Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"

a reply to: mOjOm

Clearly, all the twisting you do doesn't matter; the court made their decision, and they based it on the rule of law in this case.

You cannot simply pretend that a corporation has no association with the owners.

The point is that ANY medical benefit is just that; a benefit. It isn't a right. NO ONE has the right to demand that another person, employer or not, pay for something that violates their religious beliefs, which ARE a right.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Like it or not, the ACA is still the law of the land, and access to ALL FDA approved contraception, at no extra cost, still applies to women who are employed by Hobby Lobby, et al, whose rights are protected under the 14th Amendment.

You might also wanna take a look at Title X

Like it or not, Christian businesses do NOT have to pay for such contraceptives, according to the highest court of the land.

Gee, and here I thought it was all about "choice"......only if your side is the one choosing, eh?

no taxpayers will probably end up paying for it..

you know real people..
christian and non christain.
even the owners of hobby lobby!

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Please quote the passage of the Constitution that guarantees employer-paid contraceptive coverage. Oh, that's right; there is no such passage! You got the "no logic" part right; just applied it wrongly.

Please point out the Religious Scripture that talks about Corporations having Religious Beliefs. Oh that's right, there is no such passage. You got the "no logic" part right; just applied it wrongly.

In other words, you know there is no such passage, and that you are wrong, so you try and turn around the question. Lame. Admit defeat, and move on already.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Yes Dear, go dance in the streets. Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for its employees contraception any more. The Court ruled you do. And, I do, and Hobby Lobby owners do, and everybody else you know does.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

-------------------
"Exactly! The decision made was the right one. The owners of the company have every legal right to not provide something that is against their beliefs. Those claiming otherwise need to gain some actual understanding. "

----------------
But the owners of the company may not have that right although the corporation does!
Those owners are obligated under the mandate to provide acceptable coverage for their dependents and in order for it to be acceptable it still have to provide birth control coverage. If a husband choses to include their wife in that plan it still have to have birth control coverage.

Please point out the exemption that states otherwise??
www.healthcare.gov...

The corporation has had their right protected.. The people have not. And I do believe that the laws they used in court indicated that some corporations should have the SAME protections as is granted to the people!

oh and the administration has made another revision to the monster law so women will still have coverage.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
Who pays for this coverage isn't detailed but I got a feeling that it will be we, THE REAL PEOPLE!!

seems to me that people's religious rights were trampled over on behalf of big business since they now get to bare the burden that the businesses were spared from having to shoulder...

The entire "Obamacare" law is unworkable. This is being shown clearly the more time passes. Using that as a defense isn't a good tactic.

The simple fact is that the company DOES provide contraception, just not certain kinds. A Christian-run business should not be required to provide specific sorts of "birth control" that are abortifacient in nature, when that is against Christian beliefs. To force them to do so would violate the most basic Constitutional rights.

I am not certain from your reply of your position.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I desire consistant logic.

if employers should have to on the basis of religious beliefs..
then wouldn't it be just as wrong for people also??

you know equal protection and all that..

not to mention the owners of those businesses personally may still have to do what they don't want
provide coverage for birth control for another person..

people seem to want to protect a business' rights
and totally ignore that their own rights in this area isn't protected
and the law used was that these businesses should have the Same protections as people do
not more!

Isn't It Ironic!?

......... Justice Scalia voted in an earlier case in 1990 (Employment Division v. Smith) that a group of Native Americans who smoked peyote as part of their religious ceremony were not entitled to an exemption from anti-drug laws on religious grounds.

However, the Peyote case involved a matter of constitutional construction while the Hobby Lobby case involved a question of statutory construction.

The difference may seem subtle but is, in fact, fundamental. The employers for Hobby Lobby were asking for an exemption not under the Constitution, but under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This law was passed in direct response to Scalia’s opinion in the Peyote case. Thus, what was at issue was whether or not Hobby Lobby was entitled to a legislative exemption under the RFRA.
www.app.com...

The Supreme Court ruled against the free exercise of religion. Outraged, Congress drafted a bill that restored the rights of Native Americans to use drugs for religious purposes. Now that same law is being used to indiscriminately take the access to LEGAL drugs and medical devices away from women who work for Christians from "sea to shining sea".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Yes Dear, go dance in the streets. Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for its employees contraception any more. The Court ruled you do. And, I do, and Hobby Lobby owners do, and everybody else you know does.

Don't hold your breath on that one. The whole law is being torn apart, piece by piece. How about they pay for their own contraception?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I desire consistant logic.

if employers should have to on the basis of religious beliefs..
then wouldn't it be just as wrong for people also??

Would what be as wrong for people? If employers should have to what? Unclear sentene there.

originally posted by: dawnstar
not to mention the owners of those businesses personally may still have to do what they don't want
provide coverage for birth control for another person..

This is about specific types of birth control. Many are offered and paid for under their plan.

originally posted by: dawnstar
people seem to want to protect a business' rights
and totally ignore that their own rights in this area isn't protected
and the law used was that these businesses should have the Same protections as people do
not more!

The owners have rights as citizens. They don't lose those rights because they open a business.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

How about they pay for their own contraception?

I know that's your goal, but it's not going to happen any time soon. The ACA is still in tact and the contraception mandate is still in place. The Court ruled that the "least burdensome" way to make sure these women get the contraception legally afforded them, at no extra cost, are the the methods currently in place with Title X, Planned Parenthood. This extra burden on Planned Parenthood is going to have to be paid for by tax payers.

There WAS a mechanism for the employer to sign a form to authorize the insurance company to pay for the required access, but the Court issued an injuction, suspending that avenue until, at least, they return next session. That makes it hard for government to collect allocated birth control funds from insurance companies, so tax payers will be left paying for the gap coverage.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

This is about specific types of birth control.

No it's not. There are Catholic corporations that oppose ALL birth control. The ruling applies to them too. The ruling was about belief, not about the medical merits of any certain methods of contraception.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

How about they pay for their own contraception?

I know that's your goal, but it's not going to happen any time soon. The ACA is still in tact and the contraception mandate is still in place. The Court ruled that the "least burdensome" way to make sure these women get the contraception legally afforded them, at no extra cost, are the the methods currently in place with Title X, Planned Parenthood. This extra burden on Planned Parenthood is going to have to be paid for by tax payers.

There WAS a mechanism for the employer to sign a form to authorize the insurance company to pay for the required access, but the Court issued an injuction, suspending that avenue until, at least, they return next session. That makes it hard for government to collect allocated birth control funds from insurance companies, so tax payers will be left paying for the gap coverage.

For how long is it intact? Seems to me it's falling to pieces daily, as it should. The whole thing was illegal from the start. Contraception is also still available to Hobby Lobby employees; just not a few specific types. Let's not lose focus of the big picture here.

If a woman wants an abortion, through whatever means, she should pay for it herself.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The "big" picture here is that this SCOTUS ruling made it so the tens of thousands of women could be denied access to ALL birth control through their employee benefit packages, for which they pay an insurance premium out of their paycheck. These women, et al, will be forced to use Planned Parenthood, because, even though their employers may deny them, the government may not.

This issue is not about free contraception but about contraception being included in an insurance policy. These ladies, when they pay their premiums, by law, have a right to access to all legal forms of FDA approved contraception. If they can't get through Sharp of Kaiser, or whatever their HMO, then they'll have to go to Planned Parenthood. But they still can't be required to pay extra for it.

That doesn't include medically and legally defined abortifacients, which were never part of the ACA.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

This is about specific types of birth control.

No it's not. There are Catholic corporations that oppose ALL birth control. The ruling applies to them too. The ruling was about belief, not about the medical merits of any certain methods of contraception.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, it is. Churches that disagree shouldn't have to pay for it, however. Tax money shouldn't pay, either, unless the person is a government employee, and has a health plan.

a reply to: windword

The "big" picture here is that this SCOTUS ruling made it so the tens of thousands of women could be denied access to ALL birth control through their employee benefit packages, for which they pay an insurance premium out of their paycheck. These women, et al, will be forced to use Planned Parenthood, because, even though their employers may deny them, the government may not.

Which seems to make the entire ACA ineffective and listless.

How could a bunch of lawyers who wrote the law be so dumb.

Seems they forgot an awful lot.

Unless .....

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The "big" picture here is that this SCOTUS ruling made it so the tens of thousands of women could be denied access to ALL birth control through their employee benefit packages, for which they pay an insurance premium out of their paycheck. These women, et al, will be forced to use Planned Parenthood, because, even though their employers may deny them, the government may not.

The big picture is employee benefits are just that; benefits. They should be set by the employer, and if the employee agrees, the government shouldn't be involved, unless some crime was involved.

originally posted by: windword
This issue is not about free contraception but about contraception being included in an insurance policy. These ladies, when they pay their premiums, by law, have a right to access to all legal forms of FDA approved contraception. If they can't get through Sharp of Kaiser, or whatever their HMO, then they'll have to go to Planned Parenthood. But they still can't be required to pay extra for it.

Insurance provided by an employer should be at the choice of the employer. It's a nice benefit, but forcing employers to pay for it is wrong. No one has a "right" to contraception. They can choose to use it, but it isn't a "right". And why should htey not have to pay for it? Their choice, their dime.

originally posted by: windword
That doesn't include medically and legally defined abortifacients, which were never part of the ACA.

Oh, really? Then why was the case brought at all?

a reply to: xuenchen



The law, the ACA, isn't affected at all. The law remains in tact. The opportunity for religious objection has merely been expanded.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The big picture is employee benefits are just that; benefits. They should be set by the employer, and if the employee agrees, the government shouldn't be involved, unless some crime was involved.

That's your opinion, and I happen to disagree. I think the government has a compelling interest of ensuring public health, safety and welfare through programs, policies and standards.

No one has a "right" to contraception.

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled three separate times that women's rights to contraception is a constitutionally protected right. And again, I refer you to Title X.

The Title X Family Planning program was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act (Public Law 91-572 Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs). Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.

Oh, really?

Yes really. This case was about belief, not science.