Companies Using SCOTUS Ruling To Eliminate All Birth Control In Their Health Care Plans...

a reply to: jrod

You are welcome.

I figured your google function was broken based on your many comments as of late I kid..I kid.

Honestly though, BC kills what comes from sex between two people.

Viagra allows that interaction to happen.

They are completely opposite.

A better argument would be if Hobby Lobby covered male contraceptives. That is a logical comparison.

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: jrod

I don't see the correlation between Viagra and Birth Control. I heard a lot of the MSM pundits saying this over the past few days, but it is an ignorant comparison.

Viagra is used for a man who has difficulty getting, and keeping an erection which is a basic function of sex. There are many causes but lack of blood flow to the penis is the overall reason for someone using it.

How is someone that can't have sex similar to someone who can have sex but doesn't want to get pregnant?

They are complete opposites.

That's because there are so many people out there using the excuse of "Why should I be paying so some people can have unprotected sex. If they want to do that let them pay for it." Or something along those lines.

So as you can see, that is just one of the endless excuses being used which is just lame. Because those same people don't seem to mind paying for the boner pills so some old limp guys can get it up and have sex, but they complain about paying for the BC for other people to have sex. It's just stupid. It's another BS excuse that makes no logical sense.

a reply to: Euphem

This thread is not about Hobby Lobby, they will go out of business now that they have served their final purposes.

This ruling now allows for companies to opt out of BC coverage. This is a victory to whomever will now receive the extra $250 a year ($20+tax)*12.....that women maybe forced to pay.

Everyone women deserves affordable access to 21st century birth control at costs.

Unwanted pregnancies are a problem.

In the future this will be a very hollow victory for conservatives. Celebrate while you can because the dembs are going to play the corporate "war on women" song and it will be enough to carry them to victory in the coming midterm elections and 2016 elections. There is an anti big business "personhood" preferential treatment for the corporations attitude that this ruling plays directly into. It's the libs that will capitalize on this and beat the GOP to shreds. You heard it here first.
The GOP lost the minority vote long ago and by losing the women's vote; I just don't see them able to mount a coherent, winning campaign.
They only have themselves to blame. Most Americans don't listen to Rush.

I'm a Libertarian and we have no illusions about winning. But the handwriting on the wall is in dayglo spraypaint. Many GOP contenders are already trying to distance themselves from this ruling. Christi for one, he's not stupid. Look it up!

The circus is in town....bring in the clowns.

a reply to: jrod

I get the feeling it's not stopping there either. It's only been 2 days and already it's gone to include All BC now instead of just those 4. But you really think it will stop there, cause I don't. Once they get their foot in the door with something like this the corporate greed is just too strong and they'll exemptions for anything and everything that they can get claiming "Religious Freedom". They just recently wanted "Religious Freedom" to deny LGBT people to do business with them simply because they are LGBT. They will continue to use "Religious Freedom" to either do or not do what everyone else has no choice about. That's how they think, they're special. They do that while pointing the finger at everyone else too which is why people are so pissed off about it. It's just their way of getting away with something and rubbing your nose in it too.

a reply to: olaru12


In order for the Republicans to win the masses over they will have to evolve to the times and demography.

The times are changing.

a reply to: mOjOm

I understand and hear the frustration in the argument - it seems as if the man is encouraged to have sex while the woman has to deal with the outcome because religion. Women are also sensitive to having men make birth control decisions FOR them, and so that anger gets put in there too - especially when they don't want to pay for the birth control but do want to pay for a man's ability to get them pregnant. It allows a man a good sex life, and shames a woman who doesn't want to have a child, or wants control over when that happens.

In the context of some religious folks, not allowing a woman to get pregnant is a sin, and sex outside marriage is also a sin. But a man and woman in a marriage might suffer if the man is unable to maintain an erection, and thus they are unable to have a child. So there are two ways to look at it, even in a religious context, and that does make sense if I'm willing to let it.

Honestly, my knee-jerk is to get angry for all the initial reasons I've mentioned above in the first paragraph - but the only way forward for me is to move past my knee-jerk, and though I honor my feelings I want to look beyond my point of view to find the bridges between these two extremely polarized sides.

I hope we all can because there are solutions that don't require compromise of either religion or health care.

peace,
AB

a reply to: jrod

That reply belongs in the predictions forum.

I am willing to bet you that Hobby Lobby will not be going out of business. You in?

a reply to: Euphem

Maybe not completely, but their stores are going out of business all over the US. Maybe a handful of mom and pop style stores will manage to survive. Their stock will be gone in 10 years....maybe less. They are too well connected to just bottom out over night.


I have no clue at where their stock is sitting, or even if they have stock. Just speculating.

a reply to: jrod

I would very much like us to move beyond "sides" because that is also a problem. It makes us fight and dig in and rally to be dominant and "better than" those horrible other people over on that side.

We are all just people and we have different points of view. Name calling doesn't help at all, it only fuels the fire.

Think bigger, is what I want to do for myself. Solutions happen that way. Otherwise we just get circular arguments and more upset people.

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

We do need to drop this whole 2 sides issue. It reminds me of the playground... Naanaa BooBoo Stick Your Head In DooDoo days. I hate the two sides yet I still find myself taking part in it anyway. It's a hard habit to break and it may take more than a generation or two to even get close to it.

I do believe there are solutions for all IF we could all just stop looking at it in a "I win, you lose" thing, and stop looking at compromise as failure.

a reply to: AboveBoard

What gets me is the double standard. I'm a guy myself so none of this effects me since my wife and I actually do pay for our own BC out of pocket. I don't have a dog in this race at all, but it's the way it's done that still irks me.

It's been shown that their "Religious Ideals" claim isn't what they claim.

It's just a way for "Fictional Persons" known as Corporations of a certain type to get out of something while everyone else takes up the slack. The fact that it's being run on a platform of Religion is just a joke. It doesn't even apply equally to everyone, but just Corporate Persons who aren't even real people who can have Religious Freedom or a Religion. They're Fictional Entities not people.

It just amazes me how much Extra Benefits we allow FICTIONAL PEOPLE while taking away to much from REAL PEOPLE.

a reply to: jrod

Hobby Lobby will lose customers - and possibly gain them too, as both "sides" rally around their points of view with Hobby Lobby as the focal point. That is my prediction. I think they were chosen for this because they were big enough to take the potential hit, and still survive.

Anyway, back to my regularly scheduled thread...

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
a reply to: AboveBoard

We do need to drop this whole 2 sides issue. It reminds me of the playground... Naanaa BooBoo Stick Your Head In DooDoo days. I hate the two sides yet I still find myself taking part in it anyway. It's a hard habit to break and it may take more than a generation or two to even get close to it.

I do believe there are solutions for all IF we could all just stop looking at it in a "I win, you lose" thing, and stop looking at compromise as failure.

I'm a political junky and an astute observer. This division of ideologies will never end. You know that because you participate in it as you mentioned. I really feel sad for the children because they will witness blood in the streets of America. Listen to AM radio hate jocks. That's why we have such a huge and solid division and ATS isn't helping. Hobby Lobby is just the tip of the iceberg imo.

Want peace? Work for justice!

Do it for your kid!

a reply to: mOjOm

I hear that. Corporations have been given a lot of human rights lately and it feels scary to me. When I first heard about it, I said it feels like Corporate Theocracy, and I said that in another thread. (Did I just coin a phrase??) So yes. I felt it was questionable that they had previously supplied the same benefits they later claimed were against their religious beliefs. But that being said, I think Hobby Lobby jumped through the fire in the courts on behalf of a religious element in our country that felt very wronged by the Mandate in the ACA, which they felt was forced on them. This is their backlash against that . I don't think its simply about money, though some businesses could surely use it that way!

I DO think that there really is a genuine religious element involved in that, behind the scenes, Catholic Bishops (a very powerful and unregulated lobby) have been working very hard to ensure the birth control issue and abortion issue stays on the front burner. They were involved in bringing this to the courts, I believe. There ARE people with very deeply held and serious beliefs that felt the ACA rammed the BC Mandate down their throats and they were very angry about that - I wasn't even aware of that until this whole SCOTUS ruling discussion came about and I started really listening to people on this thread.

It is a complex issue. I appreciate you bringing your comments to the thread!

- AB

a reply to: olaru12

Well, I am actually greatly encouraged by the tenor of this thread, for the most part!

I think we actually CAN get past intense partisanship, but it takes listening and empathy. It isn't easy when armies of talking heads in the media spout talking points and fan the flames against The Horrible Other, playing our emotions and getting us steamed up for the big fight. Still. Never say never. It may happen yet.



- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

Not sure if this has been posted yet in the thread

Faith leaders friendly to the administration are asking for an exemption from a forthcoming gay-rights order.

Letter sent to the administration

So they are asking based on the hobby lobby decision to consider

A religious exemption in your executive order on LGBT employment rights would allow for this, balancing the government’s interest in protecting both LGBT Americans, as well as the religious organizations that seek to serve in accordance with their faith and values

Which would seem to allow a wee bit of ability for you to discriminate based on what you believe.

originally posted by: mOjOm
It's only been 2 days and already it's gone to include All BC now instead of just those 4.

The original ruling covered the entire contraceptive mandate, not just the four. There was a great "spin" put on it in the news, so that people would *think* it was only for the four, but in reading the actual opinion of the court, it was clear that the contraceptive mandate was not parsed in any way to separate out the four that Hobby Lobby found objectionable.

I've been trying to get this point across for days, but it fell on deaf ears. In fact, if it were just the four, I wouldn't have had nearly the objection I had with it, as I can understand how some religious folks oppose abortion and it is their right.

But you really think it will stop there, cause I don't.

This is absolutely true. This is a narrow ruling that will be used as precedent for broader and broader rulings to overturn the ACA. That's the purpose and if people think any differently, they're simply naive. But the same people who praise this ruling will be pooping they pants when some other religion besides Christianity has a go at the separation of church and state that has been breached.

This ruling is a giant step backward in the progress of our country.

a reply to: drivers1492

I know this is a big concern and it might wind its way back to the Supreme Court.

However, I do know that racial discrimination cases based on religion have been shot down before now, so there is also precedent in that direction, too. There is a much stronger history of Equal Protection Laws for employment, etc. I think there is enough in place to keep that from happening, but I'm honestly not sure.

We shall see. I knew an attempt like this would be the next thing out of the gate after the Contraception Mandate exemption came into play.

Thanks for bringing that information to the thread! I had not seen that yet...

- AB

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was being mildly sarcastic when I said this country is heading for a "Corporate Theocracy" in threads and posts I wrote in.

Now it looks like I was being a prophet.

God help us!!