Hobby Lobby Files Suit over HHS Mandate, Could Face $1.3 Million in Fines

reply to post by Morningglory

i am responding to your nonsense only because you quoted my statement. funny that you only posted a 'general' reply.

I really don't see how providing health care hinders an employer's freedom of religion

i'd suppose if employers actually provided healthcare, that would be something to consider.

however, only healthcare employers have that consideration to make. and guess what ?
most of them provide exemptions for the "religious objections" of their employees regarding certain procedures.

who is regluating religion IN the workplace ??

Besides most employees pay for a large portion of their employee health care coverage

proof please, otherwise this rhetoric has been proven wrong numerous times.

what does non-emergency transport have to do with universal RX coverage ?

oh, so your 'ease of transport' is "emergent care" in your view ??
interesting.

btw, those folks you are describing aren't "usually" without insurance anyway.
[like it or lump it, Medicaid and all versions of it ARE health insurance programs]

If you want to save a woman from the trauma of abortion/unwanted pregnancy/miscarriage, I'd say getting the morning after pill is vital. You can't know the medical history of every woman. Giving them the pill could save them from emergency treatment for miscarriage later on, it's cost cutting.

your own statement invalidates your own 'opinion'

wouldn't enforcing 'safe sex' practices be more 'cost cutting' in the long run ???
and if so, when did 'enforcing safe sex practices' become a DUTY of any employer ??

no one is disputing care for pregnant women (even those objecting to paying for termination activities) ... but that isn't what this case, this legislation or this particular thread is about.

could you possibly stay focused on the topic ?
why should HL or any other 'objecting' employer be subject to such exhoribant fines for practicing their religion in daily life ??

so, pro-choice folk have no voice, no opinion and no relevance to this discussion in your mind or what ??
if so, then why are you addressing me of all people ??

reply to post by Morningglory

in case my response to this left you with more questions than answers, please, allow me to expand.

If you want to save a woman from the trauma of abortion/unwanted pregnancy/miscarriage,

the ONLY way to achieve this is to AVOID pregnancy, period.

before the 'trauma' can set in, a woman has to BE pregnant
if the pregnancy is 'unwanted', there is no alleviating the 'trauma' of being pregnant, period.
if a miscarriage occurs naturally, trauma accompanies it, there is no escaping it, period.
if an abortion is the chosen option, there is still no escaping, alleviating or avoiding the 'trauma' of being pregnant, get it ??

I'd say getting the morning after pill is vital.

your turn ... please explain how obtaining an abortifacient could or would alleviate the 'trauma' of BEING pregnant

You can't know the medical history of every woman.

agreed.
so, what does that fact have to do with abortifacients or acquiring them ??

Giving them the pill could save them from emergency treatment for miscarriage later on, it's cost cutting.

are you even aware that women who have used the marketed pills, have had difficulty carrying any pregnancy to term ??

so, repeated attempts compounded with repeated failures and necessary healthcare applications for both is 'cost cutting' how exactly ???

link regarding long term effects of abortifacients ... old but relevant

The death rate from RU-486 (one per 100,000) is twice that of traditional abortion in the US. And "the vast majority of these (RU-486) abortions were performed under strict trial conditions," they said. "Accidents are more likely to happen in its less controlled general use."

- snip -

That 1% of patients (18 of 2,040) in a controlled setting required a blood transfusion is not insignificant. With 1.6 million abortions in the US every year, 1% is not an insignificant few. That would be 16,000 women per year -- hardly "safe."
And this is in addition to the 16,000 (1%: 20 of 2,040) in whom the drug failed to interrupt pregnancy -- resulting in fetal deformity!
Any procedure that would require 2.1% (33,600 US women annually(29) to undergo a second procedure, a surgical abortion, because their RU-486 abortion was incomplete, is far from "effective."

and this quote pretty much says it all for me

But even in the best of circumstances (highly controlled studies of healthy women), life-threatening situations have developed. How much more dangerous in rural areas of the western world, or in the so-called Third World countries, where medical facilities and equipment are not readily accessible!
RU-486 is evil not only in that it destroys the life of an innocent, unborn child. It endangers women's health and exploits them in an already difficult situation, taking advantage in their time of need.

now, i hold to the opinion that each should choose for themselves, however, we will not be forced to participate, even in payment !!!