It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.
As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.
Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by mikegrouchy
Since when does an employer get to tell you how to live your life?
I am all for the owner believing what he wants but they are not allowed to change labor laws to afford those beliefs to supersede national, state and/or local labor laws.
The new socialist health care laws require some changes and there is a new cost of doing business associated. This is impacting some small, medium and even large corporations. Are we to believe that none of the insurance plans, at Hobby Lobby, offer these solutions within their current coverage? Kaiser, Group Health, Signa all have standard health insurance options for businesses.
I swear this country can manufacture drama everywhere just to ignore real problems that need focus.
Originally posted by brice
The law of the land does not exclude retailers. Heck, I don't believe in taxes but I have to pay. Besides most of their employees don't have their religious convictions. So make them pay or fine them to death! America's health care is abysmal unless you are rich.
brice
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.
As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.
The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.
What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.
Originally posted by Evil_Santa
All these companies that are all up in arms about the birth control clauses in the healthcare bill are poor christians.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's [Matthew 22:21]
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.
As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.
The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.
What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.
Its not the employer itself that would be paying for it. The employer is more the middle man in this. Its that the employer is being forced to provide employee access to insurance that provides for these services.
Originally posted by Hawkmoon1972
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
A corporation has no religious beliefs. Nor does it breath or bleed or defecate. It is a corporation not a person.
As I stated before. No one is forcing a person to alter their beliefs. The govt is forcing the Corporation to abide by the Law.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.
As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.
The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.
What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.
Its not the employer itself that would be paying for it. The employer is more the middle man in this. Its that the employer is being forced to provide employee access to insurance that provides for these services.
No, the employer is paying for it. People who work here are welcome to buy any coverage they want. Employers pay for health insurance in the US, I only pay $90 a month and my employer covers the rest. Everyone has access to insurance if they are willing to pay themselves.
Originally posted by Kaploink
A slippery slope if you ask me. What if a religious business owner doesn't want to cover blood transfusions based on his religious beliefs. What if the owner refuses to cover prescription medicine even if the employee goes into the hospital due to their religious beliefs?
Where do you draw the line?
It's easy enough to cheer for women being denied contraceptives, but how much cheering would you be doing if your child can't be treated due to some religious belief of the person that employs you?
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.
As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.
The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.
What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.
Its not the employer itself that would be paying for it. The employer is more the middle man in this. Its that the employer is being forced to provide employee access to insurance that provides for these services.
No, the employer is paying for it. People who work here are welcome to buy any coverage they want. Employers pay for health insurance in the US, I only pay $90 a month and my employer covers the rest. Everyone has access to insurance if they are willing to pay themselves.
I live and work in the US, I'm well aware
I guess you could say that they are both paying for it, looking at it that way. But as a corporation of that size, they are required to provide access to health benefits for its employees. I dont know the exact requirements off the top of my head, unfortunately.
So here's the issue - the company has to provide access to health insurance. If all companies willing to provide that access to the employer are ones that conflict with the religious beliefs of the founder, what are they to do? They cant just say no, we're not providing insurance at all. I dont AGREE with both sides of this, but I see both sides. Its just a tough situation for everyone involved.
The Obama administration filed legal papers today in an attempt to stop the lawsuit the Christian craft store Hobby Lobby brought against the HHS mandate, which violates the consciences of Christian companies.