Hobby Lobby Birth Control Case at Supreme Court

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

Not true. In my Male opinion, that kind of crap has no place at all in the Health Care discussion.

I don't think penis pumps nor Viagra should be paid by healthcare insurance either.
:HighFive: Of course, I am still fairly young and my ox isn't being gored.

I'm afraid I simply don't buy into the idea of fertility being a matter of faith. At the same time, I'm a libertarian, at heart.

I'm kind of torn.

I DO think that organizations should have the freedom to determine what they do/don't pay for.

At the same time - I simply don't see where something like birth control is incompatible with "christian" values, and I feel it's an arbitrary, and frankly, discriminatory line.

I'd be happy to vote with my feet. I doubt it will make much of a difference, though ---- Colorado is loaded with people that will be all-too-happy to support the Greens and their ideas.

You aggregated separate arguments bud. First argument, which you seem to agree with due to your libertarian leanings, was that corporations, which are nothing more than an assembly of individuals, enjoy the same right of excercise that their individual members do because individuals do not surrender those rights simply by becoming part of a corporation.

The second argument is that contraception is exactly what its name encompasses when the root words are examined. In the vast majority of cases they are prescribed to create a medical condition, infertility, not treat one, as fertility is not a medical condition. It is an elective action to chemically sterilize yourself, not a necessary one. Insurance historically has never covered elective decisions. It doesn't, for example, cover breast augmentation when there is no medical need involved. One does not need to be infertile unless there are other health issues involved such as heart disease or a history of eclampsia where pregnancy puts the mortal life of the woman in danger.

Wanting to be infertile so that one can have an active sex life without worrying about becoming pregnant is a life style decision, not a medical one. Insurance generally doesn't cover the cost of a vasectomy either because that, too, is an elective decision made by the individual and not a medical necessity for their health. And that is a more apt comparison, male to female, to contraception than the disingenuous and invalid attempts to compare it to Viagara or penis pumps are because it, too, is done to counter nature and make one infertile.

Legally, I suppose corporations should have the legal right to set forth standards which they expect of employees.

Ethically - I think their lines are arbitrary.

I don't really like the idea of government compelling the company.

At the same time - that same belief in individual freedom and responsibility really brings me to a point where I question the motives of Hobby Lobby. My questions are admittedly more ethical than legal.
(government is a lousy tool for ethical things).

You have to question their motives even more now that it's come out that they own stock in the companies that manufacture abortion pills and devices. (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2)

Hmmmmm... Can you say hypocrisy?

bailey bud wrote: Legally, I suppose corporations should have the legal right to set forth standards which they expect of employees.

Ethically - I think their lines are arbitrary.

I don't really like the idea of government compelling the company.

At the same time - that same belief in individual freedom and responsibility really brings me to a point where I question the motives of Hobby Lobby. My questions are admittedly more ethical than legal.
(government is a lousy tool for ethical things).

Aren't all such standards arbitrary to one extent or another bud? The requirement, for instance, that teachers not wear blue jeans on student contact days. That's an arbitrary standard too, isn't it?

The bottom line is that this is a private corporation, closely held, not one which is publicly traded. The family didn't surrender their right to free exercise simply because they formed a corporation and had a successful business idea. The are allowed to conduct their business in accordance with their faith. The framers never intended to drive religion from the public square, in fact what they did was seek to prevent the government from being able to do that exact thing. And that is precisely what the requirement of the (un)Affordable Care Act seeks to do - make them check their religion at the door before they leave their home.

The intent of the framers was to ensure that government made accomodations for the free exercise of religion, not ensure that restrictions were placed on it.

There is a difference between the free exercise of religion and imposing that religion upon others.

LadyJazzer wrote: You have to question their motives even more now that it's come out that they own stock in the companies that manufacture abortion pills and devices. (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2)

Hmmmmm... Can you say hypocrisy?

What? What? What?

They object to a product from a company they have no objection to investing in?
:banghead:

Refusing to pay for the choices others make is not imposing their beliefs on anyone. It is, however, a refusal to have the beliefs of others imposed upon them. They are not saying that taking a abortificant will cost you your job, but they are saying that if you make that choice for yourself the financial responsibility for that decision is yours as well.