reply to post by charles1952
Thanks for your very thorough explanation of "Citizen's United". It does help me better understand the difference between the freedoms of
individuals and corporations better. You flatter me when you say that I put a lot into it, I didn't, and I'm not very well versed on the legal
aspects to the ACA and the Citizen's United case.
As far as Hobby Lobby only objecting to certain kinds of birth control, I have two issues, personally. The proposal of an employer being able to pick
and choose what medical methods an insurance covered doctor's office visit can and cannot include, based on each individual employers biases, is
tedious at best. It threatens the doctor's ability to freely recommend all available options, without first referring to some paperwork that tells
him what he can and cannot offer this particular patient without having to schedule an additional, non insurance covered appointment. It places an
undue burden on both the doctor and woman, in my opinion.
Secondly, in this case Hobby Lobby is adopting a definition of abortion that is not supported by the American Medical Association and the medical
community, in general. Hobby Lobby is redefining fertilization as pregnancy, while the medical community and the AMA have officially defined
pregnancy to begin at implantation. Abortions can only be performed on pregnant
Hobby Lobby owners are entitled to their religious views, but they're not entitled to legislate religious beliefs into law, by redefining legal
terms. By claiming that pregnancy begin upon conception, therefore certain types of contraception cause abortion, they're claiming that the law
shouldn't apply to them. But, in reality, the law doesn't require them to facilitate abortion, by definition.
For the record: Hobby Lobby’s issue is specifically with emergency contraception and other procedures that they consider to be abortifacients, not
preventative birth control. . . . [It's not true] that the company wants to not pay for the Pill; because they were perfectly happy to pay for oral
They may be saying that they're only against IUDs and The Morning After Pill now, but the pro-life agenda classifies The Pill as an abortifacient,
and it's only a matter of time until The Pill is on their's or someone else's list of things that are immoral. There has been a record number of
religious institution and colleges that were happily offering birth control to their employees and students until the ACA came along, and they changed
their policies, on principle. Georgetown University is one of them.
Some people think war is wrong, should they be able to NOT pay taxes that fund wars?
This a not a tax, collected by the government and going into the general fund. It is an order that individuals must begin doing something they
never had to before, and which at least one Circuit Court believes, violates their fundamental religious beliefs.
My point being, we don't get to pick and choose where our tax dollars go, based on our religious biases, and a public, for profit corporation
shouldn't be able pick and choose what laws they want to follow either, based on the owners' religious bias. They need to follow the societal laws,
just like everybody else, and not be able to discriminate based on religious excuses.