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

originally posted by: adjensen


As neither this decision nor the actions of Hobby Lobby prevent anyone from access to birth control, providing that they pay for it themselves, there is nothing notable about this decision, apart from fear mongers like the president of Planned Parenthood, who has been ranting that this is some apocalyptic attack on women.

The fear mongering is unnecessary, when PP has been providing basic well woman care for decades, on a sliding scale fee, or free to low income/no income women.

I seriously don't understand the freak out here. Anyone can walk into a PP at any time and get what they want, and PP will assist with financial issues. Depending on the state, abortions are covered by medicaid or medi-cal. In the state of California you can easily get an abortion with emergency medi-cal. Access has not been blocked what so ever. If it had been, then I would understand the freak out.

I still feel that the ruling was right. Women still have a choice... and so does Hobby L, who values life. I know some very conservative religious people who don't even agree with any contraceptive methods, yet Hobby L still covers a variety of them for their female employees. And... if their employees are not happy or satisfied, they can find another company to work for, which is what anyone would do, in any situation.

originally posted by: windword

You seem to support Hobby Lobby's rights when they are being violated, but not when their female employees rights are being violated.

Well that's where you're wrong because I happen to think EVERYONE'S rights were violated by OmamaCare.

a reply to: SM2

That sir is a blatant, out right , pure lie.
Show us all, in the actual ruling, not some talking point from MSNBC, where it states this.
You can not, because the exemption was very narrow and only pertained to the 4 specific drugs they objected to.

You are misinformed. Your ignorance does not equate to my dishonesty!

There is ONE contraception mandate. Not one for every FDA approved contraception method. The mandate is for all or none. People can't just pick and choose what they want to cover. Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the entire contraception mandate. They choose to go ahead and partially cover their employees, while they do not have to.

From the SCOTUS ruling.

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

..................

Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate

a reply to: jrod

Taxes shouldn't be paying for either.

a reply to: macman

The US already practices socialism. Might as well promote the general welfare too.

Access to birth control is vital for the health of this country.

Am I an anomaly? I'm a woman, who prefers to pay for my own health care. I don't want subsidies or medicaid. I honest to goodness do not want anyone paying for my contraceptives. I'm not really ultra religious or super conservative. But I am conservative and I do believe in working hard, earning your own way in life and not expecting others to take care of you and your personal choices. It seems that the problem most liberal woman are having is, because hobby lobby employees must pay for their own abortions, that paying for your choice to end a life, somehow equals no access.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: macman

The US already practices socialism. Might as well promote the general welfare too.

Access to birth control is vital for the health of this country.

Uhhhh no its not........

Access to quality medical care might be......but I wouldnt say birth control is vital .....

Whats VITAL is personal accountability and responsibility.......

Which a large population of the US seems to have lost

a reply to: dawnstar

oh, well that's the thing....we citizens don't matter, until they want our votes.....then they give us whatever we want, or at least they promise to...isn't that how it works now?

seriously though, i suppose if you had moral issues with buying it, then you'd need to go to court, and argue it, like they did..

a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

i'm not being ignorant...i think you are...

you're trying to say that the CEO of HL personally handpicked the companies that the firm managing the 401(k) invests in....it doesn't work that way.

you set up the fund with the managing firm, they invest in whatever is going to yield the best returns for the client..you don't pick anything, they do. when you sign that contract, it's you giving them permission to do what they hafta do to manage the fund.

a reply to: windword

You can say it all you want, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, as I have cited 3x times now.

Try and follow along. Or go read the cases yourself, as I have done.

In Griswold, there was an archaic law prohibiting contraceptives. Someone was arrested for breaking the law by telling people how to contracept and giving them contraceptives. Now, if there was a Constitutional right to birth control, the Supreme Court could just have cited that and been done with it. But they didn't. They went through some real legal gymnastics and found that there is a non-stated Constitutional right to privacy. Griswold is a landmark case for that reason, not because of birth control, and it has been speculated that it may one day be revisited and the whole "right to privacy", as it is so broadly applied, will be overturned.

MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.

I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment.

The second case, applying the freedom to use birth control for unmarried people, was decided on the basis of Griswold, and also by applying the Equal Protection clause, saying that the state couldn't apply restrictions differently, based on marriage.

1. If, as the Court of Appeals held, the statute under which appellee was convicted is not a health measure, appellee may not be prevented, because he was not an authorized distributor, from attacking the statute in its alleged discriminatory application to potential distributees. Appellee, furthermore, has standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives because their ability to obtain them will be materially impaired by enforcement of the statute. Cf. Griswold, supra; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249. Pp. 405 U. S. 443-446.
2. By providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarly situated, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 405 U. S. 446-455.

There is no mythological "right to birth control" -- laws preventing access to birth control were overturned on the basis of privacy and equal protection.

a reply to: Tatanka

Am I an anomaly?

No. Maybe there aren't as many like you as there were in the past, but you are not an anomaly...yet.
I sounds like you are a strong and ethical person.
I applaud that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

you've over-analyzed this, gryph....

nobody's limited anything....you can still have these things....you just can't make that specific employer pay for them...

why is this so hard to grasp? and why are you so irate over it? and why didn't you reply to my other post to you?

a reply to: dawnstar

no, it's simply declared that the OWNERS of hobby lobby don't hafta provide (eg; pay for) items in their HMO coverage package, that run contrary to their morals, and religious beliefs....which is fine, because they're the one's paying the bills, they should be able to choose what they will and won't pay for....

a reply to: jrod

Just because a bunch of lemmings are going over the cliff, guess you would as well.

a reply to: adjensen

There is no mythological "right to birth control" -- laws preventing access to birth control were overturned on the basis of privacy and equal protection.

Adj,

Lets look at this from another angle.

What is a right and who gives us our rights? Does the Constitution give us rights or protect them?

Is sex a natural right?

I say yes, of course.

Is parenthood a natural right?

I say yes.

Is deciding not to be a parent a natural right?

I say yes.

Who is fit to deny us these rights?

Who gave ancient Egyptian and Greek women the right to use copper IUDs?

Who gave ancient women who took herbs to induce abortion that right?

How can those rights be taken away?

Birth control and abortion are natural human rights, endowed upon us by our creator.

The Constitution doesn't grant us our rights, it protects them.

The Supreme Court has ruled that those reproductive rights are protected by the US Constitution.

a reply to: windword

Birth control and abortion are natural human rights, endowed upon us by our creator.

You seem to be confusing the ability to do something with the right to do something. That isn't how our legal system works.

Yes, the Constitution protects our rights, but it does so with a legal basis, and the court found that access to birth control could not be denied because the law violated the right to privacy, not because it violated "natural rights."

a reply to: jrod

Socialized medicine will be a disaster.

Like Social Security. Like "No Child Left Behind". Like our federalized education system period. Like Medicare. Like how well they have managed the deficit. Like how well they have managed foreign policy. Like how well they have managed the IRS. Like how well they manage our money.

a reply to: jrod

Really? What, we have not had access to birth control for the last 40-50 years? Fooled me...I guess my wife was taking saccharin tablets back in the 70s and 80s instead of birth control.

Whoda thunk it?

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Gryphon66

you've over-analyzed this, gryph....

nobody's limited anything....you can still have these things....you just can't make that specific employer pay for them...

why is this so hard to grasp? and why are you so irate over it?

So do you think the employees plans will be cheaper since they contain less than the exact same plan at a company across the street that includes these couple of pills? Or do you think that it will cost the same and they just don't get access to them with the plan that is supposed to include them at that price?

a reply to: adjensen

I disagree. I hold that a woman's right to her body and what happens to her body in an inalienable right, endowed upon us by our creator, that's protected under the 14th Amendment. Privacy isn't an inalienable right. If somehow privacy is invaded, the right to self determination of ones own body is still in tact.

What happens to a woman and her body isn't her father's right, her husband's right, her pastor's right, or her government's right. It's her right and her right alone.

I'm still waiting to hear where I can go get my free guns!