90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
A Win For Hobby Lobby, And What It Means

The Hobby Lobby ruling and a big term for the Supreme Court. We’ll unpack the decisions.

Demonstrators react to hearing the Supreme Court's decision on the Hobby Lobby case outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. (AP)

Demonstrators react to hearing the Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. (AP)

To the Greens of Oklahoma, it was just logical.  Yes, they were billionaires.  Yes, their Hobby Lobby chain employed thousands of people.  But why would they cover contraception that their religious belief found offensive?  To many others, the logic ran just the other way.  The Affordable Care Act offered health care to all.  Contraception included.  Why would a woman be subject to the religion of Boss Green? Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled for the Greens, for Hobby Lobby, for the religious rights of the company.  This hour On Point:  the high court, Hobby Lobby, and religion in the workplace.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Joan Biskupic, legal affairs correspondent for Reuters. Author of “American Original” and “Sandra Day O’Connor.” (@JoanBiskupic)

Elizabeth Sepper, law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

Richard Garnett, professor of law and political science at Notre Dame University. (@RickGarnett)

David Van Biema, contributor for TIME Magazine. Author of “Mother Teresa: The Life and Works of a Modern Saint.” (@DavidVanBiema)

From Tom’s Reading List

Reuters: U.S. justices uphold firms’ religious objections to contraception — “In a 5-4 vote on ideological lines, the justices said that such companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the law known as Obamacare. The decision, which applies only to companies owned by a small number of individuals, means employees of those companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources.”

POLITICO: SCOTUS ignites Obamacare, contraception fight – “What matters is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Obama administration overreached on one of the most sensitive cultural controversies in modern politics. And in doing so, the justices have given the Affordable Care Act one more setback that it didn’t need heading into the mid-term elections.”

TIME Magazine: Hobby Lobby’s Contraception Showdown — “Normally, when three generations of the Green family meet, it is for one of two joyful purposes: an Oklahoma City Thunder game (a luxury suite is one of the few perks the billionaire family allows itself) or a monthly gathering to decide how to donate the tens of millions of dollars it gives away annually. Two years ago, though, the mood was somber. The topic was whether the Greens—the only shareholders in the $3 billion, 626-store Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts ­empire—should take on the Obama Administration.”

Read The Supreme Court’s Ruling In Burwell et. al v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Gloucester3

    I think that since not public company,an owner could decide next week to retire (close biz). His argument is “I am not going to spend MY money (not shareholders money) on contraception and if you to me that I HAVE to do so to stay in business I will close my biz and retire.”

    • rfra20

      Ok – but. You’re operating a business in the United States. And in the United States we as a society establish rules of engagement for operating a business – which include a minimum wage, paid vacation, safety regluations and possibly offering contraceptives to your employees….

      • Gloucester3

        Agreed, but the “rules of engagement” just changed to something that
        didn’t exist when they started their biz. Keep in mind, more expensive
        for them to pay for employee to have/raise child so doesn’t seem that
        money is “their objection”.
        Think of current issue – would you have
        thought as biz owner in 90′s that buying contraceptives for all
        employees would somehow become YOUR responsiblity?

        • Don_B1

          That is supposed to be the “magic of the marketplace,” the ability to deal with changes in the landscape as time progresses. Hobby Lobby just wants to through a monkey wrench in the works, not really improve life for all citizens.

        • rfra20

          Haha! Yes the “rules of engagement” are constantly changing. That’s why you should pay attention to who you vote for and what they intend to do when they’re elected. It IS important.

    • Don_B1

      Most people operate a business to make money, not to spend it.

      The owners would do much better to sell their business to someone who will comply with the PPACA as written.

  • 1Brett1

    I do think that this case hid behind religious freedom for the purposes of chipping away at the ACA. Hobby Lobby’s owner doesn’t care about participating in providing contraceptive devices/medications and that this act goes against his religious convictions; that’s clear. He invested company profits in the very companies that make these same contraceptive devices/medications.

    • margbi

      If the corporation can push employees to get their medications from the government (ACA) doesn’t this amount to a subsidy to business, such as the one to Walmart? You know, pay low wages and encourage employees to apply for food stamps and other benefits?

      .Businesses are pushing their cost of operations on everybody else.

      • 1Brett1

        “If the corporation can push employees to get their medications from the government (ACA)…”

        No, the government does not pay for these medications. Insurance companies cover medications, health plans paid for by the employees and partially subsidized by employers. Before the ACA, employers did the same thing; the ACA just set standards for who should be insured and for what should be covered, so you start with a false premise.

        Also, Walmart has reduced it hours for most employees to 28 hours a week (or, in most cases, much less) to avoid providing health insurance, so with many employees they even participate in the ACA.

        • margbi

          Thanks for the clarification, but isn’t this still a source of conflict if employers “partially subsidize” the cost of health plans?

          • 1Brett1

            Well, I am of the notion that health insurance should be moved away from being tied to employment, so that would solve a lot of problems.

            Having said that, I am not sure what you are getting at. One could probably make some remote connection from the government to anything. A young person mowing lawns, say, buys gas for his or her lawnmower, oil is subsidized by the government, therefore, voila, the young entrepreneur is subsidized by the government. The government will pay for abortion if by rape or incest, so the young entrepreneur is subsidizing abortion by purchasing government subsidized gasoline. One could spend all day connecting those kinds of absurd dots. Besides, Hobby Lobby invests in the same companies that manufacture the same contraceptive devices/meds it says it in good conscience can not support.

            Not sure what you are saying about “employer conflict”?

          • margbi

            I don’t think we are disagreeing. I, too, believe that the move away from single payer has led to all these difficult cases.
            I think that if employers are going to make policy based on religious beliefs there is going to be conflict if any entity calls them on it.

          • 1Brett1

            On this we can agree. I do foresee various religious organizations challenging the ACA. From immunizations to blood transfusions, to psychiatric care, and so on, energy that could be devoted to developing improved health care coverage, etc.

          • Don_B1

            Today SCOTUS threw the door wide open to such lawsuits!

          • 1Brett1

            ? I haven’t been listening to anything in the way of news today…to what do you specifically refer?

          • Don_B1

            Actually, the decision said that government could just pay for women’s contraception directly. So now Republicans are going to follow the Supreme Court’s directive to pass single payer healthcare?

          • 1Brett1

            It’ll be interesting to watch the years of lawsuits and political wrangling that comes out of these kinds of cases…

    • William

      But the court limited it to 4 birth control products not all birth control products which is what Hobby Lobby was pursuing.

      • Don_B1

        But again, like the Supreme Court (and Ronald Reagan) defining the tomato a vegetable when it is a fruit, is the legalization and encapsulation of science, like the Catholic Church’s of Cosmology which was inflexible when Galileo showed it was wrong.

        • William

          Or the court just made a narrow decision.

          • Don_B1

            They widened the door today, enough to let the whole world through.

  • 1Brett1

    The questions are: are there limits to religious liberty? And, should there be limits to religious liberty? This ruling sets limitations on religious liberty, e.g., one can not claim religious freedom in an effort not to participate in immunizations, blood transfusions, and so on, for example.

    • Don_B1

      What is at the core of this hypocrisy is that now the Supreme Court is in the business of determining when a belief, however founded or unfounded, is “sincere.”

      Note that the Georgian (in the 1960s) who sincerely believed that the Bible supported his right to own slaves and for such slaves to feel “better off” as slaves than as “free” individuals was denied in earlier SCOTUS decisions.

      • 1Brett1

        The Justices discussed immunizations and blood transfusions (although they didn’t mention psychiatric procedures, something Scientologists are against); they made a distinction that this was only about contraception and NOT things like immunizations and blood transfusions, so they are indeed in the business of determining what is “sincere” belief.

        There will no doubt be other challenges as a result of this ruling…

  • Fredlinskip

    It’s my religious belief that I don’t need to serve minorities at my business establishment.
    HEY, maybe we can get the Roberts Court to begin to roll back 50 years plus of Civil Rights Legislation!!
    Woohoo!

    • rfra20

      Hey – this same court already ruled that corporations have a voice in our society so they’re just using it now! No surprises.

    • Human2013

      An absolute Kangaroo Court.

  • laurabien

    Gallup estimated in 2011 that 14% of women use contraceptives only to treat medical problems, and not to prevent pregnancy. 58% of women who use hormonal contraception do so both to prevent pregnancy and to treat a medical condition.

    IUD users have a decreased risk of uterine cancer, one of the most common cancers for women. IUDs can also help women with endometriosis or abnormally heavy periods. There are lesbians who wear IUDs for purely medical reasons. What if a lesbian employee of Hobby Lobby needs an IUD, which can cost above $1,000, for medical reasons?

  • X-Christian

    This decision is a disgrace to America and an attack on human intelligence.
    God is nonsense and whenever our government puts religion in a position over people it disgraces itself. Nothing is more immoral or corrupting than religion.

    “I killed my son for your benefit. If you don’t believe it I’ll do worse things to you” – Yahweh.

  • X-Christian

    End religion once and for all!
    It is nothing but a cancer on our society. It is time to abandon this primitive nonsense!

    • Fiscally_Responsible

      You are a model of liberal-minded tolerance and respect for the rights and beliefs of others. NOT.

      • X-Christian

        There is no god.
        So it is all a waste.

      • X-Christian

        “Execute them in front of me” – JESUS (Luke 19:27)

        Hitler loved that one! He was a Catholic – but you knew that right?

  • tbphkm33

    Religion is not evil, but American evangelical Christianity has a distinctive evil bend to it. The concepts that somehow my beliefs trumps your beliefs; I am right, you are wrong; I am powerful or I am rich, so you have to bend to my beliefs. At its core, the United States has a societal cancer in the form of evangelicalism. An obsessive illness that has a nasty habit of festering into religion, politics, money and power.

    Sadly, if the writers of the Constitution were somehow still alive, they probably would not agree with the modern interpretation of the document on these social issues being interpreted through the prism of religious superstition.

    Conveniently the Church, special amongst the different religions, the Christians raise the “separation of Church and State” convention whenever it benefits them. Do not tax any business adventures the Church enters into. Yet, equally conveniently forgets that it is a two way street. The Church has a responsibility not to intervene with the operation of the State. It is a freedom to practice any or no religion. Yet, in the eye’s of many Christians, its is the right of Christianity to project, and in fact impose, its beliefs over The People.

    The collective face of The People is changing. Not just in color and ethnicity, but also diversifying in religious beliefs and no belief. Christians, just as the European descendant referred to as “whites”, are stepping down from being the majority. The strength of the Union has been the ability to absorb new ideals and transform over time. With this transformation comes trails and tribulations.

    Many, if not a majority of The People, do not agree with the Supreme Court, but in the end, our voice will be heard in the Congress, through new legislation that upholds the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the rich, the powerful… and the evangelical.

    • Fiscally_Responsible

      Such hatred and bigotry!

      • Human2013

        The truth hurts, doesn’t it.

    • Human2013

      It’s difficult for them to operate in a secular world when their entire belief system was founded in the pews.

      If they spent half the time they spent in church interacting with people in urban centers, they may actually learn how things work in practice and not in theology.

    • John_in_Amherst

      It’s not just that “christians” think they are “right”, but that being that not agreeing with their views makes one wrong and by extension, evil. If divine judgement does exist, it comes from god, not bible-thumping hierophants.

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    The Supreme Court got it right, despite the anti- morality group of four that opposed this ruling and are on the wrong side of just about every other decision that the Supreme Court makes. Hobby Lobby and other privately owned corporations opposed having to pay for something they considered wrong…an abortion pill that the left and the liberal press has mislabeled as a birth control pill. They are opposed to the murder of innocent children. I’m sure that those who opposed this ruling would be the first to condemn corporations that supported and followed the murderous policies of the Nazi Party because it was the law of the land in Germany at that time.

    • 1Brett1

      “Hobby Lobby…opposed having to pay for something they considered wrong…an abortion pill that the left and the liberal press has mislabeled as a birth control pill. They are opposed to the murder of innocent children.”

      Wrong! I say this because Hobby Lobby invests its profits in to the very same contraceptive pills/devices it says it is opposed to.

      As misguided as your comment is, it does get the Godwin’s Law Award for the day, though!

      • keltcrusader

        The Medical community doesn’t label any of these as abortion inducing – but, hey, what do they know?

        • 1Brett1

          So, let’s see, believe a religious propaganda machine or the entire medical community? What to do, what to do? ;-)

          • keltcrusader

            hmm, that is such a tough one. decisions, decisions. I know, I will just let someone else make it for me. NOT!

          • 1Brett1

            Conservatives are forever saying, “don’t let anything stand between you and your doctor!” You know, “freedoms” and whatnot…(Well, except Christian employers, that is; they should stand between you and your doctor. “freedoms and whatnot.)

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        A comparison to the Third Reich and their rationalization of extermination of undesirable groups is a valid comparison. Hobby Lobby is taking a moral stand on opposing the extermination of innocent children in the name of health care. Liberals, like the Nazis, could rationalize the murder of the innocent and expected corporations and citizens to fall in line, leaving their moral convictions behind. As long as one’s moral convictions are liberal, then liberals such as yourself have no problem with groups forcing their morality or immorality as the case generally is with liberals on the rest of society.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Godwin Law …

        • 1Brett1

          mmm…no.

          As an aside, I have not spent much time on this forum (I’ve been coming here for almost nine years) espousing what I believe, only what I am against, so you’d be hard-pressed to know what I am for (although, don’t let that stop you from making stuff up).

          If you think liberals and Nazis are of the same ilk, then you are not employing much of a thought process.

          • Don_B1

            Actually he has dropped down to the cesspool area of thinking, most likely out of desperation as all the facts are showing that his ideology is a fraud.

        • Don_B1

          Sine YOU went there, Mitt Romney (and all too many of the 1%) who thinks the “47%” are moochers, are much closer, though thankfully not really there, to the dreadful Third Reich than liberals can even begin to point out as they, unlike you, think that is out of bounds.

  • Guest

    Another huge defeat for the incompetent and inept Obama Administration.

    Not to mention Obama’s numerous violations of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, for which Obama deserves to be impeached.

    • Human2013

      No, another setback from women.

      • Guest

        The Obama ‘Presidency’ has been a setback for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

        • laurabien

          I know it’s hard. But please address the topic at hand and spare us your endless partisan ravings. You don’t like the guy. Duly noted. Move on.

  • anamaria23

    Hopefully, Hobby Lobby does not sell products Made in China where abortion is often forced, even late term, to uphold their one child policy. It is reported to have been loosened of late, but not totally. There is still preference for males.
    It is known that Hobby Lobby has investment in companies that make birth control products.
    Going the length for one’s religious principles should include every aspect
    even if inconvenient.

    • 1Brett1

      Hobby Lobby invests in companies that make the very contraceptive devices/medications they say they can’t in good conscience provide their workers. Talk about this whole thing being an exercise in hypocrisy (and little more than political grandstanding on Hobby Lobby’s part!).

      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

      • JGC

        Thanks for the motherjones link. I hadn’t heard about the investment angle. If they really wanted to thoroughly scrub their association with these products they object to, they could invest their employees’ 401Ks in retirement funds that screen them out. One possibility is the Ave Maria Funds, which are well-rated by Morningstar. However, I see that Halliburton is one of the top 10 holdings in their Catholic Values fund, so pick and choose where your ethics lie, I guess…

        • 1Brett1

          I’ll have to research the Ave Maria Funds — I’ll bet there are all sorts of juicy moral conflicts going on there — for future reference…I posted the Mother Jones link because they broke the story (using the Freedom of Information Act to find out where Hobby Lobby invests its money, I think; it’s been a while since I’ve read about it, though).

    • laurabien

      There is also the issue of forced labor in Chinese prisons. There is scarce opportunity to trace or check whether some gewgaw was manufactured in a Chinese prison. Like this guy making Christmas lights: http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/05/29/314597050/u-s-teacher-i-did-seven-months-of-forced-labor-in-a-chinese-jail

  • Human2013

    Unbelievable. Someone PLEASE tell me that Hobby Lobby pays their average worker enough for housing, transportation, childcare, diapers, formula….

    Also, can anyone confirm that when women find themselves in the “single mother” category despite having tried to have a relationship, that they won’t be mocked, attacked and belittled.

    ”The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” ~ Pat Robertson

  • Potter

    Meanwhile, Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted, “#HobbyLobby wins. This is a great day for religious liberty. Government is not lord of the conscience.”

    No, corporations are.

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453598/no-a-win-for-hobby-lobby-is-not-a-win-for-religion/

    • John_in_Amherst

      great day for religious liberty if you happen to be a conservative christian. Everyone else, not so much.

      • HonestDebate1

        I am not a Christian and think it was a great day.

        • John_in_Amherst

          so glad you had a great day. Perhaps you are a corporation? the comment had to do with religious liberty, not whether you personally had a great day, but wieigh in anywhere…

  • William

    You have to consider the 3rd party, in this case the employer/business owner or just call him the forgotten man. He is being told to pay for things that he does not agree with by some government official. At what point does the forgotten man’s rights come into play? Never? 16 our 20 drugs/devices covered seems pretty fair.

    • laurabien

      Various BC methods are not interchangeable. IUDs, again, are prescribed for conditions such as endometriosis. Other women cannot take another type of BC for any number of reasons. This is a pluralistic and secular society. Unless the “forgotten man” (I note that you say “him” and not “him or her” to denote a business owner; 36% of businesses are owned by women) clones himself 16,000 times so that every single employee shares his beliefs, there will always be a diversity of beliefs in any pool of employees. Why should one person’s beliefs trump all the others?

      • William

        Once again it falls back to a government official making a determination what is good or not good for a woman’s health and what a business owner should pay or not pay for. This official is easily swayed by the political hack looking for votes or just does what he wants as we have seen in the IRS scandal. It might be great to cover any and all birth control products and other medical drugs and proceudures over the objections of any and all business owners but once you force the business owner to pay for something he has the right to object. What will the unintended consequences be? Companies move overseas like Medtronics is doing? Stay smaller or outsource to more overseas companies and keep their staff small? Or only the largest companies can survive(they can afford it) and we see few if any mid-sized or small companies.

        • Don_B1

          You may be right in some cases, but this time you are wrong for two reasons::

          1) Providing contraceptives for women reduces their healthcare costs by more than the cost of the contraceptives.

          2) Hobby Lobby’s objection was not on the cost (they are willing to provide some contraceptive coverage) but with their demand to not support the use of contraceptives that that groups arguing against all contraceptive use have claimed are abortive, contrary to the medical community as a whole.

          • Zack Smith

            It is irrelevant what the science states. It’s immoral to intervene in a private relationship between consenting adults.

  • Human2013

    Before this dialogue turns to bashing religion, we need to be reminded of a few things.

    First, both the Martin Luthers were “religious” men, but they operated in this world, the real world, and not in the Kingdom of heaven. These two men shaped the world, for the better, in a way that can’t be quantified.

    Second, don’t let the fringe elements overshadow the majority of followers.
    Warren Jeffs told his flock that “The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth.” This was only possible by keeping them locked up in a compound removed from science and their fellow humans.

    Religion has put many of men/women on the path to “righteousness.” It has transformed lives for millions, maybe billions, of people around the world. While we will never know the net effect of religion, I do believe the good far outweighs the “evil.”

    • GuestAug27

      Sorry to break it to you. All religions are evil. The fact that churches are allowed to operate as tax-exempt non-profits is insane (almost as insane as this notion of a corporation having human rights).

      • Human2013

        Sorry to break it to you, but that is a very short sighted and superficial comment.

      • HonestDebate1

        Do you have a problem with the NAACP or Media Matters having tax exempt status?

        • GuestAug27

          Yes, I do.

          • HonestDebate1

            Good.

  • HonestDebate1

    The fact that four justices dissented is a disgrace.

    • GuestAug27

      I agree. The fact that ONLY four of them dissented is a disgrace.

      • HonestDebate1

        Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

        • laurabien

          You are free to exercise it. You are not free to force the prohibitions related to your religion on those who do not believe as you do.

          • HonestDebate1

            According to the SCOTUS you are. But I don’t accept your premise. No one is forcing squat.

          • laurabien

            You are incorrect. The religious employers, who are 5 in number, are forcing their 16,000 employees to tailor their healthcare to the Greens’ evangelical Christian beliefs. If this were a Muslim business owner forcing an Islamic belief on those who are not Muslim, conservatives would howl to the skies.

          • HonestDebate1

            No they are just saying the Muslims don’t have to buy pork chops.

        • J__o__h__n

          Not providing health care for employees is not religious freedom.

          • HonestDebate1

            You lost me.

  • 1Brett1

    Right-wing media is sounding off on this as if it is a great landmark ruling. It actually is a very narrowly-focused ruling, only pertaining to contraception (and no other medical procedure/device/medication) and only for very small, family-owned companies.

    What is interesting to me about this ruling is that “religious liberty” can NOT be cited as reason to deny any other health benefits, which defines, in a sense, “religious liberty” as having limitations.

    • MrNutso

      Alito’s statement in the ruling is specious. It’s only a matter of time (if indeed it has not happened already) before there are lawsuits claiming other laws infringe on a corporations religious liberty, closely held or otherwise.

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, this ruling definitely opens up challenges, but also (and this was my point) it shows something many consider “unalienable” as in reality being defined by humans through legislation and the interpretation of human-made laws (not endowed by “God”).

  • Jeff_in_Connecticut

    If I am Muslim and my brother is Christian, what religion is the closely held corporation we start together?

    • OrangeGina

      I’d say: contentious ; )

    • MrNutso

      I would explain to the corporation the tenets of all religions, and when the corporation turns 18 or 21, let the corporation make its own decision about what religion to practice.

    • HonestDebate1

      Whichever you chose, this is America. We still have religious freedom.

      • Zack Smith

        Unfortunately America has degenerated into a variety of special interest groups hysterically conflating their government-provided goodies with “rights”. It’s the entitlement-mentality and PC run amok.

  • NewtonWhale

    Women will go to the polls in 2016 to tell the Supreme Court that their bodies don’t belong to their bosses.

    I would like to take a moment and thank the Supreme Court for ensuring the election of Hillary Clinton as the first woman president in 2016:

    Hillary Clinton on Monday called the Supreme Court’s ruling in the contraception-related Hobby Lobby case “deeply disturbing.”

    The former secretary of state and possible Democratic front-runner skewered the decision during an appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, hours after the Supreme Court ruled that for-profit employers don’t have to provide contraception coverage, mandated under Obamacare, if they have religious objections.

    “It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means the corporation’s … [‘closely held’] employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying women the right to contraceptives as part of a health care plan is exactly that,” she said. “I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”

    “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who need contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” Clinton said.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-ruling-hillary-clinton-108460.html#ixzz36DX02pDh

  • MrNutso

    News flash: 5 Male Catholics rule that corporations do not have to include contraceptive coverage in their employees health insurance plans.

  • Ed75

    If someone starts a business they shouldn’t be forced to act against their conscience … the Orthodox Jewish community is pleased with the ruling because many of their religious practices could be targeted. And here there wasn’t a compelling reason to force someone to act against their conscience: these things can be gotten elsewhere. (And if they had to provide them, Hobby Lobby would have closed, and their employees would have gotten them from the government anyway.)

    • 1Brett1

      Hobby Lobby invests its profits in to companies that make the very contraceptive devices and meds they (and you) say act against their conscience. So, I’m not buying that reason, Ed; sorry, my friend.

      • HonestDebate1

        Who cares? The Hobby Lobby CEO could have a shrine for Satan in his basement and the ruling would be just as just. If he was force to build that shrine (I think Obama will issue an EO on that later this week) then you would have an argument.

        • 1Brett1

          I was addressing Ed’s point about Hobby Lobby going against its conscience by providing certain contraceptive devices and meds; they were already supporting those same contraceptive devices/meds through investments.

          I didn’t say anything about “satanic shrines,” or “Executive Orders to build Satanic shrines,” etc.

          • HonestDebate1

            I think it’s EO #666.

          • 1Brett1

            Victory is victorious!

          • HonestDebate1

            Redundant.

          • 1Brett1

            Exactly!

      • Ed75

        I don’t think it really works to question Hobby Lobby’s sincerity, how does suing over it benefit them? It would have been much easier for them just to provide the contraceptives. They’ve incurred great expense and years of work suing the government so they wouldn’t have to provide it. On a side note, it’s interesting that Hobby Lobby invests in Teva Pharmaceuticals, perhaps they won’t in the future, but Teva is a huge company that makes lots of products.

        • 1Brett1

          Well, Ed, that is a point well taken, and I don’t question their sincerity just their opportunism (their timing to make this a political issue and to chip away at the ACA). I don’t question the Hobby Lobby owners’ religious beliefs.

          • Ed75

            That’s true, it does come at a delicate time for the ACA, but they were facing fines of millions of dollars per day that would have put them out of business. The level of the fines, to me, is way out of line, and isn’t a realistic choice at all. If the fines were lower we could have avoided all of this.

          • 1Brett1

            Ed, I’m not calling into question your sincerity or belief, but I don’t know that you can verify Hobby Lobby’s only intention to avoid fines. (This also contradicts your earlier engagement over Hobby Lobby’s sincerity to fight for religious liberty).

            Also, “millions of dollars a day”? Can you substantiate this statement?

          • Ed75

            This is from a news report. I guess they made the fines so high so that companies would opt to drop offering health insurance and people would only have the exchanges. I guess it’s not millions of dollars a day:

            (From 6/2013 case): Throughout a ruling that covered more than 160 pages, the judges noted Hobby Lobby faced a difficult choice – violate its religious beliefs, pay $475 million in fines for failing to comply with the law (a $100 fine per day for each of its 13,000 workers), or pay $26 million to the government if it dropped its health care plan altogether.

    • Guest

      Great points as always Ed.

      • Ed75

        Thanks for the support!

  • Jeff_in_Connecticut

    Sorry ladies, no birth control for you, but please excuse me as I pop some Viagara and schedule an appointment for a vasectomy!

    • 1Brett1

      That’s right! Viagra is covered!

      • HonestDebate1

        What physiological ailment does abortive contraception address? Who feeds you this stuff?

        • Matt MC

          Actually, birth control is commonly used to regulate hormonal balance without regard to preventing pregnancy, Dr. HonestDebate1…

          • HonestDebate1

            I understand that. It’s not the only way to achieve the result. If that’s what someone wants then they can pay the $9.

        • 1Brett1

          You should read up on the many uses of contraceptive devices and medications (not all are purely for preventing pregnancy, if that is what you are getting at). Others have mentioned this, but you have your fingers in your ears, as usual. “Rubbers” don’t treat endometriosis, for example, but there are others. Research this before shooting off.

        • Matt MC

          Also, abortive contraception is bit of a contradiction in terms…

          • HonestDebate1

            No it’s a nuanced distinction. Saying Hobby Lobby doesn’t cover contraception is completely inaccurate.

          • Matt MC

            Contraception means to prevent conception. You can’t have abortion without conception; therefore, an abortive contraception makes no sense.

          • HonestDebate1

            Semantics. There is a difference between birth control methods but they are all called contraception.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Every sperm is sacred!

          • HonestDebate1

            Really don’t mind if you sit this one out.
            My words but a whisper your deafness a SHOUT.
            I may make you feel but I can’t make you think.
            Your sperm’s in the gutter your love’s in the sink.
            So you ride yourselves over the fields and
            you make all your animal deals and
            your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            So, using a condom is murder?

          • HonestDebate1

            I suppose you could strangle someone with one.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            How is contraception an abortion?

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t say it was. Some are, most are not. Technically a period can be an abortion.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Contraception is not an abortion.

            But the court said that if the “corporation” “believes” that it is – then that is good enough for them.

          • HonestDebate1

            Hobby Lobby covers 14 types of contraception.

          • hennorama

            Neil Blanchard — a Monty Python reference always gets a [Vote up].

            More of the lyrics to “Every Sperm Is Sacred”:

            Because every sperm is sacred
            Every sperm is great
            If a sperm is wasted
            God gets quite irate

            Every sperm is sacred
            Every sperm is great
            If a sperm is wasted
            God gets quite irate

            Let the heathen spill theirs
            On the dusty ground
            God shall make them pay for
            Each sperm that can’t be found

            Every sperm is wanted
            Every sperm is good
            Every sperm is needed
            In your neighborhood

            Source:
            http://www.metrolyrics.com/every-sperm-is-sacred-lyrics-monty-python.html

        • laurabien

          IUDs are not abortifacients. They prevent ovulation. It’s insulting that you didn’t even bother to examine and learn about this issue before blasting out your uninformed opinion. You make yourself look like a fool.

          • HonestDebate1

            Why the hostility? My wife has had an IUD for 100 years. I understand how they work. No one is denying treatment for edometriosis.

          • laurabien

            You called IUDs an abortifacient–you do not in fact understand how they work. Why do YOU have such a hostile attitude towards women seeking health care? Truly, it is not your business.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t think I said that.

          • laurabien

            44 minutes ago you wrote, “What physiological ailment does abortive contraception address?” IUDs are one of the items HL does not want to cover IUDs are not “abortive contraception.” The Plan B morning-after pill is another item HL does not want to cover. Like the Mirena IUD, Plan B contains levonorgestrel. This drug prevents ovulation. There is no ovulation. There is no fertilization. Even if you define a baby as a blastocyst, the IUD and the morning-after pill are not abortifacients.

          • HonestDebate1

            So you agree, I didn’t say it.

          • jefe68

            Grow up.

          • jefe68

            And yet you did.

          • HonestDebate1

            Show me where.

          • keltcrusader

            par for the course with this one

          • jefe68

            He’s pretty good at that.
            Is on this forum every day telling all the “liberals” what’s what.

          • 1Brett1

            I get a particular chuckle out of his “woah is me, I’m so persecuted for speaking the truth” routine.

        • jefe68

          Hitting a little to close to home are we now?

          • HonestDebate1

            And you have the gall to tell me to grow up?

          • jefe68

            I’m just lowering myself to your level.

            Speaking of gall, you get the gall award for today for the most irrational and outrageous gall tinged posts.

    • HonestDebate1

      Hobby Lobby covers 14 types of contraception. And God forbid that one pays for their own, the pill can be had for $9/month. Rubbers are 75 cents. What are you talking about?

      • MrNutso

        The Court’s ruling struck down the contraceptive coverage requirement for health insurance plans. Therefore, as JIC is implying, men get theirs and women get bupkis.

      • Jeff_in_Connecticut

        Look up the price for IUD contraception like Mirena, near $1000, well out of reach of many.

        • HonestDebate1

          A rubber is 75 cents.

          • laurabien

            A rubber cannot treat a woman’s endometriosis. Untreated, the disease can cause internal scarring and internal tissue adhesion. It is also very painful.

          • HonestDebate1

            No one is denying anybody treatment for endometriosis.

          • laurabien

            Certainly they are! IUDs are one of the forms that HL doesn’t want to pay for. They cost about 1 month’s wages for a minimum-wage worker. They are unaffordable for many, without insurance.

      • Jeff_in_Connecticut

        What about women who take contraceptive pills purely as a part of their treatment for cancer? No coverage for cancer treatment for them?

      • 1Brett1

        You said last week something about how you used to be able to taylor your health insurance coverage to your own needs and that you should be able to do so. Why shouldn’t an employee be allowed to include contraception in her health insurance package, insurance for which she pays? Should an employee’s religious liberty be trumped her employer’s?

        Also, the type of contraception a woman take should be between her and her doctor, not her, her and her employer.

        • HonestDebate1

          “Also, the type of contraception a woman take should be between her and her doctor, not her, her and her employer.”

          That sums up the absurdity of the left perfectly.

          • laurabien

            I doubt you would want your female boss in the examination room discussing your privates with your female doctor.

          • HonestDebate1

            Funny you should mention that, I’m 54 and don’t have a doctor. At this point in my life, I think it’s time I found one. I’m thinking a female would have smaller fingers.

            But that’s not my point. The above comment is advocating the employer be involved as it decries it. It is assuming that if the employer doesn’t offer coverage then it is unavailable elsewhere. The entire premise is whacked.

          • laurabien

            My comment obviously does not advocate the employer being present. It points out that you likely would not tolerate what you are advocating for women–the involvement of her employer in her personal health care decisions.

          • HonestDebate1

            And what is it you imagine I am advocating for women?

          • J__o__h__n

            Agreed, but you have drawn the wrong conclusion: her employer is now the one making the choice for her.

          • HonestDebate1

            She still has the choice.

      • laurabien

        There are lesbians who wear IUDs to treat their endometriosis. There are young women who are prescribed BC pills for acne. Some women cannot tolerate certain forms of BC. They are not all interchangeable.

  • GuestAug27

    Monopolistic capitalism = government by the owners of big corporations for the owners of big corporations. The good news: this is the final stage of capitalism.

  • Jeff_in_Connecticut

    I’d be interested to see what sort of rituals would be imposed on employees when the original Hobby Lobby owners die off and their rebellious Satanist children take over the company.

    • 1Brett1

      Hehe

    • pete18

      One can always choose to work for a different company.

      • John_in_Amherst

        if one lives in a place where jobs are plentiful.

        • pete18

          Life is a series of trade offs.

          The same issue comes up in defending the principle of free speech. The defense of that core principle sometimes means having to let klan rallies march down main street of your town. The defense of religious freedom sometimes means that people with religious views that you don’t like offer you employment and you have to choose whether you want a job or to have ALL your contraceptives paid for by the insurance that company offers you as part of the payment for your services.

          • John_in_Amherst

            Freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion. Health coverage governs medical procedures, which are choices made by patients after consulting with their doctor. It is an employer’s responsibility to pay for coverage. After that, the decisions should be between a patient and their doctor, and if there are moral implications to them, they are between the patient and their god, not the employee and the employer’s god. The employer intruding on these decisions to impose their own morality is exactly what the constitution is supposed to prevent.

          • pete18

            “It is an employer’s responsibility to pay for coverage.”

            There’s quite a big assumption in that statement and a confusion about the meaning of “intrusion” and “imposing,” within your post. There’s nothing in the constitution that mandates government or employers to pay for the health care coverage of workers. The employer in this case is not forcing their view of god on their employees or intruding on their decisions, they just aren’t paying for them. Huge difference.

          • John_in_Amherst

            actually, it is the law under the ACA

          • pete18

            And the court just ruled on the constitutionality of that part of the law and found it wanting.

          • John_in_Amherst

            4 justices and a large number of Americans find the conservative majority’s reasoning (and integrity) to be wanting – egregiously so

          • pete18

            As was the same when the court found the ACA constitutional. That’s the way the system works.

      • Zack Smith

        No! Employees have a right to their jobs! They own their jobs! /s

        • pete18

          Really? Where does that right come from?

  • Jeff_in_Connecticut

    Maybe we need the equivalent of title IX for health insurance in order to make sure women don’t keep getting short shrift.

  • NewtonWhale

    The ruling is absurd on its own terms.

    On the one hand, it protects the so-called “religious freedom” of owners of closely held corporations:

    “By requiring the Hahns and Greens and their companies to arrange for such coverage, the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs.” (p.32)

    On the other hand, it does so at the expense of the “religious freedom” of every taxpayer in the United States:

    “HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases…The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections. This would certainly be less restrictive of the plaintiffs’ religious liberty” (pp. 41-42)

    The ruling is embarrassing, and shows how the activist conservative majority on this court is perfectly willing to throw logic and intellectual honesty out the window in order to enact its political agenda.

  • Yar

    This ruling amounts to allowing companies to pay some wages in a version of script. Script is a alternative currency that can only be used at approved places of business such as a company store. Healthcare has never been provided free of charge by an employer, it is always an earned benefit.
    The legislative solution to this ruling is for congress to pass legislation that requires a dollar value be placed on each benefit and every benefit be listed on the employees pay stub. Call it truth on the pay check legislation.

  • X-Christian

    This decision is wildly disgraceful – Religion’s full fascist regalia is on full display!
    The American Christian Taliban is coming to your home!

  • X-Christian

    The Taliban Court has decided we must all do God’s bidding!

  • X-Christian

    Religion is a cancer to society and it must be abandoned now – while we are STILL FREE TO DO SO!!!!

  • X-Christian

    Religion is a disaster and a blunder!

  • HonestDebate1

    One of my radical right-wing blogs had this headline: “The left loses their minds over Hobby Lobby decision”.

    Amen.

    http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/crying-child.jpg

  • X-Christian

    Quit religion while you are still free
    to quit it without punishment!

  • X-Christian

    If you do not believe in God SPEAK UP!!! or be overtaken by these fanatics!

  • X-Christian

    “We are all born
    ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

    – Benjamin Franklin

  • X-Christian

    “Who burnt heretics? Who
    roasted or drowned millions of ‘witches’? Who built dungeons and filled them?
    Who brought forth cries of agony from honest men and women that rang to the
    tingling stars? Who burnt Bruno? Who spat filth over the graves of Paine and Voltaire?
    The answer is one word–CHRISTIANS.”

    —G.W. Foote, author,
    editor, and convicted blasphemer in “Are Atheists Wicked?,” chapter
    from Flowers of Freethought (1894)

  • X-Christian

    “I have come to bring fire on the
    earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo,
    and what constraint I am under until it is completed! Do you think I cam to
    bring peace on Earth? No, I tell you, but division.” – Jesus – (Luke 12:49-51)

  • X-Christian

    “I do not believe that any two men,
    on what are called doctrinal points, think alike who think at all. It is only
    those who have not thought that appear to agree.” – Thomas Paine

  • X-Christian

    “Religion may be defined thus: a
    belief in, and homage rendered to, existences unseen and causes unknown.” –
    Frances Wright

  • X-Christian

    “We are faced with the task of convincing a myth-infatuated world
    that love and curiosity are sufficient and you don’t have to delude yourself
    and frighten yourself with Iron Age fairy tales. This is a monumental task. I
    don’t thing there is an intellectual struggle more worthy of our efforts.

    – Sam Harris

  • X-Christian

    “We may define ‘faith’ as the firm
    belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no
    one speaks of ‘faith’. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or
    that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute
    emotion for evidence.” – Bertrand Russell

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The court even acknowledged that the thing the “corporation” “believes” doesn’t even have to be true. Somehow, the court bases this ruling on the “genuineness” of the belief – and this then imposes a “corporation’s” false belief on people it employs.

      Unbelievable.
      Twisted.
      Nonsensical.
      Corrupt.
      Idiotic.
      Irresponsible.
      Biased.

      Wrong.

      • laurabien

        Thank you for this comment. Yes, one would hope that a starting point for discussion of this issue would be a clear understanding of the composition and actual function of the medicines in question. Sadly, that was not the case here and I find that ridiculous and outrageous.

  • X-Christian

    “Religion is all bunk.”


    “I have never seen the slightest
    scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for
    individuals, or of a personal God.” – Thomas Edison, American inventor
    (1847-1931)

  • X-Christian

    “In every country and in every
    age, the preacher has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the
    despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

    -
    Thomas Jefferson

  • BlueNH

    Republicans have shot themselves in the foot thinking this is a winning strategy for the 2016 presidential race. This ruling will bring out women (and those who love and care about women) to the voting booths, meaning Republicans don’t stand a chance. And combine this ruling with R’s anti-science beliefs on climate change, and it looks like there will be a Dem in the White House for decades.

    • Fred

      Let’s hope.

  • X-Christian

    ATHEISTS
    AGNOSTICS
    HERETICS
    NONBELIEVERS
    HUMANISTS

    SPEAK UP – BE HEARD !
    WHILE THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN HAVE NOT YET STARTED BURNING THE WITCHES. THEY ARE GATHERING THE STICKS!

  • OrangeGina

    yes indeed, the hypocrisy is pretty thick if you remember your biology and recall that without the male component, there is no pregnancy in the first place.

  • John Cedar

    Wow! This topic has got some people riled up on the left, even more so than they are about Obama’s IRS, harassing groups because of the flavor of their free speech.

    I have to say I am surprised that Roberts didn’t invent another way to give Obama what he wants.

    I wonder what the framers had in mind when they gave the federal government the power to regulate commerce? Since there is no specific Bill of Rights for commerce, did they mean Washington has the right to force commerce to do anything they please, so long as it is passed into law? (Or should I say the power to write those laws is assigned to an agency bureaucrat.)

    Were the framers simply allowing for a Weights and Measures type authority when they vested that power? Or were they thinking of requiring employees to pay for abortion pills. Not as part of a specific abortion pill law but part of an edict handed down by a bureaucrat.

    • 1Brett1

      “Wow! This topic has got some people riled up on the left…”

      If you’d been listening to Right-wing media for the last few days, you’d swear this is the most important Supreme Court decision in history.

  • John_in_Amherst

    This decision is at the intersection of two core themes of the activist conservatives on the court, religious freedom (as long as you are conservative christian) and “personhood” (the deeper your pockets for right-wing causes, the more your voice counts as a person, real or corporate). The right has stacked the court for the past 2 decades while decrying judicial activism. Enough hypocrisy!

    • http://www.google.com Big Brother

      Keep mercy killing by Muslims legal. It is their religious right.

      And if they get mad, they might bomb us.

      Those wussy Christians just peacibly pray. We can roughshod over those wimps.

      • John_in_Amherst

        judging by this and your other comments so far today, I’m guessing you might have missed your meds….

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    What does SCOTUS not get? Corporations are not people. They are not citizens. They do not have immortal souls; they do not have any god other than their stock price. They are soulless constructs which have demonstrated just how unethical, amoral and unconcerned with the consequences of their actions their officers truly are. In point of fact the actions of their officers. GM. BP. Monsanto. Enron… Yet one more corruption of the rights of the many being usurped by the interest$ of the few. Unequal protection under the law.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    The War on Women by Obama and the Democrats continues.

    Obama continues to refuse to pay for women’s birth control choices.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Huh? I’m rubber and you’re glue?

    • laurabien

      Wrong. The ACA mandates insurance coverage for birth control. The owners of HL, not President Obama, want to deny this coverage for women.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    What is really tragic is that the Obama administration allows Hobby Lobby to sell religious crafts.

    I can’t believe that Obama permits the establishment of religion.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    What about Christian Scientist employers?

    What about a Scientologist employer?

    What about people who believe that all science is devil worship?

    What about people who believe that vaccinations are mind control?

    The belief does NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE. It only has to be deemed “genuine” by the court.

    • Kathy

      They made it clear in the decision that only religious beliefs about lady parts would be subject to control by theocratic corporations.

      • jefe68

        And it was all old men who made that ruling as well.

  • Matt MC

    Why do all these trolls show up on On Point comments now? So sick of the same tired crap posted every day. Can we limit comments to like two a day? We have the same three people hijacking every single discussion every day. It is tiresome and really brings the conversation down to a 3rd grade level. Where is the On Point moderator?

    • Matt MC

      Let’s do a preliminary count of HonestDebate1′s posts: Over twenty posts before the show has even started? If you have something to say, say it once, don’t spam it all over everyone’s comments.

      • HonestDebate1

        I started 2 threads. Did you mean to direct your comment at X-Christian?

        What is the matter with my replies? Are they dishonest? Are they irrelevant? Are they personal? The above comments are all of those things.

        • jefe68

          Mostly irrelevant.

      • J__o__h__n

        I hardly ever agree with him, but his posts are usually on topic and not just postings of the daily right wing talking points and links that we usually get every Friday morning before the show begins. The solution to speech you disagree with is more speech not censorship or limiting posts.

        • HonestDebate1

          Thank you John, I could have written the same about you. I referenced you the other day in the same light. You didn’t have to chime in, I really appreciate it.

        • Matt MC

          It’s more the volume than anything. You don’t need to post to EVERY damn thread. I just find it tiresome is all.

  • jefe68
    • AC

      i really wish i hadn’t clicked on your link. now i will be cynical the rest of the day…..

      • HonestDebate1

        Don’t let the irrelevant distraction get you down.

        • jefe68

          Stop being a troll.

      • 1Brett1

        And the refrain expressed by many conservative males on this forum toward women this morning in response to this discussion has been: just go buy a 25c condom! This is insulting to me, and I’m a male.

        • jefe68

          They are a condescending lot.

  • AC

    i think it’s up to us. seriously. don’t shop there. i believe there will likely be a tracking list of which companies will be doing this. don’t solicit them and help the people working for them find work at business that will then pick up their losses. altho, i thought people would do this w/chic fillet, yet they’re still around. maybe we’ll just have to learn to live next to one another. personally, i dislike people who use god to their own benefit…..

    • 1Brett1

      Truly, where we plunk down our money is where our biggest vote lies!

  • hellokitty0580

    I think the real root cause of this problem is that we purchase our health insurance through our employers. Why should my employer have a say in my healthcare? They shouldn’t and I shouldn’t be penalized financially or otherwise because my employer doesn’t believe, understand, or agree with particular medical treatment. These decisions are for myself and my healthcare provider to decide. So if there were a public option for which all people could buy into, Hobby Lobby wouldn’t even be an issue and we wouldn’t have a posse of males in black robes making decisions about women’s health.

    • MrNutso

      The real root cause is the eroding of a sense of community and helping our fellow citizens. Our need to not be offended by some rule, regulation or law overrides our ability to consider others needs and points of view.

      What I find amazing is that Conservatives decry “everyone is a victim”, but here is a perfect example.

      • hellokitty0580

        I have no idea how what you just said relates in any way to what I said. Certainly our sense of community and compassion is dwindling in this country. I can get behind that. But the inability “to not be offended by some rule, regulation or law”… well that goes both ways.

    • Zack Smith

      I agree with you here. Everyone or no one should be allowed to purchase health care pre-tax. Level the playing field.

  • geraldfnord

    If the five-or-fewer owners of stock in a closely-held corporation wish to have all the rights they have as individuals in operating that corporation, let them give up limited liability and the other benefits the State extends to them because the corporation isn’t them. That is, if the closely-held corporation is so indistinguishable from the actual persons involved that it has their religious rights, because that’s ‘who’ the corporation really is, let them not ask Cæsar for the benefits they would get for setting-up an entity different enough to them that it deserves separate liabilities.

  • rich4321

    Why is that the political climate turning so conservative when it comes to the woman’s right? What happen to the separation of religion and state?

    Recently in MA they passed a law to allow anti-abortion protesters to harass women in need. Now they allow Hobby Lobby to deny the women’s rights base on Hobby Lobby’s religious belief? How is this different from some Muslims in Afghanistan or Pakistan from having an education?

    Is this country reversing back to the stone age mentality when women have no rights to decide for herself?

    Religion is like under ware, people should keep it to him/her self!

    • J__o__h__n

      MA didn’t pass that law. The Court struck down the MA law mandating the buffer zone.

      • rich4321

        You are right, I mis-stated.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    USA, Inc. — 21st century corporations with global reach & 15th century mindsets.

    • rich4321

      Sad isn’t it

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    SCOTUS majority: The White Riders of the Purple Robe. Who always shoot blanks. {see: sperm count}

  • J__o__h__n

    Actual rights of real people are being denied so a corporate person can indulge in fairy tales.

  • creaker

    There needs to be a fix for “closely held” companies in general. Why are businesses like Hobby Lobby, which are basically family owned businesses given the limited liabilities granted to public corporations? When they really are not? They should not have a corporate charter in the first place.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    My employer does not provide my homeowners and auto insurance and I get discounts on my own. We must ask ourselves, why do employers provide heath insurance?

    • hellokitty0580

      Exactly! If only I could go on the health websites and find my own insurance.

  • hellokitty0580

    These people who are saying this is about personal freedom of religion are….moronic. I hate to reduce it to name-calling, but we have freedom of religion in this country already! That was never threatened! And for people to believe that my birth control threatens your religious freedom is just a logical fallacy in the extreme. I can’t wrap my head around it. My body, my choice. I can have sex and I can have sex for the purpose of pleasure without the goal of getting pregnant. That is MY right.Where is my protection? Frankly, I’m feeling my right as a woman to not get pregnant threatened. The next thing you know, people won’t be able to have sex without the goal of getting pregnant. Seriously. WTF is this? The year 1600?

    • Zack Smith

      You’re right – this shouldn’t be limited to religion. No one should be forced to pay for someone else’s healthcare.

  • hennorama

    Here’s how the news is being reported by some media outlets:

    Supreme Court: Employers don’t have to pay for birth control (From a Fox station)

    Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don’t Have to Cover Birth Control (From NBC News)

    Notice there are no caveats, such as Some, Small, Religious, etc.

    Many media consumers will “hear” these headlines as meaning “ALL Employers …”

    See:
    http://fox2now.com/2014/06/30/supreme-court-employers-dont-have-to-pay-for-birth-control/

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

    • MrNutso

      I think that’s what the decision said.

      • hennorama

        MrNutso — thank you for your response.

        The decision is limited in some ways:

        1. “The Supreme Court also put some restrictions on who its ruling applies to, saying ruling that only ‘closely held’ corporations can be protected under RFRA…”

        2 “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”

        Source:
        http://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5856972/obamacares-birth-control-mandates-big-day-in-court

        • MrNutso

          hennorama,

          I was focusing on the “don’t have to provide contraception.” I agree that the headlines as usual simplify and mis-characterize the decision. If the headline was written to zero in on the facts most people wouldn’t bother reading it.

          • hennorama

            MrNutso — your point is well-taken.

            Unfortunately, headlines are often the only things some media consumers read, [and so they get a misimpression of reality].

  • MrNutso

    I think RFRA was wrongly applied. The intent of that law was to prevent curbing of exercise of ones religions. Hobby Lobby as a corporation cannot exercise religion, only the owners. Combined with Citizens United, now have corporations that practice religion.

  • James

    It’s funny, ten years ago NOBODY was mandated to provide birth control to anybody. And now that the Supreme Court has carved out an exception for what is right now 80 companies, people are acting like they over turned Griswald and the Civil Rights Act all at the same time.

  • levigirl

    Really? All males voted for hobby lobby and all females against! Hellooooo!!!! Where the hell are we heading?

  • AC

    a friend just emailed me this link and i have to say; i’m starting to feel jesus – i really am!! i think i’m going to start a flock. what do i need to do this?
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2012/01/fleecing-the-flock-a-snapshot-of-americas-richest-pastors.html

    • hennorama

      AC — some sheep[le]?

      • AC

        listen; you can be the second angel or something….join – look at how ‘rewarding’ it is!!

        • hennorama

          AC — TYFYR, and for thinking of my interests, but I’ll politely decline.

      • AC

        wait – i just noticed they’re all male…..i really don’t want to do a sex change but it looks like it’s the first step….

        • HonestDebate1

          Be careful the addidictomy is a very serious operation.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      All women need to form Uterus Incorporated – a closely held corporation.

  • OnPointComments

    Who says the RFRA covers corporations? The Congress does.

    1 U.S. Code § 1 – Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
    …the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

    • MrNutso

      Citizens United says RFRA covers corporations.

  • Mari McAvenia

    Time to start a new American religion, one that does not acknowledge the humanity of corporations or the legal legitimacy of SCOTUS. Think women can regain some of our basic human rights in America that way?

    • TELew

      I would say that the American religion that acknowledges the “humanity of corporations” is still very much at cult status.

      But as for the Supreme Court–throw it away, and you throw the Constitution away. The problem is the composition of the court, not the court itself.

      Ever hear of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS.

  • HonestDebate1

    What is lost here is the problem is Obamacare, not this decision. It is utterly bizarre that businesses are required to cover anything at all.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Bring on single payer!

      • Arkuy The Great

        Single Payer is never going to happen in this country. If the filibuster-proof D majority that existed in Congress in 2010 would not pass it then it is a dead letter.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          It might after this decision sinks in…

          • Arkuy The Great

            After witnessing what happened to that majority in the immediate wake of passage (Ted Kennedy’s seat went R!) this issue is dead-dead-dead in Congress for at least a generation if not more.

          • keltcrusader

            and he was immediately voted out in the next election. People, women especially, are getting pretty tired of being regulated to 2nd class citizens.

          • jefe68

            No it wont. To many special interest in the mix. We would have to rebuild our health care system from the ground up and no one is willing to do that.

            The ACA is flawed, but it’s better than nothing. People like HD who espouse the a longing to go backwards and do so with libertarian memes about “small government” are in my view absurd.
            Their ideology is based on some ill conceived notion that people the market will prevail. The market is about social Darwinism and prof of that is the horror stories of people being denied coverage before the ACA. It remains to be seen how this plays out moving forward.
            We still have a system where by people go bankrupt for being sick.

      • HonestDebate1

        It would be a nightmare but that has been Obama’s plan all along.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          It works very well for everybody else. And costs half as much as we are paying.

          Sounds great to me!

          • HonestDebate1

            No it doesn’t, it’s a disaster. Pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            You have no idea what you are talking about. Virtually every other country with a modern healthcare system is using single payer. None are perfect – but they all are far better than the mess we have here in the USA.

            They cover everybody.

    • GuestAug27

      Good point. Businesses should not be in the business of providing health care. And, yes, single payer is the answer.

      • HonestDebate1

        I agree with half of that.

  • creaker

    Should exceptions be granted for religious beliefs when those beliefs are clearly arbitrarily applied? Hobby Lobby investments include companies that produce these contraceptive. And they buy from China, which is clearly not profile.

  • Don_B1

    Note that most religious organizations opposed the Hobby Lobby position because they thought it was imposition of one religion on others with different religions.

    For further thoughts, see;

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453598/no-a-win-for-hobby-lobby-is-not-a-win-for-religion/?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

    This, like so many of the recent right-wing activist Supreme Court decisions, have opened a Pandora’s Box of problems for the future:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/ruth-bader-ginsburg-write_n_5544111.html

    Watch this segment of last night’s Rachel Maddow show:

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/why-hobby-lobby-ruling-alarms-some-churches-293680195539

    and see why many ministers are against this decision.

  • laurabien

    If I may, I would like to provide information about the 4 types of BC that HL does not want to cover and claims are abortifacients.

    Abortion: “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.”

    1. Hormonal IUDs prevent fertilization. Not an abortifacient.
    2. Copper IUDs kill sperm–copper is toxic to sperm. No fertilization = no abortion.
    3. The morning-after pill contains levonorgestrel, the same hormone in many other BC pills but in a higher dose. Levonorgertel prevents ovulation or prevents egg fertilization. Not an abortion.
    4. The week-after pill, “Ella,” contains ulipristal, a non-hormonal drug that blocks hormones necessary for conception. No conception. No abortion.

    Informative Atlantic article concerning these 4 types: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/heres-why-hobby-lobby-thinks-iuds-are-like-abortions/284382/

    • DJJS

      If this is correct info, then I think it is useful light shed upon this discussion. I will visit The Atlantic article.

    • Cat Shroedinger

      Not surprisingly, the majority ignored the science in order to enhance their preferred religion’s power in the public sector. Note that the majority opinion says that only this particular ‘religious’ objection — not religious considerations in general — can take precedence over the ACA. Funny that HL doesn’t have any problem buying most of their wares from countries where bc, abortion, and limits on family size are common.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Every one of the folks on the bench got there because voters endorsed US presidents and US Senators. The former appointed and the latter confirmed.

    Owner’s remorse? Look in the mirror. Judge Snerd didn’t get on the bench without your consent. And in many cases, financial support. Well done, America.

  • William

    That drug does not kill the unborn child so why would they object to it? Isn’t their main objection is not funding abortion drugs?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Neither does contraception.

    • laurabien

      Except none of the 4 items they object to is an abortifacient.

      • William

        Apparently the court felt they did and sided with HL.

        • Don_B1

          The Court did not weigh the truth of Hobby Lobby’s claims, they just said that Hobby Lobby [apparently] sincerely believed that they were.

          So now SCOTUS is committing itself, not to determining facts, which appellate courts do not do, but to determining “sincerity.”

          WOW! That will turn out to be a real can of worms!

    • 1Brett1

      Don’t you mean “the pre-born child”?

      If that is Hobby Lobby’s objection, why then do they invest profits in companies that manufacture such drugs and devices?

      • William

        Pre-born vs unborn I guess the court would have to decide that question. If they invest in a mutual fund that invests in companies that make such drugs and devices they might not be getting into their mutual fund’s investments very well. Which is not uncommon for millions of investors.

  • hellokitty0580

    What about my freedom from religion? What about that? Isn’t that Constitutionally protected?

    • levigirl

      no… you have only one choice, be Christian and pop out 20 kids… those are the two rights that you have :(

  • levigirl

    Leave my body alone! Lets see… what can we do to men to reduce them to baby making machines….

    This is why we need government sponsored universal healthcare

    • Arkuy The Great

      Pay for your own lifestyle choices. There is no “right” to pick someone else’s pockets. $9 a month is not going to do serious damage to most people’s finances.

      • levigirl

        Lifestyle choices? Where do you live buddy?

        • Arkuy The Great

          On Planet Earth. What color is the sky in your world?

        • jefe68

          Ignore the social Darwinist, they are but a dying breed of selfish males.

          • hennorama

            jefe68 — if they consist only of “selfish males” they will soon “age out” of existence.

  • Potter

    Religious liberty religious liberty- but not for women… for corporations.

  • drwacker

    When did sex become a constitutional right? Nobody is being denied contraception, just some women will have to pay for it themselves, or decide to abstain from sex. The “pursuit of happiness” does not mean I can do whatever I choose and expect to do it for free. When I want to travel for my personal happiness, neither my employer or the airlines are required to cover my costs. I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court, but I do think requiring the provision of free contraception is a mistake. Take a little responsibility for your own needs and wants.

    • hellokitty0580

      The problem is that employers are picking and choosing what health coverage their employees should have, not based on appropriate medical care, but based on belief. So what does that mean? If an employer refuses to believe cancer is real they won’t cover cancer treatment? If they are going to provide health coverage, they should not be able to pick and choose. It should be all or nothing. It’s not the employer’s business what an employee’s medical care should be. Furthermore, birth control has all sorts of applications, not just for preventing pregnancy. I’ve had horrible ovarian cysts that put me in the emergency room. Birth control prevents ovarian cysts from happening and prevents excruciating pain for me.

    • Yar

      So when a women pays insurance for male reproductive health but is denied access to the same it is wrong!

    • MrNutso

      Well why should companyies pay for anything? Even wages. Why shouldn’t we all have to work for free, until we become makers instead of takers.

      • Arkuy The Great

        Indeed, we feel that work should be its own reward…

    • TELew

      Health care as we know it was not even a pipe dream when the Constitution was written.

      The Constitution as originally conceived was not something written in stone, but rather something that was meant to be interpreted with a cognizance of changing circumstances. That is why it was written with an amendment process. And these were the intentions of the majority of the “Founding Fathers.”

    • Jacob Kraft

      They ARE ALREADY paying for it themselves — there isn’t any “free” contraception being given out here. The insurance is part of their compensation for working! The employer is effectively dictating what the employee can do with their own compensation.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Millionaire Clinton is concerned about the poor and disadvantaged. Hmm.. I’ve never seen her at a soup kitchen.*

    * Unless she was autographing book leaves.

  • kittibiker

    Is it true that Hobby Lobby is invested in pharmas that make the morning after pill?

    • keltcrusader

      yes, heavily, and yet they find no contradiction in that or in purchasing their goods from counties who have strict child bearing laws, so their “religion” only goes as deep as their bottom line.

      • 1Brett1

        Hobby Lobby’s suit is a political stunt, for sure.

        • StilllHere

          Jealous?

          • 1Brett1

            I see you are articulating your usual, limited-intelligence thought processes. Thanks for confirming what is suspected [or expected] of you. One wonders if you will ever exceed expectations? It wouldn’t be difficult for you, as the bar is so very low to begin with.

      • StilllHere

        HL buys nothing from governments that have strict child bearing laws. Where in the public sector or academia do you work?

        • keltcrusader

          neither dolt, run on home to mommy now

          • StilllHere

            Right, nice try. You’re pathetic.

          • keltcrusader

            right back atcha, dolt

          • StilllHere

            I think I touched a nerve. Let me guess, you’re at a public institution of some sort, probably a prison, maybe a mental hospital. Good luck with that.

          • keltcrusader

            really? that is what you are going with? you are even less intelligent that I thought, but really, not surprised at all.

          • StilllHere

            Now I know I’m on to something. Really, good luck to you.

          • keltcrusader

            I wish you the best of luck too, loser

    • StilllHere

      HL is not invested in pharma companies. It’s investments consist of property, plant, equipment and inventory.

  • J__o__h__n

    Great point from Justice Ginsberg.

  • MrNutso

    I did not hear about RFRA until several years after it passed. It’s an over broad and an overreaction to one incident.

  • MrNutso

    Congress has the power … Good one!

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Look how far America has come since the establishment of the Roberts court. A majority of that white, aging, flabby body of original thinkers wouldn’t let Rosa Parks ON the bus.*

    * Let alone provide her with reproductive rights equal to those of men.

    • TELew

      Clarence Thomas is a key member of the conservative coalition in the Supreme Court.

  • Jacob Kraft

    Does this mean a Muslim owner of a business can require all female employees to wear a hijab to work?

    • MrNutso

      Not yet. It doesn’t address workplace law.

      • hellokitty0580

        But it sets a precedent.

    • J__o__h__n

      The opinion confines itself to this issue rather than extending this new right to where this principle would inevitably lead.

      • Jacob Kraft

        Fair enough, however it seems to follow very clearly that a Christian Scientist business owner could deny whatever health care they wanted based on religious grounds (because the government is “forcing” them to provide care that goes against their religious beliefs). That could include cancer care, wellness visits, everything!

  • Potter

    A win for Christianity is by definition not about religious freedom.

  • hennorama

    This ruling implies that the religious beliefs of the owners of “closely held” corporations are superior to the religious beliefs of their employees, thereby favoring the owners’ beliefs.

    How does this square with the rights of the employees?

    • M S

      Property rights tip the balance.

    • 1Brett1

      And I guess “closely held” corporations’ religious liberties are superior to larger companies with more share holders.

  • GP

    May be there is a silver lining to this. As the government will pick up the tab for it and other procedures that people don’t want to be forced to pay for whatever reason, we are inching towards a single payer system. At the end there may be going towards what they are opposing.

  • Coastghost

    Obama White House apologist and NPR reporter Scott Horsley reported on “Morning Edition” just this morning, quoting WH spokesman Josh Earnest, that a committee (unelected) of “the Institute of Medicine” (what Federal funding goes their way, and how much annually?), is comprised of “impartial, non-political scientists who believe” that offering birth control via (Un)Affordable Care Tax Act protocols “should be” the proffered policy.
    If scientists are so utterly impartial and non-political, why do they accept generous state support and state funding for their research programs? and why do they compete against one another for public-sector funding?
    And whence derive the “shoulds, musts, and oughts” that govern their policy recommendations? Were these moral imperatives discovered lurking in the specimen capture chambers of an electron microscope, or were they discovered in orbit floating around some exo-planet? Were they conjured in some Petrie dish?

  • malkneil

    Love how all the conservative christian white men get to decide over women’s reproductive rights. Where’s Hitchens when you need him.

    Carlin also had a good one:

    “When Cardinals and Bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their
    first labor pains and they’ve raised a couple of children on minimum
    wage, then I’ll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion”

    • OnPointComments

      Is it your belief that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is white?

      • malkneil

        Touche. But I was speaking in a more broad sense.

        • Arkuy The Great

          I.E. the narrative is correct but the facts are wrong.

    • Zack Smith

      I didn’t realize that women had a right to force others to pay for their birth control. Since when?

  • Linda Walsh

    Why is it constitutional to deny ONLY birth control based on religious beliefs? What is the logic behind that reasoning?

    • Kathy

      I wish the media would cover this more because it makes no sense on its face that it just applies to lady parts.

  • OnPointComments

    Before the Supreme Court ruling, the employees of Hobby Lobby (who, incidentally, have a starting full-time wage of $14 an hour), could purchase any legal method of contraception. After the ruling, the employees can purchase any legal method of contraception, and their health plan still includes 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives. The employees remain free to find other jobs if they are offended by the owners’ religious beliefs.

    How could all of this angst have been avoided? The Obama administration could have made the same accommodation for corporations as it made for nonprofits. Or the administration could have compromised on the requirement that health plans include all FDA-approved contraceptives, and instead settled on 80% of FDA-approved contraceptives. But compromise was not part of the process when the ACA was rammed through the Congress.

    Compromise is not part of this truism: Liberals don’t care what anyone does, as long as it’s mandatory.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    “Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety.”

    Sorry, no. Enobarbus was talking about Cleopatra, not the federal bench.

  • Don_B1

    The government “involvement” was really minimal, as Justice Ginsburg wrote, and as described here (by Laura Basset at The Huffington Post):

    Ginsburg argued that religious corporations are not significantly burdened by having to include certain coverage in their health insurance plans.

    “The requirement carries no command that Hobby Lobby or Conestoga purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable,” she wrote. “Instead, it calls on the companies covered by the requirement to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans.”

    Further, Ginsburg wrote, a woman’s decision to claim birth control benefits in consultation with her doctor is in no way compelled by her employer and is not equivalent to a moral action on the part of her employer.

    “Should an employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question,” Ginsburg wrote.

    Even if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga were substantially burdened by the requirement, Ginsburg argued, the government has shown that providing no-cost birth control to women is “a compelling interest in public health and women’s well being.”

    “Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence,” she wrote. “To recapitulate, the mandated contraception coverage enables women to avoid the health problems unintended pregnancies may visit on them and their children.”

    Link:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/ruth-bader-ginsburg-write_n_5544111.html

    Here a compelling need in the public interest is met by only the slightest impact on any individual.

  • J__o__h__n

    I thought god opposed idleness. Shouldn’t people be working and worshiping and not wasting time on hobbies?

  • Yar

    What about the employer who refuses to accept a second marriage? One Man and one woman, not serial monogamy. No health care for the spouse of a divorced person? There are people who have more radical beliefs.

  • Judy

    Aren’t there many governmental programs (that we have to support because we have to pay taxes) that may be against some religious belief?

  • Roy-in-Boise

    As consumers we have the right to spend our hard earned dollars where we choose. The power of the purse cuts both ways.

  • rexhenry

    The owners don’t want to be a part of something that’s against their beliefs? You lost that option when you opened up a public business.

    • hennorama

      That’s no longer true.

    • HonestDebate1

      No they didn’t. The Constitution does not qualify who is and isn’t guaranteed religious freedoms.

      • J__o__h__n

        Where does the Constitution guarantee a corporation religious freedoms?

        • 1Brett1

          Yeah, I didn’t hear about Hobby Lobby being a religious organization. I don’t think they have tax-exempt status. So…

          But, to answer your question, I think the ball got rolling on that after yesterday’s ruling, unfortunately.

        • HonestDebate1

          It says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That’s pretty all inclusive. It does not qualify it. Obamacare is that law.

    • StilllHere

      Let me guess, you don’t own a business.

    • Zack Smith

      Business owners are slaves to the state. That it?

  • James

    Lets call this what it is….group A (the government) mandating group B (employers) to pay for the birth control of birth C. (women) This is an entitlement. An entitlement that did not exist TEN YEARS AGO.
    And people flipping out about this. I don’t always agree with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but what now he’s probably telling someone, “look everything that I said would happen if the masses loose an entitlement, is now happening, hysteria and accusations of racism/sexism.”

    One more thing, the vast majority of women in this country are still beneficiaries of this entitlement!

    • OnPointComments

      Senator Pork Chop Patty Murray said that the decision is “a dangerous precedent and takes us closer to a time in history when women had no choice and no voice.” She must have been referring to 2012, before the ACA kicked in.

    • MrNutso

      This is only an issue because of the ACA. Before the ACA, companies weren’t required to provide any specific coverage or any coverage at all. Just because something was not in the headlines 10 or even a few years ago does not mean it was not an issue.

  • NancyQueenofScots

    If a closely-held company has religious beliefs including the belief that homosexuality is a sin and the homosexual “lifestyle” should not be supported, will the company be able to challenge the federal anti-discrimination laws protecting the LBGT community? Thanks.

    • J__o__h__n

      The ruling says that it does not. Slate had an article on it yesterday.

      • creaker

        So the court decides which religious beliefs can be exercised and which can not? And when? That sounds like even a bigger can of worms.

        • J__o__h__n

          I haven’t read the opinion, but I think they stated that they were only considering the question of contraceptive coverage and not any religious claims that a corporation could make and that discrimination against gay employees was not sanctioned by this ruling.

          • 1Brett1

            There was discussion among the Justices over what they do NOT consider religious liberty with respect to medical issues, e.g., blood transfusions, immunizations, etc. I found this interesting as they were in essence determining what is and is not considered religious liberty. I see this as being challenged down the road (by companies with religious cultures). It seems on its face such a narrowly-defined ruling, but I am betting other religiously-oriented companies will challenge the types of things they are “forced” to cover.

          • J__o__h__n

            most likely

      • MrNutso

        Watch this space.

      • NancyQueenofScots

        Thanks for directing me to the Slate article. It sounds as though the issue will be addressed through the courts sometime in the future.

        “The majority is also conspicuously silent about LGBT discrimination. It disclaims the possibility that Hobby Lobby could justify racial discrimination but says nothing about LGBT discrimination or even gender discrimination—even though Justice Ginsburg expressly raised that prospect in dissent. If Justice Kennedy is proven correct that Hobby Lobby does not undermine LGBT rights, it will be because of the decision of a future majority, not today’s opinion.”

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_hobby_lobby_decision_how_big_is_its_scope.html

    • Arkuy The Great

      No. You’re welcome.

  • Judy Steffel

    According to an investigation done by Mother Jones,
    Hobby Lobby has invested millions of dollars into the same
    contraceptive products that they’ve cited in their lawsuit against
    Obamacare, and used it for an employee retirement plan. According to the
    Mother Jones report,

    “Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show
    that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73
    million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce
    emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly
    used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to
    this company-sponsored 401(k).”

    http://samuel-warde.com/2014/04/hobby-lobby-invests-abortion/

  • Potter

    Great response ultimately- let’s get away from employer sponsored health care.

    • hellokitty0580

      That’s what I’m saying!

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Good thing Hobby Lobby owners weren’t concerned about walkers, penile implants, and colostomy bags. Or SCOTUS might not be able to climb the hollowed* marble steps and get to work.

    * Yes. I did not mean “hallowed”.

    • M S

      Well, they probably wouldn’t be concerned about the items on your list…they are not abortive.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Sure doesn’t look like a SCOTUS.
    That’s.. what I told her!

    {apologies to Buick television advert folks}

  • EileenCampbellReed

    The Green family are Baptists and see yesterday’s ruling as a win. My perspective as a Baptist minister and practical theologian is that the decision fails on the grounds of human rights, as well as theological and Baptist grounds.

    The decision means the state fails to protect human rights sufficiently. Second, from a theological perspective the ruling conflates for-profit businesses with religious bodies. And finally, from a Baptist perspective the decision opens the door to conferring religious status on U.S. corporations, which blunders justice and threatens religious liberty….

    http://abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28885-justice-blundered

    • MrNutso

      I was hoping someone would speak up about this. A good article here:

      http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453598/no-a-win-for-hobby-lobby-is-not-a-win-for-religion/

    • 1Brett1

      Yours is the first comment I’ve read that mentions Hobby Lobby’s status (in your second point, second paragraph). Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization; it’s a for-profit arts and crafts store.

      However, I feel as though your final point is perhaps your most important one.

      • EileenCampbellReed

        TODAY the cases that were lined up behind Hobby Lobby were sent back down to lower courts. This means it’s not just the 4 birth control options, or birth control at all. The door is open for “close family corporations” to seek all kinds of exceptions … magnifying my concerns expressed in my opinion piece. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/07/01/scotus-birth-control

        • Godzilla the Intellectual

          If they can’t attract competitive employees their business will suffer.

          Employees can leave and form cooperative corporations.

          I will read your piece but I am skeptical.

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      You said a bunch of things, none of which were logical.

      What exactly is your LOGICAL argument?

  • Jo Bleaux

    What about women who are prescribed birth control pills (labelled as an abortifacient by some) for other gynecological problems? In fact, this is very common.

  • AspenGold

    As an aside: if it were men who used prescription contraceptives, rather than women, this issue wouldn’t even have come up. Patriarchal religious
    intuitions, like the conservative Christian evangelical denominations, shape their doctrines to give men the authority in all matters, whether social or in the personal setting.

    • M S

      No evidence, just conjecture.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    This is a narrow opinion reflecting our (narrow) thinking.
    –SCOTUS majority, Hobby Lobby finding

    * Perhaps, SCOTUS, you might want to approve a government-mandated health care coverage provision for early onset dementia testing. You know: hint to the wise.

  • jefe68

    On Point or maybe it’s Verizon is having connectivity issues with the streaming of this broadcast. It’s been awful all morning and now has stopped altogether.

    • J__o__h__n

      mine stopped too.

      • jefe68

        It’s BUR’s server. It’s having connectivity issues.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Yep, here in Pittsburgh, too. Must be government-supported radio problem. Hoober Doober

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      The Roberts court must have ended net neutrality in that Hobby Lobby finding. And didn’t tell anyone about it. HD

    • MrNutso

      Same in SE PA. Finally get a good stream through iTunes.

  • MrNutso

    Our country was founded on the lack of representation.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Our country was founded by accident. Must like the policies of the last three presidents. HD

  • Sean Irwin

    To me, this case illustrates that the conservative justices believe that the wealthy are entitled to special rights and privileges beyond those granted to “normal” citizens.

    • M S

      Way to take the case at face value.

  • Bigtruck

    Simply put it is American men dominating American women, much like the Taliban dominates women in Afghanistan. Until the women of the world join together and rectify this mishandling of power, in the name of religion they can expect more of the same. You have to take it it will not be given.

    • J__o__h__n

      Single women need to show up to the polls in off year elections.

      • Red

        Married women use contraception too.

        • J__o__h__n

          Single women are more likely than married women to vote Democratic yet less likely to vote in non presidential elections.

    • M S

      Ridiculous. Religious liberty traditionally comes first. If a woman wants an extreme form of birth control, she can buy it herself or Hillary can chip in…she’s got the dough.

      • Bigtruck

        Freedom comes first in America.

        • M S

          No, I’m pretty sure its religious liberty, not freedom. We had religious liberty before the end of slavery.

          • Bigtruck

            Freedom, freedom to be religious or freedom to not be religious with no government intervention. Something tells me your slaves didn’t have religious liberty, silly person

          • M S

            Oh, how little you really know: Peter Durrett (c. 1733 – 1823) (also appeared in records as Peter Duerrett) was a Baptist preacher and slave, who with his wife founded the First African Baptist Church of Lexington, Kentucky by 1790. By his death, the congregation reached nearly 300 persons. It is the first black congregation west of the Allegheny Mountains, the first black Baptist congregation in the state and the third oldest in the United States. Its historic church was built in 1856, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

          • Bigtruck

            Oh my goodness, slaves came from AFRICA! How many Baptists do you think were in the places that they were ripped out of, 0.
            Sure you have liberty to practice religion as long as it is the masters… That is not anything like liberty.

            Again, Much like the Taliban this case is 5 old Christian guys and a boss forcing their religious beliefs on American Woman, plain and simple. All that without Google.

          • M S

            Oh please, liberals can never admit when they are wrong. So you’re saying that all Blacks who are Christians are illegitimate practitioners? Unbelievable. Later Bigtruck.

          • Bigtruck

            No, conservative, liberal or alien, your logic and understanding of religious liberty is wrong a fact bolstered by your examples.
            Have a nice day

          • 1Brett1

            Tell that to someone openly atheist in the 18th century! Or how about Catholics in the 18th century?

      • Jo Bleaux

        Extreme birth control? Excuse me — we’re talking about the Pill, which uses suppression of ovulation as its main mechanism. The Pill, which, incidentally is widely prescribed to women (sexually active or not) for other gynecological conditions (although I chose not to take them because of blood clot risk, I personally have had doctors recommend them to me for both endometrial hyperplasia and for perimenopausal symptoms)

  • Mel Strommen

    The courts ruling did not deny a woman anything. Women can still get all the contraception items they want, but they cannot make their employer pay for them. It’s their money.

    • jefe68

      It’s a benefit that both parties are paying into.
      Employees pay for their health insurance.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Live Stream | WBUR has been intercepted by the NSA. A moment while the source material is, well.. examined. For alien influence.

  • AC

    i think they should proudly label all their products. that way i won’t accidentally buy any…

    • jefe68

      They buy most of their products form China, which has legalized abortion and promotes it as form of population control.

      • jimino

        Or as Romneyites might say: “Corporations have principles too, my friend”. They’re just not the same as yours.

        • jefe68

          In the case of Hobby Lobby, that’s an understatement.

  • Potter

    The fine point is that Hobby Lobby-Green family do not want to be forced to pay for something (contraception) they do not believe in. Nevermind that these are benefits that are part of compensation ( or is that not right?). Are they also going to look into what their employees might be spending their OTHER earnings on that they do not approve of? Or are they going to carefully discriminate, looking deeply into the lives of people who they might hire, that they are not engaging in any activity they do not approve of on religious grounds?

    • MrNutso

      Nevermind that they reap the benefit of being a corporation, especially when they have vast private wealth.

    • OnPointComments

      The employees of Hobby Lobby can spend their earnings on anything they choose. The ruling is about mandating how the owner/employer must spend the owner/employer’s money.

      • Potter

        This is the point- is this the owner’s money that is spent to pay for EARNED benefits and therefore not the owner’s anymore.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Chubby Hubby* will now sue the government to force it to stop requiring them to cover their employees at all.

    * Where white middle aged men sit in barca loungers all day eating chips, drinking Buds, and playing Black Ops Iraq: This Time We Win!

    • hennorama

      HLB — if you’re not careful, you may soon be getting a cease and desist letter from Ben & Jerry’s.

      “Chubby Hubby®

      Vanilla Malt Ice Cream with Peanutty Fudge-covered Pretzels with Fudge & Peanut Buttery Swirls”

      See:
      http://www.benjerry.com/flavors/chubby-hubby-ice-cream

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Bible Museum: Where rationality and the baby dinosaurs from the ark frolic together.

  • MrNutso

    Real biblical artifacts?

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Noah’s dentures. HD

      • jefe68

        And Moses’ hedge clippers….

  • jmpo’lock

    Just wait until non-Judeo/Christian religions attempt to dodge secular laws for their idiosyncratic ideas.

    So, I guess Christian Scientists are exempt from ANY insurance, since they do not “believe” medical science is in God’s will…

    Also, how is it that an earned benefit is manipulated by the employer like this? Will they now also be able to tell you how to spend your income?

    I presume this will also be a big pain for the insurance companies to administer. Presumably this was really more of an attempt to cut costs and general hatred of the ACA…hopefully this will cause their premiums to increase…but more likely this will be passed on to all of us. Those old white men on the Supreme Court certainly should not be allowed to use the moniker “Justice” after their names, more like “Activist Stooges”

    • Mel Strommen

      EARNED BENEFIT? Says who? You can spend your own money for contraception…but you cannot tell a business how to spend theirs. Sooner or later, you are going to run out of other peoples’ money to spend…then what are you going to do?

      • jmpo’lock

        So, let me get this right. When you work for someone, you do not think that health insurance is something that is part of your compensation package? Wouldn’t effect your employment decisions? I guess you see your earnings as “other people’s money”? This is a serious case of ideological blindness.
        Let me guess, you think global warming is a hoax too right?

  • keruffle

    What’s the score?
    Five to four!
    Five to four
    Decision once more

    Satisfy some
    Represent none
    Odd democracy
    Won by 1

    @keruffle

  • brettearle

    Why would a Free-Enterprise system allow the employment of private citizens by companies–where these businesses wish to restrict or censor the private lives of individuals?

    This Supreme Court decision seems to be far removed from the preservation of Individual Rights.

    What sort of country am I living in?

    • OnPointComments

      Before the Supreme Court ruling, the employees of Hobby Lobby (who, incidentally, have a starting full-time wage of $14 an hour), could purchase any legal method of contraception. After the ruling, the employees can purchase any legal method of contraception, and their health plan still includes 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives. The employees remain free to find other jobs if they are offended by the owners’ religious beliefs.

      • jmpo’lock

        So I guess they know better for their workers than the workers doctors…

        • OnPointComments

          No one is stopping anyone from purchasing any legal method of contraception.

          • jmpo’lock

            They are meddling in the private insurance industry, as well as meddling with the medical science which is how standards and practices are met, which determines ALL aspects of coverage. You just can’t pick and choose a la carte, otherwise insurance would be worthless, and/or corrupt.

          • James

            The only one who is meddling in private insurance are the people who mandated birth control coverage in the first place!

          • jmpo’lock

            Dude, you can’t be serious.

          • brettearle

            You know that Christian Fundamentalism can’t see shades and dimensions to issues.

            They’e Hopeless.

          • warryer

            That’s all you have?

            There are no shades and dimensions, only it is or it isn’t.

          • brettearle

            If it’s cut and dry then that’s the only way to view it.

            Christian Fundamentalists are, for the most part, obstinate, intractable, dogmatic, and, periodically, maniacal.

          • warryer

            Where are your facts and reasons for why you take the position you do?

            When you result to insults, it really shows the weakness of your position.

          • brettearle

            The Christian God is the only God
            Abortion is Murder
            Satan Controls the Earth

            How about them for starters?

            Indeed these beliefs, above, I consider to
            BE INSULTS.

            Which, INDEED, really shows the WEAKNESS of their position, SIR….

          • warryer

            Have you questioned yourself WHY you feel insulted by those statements?

            As it always does, it really comes down to what ground you stand on to form your world view.

          • brettearle

            We weren’t questioning the `Why’?

            We were questioning the Facts and the Reasons.

            When I answer you, you change the debate.

            Changing the debate, in this context, is symptomatic, typically, of dogma, didacticism, and zealotry.

            If that’s what you are, it’s not my problem.

            Thank GOD.

          • warryer

            I am asking you why you are insulted by those statements because I am genuinely interested in your answer.

            Ok, then let me take a couple steps back. It either is or it isn’t.

            The original question is “What are all the shades and dimensions that Christian Fundamentalists aren’t seeing? In the context of the original comment “nobody is stopping anybody from purchasing legal means of contraception.””

          • brettearle

            If you want to discuss the Supreme court decision, that is YET another matter.

            You are, again, trying to frame and change the debate.

            You and I entered into a discussion about the problems I have with Christian Fundamentalism.

            That’s what we were discussing. You asked me for examples and I gave them to you.

            [Incidentally, you might also want to add, "Sex is only for Pro-Creation", as part of the Christian Fundamentalist pathology.]

            I have determined that it be best to end this discussion with a final indulgence:

            I am offended by Christian Fundamentalism–because I am of the
            strong opinion that there has not been one idea or one person or one group,
            in the history of Mankind, who truly knows what the Truth is, was, or will be.

            But sadly and tragically, the Christian Fundamentalists believe otherwise–and they are surely not afraid to let you know it.

            Over and out.

          • hennorama

            OPC — the same argument can be applied to “You can keep your doctor.”

          • OnPointComments

            The owners of the Hobby Lobby never made a promise to its employees that it would provide all 20 methods of birth control approved by the FDA. President Obama did promise “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.” President Obama’s promise was not kept.

          • hennorama

            OPC — TYFYR, and for not refuting my comment.

          • OnPointComments

            Thank you for not refuting my comment that President Obama failed to keep his promises.

      • 1Brett1

        Yes, employees can find other employment, although not “free” to do so is not the best choice of concepts, as there would be financial hardship (as other type places similar to Hobby Lobby offer jobs at minimum wage with no benefits and under 28 hours a week, generally). By your reasoning, Hobby Lobby is also “free” to not offer health insurance.

    • jmpo’lock

      So ironic how those who presume to yell the loudest about individual rights and judicial activism are the most totalitarian in their views….

      • brettearle

        Touche….and thank you [for feeling that way]

    • twenty_niner

      An employer not paying for something is not morally equivalent to denying it, especially when a condom costs 25 cents.

      • brettearle

        You ‘re missing the point–and you are,ethically, splitting hairs.

        Individual Rights should often be paramount–in the workplace and in many other venues of American Life.

        • twenty_niner

          What rights have been a abridged. Your employer pays you a wage; what you choose to do with it is your business. You are completely free to take a quarter out of your pay and buy a condom.

          • manganbr

            and so why is that so much different than buying a health care plan that includes these forms of contraception? the employee still has to make the choice to utilize the option–the employer is not paying directly for the service, and as you mention, even giving employees cash is empowering them to do things the employer may disapprove of. What is it about the case exchange that detoxifies the employer’s conscience?

          • twenty_niner

            “What is it about the case exchange that detoxifies the employer’s conscience?”

            Once the employer writes your paycheck, it’s your money, not theirs. What you choose to do with it is your business.

          • jmpo’lock

            Just like the earned benefit of insurance. If they don’t like the insurance for religious reasons perhaps a voucher would be a reasonable (although moronic) way around it. Kind of as crazy as if they’d give the money to a neutral party before paying you before you got the money cause you might “sin” with that money….oh wait, the insurance provider IS A THIRD NEUTRAL PARTY!!!

          • twenty_niner

            And maybe they could issue food stamps as well. You’re getting paid with money. Go buy contraception.

          • jimino

            So do you think the value of what an employer pays toward an employees health insurance or care should be taxed as income since the employer can deduct it?

          • jmpo’lock

            No, because it’s a human right, and mandated by law

          • jmpo’lock

            Just like their insurance, what the worker chooses to do with it is of no business to the provider

          • twenty_niner

            Not really. Insurance policies aren’t fungible. They’re explicit contracts. On the other hand, your pay is in dollars, which are completely fungible. You can save them up and buy a house and you’ll probably have some spare change left over to buy some condoms.

          • jmpo’lock

            Condoms stink for sex

      • TFRX

        Another Captain Condom heard from!

        • jmpo’lock

          Yup, and those types are generally anti-sex anyway (which is not surprising if their still on latex technology)…unless its for pro-creation, and then ONLY in a heterosexual Christian marriage!

          • TFRX

            I wouldn’t go so far as to say “anti-sex”.

            But their fascination about the sex other people may be having reminds me of the joke about the door in Heaven that God goes by quietly, lest the Catholics* behind it discover they’re not the only ones in Heaven.

            (*Different versions exist.)

        • twenty_niner

          “Captain Condom”

          I guess if you’re really broke, you can try Saran wrap.

          • jefe68

            Or cut the tips off of rubber gloves….

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, condoms do a great job of regulating menstrual cycles…NOT

    • Mel Strommen

      A Company is not restricting anything. You can still get anything you want, but you cannot make the company pay for it.

      • jmpo’lock

        Providing insurance is a matter of earned benefits and law. How the recipient chooses to use it is of NO BUSINESS to the employer…just like your paycheck!

        • hennorama

          jmpo’lock — that’s not entirely true, especially for small employers.

          The dollar amount of claims versus premiums paid are periodically evaluated by the insurer (or the self-insured entity), which factors in to future premiums, or reserves required for self-insurance.

          In the past, a small employer might be only one expensive covered surgery away from being no longer able to afford employee health insurance benefits.

          This has changed to some extent due to the provisions of the PPACA.

          • jmpo’lock

            Sure that’s true, as far as how much everyone can afford or is willing to pay, but what should be obvious here is that the employer has no business in the decisions made between the patient and their doctor vis a vis whatever policy has been provided and its legally mandated/regulated coverage. There can be incentives by the insurance company for example full coverage of generics vs. say 80% of name brand, but the employer can’t/shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose a la carte (especially for non-scientific and/or personal religious reasons)
            That said, our entire private for-profit insurance system is total bunk. And we will keep having all sorts of these runaround problems until we mature as a country and capitulate to the empirically obvious: A single payer system (like England which ranked #1 worldwide) is more effective, just, and less expensive by far.

      • brettearle

        Ideology does not belong in restrictions that compromise the rights of individuals.

        Such a ruling leaves open the possibility, theoretically, that corporations everywhere can dictate the lifestyle of their employees.

      • hennorama

        Mel Strommen — the same reasoning applies to “You can keep your doctor.”

      • TFRX

        You really haven’t had “the talk” with anyone in HR about how “healthcare is part of your total compensation”, have you?

        • jmpo’lock

          Yeah, and why you can’t get that raise you wanted because the premiums keep going up, and you’re actually being “paid” much more than your paycheck…..

    • hennorama

      brettearle — that sort of thing goes on all the time. Employers mandate that you are not intoxicated when you show up for work (restricting your right to consume intoxicants), can pass drug screens, etc. There are also restrictions imposed on behaviors involving real property, such as restrictions on smoking, pet ownership, etc. in rental properties.

      • jmpo’lock

        Incorrect. You are conflating what one does in their free time to what they might be required of at work. Insurance should cover whatever the science provides and the patient and their doctors choose as best practice.
        The other stuff about property has no relation to this topic.

        • hennorama

          jmpo’lock — thank you for your response.

          Sorry that you misunderstood.

          Please notice that I wrote (emphasis added) “Employers mandate that you are not intoxicated when you show up for work …” and not about anything an employee might do at work.

          All of the restrictions in my post conform to [brettearle]‘s category of “… businesses [that] wish to restrict or censor the private lives of individuals”.

          Thanks again for your response.

          • jmpo’lock

            You are welcome
            I appreciate your point, but brettearle said “private lives” and also I believe that decisions a patient might make with their doctor is about as private as it gets :)

          • hennorama

            jmpo’lock — TY again FYR.

            Not to put too fine a point on it, but everything an employee does outside the scope of their employment is part of their private life. The employee’s private actions might impact their employment activities, which is one reason why employers impose some restrictions on private behavior.

            Other examples include restrictions on employee speech, including employees’ use of social media, etc. to complain about their employers, reveal trade secrets, discuss employer business activities that might impact stock prices, etc.

      • brettearle

        Intoxication and Drug Addiction–which may affect on-the-job performance, if the employee is using, on the job–are, for me, not behaviors that would come under the protection of individual rights.

        What’s more, a company, may fire an employee for substandard performance that may indeed be due, or indirectly due, to off-the-job Alcoholism or Drug Addiction.

        It’s a good point, that you bring up, regarding Property Ownership and Individual Freedoms–in comparison to the Workplace.

        In the case of Rental Property and private lifestyle, I simply believe that Owners should not have the liberty of such restriction–unless, or until, a lifestyle is considered a detriment to others or to the devaluation of the property.

        Smoking is a grey area [pun intended] but it’s pretty much understood that second hand smoke is hazardous to others’ Health. So it ought to be restricted.

        But I would draw the line with smoking, not with pets.

        But, in fact, people are rejected from securing housing EVERY day in this country–because of the way they look, the way they’re dressed, the way they present themselves, or the kind of work they pursue.

        The violation of Individual Rights, in this country, are myriad, disgusting, and OFTEN completely hidden and extremely difficult to prove.

        I don’t appreciate Housing Rights simply based on the color of one’s skin. There should be MANY other rights, taken into account, as well.

        A number of similar factors obtain in the Workplace–with regard to how people are weeded out SIMPLY because of the way they look or sound or present themselves or because of certain aspects of their work history or academic backgrounds…..all of which, sometimes, or even more than sometimes, may have NOTHING to do with Job Performance…

        • hennorama

          brettearle — TYFYR.

          Your points are well-taken.

          We mostly take for granted that employers restrict some individual behaviors, as in, “Of course an employer expects the employee to not show up to work drunk or high,” without realizing that does in fact restrict the employees’ private behavior. It is a reasonable expectation on the employer’s part that employees be ready, willing, and able to perform their duties, from the moment their assignments begin.

          Those tradeoffs are reasonable — the employee benefits from continued employment and payment of wages and benefits, and the employer benefits from safe and productive employees.

          In similar fashion, some restrictions imposed by landlords on tenants are tradeoffs. Smoking is dangerous to health and property. Pets can be as well. Landlords benefit in a benign way, in that they do not experience property damage and loss, and tenants benefit from resultant moderation of rents and security deposits.

          All of this is reinforcement of my essential point, that behavioral restrictions are imposed all the time.

    • warryer

      If the individual wants to work for a company that provides those forms of contraception, they have all the right to work for that company.

      The individual still has a choice.

      • jmpo’lock

        If we go down that road, pretty much all employee rights are up for grabs then…endless hours? work somewhere else, unsafe conditions? go away, misconduct? well, you get my point. We have developed numerous secular regulations and laws for mostly good reason. The owners/employers are “free” to have their personal religious “freedom”, but that should be limited to themselves.

        • twenty_niner

          Once again, slippery-slope sh#t logic, which the Left goes apoplectic over when used by the right in gun-control debates.

          You would have a point if the argument was over a $1000.00 life-saving procedure. It’s contraception, which is widely available and of minimal cost. If your finances are running on fumes, maybe skip the Cheetos and buy the condoms.

    • HonestDebate1

      What rights have been censored or restricted?

      • brettearle

        I don’t believe in restrictions of individuals, in the workplace, simply because of Employer Ideology.

        Split Hairs all you want.

        Individual Rights should be uniform everywhere.

        If an employer doesn’t like it, then let them remove benefit packages altogether.

        Then we’ll see how well they compete.

        • HonestDebate1

          I’m not splitting hairs at all, I’m asking what rights are being restricted. No rights are being restricted

          • jefe68

            Uh the right to have control over the health insurance you’re paying for. You do realize that employees are paying into the insurance that the companies they work for. Right?

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s a right?! And it’s bogus anyway, you don’t have control over your healthcare with Obamacare! Geesh.

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about… It’s really quite funny.

      • brettearle

        Your self-hatred is palpable.

        • Godzilla the Intellectual

          READ A BOOK.

          • brettearle

            Your self-hatred continues to grow.

            Off…..the….charts

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Your comment is called a “projection”.

            You expect to be taken seriously when you presume to tell someone you’ve never met how they feel…

            You presume to know my self-esteem better than I do?

            Do you have a doctoral degree in clinical psychology???

            If not, wipe the feces off your face and learn how to form a logical argument.

            You truly are pathetic.

            And, as a side note, my self-regard is quite high. :)

          • brettearle

            The more words you offer to my comments, about your self-hatred, the more telling my comments are about your self-hatred.

            Indeed, to even greet this comment with silence, now, is fairly incriminating.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            If you are, indeed, suffering from self-hated, then I have compassion for you…

          • brettearle

            DRIVEL….

            At its very highest Level

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I can’t save everyone. At least I tried.

          • brettearle

            Alchemical,The Savior, spits SELF-CONTEMPT, at the Highest Level.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            LOL

          • brettearle

            You are not someone who knows how to laugh.

            Much less laugh out loud.

            Your self-hatred is palpable.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I feel sorry for you.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            If I were you I would stop doing what you’re doing. It’s likely to backfire on you.

          • brettearle

            Are you threatening me?

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Does your ego feel threatened???

            I was referring to the psychology of wishing ill or harm toward another person and something along the lines of karma.

  • MrNutso

    The more I hear about the Green family the more I find that the contraception case is a drop in the bucket to what they want to do.

  • Potter

    Well there you go…. the Greens feel we have deviated from our Christian roots. What about our evolution from there?

    • hennorama

      Potter — Evolution is another ball of wax entirely.

      • Potter

        Evolution is not a ball of wax– it means growth, maturation, adaptation, survival.

        • hennorama

          Potter — thank you for your response.

          I was referring to evolution as a religious belief, in the context of the SC decision about a religious belief.

  • manganbr

    I’m not clear on the flow of money that connects what the employer pays and what health services the employee chooses to utilize in their health care plan. Would a company be paying directly in some way for each birth control prescription? Or just for a general plan that covers birth control? And if so, aren’t all the funds at the insurance company fungible? That is, doesn’t hobby lobby need to find an insurance provider that does not offer birth control to anyone anywhere? or otherwise the money they pay to that provider could lump into funds payed for birth control for other companies? In other words, when you start to actually follow the money, the flow of a specific dollar paid by company, it’s pretty hard to see how the issue of conscience becomes so passionate. Do the owners of hobby lobby make sure that everywhere they spend their cash (gas stations, etc) never ends up paying for something they morally disapprove of? Seems like in an exchange based market economy, the pretense of attaching one’s conscience to the flow of dollars AFTER the initial transfer (to the employee’s health plan) is a bit absurd. The employer can pay for the healthcare plan that INCLUDES birth control with a clear conscience, because the employee has to make the choice to utilize that option, and then a whole series of other market exchanges (within the insurance company, between pharmacies and insurers, etc) come into to play that extend far beyond the initial exchange between employer/employee. So long as the employer is not literally forced to buy the pills at the pharmacy, the relation is too indirect to claim a matter of conscience over–or to be consistent, one would then have to claim conscience over a whole series of other commercial transactions in everyday life. Once someone else’s agency comes into play (the employer choosing to take the birth control), the conservative christian employer cannot feel anymore guilty than they would for giving an employee cash that the employee then uses to buy gay pornography with.

    • jmpo’lock

      Exactly. That’s why this is a ridiculous slippery slope backwards decision….

      If they can manipulate the earned benefit of insurance, why not income and other benefits as well?

      How about for non-mainstream religions?

      • warryer

        Welcome to reality.

    • OnPointComments

      The government mandated that all health plans cover all 20 of the FDA-approved methods of contraception. Hobby Lobby objected to paying for a health plan that includes 4 of the 20 FDA-approved methods. Hobby Lobby still provides coverage for 16 of the 20 FDA-approved methods.

      • jmpo’lock

        So, when a company decides which 16 of 20 doctors are religiously acceptable to them, you’re just cool with that too?

        • OnPointComments

          You’re fantasizing. That didn’t happen.

          • jmpo’lock

            Maybe not YET, that’s the point man!

          • Arkuy The Great

            Reductio ad absurdam. That’s the point, Bubba!

          • jmpo’lock

            Oh really? Evidently you know the minds of conservative Christians perfectly, because I’m sure they wouldn’t mind paying for services from doctors who (God forbid!) preform abortions…

          • warryer

            Speculation and hearsay. Where is your hard proof?

          • jmpo’lock

            I see, you don’t seem to understand the term “consequences”
            Do you go through your entire life taking actions without thinking about their ramifications? Do you know what that word means?
            Let me see, like thinking invading Iraq would be a great idea, cheap, sprout democracy, and greeted as liberators?

          • warryer

            All you have are talking points.

      • manganbr

        What does this have to do with my point?

        • OnPointComments

          If an employer pays for the health insurance plan, the employer pays for all services and products in the plan.

          • jmpo’lock

            No more than saying that since you get paid by your boss, he pays for your food, thus should have the religious freedom to limit your food choices….

          • jefe68

            No soup for you!!!!
            Next!

          • manganbr

            Yes, but you clearly don’t understand my point. The payment for the birth control is not direct, until the employee chooses to activate it–it’s a credit that can be used in different ways–not all employees will choose to use birth control—in the same way, paying an employee a salary is another mode of credit–you give them cash which they can choose to use in various ways–the employer can no more claim control over how the employee uses the credit of their health insurance than they can control how they use their salary–in both cases its the employee’s conscience that bears the full moral responsibility. The employer is just providing health insurance credit on top of their salary–its just another cash exchange that makes up the employee’s overall compensation package, and which the employee retains rights to use as they see fit–that’s how credit works in an exchange based market economy. Trying to attach one’s conscience to what a third party does with your money after the initial exchange is untenable.

          • TFRX

            You got your hands on a troll. You can let go of trying to get any sense outten him at any time.

            Good questions, but you’re asking up the wrong tree.

          • jmpo’lock

            I’d love it if the insurance companies would just say no, it’s too difficult to craft (pun intended) a policy just for your company. We just can’t figure out here at Aetna (or whoever) when a BC script is from a Hobby Lobby worker, or any other company, sorry.

          • OnPointComments

            An employer may decide that part of an employee’s compensation is a company car, but that doesn’t mean the employee has the choice of every car that is currently manufactured with every available option. The employer gets to choose which specific car is part of the employee’s compensation.

            An employer may decide that a health plan will be part of an employee’s compensation, but that doesn’t mean that the health plan has to include every available medical service, product, or procedure that is currently available. The employer gets to choose which specific services and procedures are included in the health plan.

            In this particular instance, the Supreme Court has said the Hobby Lobby health insurance plan does not have to include 4 of the 20 FDA-approved methods of contraception.

          • manganbr

            I imagine that the restrictions on the company car largely have to do with cost (are health care plans without birth control coverage cheaper?). Does the employer have the right to restrict employees from selling the company car and buying a different one with the money? I’m not clear on what exactly the legal ground for this authority involves, are you?

            But this is all beside the point (again!). Your analogy in no way bears on the employer’s conscience–which is the fundamental issue here–in your example, the employer does not restrict the employee’s choice of this perk on the basis of their religiously rooted conscientious objection to General Motors products. So whatever legal grounding the employer has to regulate the company car, it is in no way whatsoever related to the legal grounding the Supreme Court has given to employers in this case. Do you wish to abandon the freedom of conscience as the basis of defense. Because once you do, you can’t have it back. That chess piece is off the board.

            Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, they are not entitled to their own rules of logic–the supreme court must try to apply the tenets of the constitution in the most rational way, and there is simply not, as you continue to show, a rational case to be made in defense of this decision. Making employer’s pay for health care plans that allow employees to choose to utilize birth control should in no way infringe on the employer’s conscience anymore than the idea that employees will use their cash salary for “nefarious” ends. This is the core argument you would have to grapple with. I’m open to counter-arguments that actually engage directly with this point. In fact, I’m hoping that someone will try to offer one. But your point about company cars is just a red herring.

          • OnPointComments

            Why did the Obama administration and HHS Secretary Sebelius allow an exception to religious nonprofits to provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans?

  • jimino

    How often does the lead to a story about this Court’s decision have to read “for the first time in history the Supreme Court ruled . . . .” before it is widely recognized as the most activist bunch of judges ever?

    • M S

      Aren’t most cases referred to the Supreme Court because of a lack of precedence?

      • jimino

        The SC has carte blanche discretion in determining which cases it takes. This Court has overruled long-established precedent in many of its decisions as well as overturning legislative acts more than any other Court. That is clearly the work of activist judges, but people only complain about that activity when they don’t like the decision.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    I can’t abide by Obama’s war on women. He refuses to pay for everyone’s birth control with an executive order.

  • StilllHere

    I support this decision and Hobby Lobby, and I will support them with my wallet. Way to go Hobby Lobby!

    • JGC

      “From knitting, crocheting, sewing and bow-making to floral designs and seasonal decorations, Hobby Lobby will take your projects from drab to fab!”

      You can even “Create your own backyard Oasis!”

      Time to get crackin’, StillHere and OPC!

      • hennorama

        JGC — “bow-making”? Awesome!

        Now all those would-be Katnisses can make their own equipment! Any details about arrows?

        • JGC

          I don’t know about that, but maybe they could knit some gavel-cozies for Justices Alito and Scalia.

          • 1Brett1

            “gavel cozies”! That gets my vote for best comment of the day! ;-)

            Hobby Lobby now offers materials for making the Allto/Scalia gavel-cozy! Make yours today!

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — it’s not the comment so much as the mental image it engenders.

          • 1Brett1

            Okay, that runs a close second!

          • 1Brett1

            I wonder if they sell materials for making ‘nosegays’?

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — {ahem} Are those same-sex Alaskan Native kissers?

          • pete18

            Or some IUD sweaters for Justice Ginsberg.

          • JGC

            Sorry. Hobby Lobby cannot ethically sell their yarns for the purpose of making IUD sweaters.

          • 1Brett1

            NO, but they are free to invest heavily in the companies making those yarns for IUD sweaters…this is America, for chrissakes!

      • StilllHere

        There’s that and so much more!

    • pm05

      So, you are okay about buying products from China and their mandatory abortions. Interesting!

      • StilllHere

        The small, closely-held businesses that sell their products, whether American or Chinese, shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of a government controlled by an illegitimate, dictatorial regime, whether American or Chinese.

        • dizzy7

          Small, closely held? Are you not aware that over 90% of all US corporations are classified as closely held. You know, tiny little outfits like Cargill, Heinz, Koch Industries, etc.

          • StilllHere

            Are you not aware that over 90% of all US corporations employ fewer than 50 people? So citing 3 outliers (actually 2 since Heinz was a public company before a private equity group bought it) is less than worthless.

          • dizzy7

            I think I’ll pass, since I’m pretty sure that everyone but you can understand the point I was making about many very large businesses being closely held without me having to list all 27+ million closely held businesses incorporated in the US.

          • StilllHere

            I’ll accept your concession.

  • TFRX

    Justice Stevens, in his writing with the majority in Citizens United: “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.”

    Boy, that was a long time ago, wasn’t it?

  • Potter

    The George W Bush presidency (8 years no less!): the gift that keeps on giving.

    Why Today’s Hobby Lobby Decision Actually Hurts People Of Faith

    • Sy2502

      Good try, but I am pretty sure the idea of religious freedom was around long before George W. Bush.

  • pm05

    Hobby Lobby buys their supplies from CHINA! Hobby Lobby offers retirement packages that include pharma companies that makes these birth control products. Hobby Lobby and the 5 white guys on the Supreme Court are dishonest and/or ignorant …. or worse ………

    • jefe68

      The conservative members of the SCOTUS are selective, and all the old men on the court seem to have issues with women.

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s your kind of vacuous logic that is America’s biggest challenge.

        • jefe68

          The bottom feeder strikes again.
          Yawn.

          It’s a called an opinion sparky.
          The right wingers on the Roberts court is one of the worst in post WW2 history.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Or maybe they are just giving their professional opinion, and discrimination has nothing to do with it.

        • jefe68

          Really? Then why did they leave out the any of the coverage for mens health care?
          Or why did they not address that the employees are paying for the healthcare through wage reductions and yet they are not allowed to have a choice in the kind of insurance they may want.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Men don’t have to go to the doctor and get health insurance in order to buy condoms.

            Pretty simple.

            As for the second part of your question, that is a question for the Heritage, Obama, Romney affordable care act engineers, not the court.

    • StilllHere

      I’m having trouble understanding where your racism is really directed, Asians or Caucasians.

    • OnPointComments

      Is it your contention that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is white?

      Sheesh. And you say Hobby Lobby and the “5 white guys on the Supreme Court” are ignorant.

  • HonestDebate1

    Obama issued an EO that broke the law democrats overwhelmingly supported. The SCOTUS confirmed it. What’s not to like?

    • TFRX

      So much bullshat here from asshats competing to be the One True most useless superhero anywhere, Captain Condom.

      • jefe68

        I think HD gets the prize for ass-haberdashery…

      • HonestDebate1

        My comment is righteous as hell, there is nothing wrong about it.

        • jefe68

          Says you.

  • ce373

    People are on the face of the earth to Honor and Glorify the Great Triune God of the Bible (i.e. Elohim; Genesis 1:1) and to spread the Gospel; but, we have to do it Elohim’s way. You might ask why? Well, when Elohim is Glorified, it draws other people to Him so that He can Bless and Prosper them to; sometimes beyond their wildest dreams!!! We could have been born in the most oppressive country in the world!

    The so called “secular world” is a misnomer because people past, present and future have one thing in common, they are without excuse because they should know Elohim through His Creation (Romans 1:20). To know this awesome Creator as mentioned in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, makes one to spiritually want to have a Spiritual Relationship with this Unfathomable Triune God even though God gives us free will to resist Him our entire life.

    Not only are we Created in the Image of God, we are Created in the Image of Christ and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:26); no wonder we need Spiritual Food!

    Some of the most powerful Sanctity of Life Scriptures are Psalms 139:13-16 which can be integrated with Proverbs 22:6 to really help people raise their Children the Way God Gifted and Wired them etc.; especially, if they let the Holy Spirit, Tempered with Scripture and Prayer Guide them because Scripture is Spiritually Discerned (1Corinthians 2:14); Scripture Balances Scripture!

    We can experience Christian Liberty the Way God Intended or we can be in bondage through a phenomenal number of ways which people just seem to want to do to themselves when they could be experiencing the More Abundant Life that Christ Promised (John 10:10)!

    Websites that help me are as follows:

    http://www.blueletterbible.org

    http://www.gotquestions.org

    http://www.biblehelp.org

    • jefe68

      Oy vey.

      • 1Brett1

        “In the beginning…”

    • J__o__h__n

      At least Ed is brief.

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

  • Flannery Ellis

    I lived in South Korea for nearly 4 years – generic brands of birth control were available over the counter for about $5. Friends who also lived in Korea and now live in Kuwait have found that birth control is also available there OTC at low cost. THAT is the way to begin to resolve and address the root of this problem in the U.S. Stop treating B.C. like it should be withheld from any woman for any reason – Hobby Lobby, lack of Rx, Supreme Court Rulings, etc. And make it affordable for everyone.

    • OnPointComments

      Birth control is available now, without insurance, at
      Kroger: $9/month or $24/3 months
      Target: $9/month
      Wal-Mart: $9/month
      Sam’s Club: $9/month

      No one is withholding birth control from any woman.

      • TFRX

        Go away, douchenozzle.

        People want what they’ve fukking worked for which is part of their total compensation.

        • Salty

          If you don’t like it – quit.

      • Flannery Ellis

        Rx still needed?

        • OnPointComments

          I believe that women are absolutely capable of getting a prescription from a doctor and paying $9 a month for birth control. Don’t you?

          • Flannery Ellis

            I strongly believe that no Rx should be required for birth control. But this is running a little off point with regard to the larger repercussions of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Finally a Woman I AGREE WITH!!!!!

            <3

          • jefe68

            Comprehension issues I see.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Your own developmental disabilities have nothing to do with me, Jeffy.

            I agree with what she said, ALL contraceptives should be available over-the-counter.

            Now what about that is unclear to your pea brain???

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            YES!!!!!

          • Salty

            Yep – still easy.

      • Salty

        Yep – easy.

  • PerryM9

    Does the Alito ruling in Hobby Lobby allow insurance payments for contraceptives used for medical non-birth control reasons, such as breakthrough bleeding? If not, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to deny medical care just because someone does not personally like the drug prescribed, as it appears some suggest.

  • keltcrusader

    Women pay health insurance premiums or it is a earned benefit from their employer sponsored plan- there is no free ride here, just no co-pay because it is preventative care medicine. They cover men’s medical needs, but not women’s? That smacks of discrimination based on gender.

  • Jim Byrnes

    The ruling is another argument in favor of a national health insurance system as it the case in most advanced countries worldwide. Our citizens should not be subject to a patchwork system with the rules set by many thousands of employers and subject to whims of managements. Furthermore those systems are much lower cost than our hybrid system in the US and most of them have better health outcomes among the population.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    If anything, this decision is a reason to get rid of corporate personhood…

    • Eliza_Bee

      You really need to educate yourself on the uses of prescription contraceptives. And contraceptives are key to womens’ economic health, not just their physical health. (Sure you’re not Neanderthal the Ignorant??)

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        At issue is not the economic health of women, but the legality of the affordable care act.

        I don’t need to educate myself since I am already educated.

        I didn’t say “prescription contraceptives”. I said contraceptives. Then went on to talk about the issue at hand.

        Sure you’re not Lucy the missing link?

        • jefe68

          Yeah, you sure seem like a real bright fellow… Well maybe not so much.

          The two are not actually separated.
          How is that you can be so ignorant to the history of women in the work place and the role that contraception has played in them controlling their lives?

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Their relationship has no bearing on how a law should be interpreted.

            Are you saying that because contraception has played an important role in women controlling their lives, employers should have to pay for it?

            That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

            Would you also say that because male pattern baldness affects men’s self esteem in the workplace, employers should have to pay for the finasteride or propecia?

          • jefe68

            I never said anything about employers paying for anything. You seem woefully ignorant on so many levels on so many things. You do know that employees are also paying into the insurance policies.
            That workers have also been paying more of their own health insurance without any choice as to the kind of coverage they are paying for.

            The last paragraph is inane nonsense.
            I am left wondering if you even know any women at all.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Actually, I understand the issue perfectly. I simplify my explanations for those who are intellectually challenged.

            When you say they have no choice what kind of coverage they are paying for, you are showing your idiocy or your bias.

            Anyone can refuse employee health insurance and simply buy their own. That way, they can choose the insurance of their choice.

            I don’t think employers should have to pay for health insurance AT ALL, unless they WANT to, of course.

            Health insurance should be nationalized and based on the congressional health care plan.

            Duh.

        • Eliza_Bee

          You need to re-think your idea of what educated means. Prescription contraceptives are used for a number of common health problems, including ovarian cysts, endometriosis, acne, and dysmenorrhea.

          See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22060223

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Then, they should not be called “contraceptives”. They should be assigned a designation that represents their intended function and should not be misused.

            Pretty obvious.

          • Salty

            They would not be prescribed as contraceptives in that case.

            This is getting to be like batting practice.

    • Salty

      You are exactly right. Contraception cover behavior issues NOT health issues.

  • HonestDebate1

    No, they cover 14 types of birth control.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    Contraception should not be the purview of health care in the first place. It should be over-the-counter!

    • Eliza_Bee

      Insert-it-yourself IUDs? Intellectual fail.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Okay. Fair enough. It should not be the purview of health “insurance”.

        You buy the stuff over the counter, and the doctor “installs” it.

        Pretty simple Eliza.

        • Eliza_Bee

          Would you advocate the same for joint replacements, pacemakers, etc.? Buy the hardware yourself, and take it with you when you go in for the procedure?

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            HELL YES

          • jefe68

            Wow. How old are you?

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            If your question is some sort of bizarre attempt at flirtation – I am sorry to inform you I am not available.

          • jefe68

            Nope. Just trying to see if you’re immaturity is due to being a under 25.
            If you’re over 25, grow up pal.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Can you levitate, manifest gold dust in your palms, live forever?

            If not, don’t give advice…

    • jefe68

      It’s funny how some men think he can be the best authority on woman’s health issues. Would you like it if women told you to buy a pair of scissors and some rubbing alcohol if you want to get a vasectomy?

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Since that would make absolutely no sense, no I would not like it.

        Since surgical scissors are a tool the doctor can use over and over again, and I’m not “consuming” them, your comparison makes no sense.

        Whereas, the products women “need” are consumables and ought to be available over the counter.

        • jefe68

          Wow, you really are not getting this are you.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            We both know your IQ is about FIFTY points lower than mine. Most of the time when I’m attempting to communicate with you it reminds me of trying to communicate with my cat.

          • jefe68

            I see, with that moniker one would think boasting about ones IQ might not be so prudent a way to pass the time.

            I also wonder about ones level of intelligence if they have problems seeing how most religious conservative issues regarding women are in the dark ages.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I don’t care about politics, either right or left, (I’m Left Libertarian) and I certainly don’t care about religious fundamentalism.
            Both of which contribute to bias which prevents one from seeing truth and fact clearly. And propaganda. Please. I eat propaganda for breakfast and smear the feces back on whoever paid for the propaganda, right OR left.

            I take great pleasure in being me.

            I ONLY care about TRUTH and FACT.

          • jefe68

            Libertarian. Well that explains a lot.
            I don’t see to much truth or fact in a lot of your comments. Some interesting conjecturing, but that’s about it.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            That is due to narcissism and bias blinding your ability to see and comprehend truth and fact.

            And I said LEFT-Libertarian.

            Go read a book. Learn something.

      • Salty

        So the women should go out and buy their own.

        Insurance shouldn’t cover something that a change in behavior can take care of.

        Easy.

        • jefe68

          Then they should not cover anything to do with men either.

  • Daniel Key

    What if I claimed that I was part of a religion that’s only tenet was that the god I worshipped forbade the paying of taxes? I mean, how does one define a religion? Does it have to be a well established religion with other members and buildings in which we worship? I suppose my point is that it seems that anyone could claim they have religious objections to anything that is regulated by government.

    • AriD2385

      The Supreme Court already has a precedent for what qualifies as legitimate religious belief. More importantly, though, this belief is not arbitrary or simply made up by the Hobby Lobby owners to get out of providing a certain benefit. They held these beliefs completely separate from any business decisions they made.

      • Salty

        Yep. Easy. But so many won’t get it.

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      That’s so genius I might actually do it, and get Wesley Snipes to be the pope!

  • Cutler Hamilton

    I pity the guys on this board that thought this was a good decision. Corporations are one step closer to having more rights than citizens (if not already). And that last guy talking about the Bible curriculum being tested in Oklahoma and some museum being built near the Capitol. Listen……the last thing this world needs right now are more people on their knees praying. Wanna pray? Fine….but do it in your places of worship, homes, with families, etc. But right now, this planet, this nation needs all the mathematicians, engineers, and scientists it can get. The last thing teachers need are lessons in how to promote a particular faith 8 hours a day. The reason why our Founding Fathers lined the 1st Amendment with the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is so smaller groups of people (in this case a corporation with a few family members) cannot push their religious ideology on to others. The really stupid part of this is that corporations used to be satisfied with making money. Stupendous amounts of money earned in a relatively short amount of time. In most cases this is done by energy companies (oil, natural gas) that have quarterly profits rivaling most small countries GDP for an entire year. And the people who think this is great are the ones in control of stupid decisions like this. I guess we deserve better, but then some a$$hole on here will probably try to be smart and call me a “liberal”. Hate as much as you want. Doesn’t change the fact that this society is in dire straits. Opposing views should never be placed directly opposite each other and fired off. Sometimes it’s worse than gun violence.

    • pete18

      “(in this case a corporation with a few family members) cannot push their religious ideology on to others.”

      Exactly how are they “pushing their religious ideology on to others”? Not funding a particular medical practice on people who freely choose to work at a company does not impose religion on anybody.

      • TFRX

        Look, asshat, it’s a goddamn corporation. Not a religion or a church.

        Pick. One.

        • J__o__h__n

          I can see how people are confusing corporations and churches. The churches are probably more profitable.

          • jefe68

            No taxes. Corporations are working on that…

          • 1Brett1

            I used to go by the Mormon Temple in Kensington, Md…it is the tallest temple in the US, encased in solid marble with solid gold spires (although, supposedly, not as opulent as the one in Utah). It was finished in ’74. But, hey, all of that opulence pales in comparison to the Vatican and the deep pockets of Catholicism. As with other religions, it seems all of that “helping the poor” stuff is secondary to creating wealth for the sake of displaying wealth…can’t you see how they all need tax-exempt status to help their causes?

        • pete18

          Run by people, who have religious beliefs protected by the constitution.

          Watch out, you’re gonna grow hair on your palms.

          • StilllHere

            Too late.

          • jefe68

            Troll alert ^^^

          • StilllHere

            asshat alert^^^

          • jefe68

            Ahh it’s so cute when the little troll boy makes an attempt at being amusing.
            Watch that slime trail boy….

          • jefe68

            And they are taking the wages that people who work for them and making decisions about what kind of health insurance to provide. The owners of Hobby Lobby are not paying for the insurance 100% out of their pockets. It’s deducted from the wages of the employees. It seems that you and the SCOTUS have somehow missed this point.

          • Salty

            …buy your own insurance if you don’t like what your employer provides.

            This is way too easy…

          • pete18

            Yes, that’s called a benefit. They offer you wages and a certain type of health plan for your labor. If you want to have your contraceptives covered, or a higher wage or better decorations in your office, or a nicer parking space, find an employer who offers it. There are plenty to pick from, the vast majority in fact.

          • jefe68

            It’s deducted from your wages.
            So you are paying for it which is something that most people on this forum seem to be forgetting. Your comment is full of crap. by the way. Workers have rights and the trend in this country has been in squashing them. You seem to support that idea. That somehow people do not matter. That the bottom line is all that matters. Well at the end of the day the worst companies have the highest turnover for a reason. They treat people like shite.

          • pete18

            Yes, that is my position, “people don’t matter.” How does your mind come up with this garbage?

            A wage, benefit, parking space, plush office, great cafeteria, or five-week vacation are all part of the terms a company offers you for your service. If a company offers you less money than you would like, or an office space that is painted purple instead of green, or a requirement to wear ugly or revealing uniforms (think Hooters) they are not depriving you of your rights, those are the terms of their offer. You can always say, “no.”

            I personally don’t think it’s a wise idea to not offer contraception coverage in a policy because I don’t find it offense to my religious beliefs and I think it might limit the amount of qualified candidates that would be attracted to apply to my company if I had one. But the court has decided that it is within Hobby Lobby’s rights to decide otherwise. No one is having religion forced upon them, or having their rights taken away, they are just not receiving a benefit or payment as part of a JOB that is being OFFERED to them by Hobby Lobby. If they don’t like the uniform, salary, office or health coverage they can find a job SOMEWHERE ELSE.

          • TFRX

            Another Captain Condom heard from.

          • pete18

            A balloon filled with juice.

          • TFRX

            Justice Stevens, in his writing with the majority in Citizens United: “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.”

        • HonestDebate1

          Doesn’t matter.

      • StilllHere

        You’re going to make the monkey jump with that one.

        Oh, look, there he goes.

        • jefe68

          Troll alert ^

      • Salty

        Yep… If you don’t like it – don’t work there. That’s like a hanging curve, just too easy.

        I know, I know… what if the employer wanted to stop covering _______________. Or if the employer tried to stop its employees from ___________ or force them to ____________. Some answer – if you don’t like it – quit. It is their company. They DID build that. It does NOT belong to the employees.

      • TFRX

        It’s a fugging corporation. Justice Stevens, in his writing with the majority in Citizens United: “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.”

        • pete18

          If that’s so then I guess there’s no way that they could have “pushed their religion on anyone.”

    • warryer

      What about engineers that pray?

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Are you referring to engineers as objects, such as an artificial intelligence capable of engineering? Or did you mean, “engineers who pray”?

  • TFRX

    Bullshat.

    The workers are not working for fukking free and the things insurance covers are not bestowed on workers by the goodness of the lords the serfs toil for.

    • Salty

      Then quit. Should workers be allowed to sue Chick Fillet for not being able or allowed ot work on Sundays? If you really want to work on Sundays DON’T work for CF. If you really want certain types of contraceptives covered – work for someone else.

      This is way too easy…Even the straws that are getting grasped must be bored by now.

  • davecm

    Once again Onpoint and the liberal know it all groups manage to spin the whole subject into a political train wreck. Each and every time I listen to this program I am more convinced it is becoming just another arm of the liberal machine bent on herding everyone onto the Democratic plantation. Hobby Lobby is not against birth control, they provide 16 out of the 20 mandated ones, only the 4 that are the abortion pills. Funny, we don’t want employers telling us what to do, but some seem not to mind went the Govt. tells us what to do, say, drive, live, eat, drink, etc.

    • harverdphd

      crickets…

    • jefe68

      What’s that smell? Why it’s the stench of mendacity.

      • StilllHere

        Take a shower then stinky.

        • jefe68

          Grow up troll.

    • TFRX

      Abortion pills?

      Try again.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        He’s right, actually. It’s been proven contraceptives can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. I’m not arguing morality or the mechanics of incarnation here, just stating a fact.

  • jimino

    Putting aside the issue of giving for-profit corporations the statutory protections that were clearly not intended by the law under review, the religious beliefs of those who prevailed in this case DO NOT oppose contraception. They oppose abortion, and MISTAKENLY BELIEVE some forms of contraception cause abortions. So what this decision actually does is provide constitutional protection for something that doesn’t really exist in the fact-based world.

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      It’s not mistakenly. They DO cause abortions. As for whether the spirit is in the zygote at that stage and whether or not that is murder, is another debate altogether.

      • jefe68

        You do realize that contraception is designed to stop conception. Right?
        Even morning after pills are not inducing an abortion.

        Where’s Mothra when you need her?

        http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

        • Godzilla the Intellectual

          There are twenty different types of “contraceptives” mentioned. Some of them being broadly and liberally classified as contraceptives, some which can cause abortions unintentionally, and some which never cause abortions, and some which cause abortions intentionally.

          • jefe68

            Name one.
            Because I’ve not seen to many contraception practices that are designed to induce an abortion. The morning after pill does not cause the women to abort.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Right from wikipedia.

            “One clinical study found that post-ovulatory administration of ulipristal acetate altered the endometrium, but whether the changes would inhibit implantation is unknown.[3][109] The European EMA-approved labels for ulipristal acetate emergency contraceptive pills do not mention an effect on implantation, but the U.S. FDA-approved label says: “alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy.”

            DING!

          • jefe68

            And yet there a plenty of studies to refute your claim.
            For some guy who thinks he’s sooooo smart you sure act like a child.
            Grow up.

            http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

            How does ella work to prevent pregnancies?

            Ella is effective at preventing pregnancy by inhibiting or delaying ovulation. Studies show it is particularly effective during the time when a woman has the highest chance of getting pregnant and are most likely to be having sex, immediately prior to when the egg is released by the ovary.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I’m not suggesting it doesn’t work by its intended mechanism. Both Wikipedia and myself are saying IT MAY prevent implantation, which is tantamount to abortion if the egg is already fertilized.
            Clearly, what the Conservatives are saying, is they don’t want that “risk” on their conscience.

            I’m not saying I agree one way or the other, but based on the facts, I can understand them not wanting any moral responsibility for “abortion”.

            Again, whether abortion at that stage is murder is another debate.

          • Eliza_Bee

            Two-thirds of fertilized eggs fail to implant. Does an abortion happen if no one knows a fertilized egg didn’t implant?

            What happens to the spirits of frozen embryos?

            Your thinking about pregnancy is enmeshed in religious belief. That’s fine for you, but it doesn’t apply to me.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Since science DOES know its possible for contraceptives to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, that is not the same thing as “no one knowing”.

            “What happens to the spirits of frozen embryos?” What makes you think I would be an authority on spirituality?

            I don’t care about politics, either right or left, (I’m Left Libertarian) and I certainly don’t care about religious fundamentalism.

            Both of which contribute to bias which prevents one from seeing truth and fact clearly.

            I ONLY care about TRUTH and FACT.

            Since you immediately assumed my statements were based on religious persuasion, it indicates laziness and narcissism on your part.

            Work on not making assumptions.

          • Eliza_Bee

            Religious or not, you’re willing to let some unusual religious beliefs (spirits in zygotes, elimination of unimplanted embryos = murder) dictate health insurance. About 50% of people are employed by closely held companies.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I think health insurance should be nationalized. I think all corporations should be cooperatives where employees are part-owners of the company.

            If someone owns the company, its THEIR company.

            Employees can quit anytime they choose and work somewhere else or start a cooperative corporation.

            Forcing a company to pay for employee health care is ABSURD and BANAL.

          • jefe68

            That’s true, it’s their company.
            However unless you’re a person shop you need people to get the job done.
            Kind of a problem there.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            ???

      • Jake Hawkes

        They do not cause abortions anymore than masturbation does.
        This is just another case of letting conservative insanity get coded into law.
        …and BTW…if you don’t believe in abortions…don’t have one….and mind your own business…..

        • Godzilla the Intellectual

          Masturbation would not prevent implantation of the egg. And since contraceptives MAY prevent implantation of the egg, in fact, your statement is false…

          “One clinical study found that post-ovulatory administration of ulipristal acetate altered the endometrium, but whether the changes would inhibit implantation is unknown.[3][109] The European EMA-approved labels for ulipristal acetate emergency contraceptive pills do not mention an effect on implantation, but the U.S. FDA-approved label says: “alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy.”

        • Salty

          Jake – many folks won’t let reason and facts inform their opinions. You are correct but you won’t convince them.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            You upvoted my comment and then you agreed with Jake.

            “One clinical study found that post-ovulatory administration of ulipristal acetate altered the endometrium, but whether the changes would inhibit implantation is unknown.[3][109] The European EMA-approved labels for ulipristal acetate emergency contraceptive pills do not mention an effect on implantation, but the U.S. FDA-approved label says: “alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy.”

          • Jake Hawkes

            Salty,

            You are of course 100% correct. Many people will hold on to their sick beliefs even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

            When I wrote that comment I should have referenced scientists and experts in human biology, given a reasoned and thoughtful opinion on a woman’s right to choose, and sighted historical examples of other laws that defy logic and what should be done about it.

            But at the time I was still mad about the Supreme Courts decision….
            …and as Martin Luther King said:
            The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.

          • Salty

            The above was meant for Godzilla NOT Jake, my mistake. Jake is incorrect. The methods in questions affect the fertilized egg – many see that as a abortion. Methods to prevent fertilization are the ones that were approved.

            So…

            * Don’t believe in murder – then don’t kill anyone.

            * Don’t believe in child abuse – then don’t abuse children.

            * Don’t believe in animal abuse or neglect – the don’t abuse or neglect animals.

            * Don’t believe running through the streets naked screaming like a crazy person – then don’t do it.

            (Can I stop now, or do you need more?)

  • Guest
    • 1Brett1

      It makes sense that you would gravitate toward anything that mentions crack, no matter what the context.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    Wow you are completely insane.

    • keltcrusader

      no completely sane and paying close attention to the insanity going on on this country.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        If what you are saying is true, then why did the corporations in question stop providing contraceptive insurance in 2012, right after the affordable care act was signed into law???????

        This case has nothing to do with religion. Religion is just the excuse.

        This was PURELY to undermine the affordable care act.

        Corporations don’t want to be told what to do by the government, and be burdened by additional costs.

        The low hanging fruit and easiest target happened to be contraceptive insurance.

        This is not the puritan 1800s. It’s about MONEY.

        Wake up hippy!

        • keltcrusader

          no, it is completely about controlling women and their reproductive lives

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            No. it is exclusively about money.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    As is typical of these forums, the level of intellect of those making the most impassioned comments is severely lacking.

    Before you make assumptions, get all the facts instead of wielding your wound as a weapon.

    Most of you are just so unintelligible as to make this experience a tedious one.

    • hennorama

      Godzilla the Intellectual — please allow me to introduce one of my “Followers”:

      https://disqus.com/home/user/IHateFatChicks

      Perhaps you two can play a game of

      ¿Quién es más inteligente?

      • brettearle

        His hubris is adolescent.

        • hennorama

          brettearle — TYFYR.

          That is implicit in my comment.

          I wonder if I should warn [Godzilla the Intellectual] that the LoatherOfLargeYoungPoultry will want him to “whip out” his CV, sheepskins, bank records, and balance sheet, in addition to his pointy IQ.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I’ve already dealt with “Ihatefatchicks”. I destroyed him in a debate and he has formally joined the ranks of those who don’t have courage or intellect to challenge me.

            Up until this point, hennorama, I have found you to be a respectful and generous contributor to this forum.

            But I see no reason to lower your standards for the sake of an insult. Your analogy is suspect anyway.

            Fat Chicks is an idiot, whereas I am an legitimately a genius.

            Ever hear of the “Mega Society”?

          • jefe68

            Maybe, but very immature.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Or, as I have stated previously, how do you know my “persona” is not contrived or even an invented strategy toward a specific goal?

          • jefe68

            I don’t. If you’re doing this to be coy, it’s failing. If you think you’re being funny, well it’s not funny. I’m not sure what your “specific goal” is nor do I give a toss.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            ***clapping***

            It’s none of your concern.

            Just know, most of the things you post on here are factually wrong and / or false.

          • hennorama

            Godzilla the Intellectual — thank you for your response.

            Your self-proclamations are interesting in an entertaining way, but also proof that intelligence and an ability to communicate effectively and respectfully are not necessarily coincident.

            If your goal is to alienate the reader, repeatedly writing, in effect, “I’m smarter than you, so shut up,” will indeed go far to accomplish that goal.

            As will keeping a sort of public score, as you have above.

            If you are as intelligent as you proclaim, you have no need to proclaim. In the same way that the fool proves his status when he opens his mouth, your intellect will be apparent to the reader.

            The above is a long way to get to the point, which is a gentle nudge to you to cool your rhetorical jets.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Awww. I didn’t know you cared.

            You’re dreamy!

            But remember, the fool is the HIGHEST card in the tarot deck FOR A REASON.

            And how do you know my “persona” is not contrived for a specific reason or toward a specific end?

        • jefe68

          You think?

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Are you guys actual homosexuals or are you more the Burt and Ernie type roommates?

            I am cool with both.

          • jefe68

            There it is, the adolescent aside.
            You need a shovel for that hole you’re digging?

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            My question was not intended as an insult. I apologize if it came across as such.

            I was genuinely asking.

          • jefe68

            If you’re trying to be comedic, don’t give up the day job.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I assume you mean, “day job.”

            Berry well.

          • brettearle

            If you continue to pursue this line of questioning, you will be flagged.

            I warned you last week about this exact same subject. You subsequently ran off, with your tail between your legs by apologizing and eliminating your comment.

            But now your Pathology rises up, yet again.

            You continue down this road, in any way, and I will issue a formal complaint.

            This will be my last warning.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I have NEVER stuck my tail between my legs. My apologies are always genuine.

            I don’t run from anything. EVER.

            You least of all…

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I have no idea what road you are referring to. Most of the time your banal drivel makes no sense.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Brett, if you continue down this path you are on, I swear I shall thrash your words as if they were a mexican pinata, ruffian!

            Hooligan!

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            For example, the word “gay”. Where I grew up, gay did not refer to homosexuality. It referred directly to something being stupid or banal.

            So, when my childhood friends and I said, “That’s so gay!” in a disparaging way, to us it never meant homosexual.

            I cant tell you how many times I have been mortified by how utterly narcissistic and unjust it is when a homosexual person gets offended when I say, “That’s so gay!” Because it never meant homosexual for me or my friends growing up. And since the historical definition is “happy” I always get offended right back, and have to explain to them the whole situation and how ridiculous they are for thinking they own the word gay. I am participating in social justice by reclaiming the word gay.

            And by the way, I consider myself an ally.

          • brettearle

            Ladies and Gentlemen, Godzilla just eliminated words that were potentially inflammatory–after my warning…

            He just excised the comment above.,

            His tail, once again, between his legs….

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I readily admit, I edited my comment.

            Is that not allowed on this forum?

            You sure like to talk about things being between my legs.

          • jefe68

            Grow up.

          • brettearle

            Is the Pope, Francis?

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            I would rather have an adolescent hubris than a geriatric haggis.

          • brettearle

            I know

    • StilllHere

      Expect the wounded to get on your case.

      Oh, look, here they are.

  • Salty

    This is like a hanging curve, just too easy. If you don’t like a policy your employer has, quit. After all, you chose to work there.

    But what if the employer wanted to stop covering _______________. Or if the employer tried to stop its employees from ___________ or force them to ____________. Some answer – if you don’t like it – quit. It is their company. They DID build that. It does NOT belong to the employees.

    • brettearle

      Businesses don’t operate in a vacuum–especially without regard for the rights of their workers.

      If I had a dollar bill, for every time a worker has been exploited or mistreated by a business, I’d be a very wealthy man.

      • Salty

        Companies that take care of workers will have a choice of high quality workers and will prosper. Treat them poorly and the business will not proper. Because they will not have quality workers.

        Next question.

        • StilllHere

          You need to explain that to those who work in the public sector. Sad, but true.

          • jefe68

            Next time you need a cop call a private security firm.

          • Salty

            They principal applies in the public sector. If you don’t like your job – quit.

        • brettearle

          The Next Question is your utter Denial & Ignorance about the brutal reality of the workplace, in the 21st century–where many workers complain of being overstressed, overworked, and underappreciated.

          Next Question. And make it sensible this time.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Obviously, a percentage of workers, statistically, have legitimate complaints, a percentage are unhappy for existential reasons that are not the fault of their employ, but their own lack of self-inquiry, a percentage DON’T voice their complaints for various reasons (fear perhaps being chief among them), a percentage are happy with their job but feel pressured to join the “complaint” union, and there are no doubt other categories as well.

            SO, what percentage, Brett, do you contend have legitimate complaints?

            I am actually curious about this, now.

          • Salty

            If they don’t like their job they should quit.

            Companies have owners. The owners make the decisions, not the workers. Now cooperation and collaboration is is best for sure.

          • Salty

            …then quit.

          • brettearle

            Oh, sure.

            Then quit….he says!

            Great advice!

            How many men, women, and children would wind up pitching tents, in the streets of America?

            “Then quit”, he says!

            Just simply a great piece of advice.

            Don’t stop there. Keep it up!

          • Salty

            You are right. It is simple. Man up and take care of your family. Don’t rely on others to do it for you. You work FOR an employer – that’s the nature of being HIRED. You want to make the rules, work for yourself.

          • brettearle

            Mr.Rugged Individualist who seems to be utterly and totally oblivious to the dysfunction of the workplace–where the lives of men and women are being shortened by 20 years, every day.

            That’s it Mr. Tough Guy keep it up!

            Nobody has your strength!

            Nobody!

          • Salty

            That doesn’t even make any sense. I guess this debate has ended. ( I acknowledge I am slightly utopian. I also acknowledge that to take your labor to another employer you need marketable skills. That’s why education is so important.)

          • brettearle

            Right Wingers and/or Independents and/or Libertarians, like you, see the World of America through an obdurate prism.

            You have Cold, Hard, Inflexible Values, such as:

            Suck it Up

            Pick Yourself Up By Your Bootstraps

            America is the Greatest or Needs To Be the Greatest

            Hard work brings the American Dream

            The US Military is Second to None or Must Be Second to None

            Never Complain, Never Explain

            Macho Pride Builds Powerful Character

            You guys have no regard for emotional pain, psychological distress, hidden disability, nor consistent misfortune….

            Or ANYTHING ELSE that does not fit into your formula of the way a US citizen should be and act.

            For decades now, you and your misguided ilk, have NO IDEA what Life is truly all about.

            You deserve utter Contempt.

          • Salty

            “Utter Contempt” Wow. I have never had utter contempt cast down on me.

            I know what life is like. I started with nothing (child of poverty and a single parent…) and have become successful do to my hard work. My family and I have helped others along the way. We have helped many people along the way.

            I am teaching my children the same. They are practicing the same. My teenage daughter spends her mornings volunteering at the hospital and the afternoons and evenings babysitting, mowing yards and painting fences. We could give her whatever she wants. We don’t we give her what she needs. She “gets it” that her future is dependent upon her hard work, not on handouts or on someone else. She doesn’t believe the current line that it is up to someone else to give you want you think you need, deserve or want.

            If some want to hand out “utter contempt” for all of that. I will gladly accept it.

            Do some need help? Sure. But we need to teach them how to become independent rather that more dependent.

            Is America “exceptional”? It sure was and hopefully will be again.

          • Salty

            Oh, by the way, I worked my way through university via academic scholarships and a job while I was studying. I averaged about three hours of sleep a night while working and studying. I didn’t begrudge or complain about what was required to build my success. I knew it would pay off and it did.

          • brettearle

            What works for you DOES NOT NECESSARILY WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

            Just because YOU followed a certain path, for whatever it is you value and valued in Life, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS VALID FOR ANYONE ELSE.

            And for you to believe that is self-righteous, unfair, and utterly narrow-minded.

            As many people as there are, and have been, in the United States, since 1776, all have unique tales and paths–many of which are twisted, ugly, unexpected, and incredibly exciting–REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAD 3 HOURS OF SLEEP EVERY NIGHT OR NOT.

            Your projections and your expectations are ultimately at a very HIGH LEVEL OF INSENSITIVITY

          • Salty

            Thanks for the interesting discussion. I find other’s views interesting an enlightening. I wish you well in whatever you are pursuing.

          • brettearle

            Thank you.

            I can tell that you were sincere, in wishing me well in my pursuits.

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            Look in the mirror…

            You are calling the kettle black.

            You are demanding everyone subscribe to your point of view…

            AND I CAN PROVE IT.

            I am not a conservative.

            I have said many times I am Left-Libertarian.

            You are so narrow minded and set in your opinions you don’t even care to know what Left-Libertarian means – even if you heard it from someone else.

            All you hear is “libertarian” and you have preconceived ideas of what that means, thus you are prejudiced.

            You have a VERY HIGH LEVEL OF INSENSITIVITY to PRESUME that the Democratic point of view is right for “everyone”.

            Don’t you think if either the Democrats or the Republicans had the right idea, the debate would have been resolved decades ago???

            They are both WRONG.

            Either you are
            (1) getting compensated for being partisan.

            or

            (2) you really are ignorant.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        You want to make money off of exploited workers?

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      I agree with the sentiment of your post in principle, Yet it’s also important to remember no one built a company by themselves. The labor force, consultants, banks, infrastructure, outsourcing, etc, all contributed to the building of that company.

      That’s why I DO believe in cooperative corporations. When the employees ARE the owners, solves a huge number of problems doesn’t it?

      • Salty

        That’s one way to run a company. It would have some advantages..

    • TFRX

      You lost everyone at “They built that” crap.

  • Salty

    That’s nuts. (pun ???) Buy your own. I’ll buy my own. Problem solved.

    • keltcrusader

      clearly someone who does not understand how Heath Insurance policies work.

      • Salty

        I clearly understand. Thanks though for your concern.

        Not everything is covered by all plans. Some cover more, some less. People shop around for the coverage they want, need and can afford.

        Better now?

    • StilllHere

      Good luck. Emptykelt lives in some sort of nanny state of being where he/she does nothing and knows even less. I’m convinced it’s a state-run institution because the sense of privilege is overwhelming.

      • keltcrusader

        nope, completely normal life. rather unlike you who apparently lives under a bridge only venturing out into the sunlight to fart absurdities out of your piehole.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    When the employees ARE the owners, solves a huge number of problems doesn’t it?

    Cooperative Corporations!

  • hennorama

    One more comment and Hobby Lobby will explode. (It will be #666.)

  • harverdphd

    yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah – It’s the law of the land, call your congressman, run for office …get over it.

  • Matt Williams

    This is about people telling other people what to believe. It is about religious power. People say that they want religious freedom, but what they really want is religious power. They want to make their religion the only right religion. Please remember that religious freedom means the right to practice your own religion, not the right to tell other people what religion to believe.

    • brettearle

      Well-said. Thank you.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Well said, but totally illogical.

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      Ummm… NO…. How does a supreme court decision about closely held corporations not being required to pay for contraceptives which have been proven to potentially cause a fertilized egg to not embed in the uterus and thus, be aborted – how does that have anything to do with telling people what to believe???????

    • OnPointComments

      I’m going to practice my religion by not buying with my money a health plan for my company that includes abortifacients. Is practicing my religion according to my religious beliefs and deciding how to spend my money based on my own beliefs okay with you? Or is your point about telling other people how you think they should spend their own money?

      • Religion Has No Place In Gover

        I find this amusing because most of us pay taxes, yet we don’t usually dictate how that money is spent. Even if I don’t agree with the way our tax dollars are spent, I continue to pay my taxes, as it’s the law…

        • HonestDebate1

          Article 1 Section 8 says: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,…”

          The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          Seems pretty clear to me.

      • Dave Lister

        see the article I posted above; Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

      • jefe68

        The problem with your argument is that the employees are paying into this insurance.
        I’m not sure what the percentage is at Hobby Lobby, but every employee is paying the premium and deductibles/ You’re argument seems to treat the employee as some kind of indentured worker.

        • OnPointComments

          It’s my company and I get to choose the health plan.

          What’s the one very important thing that hasn’t been heard in all of this weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over the Hobby Lobby decision? There have been NO COMPLAINTS from the Hobby Lobby employees, nearly 70 percent of whom are women, about having 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives available in the company’s health plan. It’s only totalitarian liberals, intent on forcing their own liberal ideals on everyone, who have been thrown into apoplexy over the decision.

          • Eliza_Bee

            Have you ever worked for a closely held company and needed to keep your job?

          • OnPointComments

            Yes, I have.

            Can you provide us with a link to any evidence, any at all, that current or former employees of Hobby Lobby are/were concerned that the company’s health plan only included 16 of the 20 FDA-approved methods of contraception? I suspect that you can’t.

          • Eliza_Bee

            So you must be aware that publicly criticizing the company or actions of the owners is very likely to get you fired.

            IUDs are more effective at preventing unintended pregnancy than the pill or condoms. (Look up the stats, it’s pretty surprising how much more effective.) Their use is growing in the US. Also IUDs cut risk of cervical cancer 50% for those with HPV. The catch is that the up-front cost for an IUD is $500-$1000. I don’t need to hear from an individual employee of Hobby Lobby to know that Hobby Lobby’s policy is problematic.

            Furthermore, the SC has now said that the Hobby Lobby decision extends to companies that don’t want to cover any type of contraception at all and ordered lower courts to reconsider cases that were dismissed.

          • OnPointComments

            I take your comment as a “No” answer to my question. I also suspect that your statement that “publicly criticizing the company or actions of the owners is very likely to get you fired” is your own speculation, with no evidence to back up the statement.

            The beginning wage for the lowest paid full-time Hobby Lobby employee is $14 an hour (about $29,000 a year), nearly twice the federal minimum wage. While the cost of an IUD is not inexpensive, Hobby Lobby’s generous hourly wage provides the means for any full-time employee to purchase any method of contraception they choose.

          • Eliza_Bee

            You are either very naive or work for an unusual owner if you think you can criticize the owner publicly and keep your job.

            What is the average take-home pay for a Hobby Lobby employee? If monthly take-home pay is about $2k on that $29K, an IUD would cost a Hobby Lobby employee about 25-50% of a month’s paycheck.

          • OnPointComments

            Although I disagree with your premise, let’s assume you’re correct and that publicly criticizing the company or its owners would get an employee fired. Hobby Lobby has 23,000 employees, so there are undoubtedly hordes of former employees who could be vocal about the oppression they felt because of the company’s health plan; also, out of 23,000 current employees, there would very likely be at least a few employees with strong enough convictions to speak out about the hardships they suffer by having only 16 of 20 FDA-approved methods of contraception available in the plan. Can you provide us with a link to any former or current employee who has voiced such an opinion?

            It’s a rhetorical question; please don’t feel that you have to answer. I think both you and I know that it’s not Hobby Lobby employees who are so, so concerned that 4 methods of contraception aren’t included in their health plan; it’s totalitarian, authoritarian liberals intent on imposing their liberal ideals on everyone.

          • Eliza_Bee

            Any former Hobby Lobby employees weren’t subject to the new birth control restrictions, so why would they speak up?

            I think both you and I know that people making $29K per year (heck, $29K x 8) are mostly keeping their heads down, trying to get by, and worrying about immediate personal concerns like their kids’ future or supporting themselves in retirement.

            For Hobby Lobby and other employers to keep their noses out of employees’ reproductive organs is hardly totalitarian or authoritarian.

          • OnPointComments

            The Hobby Lobby health plan has been around for years and years, and it has included 16 of 20 FDA-approved methods of contraception for years and years. The health plan only became an issue when HHS mandated (note: it was an unelected HHS bureaucratic mandate, not a part of the Obamacare law passed by Congress) that the other 4 methods of contraception be included. Were there any Hobby Lobby employees demanding that the plan include the 4 other methods of contraception, either before or after the passage of Obamacare? No, at least there are none that I can find.

            Hobby Lobby’s owners made a decision to not include 4 methods of contraception in its health plan, and no one complained. HHS intravened and stuck its nose into the health care of Hobby Lobby’s employees by mandating that the other 4 methods of contraception be part of the plan. The Supreme Court said that HHS’s mandate was unconstitutional.

          • Eliza_Bee

            So you are saying that Hobby Lobby health insurance did not cover IUDs in the past? I thought I’d read that Hobby Lobby previously covered prescription birth control in general, but with the advent of Obamacare birth control mandate they decided to challenge it.

            At any rate, this is a minor detail in what could be a sea change in the US– that a company owner’s religious belief can impact my healthcare. I will be watching how it plays out, and probably deciding to spend less time arguing on the internet and more time in constructive action.

          • jmpo’lock

            You get to choose the healthplan, but you can’t determine a la carte which coverage standards, procedures and medicines required by secular laws are provided by said insurance. You CAN as the employer choose at which levels (i.e. premiums/deductibles, co-pays etc.) you’re willing to pay for. As said in an earlier response, I see no difference in discriminating against various drugs for religious reasons, as which the possibility to then discriminate against particular providers for the same reasons. Which would mean saying that even if such and such doctor is in the insurance plan, the employee could be barred coverage for that doctor if the owner/employer didn’t like it.
            Terrible slippery slope

      • TFRX

        If you want to cram your religion, jackwad, do it in a church, not as a corporation.

      • jmpo’lock

        “religion” shouldn’t allow an employer to meddle in the business of settled secular laws regarding what is mandated/regulated and standard practice in the providing of healthcare insurance through a third party private insurance company. The decision a patient makes with their doctor about what is the best course of action for their personal health is of NO BUSINESS to the employer.

      • what?

        So will your company sell anything made in China because they have state funded abortions and a strict limitation on the number of children per couple ? That would be against your religion.

  • Alan Acker

    Read Freedom of Religion – Can It Be Absolute? at https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1124491989022978299#editor/target=post;postID=731490063430281184;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=38;src=postname. Supreme Court decided differently. Centuries ago, corporations could not act as trustees because corporations had no souls that could be condemned if they acted wrong.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    A smart and thoughtful comment.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    This is a political attempt to poke holes in the affordable care act.
    The corporation in question stopped providing contraceptive insurance in 2012.

    Everyone stop pretending this is about religion.

    It isn’t.

    If you prefer to play charades, I will apply logic, and the results will be ridiculous for everyone.

    EVERYONE STOP LYING.

    • HonestDebate1

      Obamacare is a political attempt to poke holes in the Constitution.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Yes, I agree. The government cant force someone to purchase something.

        Which is why Obama should have just made it a national sales tax and then nationalized health insurance under the congressional health care plan.

        DONE!

        • what?

          Technically, Godzilla, they are not forcing anyone. You get a fine if you don’t do it, but your choice remains.

          • pete18

            That would not be a free choice but a choice with a cost (provided by your friendly neighborhood government).

          • what?

            Pete, no choice is “free”. Every, single choice that we make has a consequence. Choose to drive drunk, go to jail. Choose to cheat on your girlfriend, jeopardize the relationship. Isn’t that what every Conservative wishes for , ” individual responsibility” for one’s choices ? Of course it is “free choice”. It is not coerced in any way. And talk to any economist and they will tell you about economic incentives or disincentives. Respectfully, your comment doesn’t hold up.

          • pete18

            Yes, of course. But, as you well know, we aren’t talking about the natural consequences of a choice, we’re talking about the role the government plays and how it affects that decision. If the government adds another layer of penalty on top of the natural consequences of a choice then it is interfering with and influencing that process.

            There can be bad consequences to exercising your freedom of speech, People might not like you or you may be made fun of. If the government added another tax for every time you publicly criticized it, under your framework you would still be “free” to make that critique. But I’m guessing you would claim, rightly so, that your freedom of choice was being interfered with.

            If you are being penalized by the government for not buying something your freedom is being restricted.

          • what?

            That is very fair. But isn’t that how economic incentives work ? My observation isn’t a “framework” . It is a direct response to your assertion. And States work that way already. You cannot have a car on the road without buying insurance. It is illegal. You have to buy a license to drive, to fish, to carry a gun. Those are products that you must buy to be legal. In some states , you have to buy a motorcycle helmet or you are penalized. These are all economic maneuvers. And one cannot say that it is a “natural” consequence. There is no such thing. An occurrence, by definition, can be “natural” or be manipulated/affected. But a consequence cannot be natural. It is the outcome of a set of actions. Always. There is a direct cause and effect. It is a choice. It all is. Unless we are held at gun point or shot down as we protest. Economic incentives are not oppression IMO. But how do you feel about the state that made it illegal to buy insurance on the exchange and threatened to jail people who did ( a red state of course ). What is that ?

          • pete18

            Yes, the state restricts, taxes and regulates choices all the time but that does not mean that they aren’t an additional restriction on your choices, it’s just that many people accept those restrictions, often for good reason. However, all things are not equal, nor is the government’s ability to do this something that we should accept carte blanche. The extreme in the health care law is not the state preventing you from buying something, it’s the state penalizing you if you DON’T purchase something.

            That seems to me like an a huge infringement, delivered by the state, on the freedom to choose what one wants or needs for one’s health.

          • what?

            First, I was talking specifically to buying a helmet or buying insurance and claiming oppression. NOT ACTUAL social injustice. We confuse the two all the time. That is a whole other ball of wax That neither one of us was talking about. This entire conversation is about whether or not being forced/coerced/incentivized to BUY something ( with the long term goal of safety or lowering costs ) is oppressive. That is the crux of the Hobby Lobby case. I am insulted that you would think that I would lump segregation into this. But you bring up a good point : THAT is true oppression.
            Green provided Plan B pills and birth control right up to the day he filed the law suit – he did it WILLINGLY before the ACA. So how was he being oppressed ? ROSA PARKS was oppressed, not Green. IMO, the states are using economic “incentives” just like ACA….you get a fine if you don’t have your licence or a bike helmet or your safety belt on ….and so forth. You have to travel with passport…which you have to buy. Insurance is a product like all these other things. And yes, it is a very slippery slope. Everything is a slippery slope because we can never foresee all the individual cases. That is life. In the end, it is more beneficial to society if everyone is insured and can pay for medical care. That is inarguable. The same people who complain about high medical costs and that they pay other people’s bills are the same ones complaining about the solution. So which is it? One hospital in Boston has seen heart attack ER patients who can’t pay go down 90 % ( there has been Romney Care there for years ). This is happening because with mandated insurance, people actually go to clinics or doctors BEFORE they are critical. It works. So in the end, the birth control thing isn’t the biggest problem. The problem is that if your boss is an observant Jew and doesn’t want to cover anesthesia that is derived from pigs and you need surgery…you have a problem. Despite the fact that your insurance is part of the “total compensation” package that YOU work for and earn. Like I said, slippery slope.

            Let us start with S. Carolina. And Indiana. There are others. There are more links than I could possibly post : here are two. If you google it , there will be hundreds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/south-carolina-obamacare_n_2329425.htmlhttp://www.

            citizenlink.com/2013/05/06/south-carolina-bill-would-outlaw-obamacare/

          • Godzilla the Intellectual

            The fine is unconstitutional.

            You can challenge a fine in court.

            Try challenging an IRS fine in court, that has already been upheld by SCOTUS.

            A tax is applied broadly and dependent only on income or on a percentage of a purchase.

            SCOTUS declaring Obamacare a tax was unconstitutional.

      • what?

        So then you prove the point that this is NOT a freedom of religion issue but a political one. Godzilla’s point is proven by you.

        • HonestDebate1

          What? Obamacare is a law the prohibits the free exercise of religion. Hobby Lobby IS a religious issue.

          • what?

            That is debatable. My comment was geared directly to the reasonthat the Greens claimed to filed the lawsuit. What is not debatable is that the family that owns Hobby Lobby, the Greens, had no problem providing coverage not only for birth control, but for the morning after pill. They willingly did so. Mr. Green, however, is an avowed Obama- hater and he decided to take sue when it was because he doesn’t like a federal mandate. He is therefore being intellectually dishonest by claiming the ACA keeps him from exercising his faith when his REAL issue is political. I stand by my statement. Further proof is that Hobby Lobby and Mr. Green do over $400 million in business with China..which funds abortions, coerces abortions, and limits children to one per couple. If Mr. Green was serious, and honest, about his beliefs, he would stop doing business with China AND never had provided the morning after pill. That is inarguable. He is grinding a political axe. Period.

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    I just said, it’s not a belief. It is a proven fact.

    Learn reading comprehension.

    This isn’t about religion anyway. Everyone knows it’s about the affordable care act.

    Nationalize Health Insurance.

    • Religion Has No Place In Gover

      No, no – I understood you, but perhaps I should have been more clear. Your belief is that a fertilized egg not embedded in the uterus due to a contraceptive is immoral.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Ummm. NO… I don’t believe that is immoral, at all…

        I believe it is immoral to force a company to pay for that.

        But that is not even what this court case was about…

        Everyone knows this is nothing more than an attempt to poke holes in the affordable care act.

  • Zack Smith

    No one’s stopping employees from purchasing birth control on their own. Stop imposing your viewpoint on others.

  • Dave Lister
    • OnPointComments

      Hobby Lobby employees have the choice among several investment options in the company’s 401(k) plan to invest in mutual funds of their own choosing. Some of those mutual funds own a small share of companies that manufacture abortion products, however the employees choose their own investments.
      The fact that some Hobby Lobby employees have chosen to invest part of their 401(k) dollars in companies that manufacture abortion products is proof that neither Hobby Lobby nor its owners are forcing their religious beliefs on anyone.

      • StilllHere

        Again, it’s sad you have to explain this as opponents grasp at anything to make their illegitimate claims.

      • 1stamerican

        Then why go to court

        • OnPointComments

          The Supreme Court decision was about the health plan, not the retirement plan.

  • HonestDebate1

    “All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke. The Supreme Court appears ready to apply the ruling on a broad basis with for-profit businesses, even those who refuse to cover any contraceptive method at all. That would suggest that any attempt to impose the mandate on explicitly religious organizations seems to have a couple of strikes against it at the Court already, even with the so-called “accommodation” offered as a compromise. The Supreme Court clearly takes the RFRA and the First Amendment seriously on this point.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/02/supreme-court-lets-stand-several-rulings-blocking-enforcement-of-hhs-mandate/

  • keltcrusader

    Oh I see, a teapartier. People may have come over originally because of religious freedom, but our Country did not start until we won Independence and formed our own Laws and those include not establishing a particular religion over everyone in America. You want to believe in your religion, fine, but those who are not a member do not have to follow those rules.

    Now, see men and women receive Health Insurance through their employer as a part and parcel of their total compensation package and many times, they actually also help pay for the premiums of these plans. These preventative medicines are not free, they are part of the covered services in the entire plan and the costs are shared equally over all members. So what you are basically saying is that Women alone should have part of their benefit package removed and, even though they help pay for all the employees on the plan, they should also have to pay extra to get medicine that normally would be covered. And yet, you don’t see a problem with that gender discrimination.

  • OnPointComments

    THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: All of the arguments that the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision is a slippery slope that allows companies to deny blood transfusions, make employees work 100 hours a week, deny diabetes care, etc., is liberal hysteria and foolish unsupported speculation.

    If we want to set foot on the slippery slope, let’s do it with facts. From the Supreme Court decision: “Under HHS’s view, RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question — for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide.” Part of this case was the government trying to force Mardel, a Christian bookstore, to provide free abortifacients, and ultimately, abortions. Now that’s a slippery slope, although I suspect it’s one with which most liberals have absolutely no problem.

  • OnPointComments

    The 401(k) plan includes an array of mutual funds into which employees can invest their deferrals and their employee match. The retirement plan does not include all of the mutual funds available in the market, just as the health plan does not include all of the contraceptives available in the market. The employees are free to purchase any mutual funds or contraceptives they want, outside of the plans, with their own money.

  • OnPointComments

    It is absolutely unreasonable to assume that when a corporation is formed, the individuals who own and run the corporation have forfeited all of their rights under the Constitution with regards to corporate activities. That is my opinion, and it’s also the opinion of the Supreme Court.

    To think otherwise turns the Constitution and our basic freedoms on its head. Imagine the government saying that you, as a devout Catholic, have the right to have a religious objection to abortion, but you, as the 100% Catholic owner of a corporation, can be mandated to fund abortions. You don’t have to imagine the same premise with regards to free speech: the government attempted to say that you have a basic right to freedom of speech, but as the owner of a corporation you have no right to freedom of speech. It’s a fundamentally unreasonable position, and the Supreme Court has said so.

    • what?

      Isn’t also unreasonable that those people then have the right to impose their beliefs on other people ? Of course the other problem is that the employees WORK for their benefits package. It is their total compensation. They have earned it. It is theirs.

      • OnPointComments

        The benefit package at issue before the Supreme Court was mandated by the Secretary of HHS, not by the employees of the company.

        • what?

          I wasn’t talking about mandates. I am talking about EARNING benefits. Benefits are a “a total compensation” package for work. In exchange for a certain number of hours of labor one gets a check, insurance, a 401 ( K ), maybe a match. Some of these are reported to the IRS as “taxable income”. Therefore, the WORKERS earn their benefits just as they earn their money and vacation time and so on. It is THEIR property. Not that of the owner’s. Mandates have nothing to do with it. Employees can’t “mandate” anything…but they have the right to do what they want with the compensation that they have earned. The question in the Green case was about a mandate oppressing religious activity/faith. My point is that the employees EARN their benefits the same way that they EARN their checks.

  • The poster formerly known as t

    I don’t know if anyone has made this observation but I see a general trend of businesses being treated more like people and people being treated more like property, if one looks at the non-compete contracts.

  • The poster formerly known as t

    The pro-life movement in America seems to be a lot about the “native population” of Christian Caucasians struggling to keep their birthrate from falling. I think the demographic that will openly define themselves as Christian and Caucasian are terrified of losing political power due to a falling birthrate. I don’t understand why. Whites are a minority in South Africa yet whites dominate it every way possible.

    • Salty

      Perhaps it is that killing little pre-born babies, regardless of color, is just wrong.

      • The poster formerly known as t

        But once they’re out of the womb, they’re fair game, right?

        • Salty

          No, why would they be? Strange question…I must be missing something.

    • Steve

      “Week 3 – Gestational Age (Fetal Development – Week 1):

      The embryo is going through lots of basic growth at this time, with the beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

      Week 4 & 5 – Gestational Age (Fetal Development – Weeks 2 & 3):

      Arm and leg buds are visible, but not clearly distinguishable. The heart is now beating at a steady rhythm. The placenta has begun to form and is producing some important hormones including hCG. There is movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels. The early structures that will become the eyes and ears are forming. The embryo is ¼ inch long by the end of these weeks.

      Week 6 – Gestational Age (Fetal Development – Week 4):

      The formation of the lungs, jaw, nose, and palate begin now. The hand and feet buds have webbed structures that will become the fingers and toes. The brain is continuing to form into its complex parts. A vaginal ultrasound could possibly detect an audible heartbeat at this time. The embryo is about a ½ inch in length.

      Week 7 – Gestational Age (Fetal Development – Week 5):

      At 7 weeks gestation, every essential organ has begun to form in the embryo’s tiny body even though it still weighs less than an aspirin. The hair and nipple follicles are forming, and the eyelids and tongue have begun formation. The elbows and toes are more visible as the trunk begins to straighten out.

      Week 8 – Gestational Age (Fetal Development – Week 6):

      The ears are continuing to form externally and internally. Everything that is present in an adult human is now present in the small embryo. The bones are beginning to form, and the muscles can contract. The facial features continue to mature, and the eyelids are now more developed. The embryo is at the end of the embryonic period and begins the fetal period. The embryo is about 1 inch long and is the size of a bean.

      Weeks 9 Thru 13 – Gestational Age (Fetal Development – Weeks 7 Thru 11):

      The fetus has grown to about 3 inches in length and weighs about an ounce. The genitalia have clearly formed into male or female, but still could not be seen clearly on an ultrasound. The eyelids close and will not reopen until the 28th week of pregnancy. The fetus can make a fist, and the buds for baby teeth appear. The head is nearly half the size of the entire fetus.”

  • Godzilla the Intellectual

    The 16th Amendment is Unconstitutional…

    • Soundstage

      Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy which is, by definition, the growth of a zygote after implantation. Preventing implantation is not medically an abortion.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Doesn’t seem like the conservatives share that perspective.

    • ExcellentNews

      You are not stating a fact. You are filling the space with off-point comments to distract and obscure the issues. This is a typical conservative strategy to hide the fact that the conservative agenda cannot stand on its own against the light of justice and reason.

      Here is what matters:

      1) Abortion is legal in this country (and so is contraception)

      2) The ruling allows wealthy private individuals to force their religious beliefs down the throat of those less wealthy, and use religion as an excuse to flout the law.

      3) The conservative revival of the last 30 years has turned people into property, and corporations into feudal lords.

      • Godzilla the Intellectual

        Do you have a genetically mutated version of Foghorn Leghorn living inside your colon?

        I am NOT a conservative you TWAT.

  • ExcellentNews

    So, when your DAUGHTER shows up pregnant and distended with the BOSS’ child, you know who you have to thank for that…

    • Godzilla the Intellectual

      You are suffering from a mental disorder.

    • Regular_Listener

      Oh, that is a good one! so the boss says, no, she can’t have an abortion on the company payroll, it is against our religion. But I don’t want to support the child because I am already married. The employee sues the boss for sexual abuse and child support. This could be a movie. I say get in touch with Hollywood asap!

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 25, 2014
Pallbearers carry a coffin out of a military transport plane during a ceremony to mark the return of the first bodies, of passengers and crew killed in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, from Ukraine at Eindhoven military air base, Eindhoven, Netherlands, Wednesday, July 23, 2014. (AP)

Secretary of State Kerry to Israel. Obamacare back in the courts. Mourning as remains of Malaysia Flight 17 victims come home. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Jul 25, 2014
An oven full of hot pies in Beth Howard's Iowa kitchen.' (Courtesy Beth Howard)

There is nothing more American than a piece of pie. We taste and talk pies.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 24, 2014
Orchid (Galileo55/Flickr)

We’ll look at the new science of what plants feel, smell, see – and remember.

 
Jul 24, 2014
Youths seen playing basketball through bars on a window at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Ethan Allen School in Wales, Wis. (AP file)

The cold hard facts about juvenile prisons. And the case for shutting them all down. Plus: former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is with us.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Hillary Clinton: ‘The [Russian] Reset Worked’
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took time out of her global book tour to talk to us about Russia, the press and the global crises shaking the administration she left two years ago.

More »
Comment
 
Where Did Nickel Creek Go?
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

The Nickel Creek interview originally scheduled for Thursday, July 24 is rescheduled for an as-of-yet undetermined later date. We explain why.

More »
2 Comments
 
Our Week In The Web: July 11, 2014
Friday, Jul 11, 2014

As we prepare for a week of rebroadcasts, we reflect on Facebook posts, misplaced comments and the magic of @ mentions. Internet, ASSEMBLE!

More »
Comment