Everyone keeps talking about freedoms but what Hobby Lobby is about is not FREEDOMS but ENTITLEMENTS.

The government can mandate for you to secure birth control courtesy of your insurance policy which an employer is paying for and subsidized by tax payers
So isn't it a short hop to enforcing women to giving birth to only one baby or forcing a woman to abort a pregnancy government feels might result in a not so perfect human being in order to control insurance costs and cut down on over use of medical facilties.

From a personal point of view our government is way out of line and as did communist with Eastern Europe this government will take away our freedoms one slice at a time and its causing me great concern for succeeding generations of Americans

The freedoms we have lost and given up truly frighten me. We've given up free speech and privacy for security. We are willing to waive the right to be protected from search and seizure and even a right to a fair trial so that we're safe from terrorists. We're encouraged to report friends and neighbors. The separation of church and state is seriously dwindling. Roe v. Wade is almost out of the door. Even Miranda has been diluted. It seems like individual freedoms are going by the wayside for the "greater good."

And I'm on the verge of getting seriously political, so I guess better get my fingers off the keyboard and go do something constructive.

Gracie is correct to say that none of us will persuade the other in this type of topic, and it only goes to the ruination of one's day.

However, I, as a practicing and praying Christian, don't like phrases like 'lunatic fringe ideology' tossed about at religious people. That's a broad insult and says a lot about the genuine fear ruling some people's lives. Religion is not the same as 'ideology' but the latter is certainly the more attention grabbing word especially for those who live by sound bytes and quick slogans.

Rubicon and Gomoho have very well stated what they, and I believe, that this is all about dubious 'entitlements' and the slippery slope of smiley faced government fascism regardless of political party.

I understand your logic but if they did not buy products from China they would have nothing to sell. Look at the labels on your clothes and everything else in your home. What percentage is made in the USA? I try to buy American made but is almost impossible.

Buddhist view of abortion
 

Buddhist Perspectives on the Abortion Debate

I was thinking about the religion in China and discovered this interesting article.

redwitch: the problem is not that we are getting too political its that folks are so divided that they don't seek understanding they seek agreement only. We have become so divided that we can tell a person's politics by asking which news station do you view and /or which corporation/business do you hold in disfavor.

So it's OK to support abortion if you can make a profit, but not just to allow your fellow Americans freedom of choice. This is nothing more than forced religious prejudice.

I like the way you note the difference between understanding and agreement. We do not all need to agree, we just need to at least try to understand.

I am a FOX follower, but on contraception, I say it is only between the woman and her God.

I assume that a Catholic owned "corporation" could advance this to the Supreme Court and reduce the methods of birth control to one. Then they would only support health care that would provide the "rhythm method" of birth control. The slippery slope continues!

I try to look at a variety of news channels (CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, BBC, etc) before making a decision and my voting record is all over the board.

We do need to start deciding things for ourselves rather than listening to what the media feeds us. And the Internet is a great tool for that.

And, despite whatever the Supreme Court of the US might say about some issue there are always various other checks and balances.

The Supreme Court itself just recently made a ruling in favor of our right of privacy with respect to stuff on our cell phones. Many people I am acquainted with use their cell phones to do research on many topics.

There is absolutely nothing that states a woman is mandated to secure birth control from any source. If she does not want birth control, no one is forcing her to use it.

No, it is not a short step to require only one child or to force abortions. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There are no "freedoms" being taken away one slice at a time.

There are freedoms being formed similar to the civil rights freedoms of the 1960's that show courage.

Hummmm. I like way you talk paleface. It's not taking away the freedom from the owner of Hobby Lobby. It's allowing him to take away the rights of hundreds of women.

You know that's not what I said at all. Made in America is a whole new thread.

A woman is still free to use whatever contraception she chooses. She just has to pay for it. She is also free to NOT work at a business that will not provide the birth control drug she desires.

As has been already noted, the ruling only affects 4 abortion causing forms of birth control, out of 20. I suspect that the vast majority of people whining about the Hobby Lobby decision don't know the facts of the case or the law that the ruling was based on and almost certainly didn't read the decision but based their opinion on biased and disingenuous "news" reporting. What most people fail to realize is that Obamacare, by mandating that insurance companies provide birth control, has almost certainly increased the price for birth control and therefor the insurance premiums that we pay either directly or indirectly through taxes to cover subsides. This is what happens when the gov gets involved in anything. A case in point is college tuition: the gov being involved in student loans has directly resulted in tuition prices rising much faster than the rate of inflation over the past 30 years. It used to be that "health insurance" was designed to cover serious, and therefore expensive, illnesses. I never thought of pregnancy as a disease. Welcome to the entitlement era where the gov mandates, controls, and forces us to pay for whatever the bureaucrats think people should be receiving and anyone who disagrees is called names.

No one's freedom of choice is being taken away - they can do what the hell they want to do at their own expense. Why is this such a difficult concept to get. And what about the owners of Hobby Lobby's choice to freedom of religion. You don't seem to have a problem denying them their right to practice as they choose.

[QUOTE=biker1;902640]As has been already noted, the ruling only affects 4 abortion causing forms of birth control, out of 20. I suspect that the vast majority of people whining about the Hobby Lobby decision don't know the facts of the case or the law that the ruling was based on and almost certainly didn't read the decision but based their opinion on biased and disingenuous "news" reporting."

Negatory, good buddy(as we used to say on the CB radio). The Supreme Court has told all lower courts to re-hear all cases regarding all forms of birth control. This is the minefield that Justice Ginsberg was referring to in her dissent. It very well might push into other healthcare issues such as transfusions, vaccines, mental health, or preventive medicine.

I wonder if Hobby Lobby would give paid sick leave to an employee if she needed some extra recovery days after having an abortion that she paid for? :shrug:

[quote=buggyone;902650]Yes, why is this so. Hard to understand. I am center neutral on all issues. This one is slanted to far to the right of center for me. I lean right, but not when it comes to discrimination against women. I love my wife too much to tell her what she can or cannot do.

It is not a duty of a Corporation to provide Health Care. And it is only recently, say early '90s that Health Insurance morhed into prepaid Health care. Before that people paid their own way and the Health Insurance was for big, catastrophic cases.

A Corporation's job is not to provide Health Care or Health Insurance,or jobs, it's job is to make money for its owners. Employer provided Health Insurance started during the '30s as a way to attract better employees.

If one wants to kill her baby, they is no reason why that person can't get her own poison pills.

Comparing Viagra to abortion is "Nuts" as Dr. Ablow would say, only abortion stops a beating Heart. If one does not want the baby their are plenty of us who would have adopted it.

I have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra.

Here are a couple of the problems with the stupid Supreme Court decision..First, the insurance plan provided to Hobby Lobby employees has coverage for vasectomies ( a form of birth control) yet they will now deny certain birth control methods for women. Is this not discrimination ???
Secondly and more important is the fact that there are thousand of religous sects in America who own busineses. Some sects are major religous groups that oppose any medical intervention in any form:cus::spoken:. These are interventions such as vaccinations. blood transfusions, transplants, and surgeries. Does this decision now allow these religious owned businesses to now deny coverage for such medical procedures??
And thirdly, the "Decision" uses th term "sincerely religous" owners of specific businesses. Whe is to decide who meets this provision.
I can forsee a couple of owners suddenly becoming "saved" over night.

I take issue with you regarding your use of the "egg" and totally omitting the value of the sperm. Why is it that destroying the egg by a morning after pill can be ojectional but destroying the sperm with the same morning after pill is OK.

How many eggs at ovation? Normally one or two.
How many sperm at ejaculation? 180 million.

Now who's more guilty of interfering with the birth of a child?

Sorry, but there is so much misinformation in that post that it should not be left unanswered. Start with the obvious that you have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra. You might start with Medicare and then check every other health insurance policy in America. I doubt you will find hardly any that do NOT cover drugs for ED.

In fact it is a duty for corporations to provide health care to their employees if those corporations are large enough to be covered by the ACA. And the corporation gets to take a huge tax deduction equal to the cost of those non-Cadillac plans so in fact the corporation is providing it at a very discounted rate. The law, affirmed by the court, sets minimum standards as to what that insurance must cover to be in compliance with the ACA requirement. A company is free to offer some less useful insurance if it chooses but the company pays a penalty for failing to provide adequate insurance. The insurance must cover preventive care, vaccinations, and all the components of care everyone would expect as being usual and customary.

So to say that the corporation exists in a vacuum with no social responsibility ignores decades of law. Corporations would make more money if we let them pollute, ignore safety and employee work conditions, exploit children, the list is endless. So corporations are interwoven into our society as much more than income generating tools. We give corporations special rights in exchange for their role.

The history of health insurance differs from your presentation. Coverage was driven by unions, yes unions, negotiating with large employers as a way to increase the benefits to workers without raising their earned income. If the employee got a raise then bought insurance the income was first taxed thus the insurance was bought with after tax dollars. Wages controls during WW2 limited the wage increases employers could offer but did not limit the health insurance benefits. If the corporation used before tax dollars the employee was ahead and the corporation got a tax deduction. So it could spend a dollar on salary or a dollar on insurance, a wash for the corporation. And health insurance has been paying for outpatient non catastrophic care for decades before the 90's.

Hobby Lobby is a For Profit Corporation. Their owners can practice religion whatever way they want as a private family but it was a bad decision to include a For Profit Corporation as an exclusion to part of the healthcare law.

A "for profit corp" with "numerous qualifers" and that meets the RFRA of 1992.

1. Vasectomies do not have the potential to cause abortions as do the 4 specific contraceptives sited by Hobby Lobby.
2. Re vaccinations, etc - the decision specifically states that is does not in any way deal with those issues.
3. I am confident the judicial system would have to deal with any allegation of "sincerely religious" AS WELL AS the other "numerous qualifiers" set forth in the decision.
What owners do you see "suddenly becoming "saved" over night." who meet the criteria set forth in the decision?

A bad decision is still a bad decision. Anyhow, let's just hope this does not morph into some For Profit Corporations getting exclusions on vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health care,or preventive healthcare.

I don't think those should be excluded. Are we in agreement?

What rights?

[quote=44Ruger;902654]What discrimination?

Buggyone - I do not see this as a bad decision. I see Justice Ginsberg as an alarmist reaching for straws because she has nothing solid upon which to base her fantasy assumptions. Has she NOT, at her age and status in life learned what happens when one assumes?

Again I refer to the exact words in the decision:
"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discriminationas a religious practice."

I count on the court to abide by those words. Of course, remembering some of the actions of the "Warren" Court can send shivers up and down my spine!

This is obviously a thread where some agree with the decision and some don't and never the twain will meet. That is why the decision was 5/4. Majority rules. I would imagine ( but do not know) that the 5/4 pretty much represents the USA population. Is this a great country or what?

I did a little research myself rather than rely on the news stations. While Hobby Lobby is against the four forms of birth control, I found it interesting that their 401K plan offered to their employees invests in a variety of birth control companies, including the four forms the store is against offering insurance.

... it's okay to invest in and profit from something you are religiously against using... Forgive me, God...but some days it just doesn't add up.

I'm going to be hated here, but I am in agreement with the SCOTUS
I'm not going to defend my point of view
I worked for Chick Fil A
You know what type of company it is when you choose to work there
You may work for a variety of reasons, but no one makes you stay
So,if having that type of coverage is important to you. ....LEAVE

I don't understand how the government has the right to tell private companies what they must provide for their employees. Somewhere along the line, we somehow lost sight of our constitution which was written to place restrictions on our federal government.

We'll said.

Thank you. Maybe there is a role for Federal oversight? Very well said!

Amen!
No hate from me..I agree. I believe in birth control. I took birth control pills. No body paid for it but me. No one is denying your right to birth control. If you work there, you know what the benefits are.

Nonsense - this is absolutely not true. Check your facts.


[quote=buggyone;902650]