It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

page: 38
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:24 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hobby Lobby, et. al. has nothing to do with the Constitution ... read the ruling; it is entirely based on the flawed and unconstitutional RFRA.

If the RFRA was unconstitutional, it would have been shot down. Instead, it is upheld. And the RFRA goes back to the freedom of religion in the Constitution.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:36 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

but do you agree that their beliefs are now more protected than your own on this matter?
I mean I get the feeling that you don't want YOUR money being used for birth control either am I right?
and just how can YOU avoid it??
insurance by it's nature will use some of the money you give them to purchase them for other policy holders.
How is the money you give the insurance companies any different than the money that the company gives to buy the policy?
It is much easier to say that people can buy a policy on their own if they don't like what the company offers. Or that employees should find another employer if they don't like the employer's healthplan than it is practical. I don't think it is any more practical to suggest that the companies can pick an chose what is or isn't covered in the packages the insurance companies offer them to any great extent. I kind of think those plans are more designed according to affordabilty with the cheaper ones offering less than the more expensive ones. Maybe I am wrong but I don't believe that companies can pick and chose and create a custom designed healthcare.
So in practicality the people are kind of stuck buying the plan the company offers them if they are lucky! If they are really lucky they may be able to have the extra funds to replace the company's contribution and can shop around for one more to their liking buy it will still have birth control coverage ! So their money will still be going to buy birth control coverage won't it???
Just like any company at the present time probably can't find a plan that doesn't cover birth control (it has been mandated to include it for quite some time!)
So it is decided that company's who's beliefs contradict the obamacare mandate should be exempt from having to provide it.

This opens up quite a few problems.
Are individuals still mandated to have coverage that includes it?
Are there plans available without it for the employers to buy?
And what about the individuals who have the same beliefs that are still being mandated to buy the coverage?? Shouldn't their rights be held at least at the same level as a Company's??

One of the justifications for the ruling of the supreme court was the the gov't didn't provide enough evidence that it was the least restrictive way for the gov't to obtain it's objectives in this case having birth control covered with no copays or additional charges to women. The reasoning was that gov't could foot the bill for this coverage- I believe that would be you and me wouldn't it??
Didn't they just take that "sin" off of Hobby Lobby's back and set it squarely on yours and mine?
And are you exempt for having to purchase insurance that is covers birth control? Oh I know!! You can go find a job at one of those many, many small christain businesses that are standing in line behind Hobby lobby with the same complaint! For some reasons I think that the result would be those that belief that same way would flock to these businesses and begin populating the cities that they are in! And once state's rights are given back to them these businesses with employees in tow would begin to going to those states that are more geared to their religions,
Business based 'caliphates"
to localities
to state based...

This would quite destructive to the nation.

Another option is to just remove the birth control coverage from the insurance plans for those who "believe this way" And have a two (or more) tiered systems and offer non offensive plans for them. But this is ignoring the giant elephant that seems to go unnoticed by so many. You accuse those who are griping on here that they have a "entitlement attitude" or are somehow not "responsible" but well they don't fit either category!!! They aren't asking the government to give them anything!!! They are working families who have been responsibly taking part in their company's healthcare plans! And they are responsible enough to want to control the size of their families and not have to rely on those gov't entitlements!!!! And guess what!! They along with you through your taxmoney will still be paying for the birth control for that group that is "entitlement " minded and not responsible! So this option doesn't really address the real problem either does it???

Another option and this one would remove the problem would be to drop all gov't assistance in this area and make birth control an extra policy that one could buy for an additional fee. I am against this option mainly because I believe that controlling the number of babies a women brings into the world saves probably as many lives as some of those other tests to predict weather or not you are at risk for whatever disease is!! I am against it because I beileve that the ability for a women to control the number of children is a vital health care need! And don't you dare say that well if she doesn't want kids she shouldn't have sex!!! Far too many believe that sex is a vital part of the marriage relationship! As it stands now those poor "entitlement" minded not responsible people can maintain a healthy marriage without facing the fear of repercussions but maybe not some of those working families out there?? This is what I find so reprehensible! Not only in this matter but so many others!

And I would like to point out that none of these problems really solves the problem!!!
When it comes to healthcare I'd venture to say that ALL those reading this post HAS TO BE "entitlement minded"!!
Either we are finding that we need to rely on gov't assistance for it.
Or we are finding that we have to rely on our employee to pitch in a good portion of the cost.
Or even if we can actually shop around and foot the entire bill ourselves we are still at the mercy of the insurance company.
Because we are working and our tax money is being used to pay for the healthcare of the "poor" along with providing a great deal of money to research and developement, healthcare facilities and equipment- We Should Feel Entitled to have some possible way to access the same system. Without having to change or careers or take out giant loans for a piece of paper of BS!
Because we are devouting 40 or more hours a week working for someone else doing their bidding we feel "entitled" that the employer will provide us with the funds to at least keep us living and breathing and that includes healthcare! We Should Feel Entitled!
And because we are giving our money to the insurance company we rightfully feel that we should be entitled to have our medical needs covered by that insurance.
And we also feel that we should have the right to say no thank you to those insurance companies when the policies have deductables that are so high that we are sure that we not meet it or their coverage doesn't meet our needs to the point of making it worthwhile!

Our healthcare is failing in all these areas! Obamacare is failing!

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:45 AM
a reply to: Daedalus

There are many, many companies standing behind Hobby Lobby that will now get the same protection. And unless you can point me to where in the opinion it points out select birth control methods that can't be force upon them I have the idea as far as hobby lobby is concerned they will just refuse to include just these few methods.
Some of those other businesses more than likely will have beliefs that will cause them to refuse all methods! I believe the ruling was that the gov't couldn't force the companies to birth control.. which could mean some or all!!

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:54 AM

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: MsSmith

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: thesaneone
I think it's solid to remind ourselves about freedom, and that we provide to women in the US - who yet again are being dictated to by insecure men.

I love this argument, the "if you aren't a woman you should have no say" argument. I guess doctors who haven't had AIDS or Cancer shouldn't have a say in their patients treatment. The argument smacks of stupidity. And again, women haven't been told anything by the US. In the US they can still purchase any contraceptives they want. In the US they can still get an abortion. But the fact that an employer can say "I'm not paying for that, it violates my beliefs" is somehow a negative reflection on the US? But it would be a positive reflection of the US if the government said "you have to do what we say, regardless of your beliefs"? You have some weird world views.

You really don't see the difference between a man telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body and an educated doctor treating a patient for cancer? Seriously??? LMAO!

To start, cancer and AIDS are both diseases. Despite what you may believe, being a woman is not. There's always a possibility anyone could develop a disease, but there's no possibility that a man will ever develop a uterus. Second, while a doctor can suggest treatments, he can't force you to undergo or not undergo any treatment you choose. You have the final say, not your doctor, which is true of almost anything else when it comes to a man's body. You can decide not to undergo chemo and use holistic medicine instead. Right now as we speak, women in this country can't undergo a procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because some man somewhere decided those women don'r have the right to make decisions about their own body.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot become a biological woman if you are born a man. So nothing a woman can or can't do to her body could EVER affect a man, including men who undergo gender reassignment, SO NO, MEN DO NOT GET A SAY IN ANY WOMEN ONLY ISSUES. Please tell how how taking birth control or getting an abortion has any affect on any man anywhere. You could argue that it has an effect on the potential fetus, but since you aren't that fetus and that fetus's existence has no effect on you (outstde of paying child support if you happen to be the father), you still have no right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do to her own body on her own time. Ever.

I don't see a difference between an educated man telling you what to do for cancer and an educated man telling you what to do for pregnancy. No, I don't see that difference. You want to pretend that being a woman is some unknowable phenomenon to anyone but a woman, when really it's not anymore unknowable than a doctor who has never had a disease. No womanhood is not a disease, I never implied that, if you thought I was then you misunderstood the point.

No man can force a woman to do or not do anything, to suggest otherwise is to be ignorant to the mindset of women. Unless you do what that guy in ohio did to those women he had locked in his basement. Then again, he was charged with five counts of murder for the unborn babies... oh wait... they're not people... so how does that work? Anyway, what the men and women in congress do (which are voted in by women, as well as men) is represent the interests of their constituents. NEWS FLASH: Most women oppose abortion (according to gallup) so by lumping all women into this group that is monolithic and supports abortion, again, shows your ignorance. Also, you must have missed the memo, you aren't allowed to have women's only issues, just like we aren't allowed to have men's only issues, clubs, etc.

And it's not an argument that it affects the unborn baby, it's a fact. It's the whole reason for the procedure. It's not even a procedure, it's murder. If your child (born) dies in their sleep, it's not murder but a tragedy, but if you go in with a saw and hack them all to pieces, it sure is murder. The same goes for your unborn children. Just because you deem them lower than human, doesn't make it so. Just like it didn't make slaves lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them. Just like it didn't make mormon's lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them.

There is no argument that because the mother is sustaining them while she's pregnant ... because that would make post-birth abortion OK (babies rely on their mothers sustenance, long after birth). There is no argument that the mother can't afford them, there's adoption. There's no argument that because they are "not viable"... because eventually they'll be able to grow them in a test tube, which will make your view now look as barbaric as the culling of children in Sparta.

If you don't want to get pregnant, there are numerous ways to prevent it, from drugs and devices, to surgeries and abstinence. There is no excuse for murder.

The difference between an educated man telling me what to do for cancer and an educated man telling me what to do for pregnancy is I STILL HAVE THE ULTIMATE CHOICE OVER ANY TREATMENT FOR THE CANCER IN MY OWN BODY. No doctor can force me to do any treatment or stop me from doing any treatment I choose. And no random man off the street has any influence whatsoever over any decisions I make.

And LOL @ every man everywhere with an opinion on what women should do with their own bodies being educated because no. If this was an issue of only doctors suggestion to women what they should do, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not. Men with no medical experience whatsoever are using personal and religious beliefs to MAKE LAWS telling women what they can do with their own bodies, not suggesting ideas for cancer treatments. Until I approach you or anyone else asking for your opinion, you are nothing comparable to a doctor helping me choose a treatment for cancer. And since you can't force me not to kill the cancer cells if I decide I want to, it's not even relatable. I can walk away from a doctor who thinks it's immoral to treat cancer cells in my uterus. I can't walk away from an idiot man who passed a law that says it's illegal to treat fetal cells in my uterus.

There are numerous ways to prevent pregnancy. Termination is one of them. Thankfully, morons like you have no control over what I do with my body where I live!

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:57 AM

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Daedalus

There are many, many companies standing behind Hobby Lobby that will now get the same protection. And unless you can point me to where in the opinion it points out select birth control methods that can't be force upon them I have the idea as far as hobby lobby is concerned they will just refuse to include just these few methods.
Some of those other businesses more than likely will have beliefs that will cause them to refuse all methods! I believe the ruling was that the gov't couldn't force the companies to birth control.. which could mean some or all!!

It is my understanding that any other companies that want to do anything that exceeds the narrow scope of this SCOTUS decision will have to go through the courts all over again to have decisions made.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:59 AM
a reply to: MsSmith

No doctor can force me to do any treatment or stop me from doing any treatment I choose.

Doctors, maybe... cops are a different story.

There are plenty of cancer treatments out there that can't be used legally. That is why people go to Mexico for some treatments.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:10 AM
a reply to: butcherguy
so where in the decision does it restrict what kinds of birth control can be refused because I didn't see it must of missed it it is kind of alot to read
I believe what it says it that the gov't cannot force a business to have birth control in their coverage.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:23 AM
The loop hole every employer was looking for so they don't have to offer ( and therefore pay half) health insurance to their employees. Here in Virginia which is a right to work state people got fired from jobs they held for years just so business owners didn't have to offer health insurance. Sickening.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:33 AM

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: butcherguy
so where in the decision does it restrict what kinds of birth control can be refused because I didn't see it must of missed it it is kind of alot to read
I believe what it says it that the gov't cannot force a business to have birth control in their coverage.

I heard a lawyer talking on ABC radio this morning, and he said that the four specific types of birth control methods included in the suit are as far as the decision reaches.

I was trying to find something online, not much luck so far, but I did come across this, from [url=][/u rl] :

The Department of Health and Human Services set the contraception requirement based on an Institute of Medicine study that recommended prescription contraception and services, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception, be included as preventive services for women. Most health plans had to cover contraceptive services for plan years beginning on or after Aug. 1, 2012, according to HHS. Grandfathered plans that had not changed significantly after the health law passed do not have to offer preventive health care – including contraception – without cost-sharing.

There are grandfathered health care plans that do not have to offer fully covered contraception.
Who are these companies that are grandfathered?
Not that I expect anyone to look into it... they are probably plans for labor unions and it wouldn't be politically correct to look into that.
I know that the company that I work for didn't get any 'grandfather clause'.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:38 AM

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Kali74
Single payer would fix so much wrong associated with health care.
But nooooo...

Maybe the wizards of wisdom can figure it out.....

It might take $3 trillion or so.

I bet even corporate tax increases won't come close.

National Health Expenditures 2012 Highlights

So another Communist style solution to a Communist style disaster.

Anyone else see the problem here?

0bama gets to office, 0bama pushed for 0bamacare, 0bamacare is a royal disaster, 0bama blames everyone else, only solution to fix the problem is more 0bama style control.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:40 AM
I disagree with the supreme court decision. I don't agree a corporation in the public sector should be protected by personal religious rights. But that is purely my opinion and I understand completely the opposite side of the argument so the law can decide. My issue with hobby lobby in particular is the investments in companies that produce and distribute the same drugs in question. I find it odd that the owners are against the aca mandate but are perfectly fine with the investments they hold. That is hypocrisy at its finest and I cannot understand how folks are simply looking past that. Whether you agree with the decision or not, the claim was it goes against their beliefs. If that were honestly true do those beliefs become second seat to financial investments?

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:47 AM
a reply to: zackli

the government has a vested interest in the population not increasing. Even if it isn't the government's responsibility, it is for the good of society that population growth is curbed.

That is a slippery slope, if you think it is a good thing for government to control the population.

In Human Life International’s (HLI) new documentary, “Central and Eastern Europe: A Return to Life,” we examine the dramatic situations unfolding in Hungary and Poland, two nations that were decimated by the most destructive ideologies in history, Nazism and Communism. Both countries had abortion forced on them by the Communists over six decades ago. And while the people of both nations on occasion rose up against their oppressors, it wasn’t until Communist Russia began to crumble in 1989 that they were able to begin charting their own course.

and China

Why China’s one-child policy reversal comes too late to boost its economy

It’s all bunk. The “population bomb” never exploded. Instead, statistics from around the world make clear that since the 1970s, we’ve been facing exactly the opposite problem: people are having too few babies. Population growth has been slowing for two generations. The world’s population will peak, and then begin shrinking, within the next fifty years. In some countries, it’s already started. Japan, for instance, will be half its current size by the end of the century. In Italy, there are already more deaths than births every year. China’s One-Child Policy has left that country without enough women to marry its men, not enough young people to support the country’s elderly, and an impending population contraction that has the ruling class terrified.

White Deaths Outpace Births

Of course, I have heard many say they wish humans were extinct.

an impending population contraction that has the ruling class terrified.

My guess is, our government is also terrified, and they allowing out of control immigration for this very reason,

Russia has the same problem more people dying then are being born.
edit on 083131p://bTuesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 083131p://bTuesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:47 AM
a reply to: Tatanka

Liberal/Progressive women do indeed seem to do this.

Basically making them the Gold Diggers to the Govt Sugar Daddy.

"Hands off my give me stuff"....

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:50 AM

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

Why am i angry about this decision even though im (thankfully) not american?

That is all I needed to read.

Carry on.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:51 AM
edit accidentally deleted rest of post Ugh windows 8 and a crappy touch pad)- will repost it later.
edit on 1-7-2014 by grandmakdw because: (no reason given)

Ok, someone was asking what will the government require US citizens to purchase next or be fined or sent to jail for not purchasing? (like the ACA does for health care)

I replied:

A GM car

GM is owned by the government and therefore has the only cars that meet governmental standards and regulations as they are constantly changing.

Not having a new car discriminates against poor people since public transport is non-exsistant in most areas of the US. So employers should be required to pay for at least half of a new car.

If employers don't then employees may purchase substandard cars or no cars at all which will put them at risk. Most at risk are the bodies of Women and Children who must walk long distances to public transport which as we all know has all kinds of creepy people on them who could harm a woman or child. OR call a cab and risk who knows what being alone in a cab with a man. We all know what a male alone can do to women and children.

It is gross discrimination not to make certain every woman of childbearing age has a car that meets government standards. The risk to her health is too great not to provide one.

The government can let the employer choose between the cheapest new car to the most expensive. And individuals who must purchase at least one GM car can also have this choice.
edit on 1-7-2014 by grandmakdw because: see above edit

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: Daedalus

What the hell IS wrong with people? You're right about that.

As an employee, I have to do whatever the hell they want me to with no hesitation or dissidence. I get to observe the gigantic profits the corporations make while they make all the rules we must follow or suffer the consequences. I get to watch them promote their children while ignoring a job well done. I get to watch the management grow richer as they sit and expect the workers to do more.
I'm expected to not smoke at my job. (Some don't want you to smoke at all)
They decide the ridiculously short breaks, the tiny wages, the puny benefits. They decide that you must follow all of their inane s.o.p.s, and if for any reason they decide, they can kick you out immediately on a whim with no recourse.

So no, maybe they shouldn't get to decide to not have to pay for an abortion pill that their employee chooses to use. Maybe, they can eat their religious garbage themselves if they want to, but not force it upon others because THEY decide it's unethical(what a freakin' joke!)

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:04 AM

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: amazing

Contraceptives are a wonderful thing and should be a right in any healthcare coverage especially in this day and age. Especially in the first world country that we live in. The supreme court made a really bad decision today.

They only targeted the abortion drugs.

Contraceptives stay.

Abortion was the issue.

This is not true.

FACT: The drugs in question do NOT cause abortion, they prevent pregnancy.
FACT: Abortion terminates pregnancy.
FACT: No pregnancy - No abortion

The Supreme Court ruled that real science doesn't matter, that what a person sincerely believes, even if it flies in the face of science, trumps the law.

The thing is, the Morning After Pill uses the same exact drug/hormones and works the same way as "The Pill", and there are many fundie groups out there that want to outlaw The Pill, for the same reason, they believe The Pill can cause an abortion, which is medically impossible!

Via RightwingWatch, it seems that talk show host Kevin Swanson has talked to “some doctors” who believe that if you take birth control, tiny little dead babies are simply hanging around, embedded into the lining of your womb.

Swanson: I’m beginning to get some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they’ve gone through the surgery, and they’ve compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill. And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.

Now, I’m not usually one to feel the need to go all Biology 101 and point out that even if somehow there were tiny mini babies stuck in your uterus, they would come out when you menstruate since THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF MENSTRUATION. Because obviously, whatever school Swanson attended must have not only skipped over the entirety of sex ed, but likely a full spectrum of basic science classes as well.

The anti-choice community has a never ending bag of tricks and tactics that incorporate bogus science and down right lies. But this Supreme Court just ruled that truth, science and medicine come second to superstition.

America is going "second world" in a handbag!

edit on 1-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:14 AM
a reply to: Destinyone

The SC ruling today was only over 4 of those forms of birth control.

NO! Wrong!

SCOTUS didn't evaluate the claims of the plantiffs about 4 methods of birth control. SCOTUS evaluated the claim that allowing their insurance to offer certain contraceptive methods to their employees violated their freedom to express their religion.

SCOTUS ruled forcing HL to allow access to certain methods of birth control that an employer may find objectionable DOES violated that employer's freedom of religious expression, if that employer's corporation meets certain guidelines.

SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby et al qualifies for the same religious exemption that churches are entitled to.

SCOTUS did NOT rule on the validity of the claim that those methods cause abortion.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:18 AM

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

Why am i angry about this decision even though im (thankfully) not american?

That is all I needed to read.

Carry on.

How arrogantly dismissive of you.

With the "Gold Digger" comment about "Liberal Women" included shows that Right Wing, Superior, Male Dominate side which has brought so much Respect and Admiration all these many years.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:24 AM
tried to edit to correct a few mistakes ended up quoting it instead post is a few posts from here

edit on 1-7-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in