What does the religious right want from the Hobby Lobby mess?

[DriftingSand]

They want to get the camel's nose in the tent. That is, set the stage for further claims of "The courts say I can discriminate against you because of my religion."

Liar.

We just don't want to pay for your Birth Control. You want to play? You pay.

It really is that simple.

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

But it is a tax of sorts when a company that's opposed to abortion is forced to pay for mandatory death pills for women who have trouble keeping their legs closed. In other words, it's taxing on the company's profit margin and, in this case, their conscience.

 

[DriftingSand]

for-profit corps can't "pick & choose" which laws they'll follow.

Unless the family owned corp "chooses" to follow the law of the land which protects them from a despotic or tyrannical government that forces them to do something that's wrong. Abortion is wrong and individuals, families, and private corporations shouldn't be forced to fund it.

 

[peach174]

They want to get the camel's nose in the tent. That is, set the stage for further claims of "The courts say I can discriminate against you because of my religion."

Liar.

We just don't want to pay for your Birth Control. You want to play? You pay.

It really is that simple.

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

If it wasn't fact based the Supreme Court would have throw-en it out.
It's a about a Religious owner of a Hobby Lobby franchise Store that is being forced to pay for insurance by Law that the Government passed for 2 types of pills that kills life. Which violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

for-profit corps can't "pick & choose" which laws they'll follow.

Which is precisely why they are challenging the unconstitutional encroachment on their religious liberty.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[paperview]

Liar.

We just don't want to pay for your Birth Control. You want to play? You pay.

It really is that simple.

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

If it wasn't fact based the Supreme Court would have throw-en it out.
It's a about a Religious owner of a Hobby Lobby franchise Store that is being forced to pay for insurance by Law that the Government passed for 2 types of pills that kills life. Which violates the 1st Amendment.

They don't "kill life.". Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients.

Nor is the IUD. That's just the facts.


Hobby Lobby previously covered Plan B and Ella for years before they were mandated to cover it as part of their health plan.

 

[emilynghiem]

for-profit corps can't "pick & choose" which laws they'll follow.

But federal officials can "pick and choose" what articles in the Bill of Rights their agenda
can override? Who gets religious freedom or "freedom of choice" and who gets left out?

 

[emilynghiem]

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

If it wasn't fact based the Supreme Court would have throw-en it out.
It's a about a Religious owner of a Hobby Lobby franchise Store that is being forced to pay for insurance by Law that the Government passed for 2 types of pills that kills life. Which violates the 1st Amendment.

They don't "kill life.". Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients.

Nor is the IUD. That's just the facts.


Hobby Lobby previously covered Plan B and Ella for years before they were mandated to cover it as part of their health plan.

1. The Case | The Hobby Lobby Case
According to the lawsuit, it is just 4 particular drugs they are objecting to legally:

"While the Green family has no moral objection to providing 16 of the 20 FDA-approved drugs and devices that are part of the federal mandate, providing drugs or devices that have the potential to terminate a life conflicts with their faith."

2. as for religious freedom vs. federal mandates
just because I agree to participate voluntarily in X Y Z options
doesn't mean I wouldn't object or sue if the FEDERAL GOVT PASSED MANDATES
requiring and regulating these same options.

The issue at stake is the PRINCIPLE.

Perhaps people who don't share the same commitment to the PRINCIPLE
don't get the validity or importance of these arguments.

PPV you remind me of how prolife people have difficulty understanding "prochoice"
because they don't think abortion is a choice anyway. So what liberties are being lost?
The right to murder? they don't always get it either.

The same way "right to life" is a political belief
so is "right to health care". Similarly it seems people are so
entrenched in their "political beliefs" as right and the "only way"
they don't recognize any other views or choices as valid.

If you don't believe that these issues are really issues, that's fine.
That's why these "issues or nonissues" should stay out of federal laws.

If we don't even see them the same way, we shouldn't be making federal laws
mandating people to follow regulations on them. This is even more proof why
health care policies should remain local and private, and out of federal jurisdiction.

From what you point out, these issues ARE much better settled locally and not
make federal cases out of them! Removing federal controls and mandates from the equation
would eliminate these conflicts and arguments altogether over health care. Either agree on policy,
and keep that part public under govt, or separate on areas of difference and keep that part local and private.

Clearly, federal govt should only apply to areas we ALL AGREE ON so these conflicts don't keep arising.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks Luddly: Reminds me, again, how prochoice activists want it both ways as well:
wanting govt to be in charge of health care (when it fits their agenda), but want to keep govt out of health care (when it conflicts with their views such as on prolife and prochoice).

Want all people to pay into govt plans, but then object when taxpayers don't agree to the same terms. So they want to rely on other taxpayers to support these programs, but don't respect the equal representation and voice of these taxpayers on the terms of the policies.

Thanks for that, too!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The insurance HL provides pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives. Use one of those or buy your own.

That may be true - I don't know HL's benefit plans, but I'll take your word for it. I was specifically debunking claims that tax payers are somehow made to pay for contraceptives when its only and insurance companies and their customers who want contraceptives who pay for them.

 

[BobPlumb]

for-profit corps can't "pick & choose" which laws they'll follow.

Yet Obama sure can pick and choose which laws or which part of a law he chooses to enforce. And if he doesn't like the law as it it written, then he will use " executive discretion" to affectively rewrite the law.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Liar.

We just don't want to pay for your Birth Control. You want to play? You pay.

It really is that simple.

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

But it is a tax of sorts when a company that's opposed to abortion is forced to pay for mandatory death pills for women who have trouble keeping their legs closed. In other words, it's taxing on the company's profit margin and, in this case, their conscience.

I wouldn't agree that it is a tax. However, that is beside the point. I understand the case Hobby Lobby et al, have brought. I was specifically addressing the claim that tax payers are paying for women's contraceptives when in reality its insurance companies and their clients who want contraceptives that pay for them.

This seems to be a common misconception about the ACA on the Right. There are legitimate complaints to be made about the ACA; that it forces tax payers to pay for contraceptives is not one of them.

 

[peach174]

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

But it is a tax of sorts when a company that's opposed to abortion is forced to pay for mandatory death pills for women who have trouble keeping their legs closed. In other words, it's taxing on the company's profit margin and, in this case, their conscience.

I wouldn't agree that it is a tax. However, that is beside the point. I understand the case Hobby Lobby et al, have brought. I was specifically addressing the claim that tax payers are paying for women's contraceptives when in reality its insurance companies and their clients who want contraceptives that pay for them.

This seems to be a common misconception about the ACA on the Right. There are legitimate complaints to be made about the ACA; that it forces tax payers to pay for contraceptives is not one of them.

No it is not about taxpayers and the right are saying that it is about the ACA.
The Court Case is about the New Health Care Bill.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You won't pay for their contraceptives. The insurance companies will. Try again.

Because money is magic and contraceptives are free.Can I ask you a question, if contraceptives are free, why does anyone have to pay for them?

Huh?

Women who use contraceptives have had to pay for them before the ACA. After the passing of ACA, the women who use contraceptives pay the insurance companies through which the contraceptives are paid for. Why is this a problem? You aren't paying for them.

The ACA says that my insurance policy has to cover contraceptives even though I don't use any of the contraceptives that it covers, that means I am paying for them.

Want to tell me again how smart you are?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

And where do you think the insurance companies get the money to pay for contracetives? Could it be the people that buy the insurance?

Yes! Its the people who buy the insurance who pay for its services! So, does your plan include contraceptives? No? Then you don't pay for them! For woken who want contraceptives, they can buy plans which do. Its pretty simple.

Everyone's plan includes contraceptives, idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

for-profit corps can't "pick & choose" which laws they'll follow.

Why not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government lied when they went before the Supreme Court to defend the mandate? Why the **** don't I believe that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

If it wasn't fact based the Supreme Court would have throw-en it out.
It's a about a Religious owner of a Hobby Lobby franchise Store that is being forced to pay for insurance by Law that the Government passed for 2 types of pills that kills life. Which violates the 1st Amendment.

They don't "kill life.". Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients.

Nor is the IUD. That's just the facts.


Hobby Lobby previously covered Plan B and Ella for years before they were mandated to cover it as part of their health plan.

The FDA disagrees, bit we all know you never let facts change your position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The insurance HL provides pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives. Use one of those or buy your own.

That may be true - I don't know HL's benefit plans, but I'll take your word for it. I was specifically debunking claims that tax payers are somehow made to pay for contraceptives when its only and insurance companies and their customers who want contraceptives who pay for them.

Given that taxpayers subsidize health plans, and those health plans include contraceptives, all you debunked was your crediility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

C'mon guys. This isn't a fact based argument. It isn't tax payers paying for contraceptives! It's insurance companies paying for them. Get that through your skulls!

But it is a tax of sorts when a company that's opposed to abortion is forced to pay for mandatory death pills for women who have trouble keeping their legs closed. In other words, it's taxing on the company's profit margin and, in this case, their conscience.

I wouldn't agree that it is a tax. However, that is beside the point. I understand the case Hobby Lobby et al, have brought. I was specifically addressing the claim that tax payers are paying for women's contraceptives when in reality its insurance companies and their clients who want contraceptives that pay for them.

This seems to be a common misconception about the ACA on the Right. There are legitimate complaints to be made about the ACA; that it forces tax payers to pay for contraceptives is not one of them.

Does the fact that you are 100% wrong make a difference?