Posted by Tina
You may have heard that the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a religious freedom case, Sebelius vs Hobby Lobby Stores, over the mandated contraception portion of Obamacare. the owners of Hobby Lobby, a family business, is seeking an exemption from having to pay for contraception that is at ods woth theor religious beliefs. The courts decision won’t be announced for a few months but since the arguments were heard today the press, particularly the female press, had a bit of harumphing going on today. one in particular was Andrea Mitchel in an interview with the Hobby Lobby attorney:
“What right do they have, again, to interfere with medical decisions by women?…I mean, this gets to the whole issue of women’s health and why should women be discriminated against in ways that other medical beneficiaries are not?”
Rienzi pushed back: “No one’s discriminating against women, Andrea, all they’re saying is that, you’re right, these are personal decisions, these are things that people can come to different judgments about. But the government is trying to say – they’re gonna force people to be involved in it whether they want to or not.”
NewsMax has the complete transcript. My answer to Mitchel is fairly easy. What right do they have? They are paying the bill! I know it’s more complicated than that now but it sure wasn’t in days gone by when people paid their own way in life.
On a side note…when did these feminists from the sixties turn into such whiners? Or were they always that way?
Mitchell is right, and her argument is based on the basic premise that “my rights end were yours begin.” Employers have the right to religious freedom, but they do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. By denying coverage of contraceptives for religious reasons, the employer is overstepping the bounds of the employer-employee relationship. Contraceptives are used for many reasons other than birth control, and can be used to treat many health conditions; it is absolutely none of the employers’ business what their employee is using them for.
On a side note, the Catholic/certain Christian opposition to birth control is stupid, not scripturally sound, and counter-productive. By opposing contraception, these religious people are directly contributing to the abortion rate. Free contraception is the only policy known to decrease the abortion rate by over 70%; if these are the same people who believe that abortion is murder, the contraception mandate should be their #1 priority. Unless, of course, they think stopping sluts from being slutty is more important than stopping baby murder.
But (fortunately?) we don’t limit religious freedom based on how stupid a person’s claimed religious belief is (provided that they have enough people to join in on that stupid belief, that is). So we’re back to the argument that employers shouldn’t get to make decisions about their employees based on religious belief in the first place. You want to do that, start a church or a religious charity. If you run a public, for-profit business, then leave your spiritual baggage at the door.
Birth control reduces the number of women and children on welfare.
Reports should be required to pass a test on our Constitution every year.
Some women from the 60’s (my era) “You can have it your way,” replaced daddy with Democrat leaders.
Jim, another great point. Contraceptives are a moral good. I feel no sympathy for those who believe otherwise, and wish to impose such a ridiculous belief on their workers. “The Bible says so” is not a compelling excuse, especially when the Bible does not, in fact, say so.
My understanding of the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court is they’re willing to provide preventive contraceptions, but not abortive types like the morning after pill or IUDs.
The freedom to practice religion doesn’t end at the church or synagogue door.
With so many options available to obtain these abortive types from Planned Parenthood one can only hope the SC finds in favor of Hobby Lobby and stops the government from forcing people to violate their religious beliefs.
Peggy: “My understanding of the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court is they’re willing to provide preventive contraceptions, but not abortive types like the morning after pill or IUDs.”
I’m not sure if they are willing to provide what they view as “preventive contraception,” Peggy, but you are correct that they have described the morning after pill and IUDs as abortion-causing methods, and that this is their main objection.
The problem, of course, is that they are 100% wrong; neither of these methods cause abortion according to the plethora of scientific evidence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/health/religious-groups-equate-some-contraceptives-with-abortion.html?_r=0
The owners of Hobby Lobby are within their rights to believe that Plan B and IUDs cause abortion, just as I am within my rights to believe that the earth is flat. But neither of those beliefs can be reasonably classified as protected religious beliefs. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Plan B or IUDs are abortifacients. (Heck, nowhere in the Bible does it even say abortion is wrong, but that’s a rant for another day.) In this case, Hobby Lobby’s belief that these methods cause abortion is not religious in nature; it is simply wrong, and stupid, and scientifically illiterate.
The only connection that either method has with abortion is that they make it less likely to occur.
“The freedom to practice religion doesn’t end at the church or synagogue door.”
No, but it does end in an employer-employee relationship. That’s why in most places of business, you can be written up for harassment if you constantly evangelize toward an uninterested co-worker on the job. It’s why employers are not allowed to ask what religion you are, or make hiring decisions based on an applicant’s religion. The employee has the right to go about their job without having their employer practice their religion at them.
People have religious freedom; corporations do not. If Hobby Lobby can use a shaky religious objection to avoid following the law when it comes to contraception coverage, where does it end? Can Muslim-owned businesses refuse to hire women, in violation of anti-discrimination law?
Once again Chris you’re entitled to your opinion and the owners of Hobby Lobby and myself are entitled to ours.
You’re wrong about the Bible not mentioning abortion. One of God’s Ten Commandments says, “Though shall not kill.” Since I and millions of others believe life begins at conception abortion is killing.
Hobby Lobby is currently paying for 44 different birth control pills that prevents the fertilization of the egg. They do not want to pay for only FOUR abortion causing drugs, which in my opinion since they are paying for it is within their right to refuse to do.
IUD’s are inserted into the uterus and scrap the fertilized egg off of the uterus wall much like a constant DNC.
This all boils down to the government taking control of businesses and the relationship between employers and employees.
As I see it HL and other employers, if the SC rules against them, will have the choice of dropping all medical coverage, give the employees the money they were paying for their health care and let them all go find their own insurance.
Corporations are owned by people Chris not robots and people have beliefs that don’t end at their business door.
Our Constitution says, we have freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. Period!!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Chris: “…but they do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”
Not covering birth control in a healthcare plan is not imposing ones religious beliefs. In fact the government forcing coverage of such items is about imposing a standard that does not fit all.
“By denying coverage of contraceptives for religious reasons, the employer is overstepping the bounds of the employer-employee relationship.”
The government has overstepped it’s bounds by forcing one size coverage on every business particularly when that enforcement results from “making law” that “prohibits” the “free exercise” of religion.
“…the Catholic/certain Christian opposition to birth control is stupid, not scripturally sound, and counter-productive.”
You are welcome to your opinion but obviously unqualified to speak for the Catholic Church and yet you attempt to do so. What gives you that right?
“By opposing contraception, these religious people are directly contributing to the abortion rate”
They are personally opposed and oppose it as a matter of church doctrine. They do not impose that restriction on others they simply do not wish to be enablers and contributors. People have plenty of ways to purchase birth control and many ways to prevent pregnancy, including abstinence if they are short of funds or prioritizing if they are not truly without means.
“Free contraception is the only policy known to decrease the abortion rate by over 70%”
And why wouldn’t it be when progressives give away free condoms in school, teach students that they can’t help themselves, encourage promiscuous behaviors by acting promiscuous and irresponsibly themselves as adult roll models, and laugh at suggestions that waiting to become sexually active until ready to take on the associated responsibilities would be wise…smart…adult even.
Prior to the introduction of birth control in the world the rates of unwed pregnancy and abortion were all much lower. People had to actually think about the consequences of their choices and actions which kinda puts a hole in the argument that only free birth control can do the trick.
Johnston Archive:
In 2012 there were 1,035,000 abortions performed in America. There’s no way to know the number of back street abortions in 1960; the legal abortion number was 292. By 1972, the year before Roe there were 586,760. By 1975, two years after Roe the number rose to 1,034,200.
Free condoms and the availability of various birth control methods have not stopped out of wedlock births or the resulting poverty that follows.
US News:
Changed values due to changes is social mores and attitudes determine the trend.
“Unless, of course, they think stopping sluts from being slutty is more important than stopping baby murder.”
See Chris…you too are capable of hateful ugly speech…and I don’t care if you were simply repeating what someone else has said.
You don’t get the religious point of view…that does not mean it is invalid, stupid, or something the government can trounce on at will.
“But (fortunately?) we don’t limit religious freedom based on how stupid a person’s claimed religious belief is (provided that they have enough people to join in on that stupid belief, that is).”
Interesting. How stupid is it that women are insisting on this free coverage when according to Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards 99 percent of women use the drugs covered under the mandate already? This smells like progressive feminist political activism to me.
The mandate was created by HHS…the language was not in the original ACA bill. So an unelected official decided that women, 99% of whom were using contraception, had a right to free contraception and business, regardless of religious beliefs had to pay for it!
In other words make the religious right defend itself…make ignorant adolescent men like Chris, who has not one clue about, nor one ounce of respect for, the religious convictions of others, yammer on about how women are being oppressed by those stupid religious people on the right. Yep…and equally ignorant young people will vote against their own best interests overall in the next election based on a trumped up dispute in which women have nothing to lose and religious business owners face millions in fines or losing their businesses if they do not fall in line with progressive thought and tow the mark.
Next we will insist that kosher butchers sell pork.
The actual case is being argued quite well.
#2 Jim : “Birth control reduces the number of women and children on welfare”.
And future programed Liberal voters.
Peggy: “Once again Chris you’re entitled to your opinion and the owners of Hobby Lobby and myself are entitled to ours.”
Certainly, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The contraceptive mandate does not apply to abortifacients. That is a fact.
We have decided as a society that we will occasionally make allowances in the law to accommodate people’s religious beliefs, but I do not think we should make allowances to accommodate people’s ignorance. The owners of Hobby Lobby should not be exempt from the law simply because they are unwilling to perform a Google search.
“You’re wrong about the Bible not mentioning abortion. One of God’s Ten Commandments says, “Though shall not kill.” Since I and millions of others believe life begins at conception abortion is killing.”
Did you know that in the very same book of the Bible, there is a passage that strongly implies that the killing of a fetus is a lesser offense than the killing of a born human being? Exodus 21:22 demands that a man pay a fine if, in a fight, he accidentally strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry. Yet if he accidentally kills the woman, the punishment is death. So it seems that the value of fetal life in the book of Exodus has more to do with the mother, not the fetus itself.
Of course, this is very different from a purposeful abortion carried out by a woman’s choice, but the Bible is mysteriously silent on this issue. Certainly abortion existed at the time Exodus was written, as it has existed in all cultures. And certainly the drafters of the Bible were aware of the practice. Yet nowhere is it explicitly condemned.
“Hobby Lobby is currently paying for 44 different birth control pills that prevents the fertilization of the egg. They do not want to pay for only FOUR abortion causing drugs, which in my opinion since they are paying for it is within their right to refuse to do.”
Again, the drugs covered by the mandate do not cause abortion. That is a scientific fact.
“IUD’s are inserted into the uterus and scrap the fertilized egg off of the uterus wall much like a constant DNC.”
You are wrong. IUDs prevent eggs from being fertilized in the first place.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control
“Our Constitution says, we have freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. Period!!”
You didn’t answer my question. Under your strict interpretation of religious freedom, could a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian business choose not to hire women in violation of discrimination law? You can’t just say “period” and expect the issue to be cut and dry for everyone.
Tina: “You are welcome to your opinion but obviously unqualified to speak for the Catholic Church and yet you attempt to do so. What gives you that right?”
I am not speaking for the Catholic Church. I am speaking about them. What gives me the right to criticize the Church’s stance on this issue is the same thing that gives you the right to criticize certain Islamic beliefs.
“And why wouldn’t it be when progressives give away free condoms in school, teach students that they can’t help themselves, encourage promiscuous behaviors by acting promiscuous and irresponsibly themselves as adult roll models, and laugh at suggestions that waiting to become sexually active until ready to take on the associated responsibilities would be wise…smart…adult even.”
None of this qualifies as a response the the fact I brought up, which is that free contraception decreases the abortion rate by 70%. Do you even care about that, or do you just like taking any opportunity to bash progressives, even when their ideas turn out to work?
“Prior to the introduction of birth control in the world the rates of unwed pregnancy and abortion were all much lower. People had to actually think about the consequences of their choices and actions which kinda puts a hole in the argument that only free birth control can do the trick.”
You’re right, free birth control isn’t our only option. Now all we have to do is eliminate birth control and convince everyone to stop having sex until marriage. Yes, that solution sounds much more practical!
You can’t close Pandora’s Box, Tina, and you can’t force a change in the culture. I’m talking about what will work now. Today. Abstinence-only education has been a failure. You can blame progressives and the 60s for that all you want, and maybe you’re right, but what good will that do? Right now, we need to band together for effective, practical solutions.
“See Chris…you too are capable of hateful ugly speech…and I don’t care if you were simply repeating what someone else has said.”
This is weasly, even for you.
I’m not just repeating what “someone else” has said, I’m repeating what Rush Limbaugh has said.
When Rush Limbaugh said it, you did not call his words “ugly hateful speech.”
Yet when I accurately describe his position, using his own words, I am the one guilty of “ugly hateful speech.”
“Next we will insist that kosher butchers sell pork.”
God, you’re bad at this.
Do I really need to explain why this analogy is so ridiculous? Do I need to explain that no one is being forced to sell anything? That contraception has proven public health benefits, while pork does not?
You are incapable of doing a basic cost-benefit analysis.
“The actual case is being argued quite well.”
Not, however, by you.
Jim contraception is readily available to women through Planned Parenthood, WalMart and Walgreens at a very reasonable price. The product are not being banned. There have been no complaints, at least that I know of, that the employees of this store need or want this coverage.
The nation was founded on religious tolerance. Religious people made sure the rights of everyone would be guaranteed. Now those who benefit from the guarantee are seeking to marginalize and impinge on the freedoms of the religious. The excuses are getting ore ridiculous by the day. Heritage:
The burden the HHS mandate puts on the Hobby Lobby owners (The Green family), if they are to preserve their right of religious conscience, is to pay $25 Million yearly in fines (a figure that officials say will increase over time) or simply close their stores. Neither of these solutions would serve the employees, the customers, or the Greens and would place a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby.
Also, as I wrote above, the Planned Parenthood director has claimed that 99% of women were using these products even before the HHS mandate that all insurance had to include this free coverage.
Chris: “but you are correct that they have described the morning after pill and IUDs as abortion-causing methods, and that this is their main objection.
The problem, of course, is that they are 100% wrong; neither of these methods cause abortion according to the plethora of scientific evidence.”
The “plethora of scientific evidence” does not impress the government’s FDA:
If you don’t like something…if it interferes with your objectives…just change the definition to suit yourself!
The progressive extremists of the Democrat Party are getting good at blurring the lines to accommodate their ideology and goals. The public should be aware that this deceptive practice is a threat to our liberties and a threat to clarity in the language that is needed for justice to be properly served.
Chris you’re missing the point. The case before the SC is about religious freedom and individual’s right to live by them. One’s personal beliefs are not up for interpretation by you.
You have the ability to argue if the sky is blue if someone else says it’s a bluish gray color. What you lack is the ability to accept other’s opinions if they differ from your own. That doesn’t make them wrong or bad, it just makes them different. But, different for you far left progressive types is only acceptable if it meets your definition and approval. Those who disagree with you are attacked, ridiculed and dragged into court while facing massive fines and the threat of loosing their livelihood plus the jobs for 23,000 employees and the families they support.
Religious freedom is guaranteed everyone in this country beginning with our Founders and includes those who escaped countries like Cuba and Russia yesterday. They don’t need your approval or mine to practice their beliefs, but they do need the SC to enforce the Constitution. If the SC rules against the owners of HL I would not be surprised to see the owners close their doors and lay off all of the employees. People of faith will not disown their beliefs no matter what man’s law says. Just look at all of the Christians that are being killed in Muslim countries for not converting.
I repeat, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
“You can’t just say “period” and expect the issue to be cut and dry for everyone.”
Oh yes I can. You see the First Amendment also guarantees me the right to free speech as I deem MY rights to expression are and are not up to interpretation by you.
Chris: “I am not speaking for the Catholic Church. I am speaking about them.”
Not true. when you wrote, “the Catholic/certain Christian opposition to birth control is…not scripturally sound” you attempted to speak for the Church. You don’t get to decide if their position is scripturally sound. You do have the right to think their position is “stupid”…as you did.
“None of this qualifies as a response the the fact I brought up, which is that free contraception decreases the abortion rate by 70%. Do you even care about that…”
Do you care about the necessity of a 70% “decrease”. What I wrote not only qualifies as a response it qualifies as the only decent and reasonable response.
The message you send to young women is that indiscriminate sex can be riskless, responsibility free, and cost them nothing because the HHS can make other people pay the cost for the fun. What you are saying is that birth control, even when used to effect the end of life, is physically and morally harmless, which flies in the face of the moral mantra used to garner support to legalize abortion, that it would be “rare” and “safe”. Neither message is honest and neither message has been healthy for young women overall.
“You’re right, free birth control isn’t our only option. Now all we have to do is eliminate birth control and convince everyone to stop having sex until marriage. Yes, that solution sounds much more practical!”
Smart assed responses are so entertaining to the juvenile mind. The solution we are discussing is whether people of religious conscience have a right to abstain from paying for the birth control of irresponsible women. You prefer to portray these women as helpless victims, without means or choices, that if not subsidized by their employers will suffer. I say that that portrait is bogus! I say that portrait is valid only to the degree that progressives have convinced women of their victim status…create the condition then mandate the fix through force of government and against the liberties of others. It’s wrong Chris. It’s wrong morally and it’s wrong in terms of our guaranteed liberties.
“You can’t close Pandora’s Box, Tina, and you can’t force a change in the culture.”
Why not? How the he77 do you think our culture devolved into the state its in? Why wouldn’t I stand in support of individual freedom and rights even if the culture has changes irreparably? And why wouldn’t I make arguments that I believe would empower young women?
“Abstinence-only education has been a failure.”
It isn’t over. If it isn’t over it can’t be deemed a failure. Abstinence only is not what I’m talking about in any case. I’m talking about the irresponsible indirect teaching that indiscriminate sex is safe, healthy and moral…just take this pill. I’m talking about the immoral notion that others should pay for personal inexpensive items…particularly when there is no effort to instruct young women to act responsibly or to have a moral and responsible approach in their reproductive lives. I’m talking about training young people to take on adult responsibilities instead of turning them into needy, helpless, dependent adult children.
“Right now, we need to band together for effective, practical solutions.”
NO! Enough, already! Right now, more than ever, we need adult solutions. Right now we need to just say no to solutions that lead us further toward helplessness, joblessness, poverty, and dependency.
Do I need to explain that no one is being forced to sell anything? That contraception has proven public health benefits, while pork does not?”
I should have referenced forcing employees to butcher pork. The question of religious liberty came up in court: “Alito noted that Denmark has recently banned kosher slaughterhouses. Would a for-profit corporation in the United States have standing to assert RFRA defenses in such a case here? At first trying to distinguish the case by saying the legislation would have been impermissibly targeted in that case, Verrilli ultimately admitted that such corporations would not have standing under RFRA. Justice Breyer seemed to not be completely satisfied with that result, asking specifically about five Muslim owners of a for-profit corporation. “I need a response to that question,” he said.
Paul Clement closed by emphasizing Verrilli’s response on for-profit kosher slaughterhouses, noting that he could not see how that could be the law. He also made the point that Congress itself had passed RFRA, while the anti-conscience mandate was simply an agency action by the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress should really get the last word here, he implied.” (I’m sorry I have lost the link).
“That contraception has proven public health benefits, while pork does not?”
Excuse me but the question before the court is not public health benefit. It is whether the HHS can mandate inclusion in policies provided to employees when a religious conscience question prevents the provider from that and will be subst
Chris: “I am not speaking for the Catholic Church. I am speaking about them.”
Not true. when you wrote, “the Catholic/certain Christian opposition to birth control is…not scripturally sound” you attempted to speak for the Church. You don’t get to decide if their position is scripturally sound. You do have the right to think their position is “stupid”…as you did.
“None of this qualifies as a response the the fact I brought up, which is that free contraception decreases the abortion rate by 70%. Do you even care about that…”
Do you care about the necessity of a 70% “decrease”. What I wrote not only qualifies as a response it qualifies as the only decent and reasonable response.
The message you send to young women is that indiscriminate sex can be riskless, responsibility free, and cost them nothing because the HHS can make other people pay the cost for the fun. What you are saying is that birth control, even when used to effect the end of life, is physically and morally harmless, which flies in the face of the moral mantra used to garner support to legalize abortion, that it would be “rare” and “safe”. Neither message is honest and neither message has been healthy for young women overall.
“You’re right, free birth control isn’t our only option. Now all we have to do is eliminate birth control and convince everyone to stop having sex until marriage. Yes, that solution sounds much more practical!”
Smart assed responses are so entertaining to the juvenile mind. The solution we are discussing is whether people of religious conscience have a right to abstain from paying for the birth control of irresponsible women. You prefer to portray these women as helpless victims, without means or choices, that if not subsidized by their employers will suffer. I say that that portrait is bogus! I say that portrait is valid only to the degree that progressives have convinced women of their victim status…create the condition then mandate the fix through force of government and against the liberties of others. It’s wrong Chris. It’s wrong morally and it’s wrong in terms of our guaranteed liberties.
“You can’t close Pandora’s Box, Tina, and you can’t force a change in the culture.”
Why not? How the he77 do you think our culture devolved into the state its in? Why wouldn’t I stand in support of individual freedom and rights even if the culture has changes irreparably? And why wouldn’t I make arguments that I believe would empower young women?
“Abstinence-only education has been a failure.”
It isn’t over. If it isn’t over it can’t be deemed a failure. Abstinence only is not what I’m talking about in any case. I’m talking about the irresponsible indirect teaching that indiscriminate sex is safe, healthy and moral…just take this pill. I’m talking about the immoral notion that others should pay for personal inexpensive items…particularly when there is no effort to instruct young women to act responsibly or to have a moral and responsible approach in their reproductive lives. I’m talking about training young people to take on adult responsibilities instead of turning them into needy, helpless, dependent adult children.
“Right now, we need to band together for effective, practical solutions.”
NO! Enough, already! Right now, more than ever, we need adult solutions. Right now we need to just say no to solutions that lead us further toward helplessness, joblessness, poverty, and dependency.
Do I need to explain that no one is being forced to sell anything? That contraception has proven public health benefits, while pork does not?”
I should have referenced forcing employees to butcher pork. The question of religious liberty came up in court: “Alito noted that Denmark has recently banned kosher slaughterhouses. Would a for-profit corporation in the United States have standing to assert RFRA defenses in such a case here? At first trying to distinguish the case by saying the legislation would have been impermissibly targeted in that case, Verrilli ultimately admitted that such corporations would not have standing under RFRA. Justice Breyer seemed to not be completely satisfied with that result, asking specifically about five Muslim owners of a for-profit corporation. “I need a response to that question,” he said.
Paul Clement closed by emphasizing Verrilli’s response on for-profit kosher slaughterhouses, noting that he could not see how that could be the law. He also made the point that Congress itself had passed RFRA, while the anti-conscience mandate was simply an agency action by the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress should really get the last word here, he implied.” (I’m sorry I have lost the link).
“That contraception has proven public health benefits, while pork does not?”
Excuse me but the question before the court is not public health benefit. It is whether the HHS can mandate inclusion in policies provided to employees when a religious conscience question prevents the provider from that and will be substantially burdened by the remedy ($25 million a year in fines/closing the doors).
You are not arguing the case. You are acting in an capacity of an activist, as was Ms Mitchel.
Peggy great points. I agree completely except for one thing. If HL “give(s) the employees the money they were paying for their health care and let them all go find their own insurance,” would they still be subject to the fine ($25 million)? If they would that’s a heck of a price…enough to put them out of business, I imagine. The fine and the additional taxes on the wages would amount to a big leap in expenditures.
I don’t have time right now to look for an answer to this question…anyone?
Peggy, under your strict interpretation of religious freedom, could a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian business choose not to hire women in violation of discrimination law?
This isn’t a “gotcha”–I genuinely want to know if you think businesses should have the right to do this. There’s certainly an argument to be made that they should have that right.
Do all progressives come from the same gene pool?
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/124408-jennifer-stefano-chris-hayes-americans-prosperity/
Yes, Tina I believe they will still be subject to the fine, which will force them to close their doors. That’s why this bill is so un-American and the Democrats really passed a law that has hurt more people than it’s helped. More people have lost their health care coverage than have been newly insured and now more people may become unemployed because of it.
Hearing now the Democrats who may loose their seats this Nov. are writing a bill to fix ObamaCare that includes items the Republicans wanted included when the bill was originally written, like a bronze plan which will cover only catastrophic medical expenses and buying insurance across state lines. The Dems locked out the Repubs before, but now are all hot to trot to say we want to fix it with OUR great ideas. What a joke. Plus, Reid the gatekeeper and biggest NO man in DC, will never allow it on the Senate floor.
Hahahahohohohohehehehe!!!!
You’re not going to believe this one. Mass. has a bill that divorcing couples need state approval to have sex. I kid you not!
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/124245-make-sex-massachusetts-may-require-judge-approve/
Ok, you progressive liberal Democrats have you hit the extremist wall yet? When is enough enough?
Peggy I have to say I agree with the intent of the law, “It is designed to spare children additional emotional turmoil during an already extremely difficult process,” but I can’t imagine a reason that a judge would have to grant a request even if asked…and who would?
Tina, being the daughter of divorced parents who later remarried either other again, believe me almost every child dreams and prays her/his parents will get back together. Seeing them together, as long as they’re not fighting and yelling at each other, is less traumatic for a child then having one parent completely removed from the home and all of the locks changed.
Legally they are still married and I’d rather have the children see the parents together in the home than some boy or girl friend hanging around.
What tickled me was picturing two legally grown adults standing before a judge asking for permission to have sex. I just thought it so completely absurd that we now have the government involved in our bedrooms and what happens between the sheets.
Same sex couples, have at it. Teens and even preteens, no problem…go for it. No need to wait until you’re married. Teachers and their pupils, frowned upon, but a judge in Montana blamed the 14 year old girl because she looked older than her age and sentenced her 30 year old teacher to one month in jail. Prostitution, legal in some states. Legally married, but separated parents need state approval or they’ve committed an illegal act. Now that’s funny!!
Peggy: “Ok, you progressive liberal Democrats have you hit the extremist wall yet? When is enough enough?”
Peggy, had you read the entire article–a whopping four paragraphs, would have kept you up all night–you’d know that the amendment was proposed by a Republican, not a progressive.
I suspected as much as soon as I read your excerpt. Conservatives are typically much more likely to favor tough divorce laws than progressives. They’re also more likely to favor government intrusion into the bedroom. It was not progressives who opposed the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down laws banning gay sex, it was extreme right-wing conservatives. It was not a progressive candidate who said a couple years ago that states should be able to ban contraception if they want to, it was Rick Santorum.
So please stop pretending that progressives are the only ones capable of favoring big government intervention in people’s private lives. Conservatives have proven more than willing to use government force to intrude into the bedroom and other private decisions (*cough*marijuana*cough) whenever they feel the need to uphold their standards of morality.
“Republican state Senator Richard Ross, the author of the bill, distanced himself from it after receiving media blowback, saying that he merely submitted it at the request of a vengeful constituent.
Chris, news alert. There are progressives in the Republican party too. Just because there’s a R after his name doesn’t make him a conservative. McCain, McConnell, Boehner, Issa, and Graham are some that have worked with the Democrats to expand government and fiscally bankrupt this country.
The Tea Party was started by people who didn’t like what was going on in both parties.
I’m an advocate for voter enforced term limits. ALL representative who has been in office for 12 years should be voted out. No exceptions!
Good article on free exercise clause brings in references to kosher and halal butchers and past cases. See it here:
the Rabbi makes perfect sense!
Peggy I agree with you and am tickled for the same reason!
Since when is it Religious Freedom to dictate to Others your beliefs?
Is The Business now a Church and will next apply for tax exemption?
Also there is much mis-information here. It is against Federal Law for federal funds to pay for abortion. So that is never an issue whether you are pro choice or not.
Birth Control pills are used for other things besides contraception.
http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/
I find it odd this whole discussion. The employer simply helps to pay for health ins they do not pay for the services.
I believe in Liberty and Justice for all which means each family has the right to make their own healthcare decisions with their doctors.
This would be a form of big government telling the employers they have a right to dictate employees what happens in their private life.
Sounds more like China than America.
Hobby Lobby has the freedom to make their own personal healthcare decisions for their family according to their religion. Why would their employees be forced to have their private life dictated to by their low wage job?
Again Hobby Lobby has no business to get involved in the off hours and private lives of their employees nor the right to dictate what religion they follow.
That is the farthest thing from freedom you could have!
So why should big government allow your employer to control your healthcare, off hours life, or anything not directly connected to how you conduct yourself on the clock representing their business.
D
Cindy, thanks for weighing in one this. You make good points. So you’re saying that your employer may be paying for your health insurance coverage, but what you do with that coverage is between you and your doctor, right? That there should not be any presumption made by the employer because it’s outside the scope of the employee/employer relationship and the employer has no more right to intrude into the employees private life than the government…is that about it?
A somewhat similar case came up regarding a Chico landlord who rented a home to a couple that she thought was married when they moved in. When she found out they were not, she did not want to rent to them, because in her religion this is living in sin and she did not want to be part of that.
She tried to evict and took it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The court as I recall essentially said she presumed they were living in sin because they were not married. A fact not in evidence, and to determine if they were or were not having sexual relations would have been a gross invasion of their privacy, and further even if they admitted they were, an eviction on these grounds exceeded her authority as a landlord and it was a violation of the fair housing act. I hope I recalled that right. Based on this and other things, I think the employer will lose this appeal.
Since when is it Religious Freedom to dictate to Others your beliefs?
Is The Business now a Church and will next apply for tax exemption?
Also there is much mis-information here. It is against Federal Law for federal funds to pay for abortion. So that is never an issue whether you are pro choice or not.
Birth Control pills are used for other things besides contraception.
http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/
I find it odd this whole discussion. The employer simply helps to pay for health ins they do not pay for the services.
I believe in Liberty and Justice for all which means each family has the right to make their own healthcare decisions with their doctors.
This would be a form of big government telling the employers they have a right to dictate employees what happens in their private life.
Sounds more like China not America.
Hobby Lobby has the freedom to make their own personal healthcare decisions for their family according to their religion. Why would their employees be forced to have their private life dictated to by their low wage job?
Again Hobby Lobby has no business to get involved in the off hours and private lives of their employees nor the right to dictate what religion they follow.
That is the farthest thing from freedom you could have!
So why should big government allow your employer to control your healthcare, off hours life, or anything not directly connected to how you conduct yourself on the clock representing their business.
Religious Freedom means you are free to follow the religion of your choice not have one dictated to you.
Maybe we need to just not have employers not cover health insurance any more and the problem is solved.
I think women are intelligent enough to make their own decisions without their boss dictating to them.
Sorry I am new to this computer stuff hit submit twice
But that is a woman’s view and BTW I have never used Birth Control in my life, but that was because I did not trust the drugs not because someone told me I could not.
Peggy: “Chris, news alert. There are progressives in the Republican party too. Just because there’s a R after his name doesn’t make him a conservative. McCain, McConnell, Boehner, Issa, and Graham are some that have worked with the Democrats to expand government and fiscally bankrupt this country.”
If Johnny Moderate, TurtleFace, TanLines, Benghazi Touretts Patient Zero, and Southern Lady Graham are the closest things to progressive Republicans you can come up with, you’re proving my point for me.
(All nicknames chosen in the spirit of good clean fun.)
Chris, there are a number of side issues here, so rather than confusing the situation even more, lets just focus on the core issue: Does an employer have the right to exclude part of an employee’s company provided health insurance coverage because it goes against the owner’s religious beliefs, even if they are the one’s paying?
Like most of the tough subjects we discuss here this is not black and white, there’s merit on both sides. But, in eyes of the Supreme Court only one side can prevail – we can’t split the baby and call it fair. So, let’s put ourselves in the position of a Supreme Court and look at it from a strictly constitutional point of view.
The word “discrimination” jumps out at me now, but against who? Is it the employer who is being forced pay for something that their religious beliefs hold as a sin or is it against the employee who is being denied something because of the bosses religious view that they do not share? Not under consideration is… is that religious view valid? Because if we start determining what part of religion is valid or not, it would challenge every premise of faith based religion, so we can’t go there! We can only deal with the Constitution and discrimination.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that government can force employers to provide a minimum standard of health insurance for it’s employees. At the time of this decision it was considered that birth control may be objectionable to some religious groups, but it was not directly addressed. Now that objection has come back in the form of singular complaint and the court must revisit this. The SC implied by their last decision that employers must accept the health insurance, so that’s a strong hint how they will rule this time.
If the Supreme Court found it Constitutional to impose the insurance, knowing what the insurance covered, then I’m 100% convinced they will not allow private businesses to dictate which parts of the health insurance they will pay for and what parts they will not based solely on their religious beliefs. If they did, they might as well toss out the whole idea of employer mandated health insurance, because this case opens the door to all sorts of creative exceptions or escape clauses for the employer. On the other hand let’s say a person is employed by a religious organization, not a private business. In that case they should not expect that religious organization to engage in an activity that is contrary to their beliefs and here’s why: There’s a “reasonable expectation” that when one works for a religious non-profit that employee will have to abide by their rules (beliefs) as a condition of employment. But, when you work for a secular business an employee should not be held to the same expectation.
Clearly, there is no reasonable expectation that an employee must agree with the business owners religious beliefs as a condition of employment and that is the defining difference that screams discrimination. Extend this logic to a landlord v tenant. You can’t refuse to rent because you don’t like someone’s religion, nor can they be expected to like your (landlord’s) religious beliefs.
Yes, the employer is mandated by law to provide health insurance, but how that insurance is used is not within their sphere of control anymore than they have a right to advise the doctor what medication they can prescribe. The employer is stuck and I feel for them…they are stuck paying for insurance and they are stuck with the minimum coverage mandated. It’s too bad that they may have a benefit in there that conflicts with their religious beliefs, but there are many things in this country that do that and not just health coverage. That doesn’t stop us from doing it because (1) it’s outside the offended persons sphere of influence, (2) and as long as it’s constitutional. Again, I feel bad for the employer and they have merit, but not enough to win…IMHO.
I believe the Supreme Court was wrong when they upheld ObamaCare, so anything that follows that is a moot point in my case. But, since we’re just talking hypothetically here and going along with the fact the SC did rule ObamaCare was constitutional, I can’t see how the SC would not find in favor of the plaintiffs and against Hobby Lobby. -Jack
Cindy, good points, and Jack, I like your rational perspective on the issue. Health insurance is simply a part of a worker’s compensation. There is no real moral difference between an employee getting contraception via health insurance and an employee paying for it out of their paycheck. Either way the employer is abetting behavior they may find objectionable. Health insurance does not belong to the employer, it belongs to the employee–it’s their choice what to do with it, just as it’s their choice what to do with the rest of their compensation.
Tina, quoting a rabidly anti-gay and overall crazytown rabbi:
“If in order to maintain religious freedom, religious people can not incorporate, then religious people are being denied a fundamental economic right,” said Spero. “One cannot safely be in the market place if he is told by the government that he can not incorporate.”
Of course, the rabbi is violating a pretty crucial commandment by lying; the government is not telling religious people that they cannot incorporate. They aren’t even telling religious people they need to compromise on their religious freedoms in order to incorporate. They are telling them that they cannot push their religious views on their employees, a premise that has been upheld in too many court cases to name. They are telling them that their employees’ health care decisions are really none of their business.
As Cindy and Jack pointed out, you can’t prove what someone is doing in their bedroom without violating their privacy. Even the Catholic Church allows contraception to be used for health purposes as long as the intent is not to prevent conception. The Church’s opposition to the mandate is therefore inconsistent; they aren’t against the drugs themselves, they are against some specific uses of those drugs. So what is wrong with covering them in a health insurance plan? How does doing so morally implicate the employer at all, unless that employer is digging into the details of their employees’ private lives?
Chris: “the government is not telling religious people that they cannot incorporate.”
Once again you fail to respect the religious conscience of others and afford them the religious freedom they are granted in the constitution. In the devout Jewish man’s world that is essentially what the government has said because it has left no room for an alternative choice without his paying a prohibitive, punishing price. This is not freedom; it is oppression.
I am also amazed at the level of entitlement that is expected on behalf of employees here. The employer does own the policy. He is the one who makes and signs the agreement, a legal and binding contract, with the insurer. It is he who pays the premium and it is he that holds the responsibility to make sure the policy doesn’t lapse and is renewed year after year. It is he who does the paperwork to make changes for the employee when children or a spouse are added to the policy, when their address changes, when they divorce. If the employer has no choice at all about the content of coverage then he should be out of the loop entirely. And if the employee wants absolute authority over his insurance coverage then let him also pay the bill and be responsible to manage the policy. Using the force of government against a fellow citizen to force his acceptance of the mandate is a relinquishing of responsibility and authority and an invitation into private business.
“They are telling them that they cannot push their religious views on their employees.
This is absurd! The government, nay Kathleen Sebelius, is “dictating” not only to corporate employers but to every single American by taking control and limiting the choice to one. This “feature”, enacted by the unelected HHS, is dictatorial and oppressive.
If the government is allowed to get away with this they will be able to dictate just about anything. How much freedom of choice and religion are we willing to relinquish? What right does HHS have to tell all Americans that their insurance must contain coverage for birth control? Why is there no alternate choice for the unmarried single man, the family that has permanently remedied birth control concerns, the nuns running a home for the sick and elderly, the middle aged woman living alone with her cat, and yes Hobby Lobby? Why have we stupidly given the HHS Secretary the right to dictate that every policy MUST cover birth control? Or Viagra for that matter?
It seems to me that little thought has been given to the element of oppression or the element of religious persecution that is involved in this mandate. As always seems to be the case, the left has managed to control the narrative by setting women up as helpless victims of intolerant religious employers when in fact we are all being controlled by HHS and an oppressive, expensive, unworkable law. There is where the outrage should lie!
This isn’t about the details of anyone’s private life. This is about the level of authority given to an unelected body in our government to dictate what we buy, when we buy it, and the heavy price we will pay if we do not conform. Welcome to the wonderful world of progressivism, comrades!
Employees have choices. They can choose to find a different employer if they don’t like the benefits that are part of their compensation. They can choose to decline the insurance and get their own policy. They can accept the insurance and pay for their own birth control out of pocket. The last will be more cost prohibitive now that deductibles have gone through the roof under Obamacare but they do still have that third choice. On the other hand the very satisfied workers who work for Hobby Lobby would probably prefer to have the policy they had before Obamacare was passed and they would probably prefer to have some certainty that they will not lose their jobs!
How far we have come from respecting those who made sure all people could live in freedom in America.
I thought we stood strong for freedom on Post scripts! I thought we believed in the founding principles and the Constitution? What exactly about “Congress shall make NO LAW”… “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion is hard to grasp? A list of exceptions does not accompany the amendment.
And I’m sorry but women bi#*hing and whining about religious people intruding into “their private” decisions when in fact making others , through the power of government, for their birth control is inviting them…no demanding of them…to intrude into women’s personal business…it’s warped thinking.
Tina: “I thought we stood strong for freedom on Post scripts! I thought we believed in the founding principles and the Constitution? What exactly about “Congress shall make NO LAW”… “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion is hard to grasp? A list of exceptions does not accompany the amendment.”
Tina, under your strict definition of religious freedom, could a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian employer refuse to hire women in violation of anti-discrimination law?
Scotusblog
Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.
Ilya Shapiro of Scotusblog
And it is the main concern I have. The fundamental transformation that is taking place in our country is destructive to the very platform built by our founders…a platform that of all forms most effectively supports peaceful co-existence. The more the left pushes for mandated special rights the more contentious and divided we become.
Those with an interest that transcends the Hobby Lobby case might be interested in reading the amicus brief written by Ilya Shapiro in support of Hobby Lobby. Find it here
An article in the New York Sun also expresses my view quite well. It points Kagan’s error:
The article concludes:
“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes
the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Tina: “Not true. when you wrote, “the Catholic/certain Christian opposition to birth control is…not scripturally sound” you attempted to speak for the Church. You don’t get to decide if their position is scripturally sound.”
Excuse me?
You are literally saying that the Catholic Church is the only body with the right to have an opinion on whether a policy is scripturally sound or not. I doubt you actually believe that, since (and correct me if I am wrong) you are not Catholic yourself. But that is what you just said.
I was raised in church, Tina. Not a Catholic Church, but church nonetheless. I have read the Bible and my opinion on it is quite well informed. It is exceedingly arrogant for you to tell me that I “don’t get to decide if their position is scripturally sound” or not. I have the right to make an informed opinion on whether or not their position comports with scripture.
“The message you send to young women is that indiscriminate sex can be riskless, responsibility free, and cost them nothing because the HHS can make other people pay the cost for the fun.”
Do you understand that many women use contraception for means other than “fun,” Tina? Do you understand that the majority of Sandra Fluke’s testimony was centered on treating legitimate health problems, and not on preventing conception? Do you understand that many of the women using it for birth control purposes are married, and therefore are not out there having “indiscriminate” sex? Do you understand that it is none of an employer’s business what they are using a prescription medication for? Do you understand that getting a prescription for contraception, which many women need, is not as easy as walking into Wal-Mart or Walgreens and forking over a few bucks?
I really don’t think you do.
“What you are saying is that birth control, even when used to effect the end of life,”
No, we are not talking about birth control that is used to effect the end of life. I understand you want to pretend that we are talking about that, but I have no obligation to entertain such nonsense.
“Smart assed responses are so entertaining to the juvenile mind.”
It was designed to make you think about the position you put forward. You argued that free contraception is not the only way to reduce the abortion rate; the alternative is to change the culture to one in which people wait longer to have sex. And you know what? I agree wholeheartedly with that goal! I have very little tolerance for the hook-up culture of my generation and I agree that it is causing very real problems. But I don’t see very much of a real possibility in turning that tide back, and even if it IS possible, it would probably take several generations.
So while I sympathize with your disdain for the hook-up culture, I cannot sympathize with your disdain for government-provided birth control, especially when you say that you are concerned about the abortion rate. Keep trying to change the culture all you want–but IN THE MEANTIME, you should be in favor of free birth control if your goal is to reduce the abortion rate. Again, it would take generations to achieve what you want through changing the culture. But the contraception mandate is something that could reduce the abortion rate NOW. You lecture me about “adult solutions,” but part of being an adult is learning the values of efficiency and practicality. You and your party are currently more concerned with ideological purity.
“The solution we are discussing is whether people of religious conscience have a right to abstain from paying for the birth control of irresponsible women.”
Wow. Biased, much? Who are you to judge women using birth control as “irresponsible?” Have you honestly never used contraception in your life, Tina?
“You prefer to portray these women as helpless victims,”
Nope. Show me where I have said anything like that. Your constant need to argue with strawmen instead of my actual positions reveals the extreme weaknesses of your own arguments.
“It isn’t over. If it isn’t over it can’t be deemed a failure.”
Ha! So I can assume then that you will never again refer to any entitlement or welfare program as a failure, Tina?
What a relief!
You have no consistent logical ability whatsoever.
“I should have referenced forcing employees to butcher pork.”
That is still a crap analogy. You just quoted the law itself: religious freedom can only be compromised when there is a “compelling state interest” at hand. Even if you disagree that providing contraception serves as a “compelling state interest,” surely you can understand the argument that it is; is there any comparable argument for the need for more pork butchers?
Chris: “You are literally saying that the Catholic Church is the only body with the right to have an opinion on whether a policy is scripturally sound or not.”
No Chris. I am saying you don’t get to decide the meaning of scripture for the Catholic Church.
“It is exceedingly arrogant for you to tell me that I “don’t get to decide if their position is scripturally sound” or not.”
Had I done that I would agree. What I said is that you don’t get to decide scriptural meaning for the Catholic Church. We are not discussing your opinion or mine. We are discussing the moral conscience of Catholics and others who believe that paying for these abortion inducing drugs/devices would make them complicit to the taking of human life. In this discussion our personal opinions don’t matter.
“Do you understand that many women use contraception for means other than “fun,” Tina?”
Since I am a woman, I think I have a pretty good handle on the situation, yes! The argument was in the context of what leftist policy teaches young women.
“Do you understand that the majority of Sandra Fluke’s testimony was centered on treating legitimate health problems…”
I understand that Sandra Flukes testimony was activist testimony made in a Nancy Pelosi orchestrated setting to further a feminist political agenda.
“Do you understand that it is none of an employer’s business what they are using a prescription medication for?”
Do you understand that unless you are in favor of making all of us complete wards of the state asking an employer to have this level of responsibility in any persons life, especially when it is against his religious conscience, is oppressive and tyrannical?
Do you have any idea how un-American the idea of giving an employer no other possible recourse is?
“I have no obligation to entertain such nonsense.”
Unfortunately for you the FDA disagrees, as I pointed out above.
“You argued that free contraception is not the only way to reduce the abortion rate”
Actually, I think I argued that free contraception is one more way to encourage behavior that leads to more abortion. Young women and teens especially report not using it as prescribed or forgetting to take it consistently.
“I cannot sympathize with your disdain for government-provided birth control, especially when you say that you are concerned about the abortion rate.”
It’s a little late in the day to begin to be concerned about the abortion rate with over a million performed annually. The stand to turn the tide began long ago and continues. I see no reason not to make this religious liberty case one more place to make that stand.
“but IN THE MEANTIME, you should be in favor of free birth control…”
I have not argued against it, although I think it is ridiculous to make it mandatory in all policies giving those of religious conscience no alternative option.
“part of being an adult is learning the values of efficiency and practicality”
Another is learning to sight a con job. This entire law has been foisted on America as a result of a con. The responsible adult thing for any woman/girl to do that cannot afford contraception, a child, or an abortion is abstention. Forcing an employer to make that hard responsible choice unnecessary is a result of a major feminist con. (All wrapped up in the pretty pink ribbons of victim-hood).
“You and your party are currently more concerned with ideological purity.”
A problem your party of choice doesn’t have at all would be the smarmy response…I suggest that a party that refuses to stand for liberty or respect differing points of view is a party not worth joining.
” Have you honestly never used contraception in your life, Tina?”
Th question is whether I would stand behind a regulation that forces my employer to pay for it or pay a $26 million TAX (Roberts). I would not! To do so would be irresponsible and un-American.
“Show me where I have said anything like that…”
It is just that easy.
“Your constant need to argue with strawmen…”
Can the lecture, Chris, you’ve set up or defended more than a few yourself!
“So I can assume then that you will never again refer to any entitlement or welfare program as a failure, Tina?”
Nice try, Chris. The hole in your hopeful argument is the notion that entitlement programs will ever lead to a) The elimination of poverty, b) Zero debt, or c) a thriving economy. Entitlement programs have had their trial period; only a fool would continue to support and defend them as workable.
It took progressives many years to tear apart the moral fabric that made America a relatively safe and decent, opportunity filled place to live. The quest to reverse that trend is fraught with impossible mountains to climb but I see no other choice but to grab my walking stick and climb.
“That is still a crap analogy”
It may have been but the general issue of religious freedom fits in the context of the case at hand even if I expressed it badly…see various thoughts from the justices.