Hobby Lobby Birth Control Case at Supreme Court

Vice Lord wrote:

FredHayek wrote: The press seems to playing loose with the facts on this. Hobby Lobby is opposed to paying for some birth control like morning after pills, rather than refusing to pay for everything.

Hobby lobby doesn't pay for it, the insurance company does..You think Hobby Lobby writes a check evertime one of their employees goes to the doctor?

#Dumbguy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCb9g8plGF8

gmule wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

FredHayek wrote: The press seems to playing loose with the facts on this. Hobby Lobby is opposed to paying for some birth control like morning after pills, rather than refusing to pay for everything.

Hobby lobby doesn't pay for it, the insurance company does..You think Hobby Lobby writes a check evertime one of their employees goes to the doctor?

#Dumbguy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCb9g8plGF8

Yeah...But the coffee would be of better quality and the price would actually go down...and

Heathcare is very different than coffee so trying to draw an anology between the two is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as you not knowing how to embed a YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCb9g8plGF8 [/quote]

Yeah...But the coffee would be of better quality and the price would actually go down...and

Heathcare is very different than coffee so trying to draw an anology between the two is idiotic.

I figured that your simpleton brain would have a hard time making the connection

How is the price of healthcare supposed to go down when everyone is forced to pay for coverage that they do not need or want?

gmule wrote: I figured that your simpleton brain would have a hard time making the connection.
How is the price of healthcare supposed to go down when everyone is forced to pay for coverage that they do not need or want?

Its a very simple ...Right now half the country is freeloading, when everyone pays their fair share the price goes down. The Asprin in the emergency room costs you $25 because the 24 people before you got it for free becaue they didn't have insurance... I thought you wingnuts hated paying for someone else's healthcare?

50% of the country isn't paying for their healthcare? The World According To VL.

It is interesting that Hobby Lobby is always used by the media to describe this case. Why not also list Univision? Or is it easier to beat up on white Christians instead of possibly offending minority owned corporations?

ScienceChic wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Arlen wrote: So the liberals now concede that abortion is a form of birth control. That is a very big admission.
The Green family is not against contrception, but they are against abortion (which the morning after pill induces.)
Liberals really should be honest in how they frame this argument.

That was the answer I was hoping someone would point out (I rarely ask questions I don't have already have the answer to).

The proposition of this thread "I previously mentioned Hobby Lobby and their efforts to be able to refuse offering birth control coverage under the ACA. It's now at the Supreme Court and there's an account of the proceedings here from Think Progress which is attending" is a bit (a lot?) misleading.

Hobby Lobby is concerned with abortifacients ONLY. Hobby Lobby already offers coverage for 16 forms of birth control.

Emergency contraception is still a form of birth control. Since it's impossible to tell if fertilization actually occurred within the window that the morning after pill works, you can't say that it's "abortion". It's used because there is a higher likelihood that conception could have occurred (failed contraceptive device or unprotected sex, possibly during ovulation, possibly not) but not every instance of unprotected sex results in fertilization or this planet would've been over-run with humans before now.

Hobby Lobby is a corporation, not a religious organization, they shouldn't get to decide coverage for a personal health decision for their employees. Period.

Your argument is: if there is no fertilized implanted egg then the abortion pill cannot cause an abortion so then that pill is not an abortion pill because no abortion took place.

Nice bit of nonsense there. I thought scientists were able to think logically, not politically.

ScienceChic wrote: Hobby Lobby is a corporation, not a religious organization, they shouldn't get to decide coverage for a personal health decision for their employees. Period.

Tell me SC, is there a difference in your mind between a corporation held by one person or one family and one that has hundreds of thousands or millions of shares owned by the public at large? And what of the Supreme Court decisions which establish that the fundamental freedoms enjoyed by individuals, and protected by the Constitution lest we forget, are not surrendered when they join to form a corporation?

Corporations thus have the same free exercise rights that individuals have. Need I point out to you that many churches and synagogues, and in fact most houses of worship, are incorporated entities and are thus corporations? Are they not allowed free exercise rights because they are corporations? That's a rather extreme position to take, don't you think? I can tell you that it is one which the justices have indicated they do not share given the 9-0 drubbing this administration took in the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC ruling a couple of years ago.

And please, let's dispense with this nonsense that contraception is a health issue, shall we? Can we not be intellectually honest enough to admit that this is a want and not a need in the vast majority of instances? Are others responsible for providing for your wants now in addition to your actual needs? One doesn't need to be sexually active, do they? That is a choice that they make regarding the conduct of their own lives, isn't it? They can choose not to be sexually active as well given the consequences associated with engaging in that activity in the absence of contraception, right? Now, I would agree with you if you said that when a contraception was prescribed to address a medical condition, such as a heavy flow or to avoid a pregnancy which could have life threatening implications for the mother due to her other underlying health issues (heart disease or say a history of eclampsia) that it is then used to treat a medical condition and thus should be covered. Fertility is not a health condition, it is in fact the default state, what is expected. What you are saying is that normal health needs to be treated to be avoided. Does that make any kind of sense at all?

PrintSmith, don't you know that pregnancy is a disease? Liberals think that pregnancy is a loss of health, thus it is a woman's "health" issue.

Liberals are so screwed up!

Well, it's half true:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... rth-contr/

But men discussing women's health just cracks me up. I see they have no probem with Viagra or penis pumps being covered.

Imagine that - half truths from a high ranking "progressive". I suppose that is a step up from the outright lies told by the titular head of the party every time he steps in front of a microphone to read the remarks prepared for him, but it's quite illuminating that intentional distortions and misrepresentations are deemed appropriate to use in such fashion. But then, the ends justify any means necessary to achieve them, right?

Which brings us to your parroting of that tired, worn out, and oh by the way, invalid, argument that unsuccessfully attempts to draw a comparison between a compound that introduces dysfunction of a reproductive system and one which corrects a dysfunction that Boxer herself regurgitated.

So let's deal with the whole truth, shall we? 14% of the prescriptions written for drugs which have contraceptive properties are prescribed to treat a medical condition. Fertility is not a medical condition, but infertility is; which means that 86% of the time the drug is prescribed to create a medical condition, not treat one. And that, Cathy Lee, is the difference between Viagara and "The Pill" and why one was generally covered by insurance and one was not until "progressive" elements in the federal government decided that it would be advantageous to spread the cost of chemically sterilizing women across the entire population and generate support for such efforts by engaging in propaganda filled with half truths, misrepresentations and distortions. Sound like anyone you've read about recently? Perhaps even someone who used an argument you have recently parroted?