Supreme Court Divided on Hobby Lobby and birth control issue

[SMOGZINN]

Wrong. Lets look at what he said:


The clear implication is ALL contraception. While the the issue is over a limited subset of contraception. This is not "splitting hairs". It is about fundamental dishonesty in order to make it look like there is a "war on women".

Because obviously if women can't get men to provide them with whatever BC they want that constitutes a war on them :hmm:

A vote for Hobby Lobby is a vote against all birth control. This is not just a single instance case, this is for precedent on if a company can be forced to cover medical practices that it disagrees with.
While Hobby Lobby, right now, does not reject all forms of contraception, it would not change this case any at all if they did.

 

[nehalem256]

A vote for Hobby Lobby is a vote against all birth control. This is not just a single instance case, this is for precedent on if a company can be forced to cover medical practices that it disagrees with.
While Hobby Lobby, right now, does not reject all forms of contraception, it would not change this case any at all if they did.

BC pills are available for <$10/month at Target and Walmart. By any rational definition this counts as affordable.

 

[SMOGZINN]

BC pills are available for <$10/month at Target and Walmart. By any rational definition this counts as affordable.

Unless of course Walmart decides it is against their religion. (Which I'm sure won't happen since they worship hard cold cash.) The point is, that you can say things like 'it is affordable already', but that is a strawman, the question before SCOTUS is not if birth control is affordable, it is does a company have a right to refuse to cover it. If the answer is yes, then they also have the right to refuse to cover other things that are not so affordable, like chemotherapy that costs $10,000 per treatment.

 

[ElFenix]

BC pills are available for <$10/month at Target and Walmart. By any rational definition this counts as affordable.

and regular BC pills don't work for a lot of women due to a huge list of side effects.

 

[MrPickins]

and regular BC pills don't work for a lot of women due to a huge list of side effects.

Definitely.

My wife had major issues with them before she switched over to IUD.

 

[werepossum]

I can explain this easily, please note I do not support it. HL wants to follow the Catholic belief that once sperm & egg combine that is a baby. Hence IUD's & morning after pills effectively abort the baby. People will correctly state that its common for sperm & egg to combine and still not become a baby because the uterus is not ready or any other reason but that is Gods will not man or woman interfering with the baby. This is also why real hard core Catholic's have shunned any form of birth control. Its an endless rabbit hole that anyone can get stuck in.

Yep. I too don't agree with the definition, but have no problem following their logic.

BC pills are available for <$10/month at Target and Walmart. By any rational definition this counts as affordable.

While I don't think insurance should be paying for birth control, it's worth pointing out that birth control pills are very strong hormones and not all women can take them. Ironically, one of the forms to which Hobby Lobby specifically objects is the IUD, which arguably should be covered as it is initially expensive, is often prescribed for women who have difficulty with other, cheaper forms of birth control, and is a form which needs to be monitored regularly.

 

[sportage]

Court watch today. Its coming.
Actually as a liberal I personally have evolved on this issue and think hobby lobby and the likes of SHOULD have the legal right to object on religious rights.
And someone on CNN brought up the bakery refusing to make a cake for same sex couples on religious rights.
I say OK. Let this be the ruling.
Let all companies construct their own ground rules vs the owners religious rights, freedoms or personal opinion.
Why?
Because I trust the business world 100% to make the right decision and not become involved with petty religious aspects when it comes to the owner vs the employee.

I believe 99% of corporations and companies WILL support their employees rights.
I don't think corporations will care one way or the other.
A few, like hobby lobby and chick-a-flick (wherever they call themselves) will get all pissy and try to control what their employees get and do not get.
But 99% of companies will not go that route.

In the end, so called religious rights will be in place for companies that feel they need that.
But more importantly the word will get out and every one of these corporations and businesses will suffer financially in the end.

If that baker does not want to bake cakes for gay weddings, the word will get out as well.
And I believe every company that claims religious freedoms to act against the public, every one of those companies and businesses will suffer financially.

Bottom line... I do not believe the average consumer nor employee agrees with any company that is not fully open to conducting business with anyone and everyone.
And those companies/businesses that do chose to discriminate will either eventually change their minds or suffer to the extent of financial ruin.

This country is still a nation of freedom for all, and not with religious strings attached.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Because I trust the business world 100% to make the right decision and not become involved with petty religious aspects when it comes to the owner vs the employee.

So, you are not afraid that basically every company will decide that it follows what ever religious doctrine that reduces cost the most?

You also believe that a companies religious freedom is more important then a employees religious freedom?

 

[norseamd]

I can explain this easily, please note I do not support it. HL wants to follow the Catholic belief that once sperm & egg combine that is a baby. Hence IUD's & morning after pills effectively abort the baby. People will correctly state that its common for sperm & egg to combine and still not become a baby because the uterus is not ready or any other reason but that is Gods will not man or woman interfering with the baby. This is also why real hard core Catholic's have shunned any form of birth control. Its an endless rabbit hole that anyone can get stuck in.

That is not the will of god or other religious explanations.

It is science.

 

[theeedude]

Remember that Firefox CEO who had to quit because he opposed gay marriage? If I was a CEO, I would be very careful with the rope the SCOTUS just gave you. Just because it works for five old Republic Catholic men with lifetime appointments, doesn't mean it's going to work for your long term career prospects to use it to limit women's health care options.

 

[RampantAndroid]

So, you are not afraid that basically every company will decide that it follows what ever religious doctrine that reduces cost the most?

You also believe that a companies religious freedom is more important then a employees religious freedom?

Isn't this about pitting one person's freedoms against another? These people can still go get these IUDs themselves. Nothing is stopping them...

If you want an IUD - great. You can also pay for it.

 

[Wreckem]

Isn't this about pitting one person's freedoms against another? These people can still go get these IUDs themselves. Nothing is stopping them...

If you want an IUD - great. You can also pay for it.

In this case you, me, and all taxpayers will be paying for Hobby Lobby's(Mardels, et al) female employees to have birth control coverage.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Isn't this about pitting one person's freedoms against another? These people can still go get these IUDs themselves. Nothing is stopping them...

If you want an IUD - great. You can also pay for it.

We have to be really careful about this. This is about a lot more then IUDs. What happens when a corporation decides that they have a religious objection to Chemotherapy? This is most definitely going to happen.

The dissenting opinion says it right: "[This decision allows companies to] opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Remember that Firefox CEO who had to quit because he opposed gay marriage? If I was a CEO, I would be very careful with the rope the SCOTUS just gave you. Just because it works for five old Republic Catholic men with lifetime appointments, doesn't mean it's going to work for your long term career prospects to use it to limit women's health care options.

LMAO!!!! Hobby Lobby is privately owned and operated.

 

[theeedude]

LMAO!!!! Hobby Lobby is privately owned and operated.

Good for them. Their customers have other options though.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Good for them. Their customers have other options though.

Obvious you have never been in a Hobby Lobby, most of the customers tend to be religious people and the same is true of their employees.

 

[theeedude]

Obvious you have never been in a Hobby Lobby, most of the customers tend to be religious people and the same is true of their employees.

Other corporations aren't like that though. So their CEOs could get Susan G Komen'd if they make a wrong step.

 

[Oldgamer]

I think this "activist" court is setting some very dangerous precedents here. This was really more about certain Judges being motivated to try and hurt or dismantle the ACA than it was about Corporations having religious rights that trump employees. They have opened a can of worms and folks, you should be very very concerned no matter what your stance is on birth control.

This court has shown to be NOT be biased, and impartial and isn't looking at facts, but setting rulings based on political affiliation or their own personal biases. The fact the Scalia's wife is the head of a major "pro-life" organization that has been wooing him and Clarence Thomas with dinners and political donations is most disturbing, especially when neither of these judges recused or refrained from issuing opinions or decisions.

By the way, I also think Hobby Lobby has just shot itself in the foot. My S.O. and daughter have just informed me they are no longer shopping at our local Hobby Lobby. I imagine a boycott will begin and many women will decide not to shop there anymore.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^^similar here. We don't have any hobby lobby's near us but I know this ruling will piss her off. She's sides with conservatives on many issue. Its the women's health problem that keeps her from voting R

 

[Knowing]

Walmart

isn't a closely held company.

My wife and I paid the enormous and unworldly sum that the oppressive CVS demanded the one time we elected to use emergency birth control. This has only made her more aware of the histrionics of people who share opinions without knowing the facts of the matter.

 

[SMOGZINN]

isn't a closely held company.

My wife and I paid the enormous and unworldly sum that the oppressive CVS demanded the one time we elected to use emergency birth control. This has only made her more aware of the histrionics of people who share opinions without knowing the facts of the matter.

Also note that the conversation about Walmart was back in May when the oral arguments were going on. This thread was rightfully necro'ed back so we can discuss the judgement.

But, beyond that point the 'closely held' clause is inclusionary, not exclusionary. In other words The Court said that this ruling affects as least those that are closely held, it did not say that this rule only affects those that are closely held. Whether this rule includes those that are not closely held will still have to be determined.

 

[zinfamous]

damn activist judges putting their politics ahead of the law, again.

Why do conservatives like activist judges?

😡

 

[SMOGZINN]

damn activist judges putting their politics ahead of the law, again.

Why do conservatives like activist judges?

😡

Both parties like activist judges. It is the only way anything actually gets done anymore in our broken government.

 

[glenn1]

In this case you, me, and all taxpayers will be paying for Hobby Lobby's(Mardels, et al) female employees to have birth control coverage.

So what? All people with insurance plans were paying for them before the court case. That's probably almost the exact same group of people as "all taxpayers." Why act all butthurt about it since who cares who pays for the "free" shit the left gives out? Why not mandate health insurance cover toilet paper or tampons also, since it makes almost as much sense as birth control in most cases?

 

[boomerang]

In this case you, me, and all taxpayers will be paying for Hobby Lobby's(Mardels, et al) female employees to have birth control coverage.

Interesting. For some reason I thought you were pro-Obamacare.