An IUD prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg. What's the objection to that, then?
This is not true. This case does nothing to take that out of the coverage requirements.*That is one of the things this case is about. Plan B should never have been a part of health insurance plans in the first place.*
I don't think there is much of a difference at all. Hobby lobby is not buying this birth control and putting it in the hands of their employees and telling them to use it. Hobby Lobby's is providing healthcare benefits...that an employee should be able to use and should be able to expect them to comply with the law...and let their OWN religious beliefs dictate if they will get to use these contraceptives or not...not their corporate CEO. Yuck.*Giving someone $50 and telling them to go buy some food but they buy drugs instead is completely different than going out and buying drugs for someone.*
You just said you wanted government regulated...that's what obamacare is government regulated privatized healthcare.*Private with multiple companies to choose from, not Government run. The Government should not be controlling Healthcare. They simply are not competent. The VA is a perfect example of that.*
ETA: you used the word "oversite"....what is the technical definition between oversite and government regulated??
Obamacare is not government run healtcare FYI....it defines a set of rules that private health insurers need to follow among other things...that's government regulated, or oversite.
Last edited by KimPossible; 07-01-2014 at 12:15 PM.
Try changing the situation and see if you feel the same. Would you like there to a law that if you owned a company you had to buy a bible for each of your employees? Of course not. If they want one, they can buy one for themselves. It would be a major breach of religious freedoms to force an employer to do that for their employees. There has got to be a line between the Government controlling every single aspect of a company and a company running their business and the Government just overseeing to making it safe.
I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations still have some rights. Not just for this issue, but for many issues.
Here is a question for the supporters.
What is the defining difference between what laws corporations should be able to ignore by claiming religion...and what laws they can't ignore?
If a religious corporation believes that its sinful for women who are pregnant or mothers to work because they are obligated to be home with their kids according to 'Gods plan'...should they be able to fire them? Should they be allowed to ask their potential employees if they are pregnant or planning on getting pregnant?
ETA: If the answer is "yes, they should be allowed to do those things"...well then at least you are consistent. If the answer is no, I would like to know what the defining factor is that makes my example different. It would need to be very clear and obvious so it could withstand a court trial.
And I'm interested in hearing the actual answers to my last question, regardless of if they are yes or no answers.
Last edited by KimPossible; 07-01-2014 at 12:59 PM.
Cecilia Marie 1/10/10
Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography
The bible analogy doesn't make sense either. If I were in the library business and the law mandated that I provide a religious text from every different type of religion in my "religious studies" section, then I would do so. If I only believed in one of those religions, or even none of them, I'm still leaving it up to the library user or employee to decide what book to read. That's a much closer analogy than telling me to buy a bible for everyone. No one is telling these companies to buy birth control for everybody, they're asking them to provide comprehensive health care as defined by the law....until now. It's a bad decision and I hope it gets overturned.
No library should "have" to stock any one particular book. If a library does not have the book you want go to a different library. If there was a book on how to build a bom, a library should not "have" to stock that book if they are afraid someone might use that information to build a bom. If a library's owner has a moral objection to pornography, no one should be able to come in and say they "have" to stock it. - A business should have complete control over what they sell/ don't sell.
What about my human rights? Do I give up those because I seek employment? Anything else should I be willing to do? Female circumcision if I want to be a dancer? Participate in a morning prayer group with my employer (so their religious rights don't get infringed), getting fired if I divorce?
The main issue I have is giving a corporation status as a "person" for some things but not others. If the same company sold envelops with glue that they knew could cause death without letting the consumer know, the company could be sued . There would be no personal liability. The owners' personal assists would not be subject to ligation. No criminal charges. Nothing. If I did this as an individual - gave people toxic glue - there could be personal legal and civil consequences. Did anyone from Ford or GM get charged?
I think "religious beliefs" of an individual allowing a corporation to deny employees of something is going to lead to unintended consequences.
I don't know the answer but did other businesses with a reputation for being highly religious (In-and-Out) object?