Hobby Lobby Ruling

[Woodruff]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

[danfrank666]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

When your interviewed by hobby lobby they explain that they are deeply rooted in the catholic community and if you dont like it , you can get the f*ck out. A win for religious LIBERTY.

[Night Strike]

What access to easy contraceptives have been taken away by the ruling? All I see is that one person can't be forced to pay for someone else's contraceptives simply because the one person owns a business.

[luns101]

How would we measure that charge of future increases? Is the government going to start compiling statistics of female Hobby Lobby employees who get abortions now? Did they keep records of Hobby Lobby female employees who got abortions before the ruling as the standard?

[oVo]

The morality of your boss should define your world
and the insurance they provide workers should not
include your sexual health.
sarcasm
Of course their moral imposition over employees
should exclude the conditions and situations of the
workers who produce the products they sell in
their store, IF it improves the profit margin.

It's Official: We live in a country where corporations
have more rights than women.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The morality of your boss should define your world
and the insurance they provide workers should not
include your sexual health.
sarcasm
Of course their moral imposition over employees
should exclude the conditions and situations of the
workers who produce the products they sell in
their store, IF it improves the profit margin.

It's Official: We live in a country where corporations
have more rights than women.

How does forcing a corporation to provide contraceptions support women's rights?

Contraception is a negative right, i.e. go and get your own.

-TG

[oVo]

Their "moral objections" via their religious beliefs
doesn't prevent them from importing products to
sell made by sweat shop and other forms of cheap
labor.

[DaGip]

Okay, you conservative fucks. Listen up!

Just because your belief system incorporates the belittling and subjugation of women doesn't mean you can brand the whole fucking country with your barbarian bullsquat! This ruling shows us that corporations can deny their employees the right to regulate their fertility. Since when does Mr. Slate tell Wilma that she doesn't get a choice over her own "God-given" sex organs? This is part of the problem with a "Christian" nation, they can't get their minds out of the Dark Ages.

What if my corporation had a religious belief that hospitals are not natural and against "God's-will"? Then would SCOTUS uphold that it was okay for that corporation to deny it's employees access to hospital care? This decision is rife with the lingering Christian-religious misogynistic belief system that men go about their lives dictating what rights women do and do not get.

You conservative posters that act all smug like you just won some big battle with your hated enemy Obama are going to learn that you just sold your own selves into a form of slavery that you and your children will never be free from!

Communism is now this country's only hope! The religions of this nation must be abolished before they revert all of us back to the days where women are burned at the stake and scientists are kept under house arrest because they believe the earth orbits around the Sun!

The REAL Revolution has begun!

[Metsfanmax]

This ruling shows us that corporations can deny their employees the right to regulate their fertility.

No, this ruling shows us that corporations don't have to pay for some contraceptives when they believe, based on evidence that is somewhere between flimsy and non-existent, that these particular ones abort some fertilized eggs.

[2dimes]

[warmonger1981]

Hobby Lobby says they are fine with almost all birth control. The four medications or procedures they protested would actually provide abortions not preventative conception. They don't like abortion but medication to prevent pregnancy is ok.

[Metsfanmax]

Hobby Lobby says they are fine with almost all birth control. The four medications or procedures they protested would actually provide abortions not preventative conception. They don't like abortion but medication to prevent pregnancy is ok.

Clarification: they believe these four would cause abortions. There's no solid evidence to that effect.

[Lord Arioch]

Sigh
I think people should pay for their own condoms or birth control pills. And i think abortion is totally up to the women to decide. I live in Sweden so i dont really get whats the fuss:) Buy condoms/pills or if u are totally stupid have unprotected sex and go for abortion (which in no way should be used as a preventive) or why not have kids they are really fun:)

But not even here the corps pay for pills or condoms.... well its not entirly true when i worked in integration our municipality distributed free condoms to all immigrants... which i found is quite rascist and when i wrote em about it they actually stopped doing it

Anyway freedom of choice in this question is the way to go, respecting each others different values!

(and DaGip im totally on if by communism u mean what Marx meant and not lening/stalin/mao....)

[AndyDufresne]

I look forward to the day when the Supreme Court also rules that no soldier be quartered in business, since businesses are now private homes.


--Andy

[notyou2]

The ripples from this ruling will be spectacular, leading to a reversal.

[muy_thaiguy]

Half say that Hobby Lobby should have to pay for forms of Birth Control (what? Why should they have to pay for anyone's sex life?) and the other half don't think Hobby Lobby should (makes more sense, since so many don't want religion in their private lives, and Hobby Lobby is well, yeah.).

Seriously, how many places of employment not affliated with one religion or another actually say they'll buy you birth control (of any kind) in the first place? And although I'm not exactly a fan of abortions (don't get me wrong, I can see why some are favorable to it like in cases of rape and such, just not a fan of it overall), the clinics don't charge anything for their "services". We often hear how people don't want religion in government and what not here, but shouldn't it also go both ways? It's not like their policy is actually hurting people (surprise surprise), just some seem butt hurt because they won't pay for birth control, especially kinds that would go against their beliefs.

Edit: After looking at it more closely, Hobby Lobby actually pays for 16 kinds of birth control. The others they don't pay for because it goes against their religious beliefs. They won't stop employees from buying the other kinds on their own, so what the hell is the problem here?

[oVo]

Edit: After looking at it more closely, Hobby Lobby actually pays for 16 kinds of birth control. The others they don't pay for because it goes against their religious beliefs. They won't stop employees from buying the other kinds on their own, so what the hell is the problem here?

Looking even closer, corporate Hobby Lobby invests funds in the companies that produce the so called abortion pills. So it's ok to profit from the production of those forms of birth control, they just don't want their employees using their healthcare funds to actually use them... for um... moral reasons.

[oVo]

The ripples from this ruling will be spectacular, leading to a reversal.

r i p p l e s ?

[danfrank666]

Edit: After looking at it more closely, Hobby Lobby actually pays for 16 kinds of birth control. The others they don't pay for because it goes against their religious beliefs. They won't stop employees from buying the other kinds on their own, so what the hell is the problem here?

Looking even closer, corporate Hobby Lobby invests funds in the companies that produce the so called abortion pills. So it's ok to profit from the production of those forms of birth control, they just don't want their employees using their healthcare funds to actually use them... for um... moral reasons.

Bundle this with "womans body equals womens right" Patronize a harlot and be impervious to shame.

[Phatscotty]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

Not that I think abortion should be illegal, just forcing religious people to pay and participate in abortions. Hobby Lobby agreed to 16 out of 20 areas when it comes to 'women's' healthcare, they just disagreed about the morning after pill, abortion, birth control pills, and one other thing.

How difficult is it for a women to access contraceptives? I don't believe how some people act like a company is the only place you can get an abortion, or a company is the only way you can get birth control pills.

The bottom line is religious companies do not have to participate in abortions etc if it violates their religious beliefs.

[danfrank666]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

Not that I think abortion should be illegal, just forcing religious people to pay and participate in abortions. Hobby Lobby agreed to 16 out of 20 areas when it comes to 'women's' healthcare, they just disagreed about the morning after pill, abortion, birth control pills, and one other thing.

How difficult is it for a women to access contraceptives? I don't believe how some people act like a company is the only place you can get an abortion, or a company is the only way you can get birth control pills.

The bottom line is religious companies do not have to participate in abortions etc if it violates their religious beliefs.

Health insurance companies do not cover all Physicians, Medications or Procedures. It`s simpler than Religion. It`s nice to known that some still stand for their beliefs and by that i mean the 5 JUSTICES on the Supreme Court.

[DaGip]

This ruling shows us that corporations can deny their employees the right to regulate their fertility.

No, this ruling shows us that corporations don't have to pay for some contraceptives when they believe, based on evidence that is somewhere between flimsy and non-existent, that these particular ones abort some fertilized eggs.

On the contrary, how is it that if I am an employer and I do not believe in contraceptives (or even some contraceptives) and I force that belief upon my female (or male) employees not denying them of some basic human right? Why are my employees employed with me? For what purpose?

If they are employed with me because they (like almost all other employees) they are poor and need money, how is my taking away their right to an abortion and regulating the female's own right to their fertility not discrimination of women?

I am afraid you and I have a misunderstanding of the issue.

Yours seems to be bit more shallow, whereas mine seems to support feminism.

You can easily shrug off this issue as meaningless and "what's the big deal" because by the "luck of the draw" you were born with a cock between your legs; but women are the ones to bare the burden of getting pregnant and caring for bastard children (all the while disallowing the female the same financial footing as the male who can run away and live his life as he sees fit).

[danfrank666]

This ruling shows us that corporations can deny their employees the right to regulate their fertility.

No, this ruling shows us that corporations don't have to pay for some contraceptives when they believe, based on evidence that is somewhere between flimsy and non-existent, that these particular ones abort some fertilized eggs.

On the contrary, how is it that if I am an employer and I do not believe in contraceptives (or even some contraceptives) and I force that belief upon my female (or male) employees not denying them of some basic human right? Why are my employees employed with me? For what purpose?

If they are employed with me because they (like almost all other employees) they are poor and need money, how is my taking away their right to an abortion and regulating the female's own right to their fertility not discrimination of women?

I am afraid you and I have a misunderstanding of the issue.

Yours seems to be bit more shallow, whereas mine seems to support feminism.

You can easily shrug off this issue as meaningless and "what's the big deal" because by the "luck of the draw" you were born with a cock between your legs; but women are the ones to bare the burden of getting pregnant and caring for bastard children (all the while disallowing the female the same financial footing as the male who can run away and live his life as he sees fit).

Wow What about personal responsibility. When are you going to acknowledge that ? A diapraghm ( im not a woman terminology may be off OHWELL) is her first line of defense , the fuckin female rubber, over A cyanide pill that doesn`t effect the incubator . Feminism ? Again Overstated . That is the LEFT of the day. A bunch of JACKASSES

[TA1LGUNN3R]

This ruling shows us that corporations can deny their employees the right to regulate their fertility.

No, this ruling shows us that corporations don't have to pay for some contraceptives when they believe, based on evidence that is somewhere between flimsy and non-existent, that these particular ones abort some fertilized eggs.

On the contrary, how is it that if I am an employer and I do not believe in contraceptives (or even some contraceptives) and I force that belief upon my female (or male) employees not denying them of some basic human right? Why are my employees employed with me? For what purpose?

If they are employed with me because they (like almost all other employees) they are poor and need money, how is my taking away their right to an abortion and regulating the female's own right to their fertility not discrimination of women?

I am afraid you and I have a misunderstanding of the issue.

Yours seems to be bit more shallow, whereas mine seems to support feminism.

You can easily shrug off this issue as meaningless and "what's the big deal" because by the "luck of the draw" you were born with a cock between your legs; but women are the ones to bare the burden of getting pregnant and caring for bastard children (all the while disallowing the female the same financial footing as the male who can run away and live his life as he sees fit).

This is silly. There's a difference between a right that is provided by the gov't (free speech and the others outlined by constitutional amendments), and rights which are not and must be obtained by the individual (healthcare, buying property, work, etc.)

Should I demand that my job buy condoms for my sexual health? Don't give me bunk how the male and female are different, under the law there should be no distinction.

Seriously, how can you say that this is "denying them of some basic human right?" That's laughable. Is Hobby Lobby forcibly denying birth control from the women? No, they just aren't paying for it. You have a warped sense of entitlement if you believe that the two are equivalent.

-TG