Birth Control

[DriveInDriveOut]

THEY RULED 4 TYPES BIRTH CONTROL ,NOT CONTRACEPTION ,EMPLOYEES STILL ARE COVERED FOR BIRTH CONTROL AS INSURANCE COMPANY STILL HAS TO COVER UNDER CONDITIONS,THAT BEING SAID, LET WOMAN DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR HERSELF.

The case was brought in regards to those 4 types of birth control, the ruling however applies more broadly to all forms of contraception. The precedent set by the ruling is the real issue.

If you want to say employers shouldn't be required to provide health insurance at all, that's a fair debate. However these religious exemptions seem to me a dangerous path to head down.

 

[moreluck]

They will pay for the "pre" conception stuff, but not the "post" conception stuff.
If they believe that life begins at conception then the other 4 methods are murder to them.

With 16 choices the employee has plenty to choose from.........or work somewhere else.

 

[oldngray]

They will pay for the "pre" conception stuff, but not the "post" conception stuff.
If they believe that life begins at conception then the other 4 methods are murder to them.

With 16 choices the employee has plenty to choose from.........or work somewhere else.

Or they could pay a few dollars out of pocket if they still aren't satisfied.

 

[The Other Side]

Employees already pay a portion of their insurance at Hobby Lobby and for the SCOTUS to place the owners religious beliefs onto its employees, it shows how really stupid the conservative justices are.

TOS.

 

[Bringdough]

Employees already pay a portion of their insurance at Hobby Lobby and for the SCOTUS to place the owners religious beliefs onto its employees, it shows how really stupid the conservative justices are.

TOS.

The constitution is silent on birth control. It's the Libs that see rights that aren't there. And hobby lobby doesn't require their employees to convert to Christianity.


Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[retiredTxfeeder]

Hell, the next thing you know, they'll give women the right to vote!

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Hell, the next thing you know, they'll give women the right to vote!

Funny that all of the female justices were strongly opposed to this ruling isn't it....

 

[oldngray]

Funny that all of the female justices were strongly opposed to this ruling isn't it....

And? Male justices voted for Roe V. Wade. If it was OK for men to judge women then and say abortion was allowed then why wouldn't men also be given the same consideration now? Double standard.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

And? Male justices voted for Roe V. Wade. If it was OK for men to judge women then and say abortion was allowed then why wouldn't men also be given the same consideration now? Double standard.

Kind of a derail.... Especially considering there weren't any female justices on the supreme court for Roe v Wade.

I would have expected you to point out that all three female justices were appointed by Democrats. Republicans are in serious trouble when it comes to female, young, and minority voters. I just don't see them winning any presidential races with the path they're on.... maybe if they try to attract some third party voters they'll have a chance, but seeing how they treated Dr. Paul I doubt that will happen.

 

[oldngray]

Kind of a derail.... Especially considering there weren't any female justices on the supreme court for Roe v Wade.

I would have expected you to point out that all three female justices were appointed by Democrats. Republicans are in serious trouble when it comes to female, young, and minority voters. I just don't see them winning any presidential races with the path they're on.... maybe if they try to attract some third party voters they'll have a chance, but seeing how they treated Dr. Paul I doubt that will happen.

I could have pointed out how all female justices voted against the majority opinion and set aside what the law says and just voted their own liberal prejudices if that makes you happier.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I could have pointed out how all female justices voted against the majority opinion and set aside what the law says and just voted their own liberal prejudices if that makes you happier.

The employees pay for a portion of their health insurance, and should be able to use it to buy whatever medicine their doctors prescribe them. That's all there is to it.

 

[oldngray]

Hobby Lobby has always provided better than average benefits and a good healthcare plan before Obamacare. All they won was the right to not pay for the 4 they didn't cover before Obamacare tried to force them to. Low cost out of pocket or over the counter items but there was the principle involved. As long as employees are aware of the health coverage before being hired it shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Hobby Lobby has always provided better than average benefits and a good healthcare plan before Obamacare. All they won't was the right to not pay for the 4 they didn't cover before Obamacare tried to force them to. Low cost out of pocket or over the counter items but there was the principle involved. As long as employees are aware of the health coverage before being hired it shouldn't even be an issue.

The case brought was about those 4 types, the RULING was about ALL contraceptives. Not sure why people have trouble understanding that.

 

[realbrown1]

The employees pay for a portion of their health insurance, and should be able to use it to buy whatever medicine their doctors prescribe them. That's all there is to it.

They are always FREE to go out and purchase a health plan they like better, or quit and go work for someone else who provides health benefits.
It's called a FREE society for a reason.

 

[oldngray]

The case brought was about those 4 types, the RULING was about ALL contraceptives. Not sure why people have trouble understanding that.

The ruling was about religious liberty.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The ruling was about religious liberty.

The majority opinion was about protecting employers' rights to force their religious beliefs on their employees.
The minority opinion was about protecting the employees' rights to make their own choices about their medicine.

The obvious solution is to get employers out of the health care business.... granting these religious exemptions is the wrong path to go down IMO.

 

[realbrown1]

The majority opinion was about protecting employers' rights to force their religious beliefs on their employees.
The minority opinion was about protecting the employees' rights to make their own choices about their medicine.

The obvious solution is to get employers out of the health care business.... granting these religious exemptions is the wrong path to go down IMO.

But making the owners of Hobby Lobby go against their religious beliefs is perfectly fine with you?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Hobby Lobby has always provided better than average benefits and a good healthcare plan before Obamacare. All they won was the right to not pay for the 4 they didn't cover before Obamacare tried to force them to. Low cost out of pocket or over the counter items but there was the principle involved. As long as employees are aware of the health coverage before being hired it shouldn't even be an issue.

Hobby Lobby does not provide health care. They are contributing towards the cost of health insurance. The employee also contributes towards the cost. They're both contributing, so who gets to say what medicines can be taken? You side with a corporation, I side with the individual.

 

[realbrown1]

Hobby Lobby does not provide health care. They are contributing towards the cost of health insurance. The employee also contributes towards the cost. They're both contributing, so who gets to say what medicines can be taken? You side with a corporation, I side with the individual.

You already lost this argument. SCOTUS ruled against you.
So shut up already.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You already lost this argument. SCOTUS ruled against you.
So shut up already.

You're such a troll bro. Hush now, the adults are talking.