Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


OH YAY. more "I have no facts" thinly veiled insults.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

YOU responded to MY post, wherein I had asked for the language in the ruling that says what you say it says. You provided the semantics games of someone with an agenda.

Actually no. I replied to EL's post:

and you commented on it:

It's the slippery slope, you see! IF we say that someone has to pay for the 4 out of 20 forms of ""contraception"" that they find morally objectionable, WHERE DOES IT END??????

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
I don't even know what you're talking about.

...
Actually no. I replied to EL's post:
[Image]
and you commented on it:
[Image]

no. later. go back and see who's post you quoted,



"
Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...
Please direct me to the specific language in this ruling that dictates what people can do with THEIR OWN money and/or bodies!


Sure thing.



Quote:

Having your insurance plan cover birth control is not the same as getting free birth control," Julianna Gonen, director of government relations at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Cosmopolitan.com. "As an employee, you earn those benefits just like you earn your paycheck. And just like your boss has no business telling you how you can use your paycheck, he or she shouldn't be able to pick and choose which services, medications, or procedures are covered in your health insurance benefits."

This case wasn't about a requirement that your employer hand out birth control pills. It was about requiring employee health plans — which you as an employee also pay for with your premiums, and which come as part of your employment package along with your salary — to cover contraception, one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States. Few would argue that a health plan covering asthma treatment means that "your company is paying for your inhaler." Similarly, a company health plan covering contraception doesn't mean your employer pays for your pills"

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


well, now your agenda is really showing, because you're off into things I never said anything about.
AS IT PERTAINS TO **THIS CASE**, compelling doctors to perform abortions is totally relevant, because the *asshole's* attorneys argued before the Supreme Court of the United States of America that they believe they CAN do that, and THAT is why this issue is important, and why everyone who is **TRULY** for **C H O I C E** should be on board!

I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. I've said I agree with you, doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. It still doesn't change the fact that I'm pro-choice, and it doesn't mean that all pro-choice people think this way. Jesus...end your ranting on me.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


no. later. go back and see who's post you quoted,



"
Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...
Please direct me to the specific language in this ruling that dictates what people can do with THEIR OWN money and/or bodies!


Sure thing.



Quote:

Having your insurance plan cover birth control is not the same as getting free birth control," Julianna Gonen, director of government relations at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Cosmopolitan.com. "As an employee, you earn those benefits just like you earn your paycheck. And just like your boss has no business telling you how you can use your paycheck, he or she shouldn't be able to pick and choose which services, medications, or procedures are covered in your health insurance benefits."

This case wasn't about a requirement that your employer hand out birth control pills. It was about requiring employee health plans — which you as an employee also pay for with your premiums, and which come as part of your employment package along with your salary — to cover contraception, one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States. Few would argue that a health plan covering asthma treatment means that "your company is paying for your inhaler." Similarly, a company health plan covering contraception doesn't mean your employer pays for your pills"

This was AFTER. Its from the article that EL posted that I commented on and then you commented on my comment. I NEVER said the language in this ruling that dictates what people can do with THEIR OWN money and/or bodies!

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

This was AFTER. Its from the article that EL posted that I commented on and then you commented on my comment. I NEVER said the language in this ruling that dictates what people can do with THEIR OWN money and/or bodies!

ummmm...
what?

Your reply to my question is "sure thing," followed by the quote. What did you miss??




Please direct me to the specific language in this ruling that dictates what people can do with THEIR OWN money and/or bodies!


Sure thing.



Quote:

Having your insurance plan cover birth control is not the same as getting free birth control," Julianna Gonen, director of government relations at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Cosmopolitan.com. "As an employee, you earn those benefits just like you earn your paycheck. And just like your boss has no business telling you how you can use your paycheck, he or she shouldn't be able to pick and choose which services, medications, or procedures are covered in your health insurance benefits."

This case wasn't about a requirement that your employer hand out birth control pills. It was about requiring employee health plans — which you as an employee also pay for with your premiums, and which come as part of your employment package along with your salary — to cover contraception, one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States. Few would argue that a health plan covering asthma treatment means that "your company is paying for your inhaler." Similarly, a company health plan covering contraception doesn't mean your employer pays for your pills"

I'm done. I've told you I didn't say it. I've told you I agree with you. You just want a fight and I'm not going to give it to you.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...




...and you think you score points with every hypothetical you can pull out of you ass.
NOT

Rebuttals out of the Borat School of Discourse will get you real far.

And what, exactly, is the hypothetical? The rape pregnancy suggestion? That's no hypothetical, as rapes resulting in pregnancy happen about 30,000 times a year in the United States. Source

Or are you arguing that it costs society less to bear and raise children in low-income households than it costs to provide contraception, because you've got a pretty tough row to hoe if you're looking for the math to come out in favor of 18+ years of support over contraceptive coverage.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nope

THE POINT is that the first amendment DOES NOT ALLOW the government to pass laws that require people to violate tenets of their religion, AND, you really need to inform yourself re the court case, because HL **STILL** has no objection to covering 14 of the 20 types of "contraception" that Sebelius mandated!

A few things are wrong with this. First, the ACA didn't force HL to violate tenets of their religion. They required them to (1) provide health insurance covering those forms of contraception OR (2) pay a tax for not providing health insurance. So HL had an option, they just didn't want to put their employees on the exchanges and pay the tax, which is their choice. They were not, however, forced to do anything.

Additionally, Hobby Lobby had no objection to covering the now-exempt forms of contraception prior to the ACA being passed. They only dropped coverage of those forms of contraception when they decided they wanted to file suit. Thus, they either just recently decided those forms of contraception violated the tenets of their religion, or they were lying about that. In addition, HL still invests their employees 401k accounts in companies that make those forms of contraception, so apparently they don't have a religious conviction against them in those instances either. It's almost as if HL is being hugely hypocritical here, in addition to being ignorant of basic biology.

Of course, you would have known all this if you had read the links I posted earlier, but, alas, it's clear you're interested in your agenda, not the actual facts. You would also know that not all forms of contraception are safe and effective for all women, and because of that the choice of the kind of contraceptive that is best suited for a particular woman ought to be the decision of the patient and her physician, not some uptight benefits manager or evangelical CEO.

The discussion in this thread has clearly been wide ranging, much of it having nothing to do with the actual Hobby Lobby decision. As EL has underlined, there are very interesting points in the HL decision itself that reasonable people could debate (and by "debate", I don't mean impugning the motives and character of other members). I would point out however, that the HL decision does not stand in a vacuum. If seen as part of a whole, the HL decision may be far greater than it appears on its face.

Following the HL decision was the Wheaton College decision, which has received much less press. In Wheaton, the Court suggested that even filling out the paperwork required for exemption under the ACA may violate an organization's religious freedom. And don't forget that there are still dozens of lawsuits pending involving publicly held companies against the ACA. Those companies may make exactly the same arguments as Hobby Lobby.

I still have difficulty with the concept of a corporation (as a fictitious person) having rights similar to that of real people. I have yet to encounter a religion which preaches that Dell (a closely held company) has a soul that needs to be saved.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Rebuttals out of the Borat School of Discourse will get you real far.

And what, exactly, is the hypothetical? The rape pregnancy suggestion? That's no hypothetical, as rapes resulting in pregnancy happen about 30,000 times a year in the United States. [Link]

Or are you arguing that it costs society less to bear and raise children in low-income households than it costs to provide contraception, because you've got a pretty tough row to hoe if you're looking for the math to come out in favor of 18+ years of support over contraceptive coverage.

...

A few things are wrong with this. First, the ACA didn't force HL to violate tenets of their religion. They required them to (1) provide health insurance covering those forms of contraception OR (2) pay a tax for not providing health insurance. So HL had an option, they just didn't want to put their employees on the exchanges and pay the tax, which is their choice. They were not, however, forced to do anything.

Additionally, Hobby Lobby had no objection to covering the now-exempt forms of contraception prior to the ACA being passed. They only dropped coverage of those forms of contraception when they decided they wanted to file suit. Thus, they either just recently decided those forms of contraception violated the tenets of their religion, or they were lying about that. In addition, HL still invests their employees 401k accounts in companies that make those forms of contraception, so apparently they don't have a religious conviction against them in those instances either. It's almost as if HL is being hugely hypocritical here, in addition to being ignorant of basic biology.

Of course, you would have known all this if you had read the links I posted earlier, but, alas, it's clear you're interested in your agenda, not the actual facts. You would also know that not all forms of contraception are safe and effective for all women, and because of that the choice of the kind of contraceptive that is best suited for a particular woman ought to be the decision of the patient and her physician, not some uptight benefits manager or evangelical CEO.

Please READ!! I'm **NOT** and I will not, debate ""pro choice"" vs ""pro life""! I **AM** pointing out the HYPOCRISY of people claiming to be ""pro-choice,"" but wanting to deny people their RIGHT to moral values!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...
A few things are wrong with this. First, the ACA didn't force HL to violate tenets of their religion.
.

THERE is your problem!! Neither YOU, nor Obama, nor Sebelius ahs the right to define their moral values!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Punctuation_King

Please READ!! I'm **NOT** and I will not, debate ""pro choice"" vs ""pro life""! I **AM** pointing out the HYPOCRISY of people claiming to be ""pro-choice,"" but wanting to deny people their RIGHT to moral values!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're bad at words.

Nobody is denying that the owners of Hobby Lobby have the right to their own moral values. Nobody who is anti-Hobby Lobby is going up to the owners and saying, "You must morally support X position!"

What people here are saying is that the owners of Hobby Lobby should not have the right to deny medical coverage to other people because they personally don't like that kind of medicine.

Quote:

Originally posted by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THERE is your problem!! Neither YOU, nor Obama, nor Sebelius ahs the right to define their moral values!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Facts are not determined by who uses the most exclamation marks.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. My point is multifaceted, but I'll try to make it as clear as possible:

1. Hobby Lobby was not forced to provide health insurance. The law gave them two options - either provide no health insurance to their employees, or provide health insurance and include certain forms of contraception in that coverage. Again, this law didn't say, "Everyone must provide contraceptive coverage!" It said, "If you choose to provide health insurance coverage--which you don't have to do--then these are the minimum levels of coverage you must provide."

2. Hobby Lobby defined their moral values for everyone to see years ago when they thought covering those forms of contraception was okay. They had no moral objection to it until the ACA was passed. Further, they still invest in companies that produce the supposedly immoral contraceptives. Thus, Hobby Lobby is explicitly showing everyone that their claim that they are being forced to violate their moral code is wrong, because they don't actually believe that. Again, this is evident just by looking at Hobby Lobby's history.

EL, there was one more option in your last reply to me, that would be: "Or you don't have time to cover all the possibility of this issue", which would be more akin to accurate.

With that said, ACA is not something I am required to provide. Nor am I required to provide private health insurance. I can choose to pay the tax penalty.

What I do, is provide a plan that is far better than ObiCare, at a lower cost to my employees. But my plan coverage is not ALL-INCLUSIVE. The law passed required my plan to cover certain products and services. As is true with most laws, ObiCare is going through court challenges. I will grant you that I only read your reply once, and now 3 pages later, I may be lacking some detail of point, but I know that I was, and still am, not so intimately familiar with my provided health plan that I know each nuance. Sometimes, it is these things, like ObiCare, that bring light to something previously unknown. I have a hard time being overly critical of someone that does something out of ignorance that is based on a trust that those hired to do the job will do so with a degree of competence in line with their personal ideology, compared to someone that continues on after being fully illuminated. I'm sure if we all dig deep enough, we can find things that occur in all of our lives that we may not support, out of unknowing. For instance, having a 401K that is run by a third party, offers a wide range of investment choices, and has a relatively high degree of investment security, will mostly likely result in the investment in some companies doing business in trades or products we might not agree with. Since those investment vehicles change on a near daily basis, I can't imagine a company owner being intimately familiar with each and every company within that investment vehicle. I know I don't have time to run my company and monitor our 401 at the same time. I would highly suspect HL to be the same. Now if they have a privately administered investment strategy, and they are investing in those companies, then I think the matter you raise takes on a whole different level of significance.

I can't speak to which scenario applies.

How is it possible to have a deeply held conviction on an issue, and argue about it passionately, if you admittedly don't have the time to devote to knowing exactly what the facts of the issue are?

To your large paragraph, here's an excerpt from the Forbes link that I previously posted:

Quote:

Originally posted by Forbes Article

You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plans—but I am afraid you would be wrong.

Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.

Quote:

To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.

Apparently, Hobby Lobby was either not aware that these options existed (kind of hard to believe for a company willing to take a case to the Supreme Court over their religious beliefs) or simply didn’t care.

I didn't know. I will be looking though.

Maybe you claim to have a deep and intimate knowledge of every nuance of every position you have and on every possible means that those nuances could creep into your life.

I don't. Won't claim to. Couldn't even begin to stretch my tentacles that far. Use that as a means of discrediting my positions, if you wish and find it legitimate. I won't try to stop you. The older I get, the more I realize what I don't know, and the more I want to learn. Thanks for the link.

SP, I'm glad to hear your common sense approach to the seal issue. I largely agree. I also think that PETA, et al, was entirely within their right to use this highly graphic scene of white seal pups with big black eyes, bleeding all over the snow to accomplish their goals. I don't agree with their goals, at all, but I defend their right to pursue them.

What I do oppose are an ignorant public that puts the graphic image and life of a seal pup over the lives of the natives relying on that harvest to feed their villages. People that will make their judgements based solely on the images they see, instead of the facts they see.

I would be of similar opinion of anyone that based their stance against abortion solely on watching that video. But it doesn't lessen the importance it has in bringing full light to the issue.

I do have a very few friends on the animal rights front. We disagree 100%. What tends to be their close similarity to those of a pro-abortion stance is their quickness to throw personal attacks and abandon reason, in the face of those that don't agree with them. Most are just wildly fanatical, and what has really surprised me, is that most of them are also pro-choice. There's a dichotomy I just can't seem to wrap my mind around.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

I know I have written a lot, and it's probably asking too much that each word be read closely... Seriously. I'm not saying that to be a smart ass. Long posts are only easy to comprehend as written, when you wrote them.

With that said, I'll summarize again. I can't separate my faith from my actions, and tell you it has nothing to do with my position. But I don't believe it does. I would like to believe that I would still be the type that fights for the underdog (I was that type before my faith), and that I would still hold as a primary belief that abortion of a living being is wrong. As I told SP, if it were proven that life begins at any specific point, I'll support abortion up to that point. Without that, I er on the side of caution by starting at conception. I feel sorrow for the woman that is pregnant and doesn't want to be, but I don't believe that gives her the right to kill another that had no choice in their creation, or control over their situation.

And I got all that, but it seems strange that a case invoking religious protections under the first amendment and decided under the RFRA isn't religious.

You posted easier about how you don't care for the rhetoric of war on women and all of that, but supporters of the hobby lobby case have taken it and are just spinning the same type of pro-life, anti-abortion rhetoric on the other side. Enough so that a great deal of people think this case was about abortion, rather than religious exemptions.

People aren't fighting for the underdog, as in a fertilized egg, in supporting this case. They're fighting to support the right of sperm to fertilize an egg.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

How is it possible to have a deeply held conviction on an issue, and argue about it passionately, if you admittedly don't have the time to devote to knowing exactly what the facts of the issue are?

To your large paragraph, here's an excerpt from the [Link] that I previously posted:

...

True, and as far as whether the company knew what it was investing in - financial management companies have investment plans for people and groups who have moral objections to these kinds of things. "Catholic values" plans, and various other similarly named plans.

Getting a case to SCOTUS is incredibly difficult and expensive. If you can stick that process out because you're so passionate, it's crazy to think they weren't dedicated enough to figuring these investment choices out years ago.

It makes me surprised that hobby lobby could be found to have a sincerely held belief in this regard....

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

I still have difficulty with the concept of a corporation (as a fictitious person) having rights similar to that of real people. I have yet to encounter a religion which preaches that Dell (a closely held company) has a soul that needs to be saved.

My biggest problem with the finding that a closely held company is essentially no different from its owners is that it flies in the face of a major reason why these entities exist in the first place. They are supposed to be separate and distinct entities from those that own and operate them to avoid personal liability. So personal beliefs are imputed, but liability isn't?

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...

And I got all that, but it seems strange that a case invoking religious protections under the first amendment and decided under the RFRA isn't religious.

You posted easier about how you don't care for the rhetoric of war on women and all of that, but supporters of the hobby lobby case have taken it and are just spinning the same type of pro-life, anti-abortion rhetoric on the other side. Enough so that a great deal of people think this case was about abortion, rather than religious exemptions.

People aren't fighting for the underdog, as in a fertilized egg, in supporting this case. They're fighting to support the right of sperm to fertilize an egg.

I appreciate the clarification. Most of what I wrote over the past 12 pages though was after the discussion between SP and I had moved past the specifics of HL decision and more generally about abortion as a whole, in defense of my position.


I would defend HL in this case as it applies to your comment that you are surprised the SC found them sincere. It is an issue that never crossed my mind. I knew our policy did not cover abortion, but I gave no thought to whether it covered things like "the morning after pill". The simple truth is, there's a lot of demands on my time, and until something brought it to my attention, I never gave it a thought. They could be the same. I've given thousands of dollars to Right-to-Life, and a pair of pregnant women shelters that will care for the woman until she delivers. It would be possible to question my sincerity simply looking at the words of this thread, but no one that knows me, or the facts of my actions would question it for a blink. I don't know if HL can claim the same, or not, but I certainly understand how it happens.

I know I'll be bringing the issues up with my 401K administrator at our next review. As far as I'm concerned, EL's illumination of the issue, made the whole thread worthwhile to me. If I had time to dick around with the details of the stock market, mutual funds and my 401K, I probably wouldn't have any money to put in them.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

I know I'll be bringing the issues up with my 401K administrator at our next review. As far as I'm concerned, EL's illumination of the issue, made the whole thread worthwhile to me. If I had time to dick around with the details of the stock market, mutual funds and my 401K, I probably wouldn't have any money to put in them.

I would think your financial advisor could just take care of it for you. My investments are with a large company, so maybe it's different. But I could just tell my advisor I have moral objections XYZ, and they have plans for that (as long as they are common objections like what hobby lobby has).