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

a reply to: macman
I believe that a parent actually does have the responsibility of teaching moral values to children
I don't believe a business has that same responsibility to their employees!
I also think avoiding an insurance plan that includes birth control coverage for that child might create a barrier between the child and the birth control! Since they are no longer free and the child would have to come up with the money for them!
Do you disagree with anything I have said to this point???

no??
okay so both the employer and the parent are required to buy insurance for another person and both also have a belief that birth control is wrong..
there is nothing different in their belief and their is nothing different in what they are required to do the only difference is one is employer-employee relations the other is parent and child...
oh ya and the fact that one if an business entity that had to have a law passed declaring that they are a "person" and thus entitled to have their reliigious beliefs protected and t he other is an actual person that has the constitution telling them they are entitled to have that protection!

a reply to: SM2
I should have said "anyone else's" rather than "yours". I apologize for being so being so direct, but the principle is still the same.

a reply to: windword

Please site the part of this companies policiy and this ruling that stated this woman can not go to her doctor and get the the "type" she prefers?

I'm looking....hmmm not seeing it.....yep don't see anything keeping her from doing wherever the heck she wants w her doctor

It simply stated they will not provide emergency contraceptives. They provide for the others. Again you're being willfully obtuse about the fact that for precisely the reasons u stated in your post that they offer a variety of coverage for different BCs....

If you "need" emergency contraception it's because you weren't utilizing the other contraceptives. And that's a personal decision..... Not a company issue.

a reply to: windword

Okay, you're another one that can't comprehend or won't read. I never said anyone has the "right" to free contraception, however, the Supreme Court HAS ruled that birth control and abortion are "rights". Low cost and free birth control are privileges.

And you can add yourself to the list of those who can't comprehend or won't read.

There is nothing in this Supreme Court decision that blocks access to birth control, which you claim is a right (which it is not -- the Supreme Court decisions on both birth control, Griswold v. Connecticut, and abortion, Roe v. Wade, were about the right to privacy, not the right to birth control or abortion -- if every abortion doctor in the US were to suddenly decide to stop giving abortions, would the Federal government be compelled to start providing them? Of course not, because no one has a right to have an abortion, they have the right to have privacy between them and their doctor.) Monday's decision regards whether it needs to be covered under a Federally mandated insurance policy, which is a privilege, not a right.

So, again, your claim that, as a result of this SCOTUS ruling, a woman "needs to tiptoe around religious fanatics to exercise her rights" is invalid.

Back on the main point that this just makes America look silly that we have to have a debate over whether contraceptives should be covered under health care. We actually had to have the supreme court involved. It's silly. It's beyond silly that we spend trillions to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians so that we can have oil and spend billions killing children with drone stikes yet we can't fully fund health care? What's wrong with us?

a reply to: amazing
we are too busy promoting our own ideologies and parroting the media's talking points to use any logic in discussions?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Please site the part of this companies policiy and this ruling that stated this woman can not go to her doctor and get the the "type" she prefers?

What part of refusing to provide certain methods of contraception don't you understand? No these women can't go to their doctor's who are paid by Hobby Lobby insurance and get something that's not covered.

The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections

It simply stated they will not provide emergency contraceptives.

Do you deny that Hobby Lobby employees are being denied this option? Do you somehow believe that their employee lost the right to access those methods because of Hobby Lobby's beliefs? You would be wrong. But right now, there is no pathway available for those women, due to the ACA/HHS regs.

They provide for the others. Again you're being willfully obtuse about the fact that for precisely the reasons u stated in your post that they offer a variety of coverage for different BCs....

Insults and accusations are not a winning strategy. As I said earlier, birth control doesn't come in flavors, like ice cream. There are some women who can only use the methods that HL has denied. My daughter is one of those women, so I speak from experience. These women do not currently have access to those methods.

a reply to: amazing

Again, contraception is not health care. Are diet sodas health care? What about tattoo removal?

a reply to: windword

No hobby lobby employees lost the right to have one type of contraception privded FOR then. Emergency contraception....

They can still go to their doctor and get it.

I feel like I'm watching people throw a temper tantrum cause they didn't get the right video game for Christmas even though they were bought a box full.....

No rights were infringed. You can still go get it.....

And ...weird I know....if having emergency contraception is that so all important you can go work somewhere else that provides it.....I would state that if it's that huge of an issue and all the others they provide aren't good enough. Your priorities are seriously out of whack

Insults? I never insulted anyone. Weren't you the one a few pages back who called me sexist?

Also you aren't going to convince me that some women can only take emergency contraceptives that's a bunch of bs.....

Stop w the melodramatic ......

And even if they don't offer the kinds they can take.....GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE....

Take your women's rights and use them to apply for another employer.....

a reply to: dawnstar

Try this:

corporate personhood

and:

SCOTUS Blog

originally posted by: thesaneone


Birth control is available to anyone, you want it you buy it.

It's that simple.

A lifetime supply of birth control is far cheaper than paying for an infant on welfare.

checkmate

a reply to: bbracken677
thanks but that really doesn't help
I don't if they treat hobby lobby as a person and give them the same protections as they do other people
I just don't see where that has happened
we the people don't have the protection that they gave hobby lobby!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


What part of refusing to provide certain methods of contraception don't you understand? No these women can't go to their doctor's who are paid by Hobby Lobby insurance and get something that's not covered.

Are you nuts? Of course she can go to ANY doctor and get a prescription for ANY approved contraception and then fill the prescription at ANY drugstore. She will have to pay $10+ depending on what it is, but her ACCESS to contraception is not reduced one bit.

What the hell makes you think she cannot get contraceptives just because some (SOME) specific ones are not covered? To suggest otherwise is ... mind boggling to say the least.

a reply to: bbracken677

won't work, have already provided that with both snipets from the cases and links. People just refuse to see the facts laid out before them when it does not coincide with their agenda or political leanings.

a reply to: dawnstar

In a sense, of course you do. You just have to take the govt to court and perhaps take it to SCOTUS to get the govt to recognize the rights as such.

The SCOTUS decision grants the same rights to a business that individuals hold, so by definition you have those rights as well. Good luck getting some paper pushing bureaucrat to believe that though.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: windword

Okay, you're another one that can't comprehend or won't read. I never said anyone has the "right" to free contraception, however, the Supreme Court HAS ruled that birth control and abortion are "rights". Low cost and free birth control are privileges.

There is nothing in this Supreme Court decision that blocks access to birth control,

That's true. SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the contraception mandate. However, currently there is no path for these women to access the birth control options, which is their within their rights. They can't purchase another policy under the ACA/HHS rules, right now. So, they're out of luck and out of pocket for those benefits, even though they have insurance.

which you claim is a right (which it is not -- the Supreme Court decisions on both birth control, Griswold v. Connecticut, and abortion, Roe v. Wade, were about the right to privacy, not the right to birth control or abortion

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.
Family Research Council of America representative , Pat Fagan

whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships. The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold).

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked "irrational discrimination" if not extended to unmarried couples as well.
en.wikipedia.org...

There you have it. The Supreme Court DID rule that using contraception IS A RIGHT. Married and unmarried have the "right to contraception.

-- if every abortion doctor in the US were to suddenly decide to stop giving abortions, would the Federal government be compelled to start providing them? Of course not, because no one has a right to have an abortion,

Wrong.

No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy.
law2.umkc.edu...

Monday's decision regards whether it needs to be covered under a Federally mandated insurance policy, which is a privilege, not a right.

Birth control is a constitutionally protected right. Free and affordable birth control is a privilege.

So, again, your claim that, as a result of this SCOTUS ruling, a woman "needs to tiptoe around religious fanatics to exercise her rights" is invalid.

SCOTUS left the logistics up to HHS. Until the current administration and Congress work out a plan, right now she does!

a reply to: SM2

I cannot help morons understand the written word.

I agree...it's all been right there...over and over and over and yet people still insist there is some fracking "right" to free or otherwise access to contraceptives that has been abridged, which is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on at least 2 levels. The access to contraceptives has not changed one WHIT. Hobby Lobby's insurance covers 16 our of 24 types of contraceptive.

Do you (generic you) freaking honestly believe that of those 16 none of them are right for you? Or her...or whoever. This is just the dumbest fracking thread I have ever seen.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

They can still go to their doctor and get it.

No they can't. Please cite you source.

a reply to: windword

That's true. SCOTUS ruled the Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the contraception mandate. However, currently there is no path for these women to access the birth control options, which is their within their rights. They can't purchase another policy under the ACA/HHS rules, right now. So, they're out of luck and out of pocket for those benefits, even though they have insurance.

Here is the effing path. Jesus!

The woman goes to the doctor (just as before). The woman tells the doc she needs "the pill" (whatever that is) (JUST AS BEFORE). The doctor writes a prescription (JUST AS EFFING BEFORE). She takes the prescription to the drugstore and fills it. JUST AS BEFORE!!!!!!

That!!! is the freaking pathway to contraceptives. Get it? Jeez man...wtf?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: windword

That's true. SCOTUS ruled the Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the contraception mandate. However, currently there is no path for these women to access the birth control options, which is their within their rights. They can't purchase another policy under the ACA/HHS rules, right now. So, they're out of luck and out of pocket for those benefits, even though they have insurance.

Here is the effing path. Jesus!

The woman goes to the doctor (just as before). The woman tells the doc she needs "the pill" (whatever that is) (JUST AS BEFORE). The doctor writes a prescription (JUST AS EFFING BEFORE). She takes the prescription to the drugstore and fills it. JUST AS BEFORE!!!!!!

That!!! is the freaking pathway to contraceptives. Get it? Jeez man...wtf?

THERE IS NO RIGHT INVOLVED!! THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT REGARDING CONTRACEPTIVES BEING COVERED BY ANY INSURANCE POLICY. THERE IS NOT EVEN A RIGHT GUARANTEEING ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES!!!