another debate likely not within your intellectual sphere.

XYZYX - twinkies - sorry charlie, they're no longer made. Hostess went out of business - ya know?

Where do you get "free" contraception? What this is doing is including contraception in insurance that employees are already paying into. If an employee is paying into their insurance, it should cover all their medical needs.

i believe one of the unintended consequences of the healthcare act, is that religious entities will either cease hiring outside of their religion, or will only hire outsiders on a part-time basis, where that person no longer qualifies for healthcare insurance coverage thru the company. --------- of course, that could also be said of many smaller businesses ---- they will likely restrict the number of hours on many of their employees, just to avoid the extra expense.

Misscreant I am not exactly certain about this idea that if the employee is paying for it that they should have the right to decide whether it is covered or not. To begin with in many employer provided policies it is the employer who provides for most of the cost for their employees. What is covered in the policy is what the employer decides it is able to offer to their employees.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not but insurance does not cover everything. This is true regardless of whether or not the employee pays for part of it or whether the employee would like it to be covered.

Misscreant

Where do you get "free" contraception?

President Obama spoke of insurance companies paying for contraception. Although he didn't clarify that the premiums for 4 yr. olds and 90 yr. olds also contribute.

M.J.

Premiums also help with many male health related problems, including vasectomies, prostrate problems and surgeries, low sperm counts, testosterone treatments, etc. What part of my being female, and not associated with any of these problems and helping to pay for all of this with my premiums do for me???

See the "logic" in your descriptions. Insurance premiums go into a collective pot at the insurance agencies and is then is doled out according to the insurance claims from everyone insured at the company. Individuals don't get to say what part of their premiums will go to certain claims.

sort of ----- when you buy a policy, a person usually chooses which things he or she wants covered. ---- if you're an older person like i am, there's not much sense paying for childbirth coverage, because i won't be needing that coverage. ----- conversely, a younger person has no need of coverage for health issues which are only related to older folks, so why would that younger person pay for that coverage ??

Ronpal....

If you choose to go with paid prescription plans...you will be paying for all prescriptions for everone else that pays premiums to your specific insurance company. Birth control is by prescriptions, just like antibiotics, male hormone therapy, blood pressure meds, and even Viagra. Childbirth is NOT contraceptive prescription coverage...but heart medications, contraceptive pills, blood pressure, antibiotics, and some arthritis medications are all paid for under prescription coverage.

i agree..... but that's if you go with a paid prescription plan ---- i would never do that. ------ i was talking about basic healthcare coverage, not medicinal needs.

JackieK if you follow news reports that are out as of late you will see that there is a push to make it an over the counter drug. If that were to happen then most insurance companies would not normally cover it.

Not a problem, but, that is what all the fuss is about. Contraceptives are prescriptions.....and the co-pay is regarding co-pays for prescription coverage. That is what all the discussions regarding Viagra and comparisons are about. Nobody is forcing anyone to take contraceptives...but it is regarding having it available thru the prescription coverage without co=pays.

David,

As of late, birth control pills are no where close to being over the counter. A doctor has to prescribe what strength of hormones are in them. Just like Viagra is male hormones, they are not anywhere near being close to being over the counter either.

Hostess went out of business because of unions and lack of customer participation.

floridamom1: Hostess went out of business because management repeatedly overloaded the company with debt and never updated any of its products to appeal to a more health-conscious society.

How is that in any way relevant to the topic under discussion?

Floridamom, Hostess went out of business because nobody wants to eat fake food laden with chemicals. All moms should be glad the product is off the shelf.

Taking on contraceptives? Seriously? Have you learned nothing from the election? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned or treated like Taliban property.

David: very few prescription plans cover any over the counter drugs! If you know of any, please name them.

I submit that the issue here is NOT religion vs. contraception.

If the Hobby Lobby owner provided healthcare benefits as part of his proffered employment package prior to Obamacare, his employees HAD CERTAINLY ALREADY BEEN receiving contraceptives, and he's only raising religion as an impediment now for the first time because of Obamacare.

If he hadn't been providing healthcare benefits before, he will find a way not to provide them despite Obamacare, and his allegedly religious argument will be rendered moot.

Apparently the business name, Hobby LOBBY, speaks to the man's ulterior motive: not faith, but politics.

He is using his business to LOBBY against the reproductive rights of women of childbearing age.

The business itself has nothing to do with religion.

Meanwhile, Justice Roberts and the rest of the Court's conservatives are acutely aware of the Court's deeply damaged credibility as a result of rulings in Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission and the especially tortured illogic of his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

. Ultimately the Court will uphold reproductive care for women, including contraception, over religious objection.

This will eventually be the result for religious institutions which operate non-religious businesses and employ individuals of other faith traditions, or no faith, as well.

Courts decide the merits of legislation by:

1) evaluating the law's validity within meaning of the Constitution and all the jurisprudence arising therefrom, and

2) weighing both sides in a civil suit, tasking themselves to rectify perceived imbalances.

No medical care inhibits anybody's faith practice in any way, except for those women whose faith limits their choices; and for them, there is always a struggle of conscience which is intensely personal, and which the claims in this lawsuit do not concern or address.

However you may feel about the subject of the article we're discussing, please take a moment to acknowledge privately what women endure in making these decisions.

Thesis #1:

The extent to which reproductive medical care infringes on the claimed faith tradition of any marketplace business is at best tenuous, being indirect and remote.

The female employee pays a premium to contribute to her employer's healthcare fund, as do most of the employees. The contribution the company makes to its healthcare fund is considered part of her pay. (Many companies providing healthcare benefits consequently pay a lower wage.)

Her employer pays into its healthcare fund en masse; single costs are not parsed. In fact, many companies offer their employees several healthcare plans, and the company pays for the number of employees in each plan as for so many head of cattle--an unfortunate analogy intended only to show there's nothing personal involved. The employer pays a predetermined premium for all healthcare coverage for employees, just as the employees do, and the government does, to this plan, and that plan. The employer customarily does not know that employee A's medical costs were $$$$ this quarter, while employee X's medical costs were $ for last year.

The government pays in, too, through Medicare (for which at least some employees are eligible). Already paying half the costs of nationwide healthcare before Obamacare, our federal government has a continuing critical interest in lowering healthcare costs. (Indeed, only federal government is big enough to lower healthcare costs. States cannot amass sufficient weight to do so, lacking economies of scale and national leverage. For this reason, 'religion vs. contraception' cannot be balkanized and will need to be decided at the federal level.)

Continuing the chain of custody (for lack of a better term), the company's healthcare fund pays the various insurance providers, who subsequently pay doctors, hospitals, and drug companies.

Thesis #2:

Denial of reproductive care presents immediate and long-lasting deleterious effects.

Women forced to bear unwanted pregnancies and subsequent care & costs of offspring for at least 18 years, with each successive birth, are forced into a recycling poverty that continues into generations and cuts across our entire culture. Our overpopulated and financially burdened society suffers, too. The more poverty, the more taxpayers are required to pay for the care of society's most vulnerable: single mothers and children in the highest numbers of all, followed by the unemployable, the sick, injured, and the elderly--all possibly resulting from unwanted birth deliveries.

No industrialized countries force women into unwanted pregnancies--and most underdeveloped countries have better and free reproductive care for women, as opposed to the USA -- because unwanted pregnancies are the single greatest cause of poverty throughout the world.

Thesis #3:

Finally, the courts will consider whether religious institutions with essentially non-religious businesses (hospitals and universities come to mind) can impose their faith practices on others.

The issue is NOT the religious freedom of businesses, as some here contend. Businesses can claim neither faith nor soul.

We face the right of people to be free from religious tyranny. Many of the people who came here from Europe in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were escaping religious persecution. That historical fact resounds in the opinions of our Supreme Courts throughout almost 250 years.

The deists who wrote our Constitution resolutely proclaimed against religious persecution in the Separation of Powers Clause which holds our government, for once and for all time, to be completely secular and forever free from any religious intent in our laws. ("In God We Trust" on our coinage is vastly different from religious intent in our laws, and Obama's morning prayer with his minister is no expression of faith through law.)

In defiance of our national history against faith-based law, corporations now brazenly attempt to dictate limits on women's medical care in the name of God--and it must be stopped with peaceful ferocity equal to that of religious zealots who claim an insane, oxymoronic right to commit murder for the sake of fetal life.

Those who oppose abortion should fully support free contraception, because contraceptives often eliminate the need for abortions.

Opposition to both abortion and contraception aims only to oppress an entire class of people solely on the basis of gender.

I wonder who's paying for the legal team enabling Hobby LOBBY to prosecute this case through the court system--were I the gambling type, I'd bet Hobby LOBBY's not footing those hefty legal bills on his own.

The Obama*care law took 500 Billion Dollars from Medicaid and where do you think that Medicaid will make up the lost revenue?

dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid1/recpubs/erp/phc13032.htm

it is in every state now. look it up.

Thanks to Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden and passed into law by Bill Clinton 1996.

You remember Bill Clinton,

He was Impeached and Obama* said that he,"wants to follow in Bill Clinton's footsteps.

Liberals are such good followers but not good leaders. Obama still follows the preachings of the "god dam america" church.

Nothing hate like the bigots and perverts who infest oBozo's democRAT circus.