Current events- hobby lobby SCOTUS decision

hammysmommy · July 2014

Basically what @C12H22O11 said ^

Mixed feelings -

The founders of the company have a particular set of religious beliefs, should they be forced to forgo them completely? They're still offering coverage of bc, just not certain drugs/methods that they (to be clear, I'm not saying that I agree with that) feel are tantamount to abortion (I think this was the case they were trying to make). However, does this mean that a company owned by a JW doesn't have to offer coverage for blood transfusions? (Our VP is a JW and as such is not the VP over our blood bank, eventhough he is the VP for all of the other departments in the lab). ~> slippery slope...

HL isn't imposing their beliefs on their employees. Their employees still have choices. Choose from the covered options, choose to get a new job, choose to go to PP. It's a bit like the insurance companies that decide not to cover a particular drug, even though it's better for the condition than the ones that they do cover, just more expensive. The rationale that it's against their beliefs is somewhat more acceptable to me than that something is too expensive...

I live in a state that doesn't mandate coverage for fertility treatments. I had to fight tooth and nail to get my diagnostic tests covered as they were rejected on the grounds that I was infertile, but since my diagnosis hadn't been made/confirmed yet, I didn't feel that was fair. I didn't even try on the fertility drugs, just sucked up the costs. Insurance sucks. I work for a hospital and my insurance sucks.

I've sort of wanted the USA to adopt a national healthcare plan akin to Canada/England's but I also don't want a government that controls absolutely everything.

Should HL take the needs and desires of their employees into account when making the decision of what to cover and what not to? In a "nice", "considerate" world, that would be great. It would generally make the public opinion of HL a bit/lot better - "What a great company..." But should the government be able to tell people/companies what they can/cannot do for their health?? again ~> slippery slope.

coffeyandyogapants · July 2014

Angry also. Religious beliefs do not and should not mix in the workplace. Period. One should have nothing to do with the other.

RondackHiker · July 2014

Mevaroo said:
@Codypup‌ it just seems like an easy way out of getting out of consequences. I'm sure there are some scenarios where it might seem more appropriate, but overall it seems like it gives people license to have all the sex and not think about what could come of it. Part of these feelings come from being raised in a very traditional church environment where I was taught that you shouldn't have sex until you're married (or ready to support babies.)
If my understanding of what the pill does is wrong, I will be happy to be correctly informed, but from my understanding, it's just not something that gels with what I believe.

Why the fúck should sex have consequences?

No.

Really.

Why should it?

And why should a baby be a consequence/punishment for little miss slut spreading her legs?

What's the consequence for the man?

Oh.

Wait.

There isn't one.

THE MORNING AFTER PILL DOESNT CAUSE ABORTIONS AND SO WHAT IF IT DOES... Abortions are legal. Don't like them, don't get one.

Honestly, the sex should have consequences shit is so dumb. You're smart enough not to parrot that crap.

And what about married couples who can't afford babies? God says sex is for married couples. Should they not bang?

RondackHiker · July 2014

I'm getting on the road, but some points I am not sure have been fully covered:

Some women can only use an IUD. Hobby lobby doesn't cover this and the out of pocket costs are HUGE.

HL is protesting because they "believe" that the four types they don't cover cause abortions. They don't. They're interfering with a doctor and patient's ability to decide based on incorrect beliefs.

Getting another job is not that easy and shouldn't have to be an option. Yes, HL pays a bit more ($9 an hour for part time and 14 for full), but not enough for the employees to easily buy BC oop and it means they can choose to have health care assistance for the IUD they need, or take a pay cut to go to walmart.

Soap1 · July 2014

innanni said:

I am one that hopes someday soon the US will have public health insurance like Canada. As a taxpayer, I would have no expectation that I could pick and choose what procedures my tax dollars covered. I feel like the supreme court has established a precedent that makes it possible that certain procedures could be excluded from public coverage in the future.

@innanni I actually disagree on the precedent/public coverage connection. The opinion didn't say the mandate to cover contraceptives was unconstitutional, just that the government has to find a way that's less intrusive to religious freedom in order to implement it. In the opinion, Alito says the government could pay for these contraceptives, which is saying a Supreme Court Approved alternative is public coverage for IUDs and Plan B.

Now, whether precedent matters at the Supreme Court level is up for debate, but lower courts can and would use that precedent to say people can't challenge the government paying for IUDs or Plan B.

boogerbearoriginal · July 2014

I think the problem with "get a new job" is two-fold, besides the fact that jobs don't just grow on trees the person is potentially giving up any raises/seniority and potentially other benefits earned from their time at the position, such as vacation/sick time. But the second problem I see is now the onus is on an applicant/employee to know the religious beliefs of their boss. Even a family business, like HL, has stores in numerous states and the general public would hardly know what beliefs they held before this case. I know I had no idea that HL was owned by a conservative christian family who opposed IUDs. Are applicants now expected to see detailed insurance coverage prior to accepting a position? Asking the boss's religion at an interview? And what about those who are already employed somewhere and now the coverage they had is being changed. What if the company is sold to another family of a different religion?

And companies aren't people. FFS.

notreal2 · July 2014

megash113 said:

Also, can we talk about more things that make @notreal2 ragey? I'm thoroughly enjoying this side of her.

Yoda would sense much anger in me.

Meghan14 · July 2014

I didn't mean for my 1st post to imply I was not educated about the issue, as some responses indicated.

When I said I was not sure how I felt at first, I did not mean when the Supreme Court's decision was made this week. I meant when I first read about The Catholic Church and later Hobby Lobby wanting exceptions made for religious objections. The questions I found myself asking were when the debate originated. I can't remember when this was, but I know for sure it was well over a year ago.

I will admit I did not know about HL's investments in companies that manufacture The Morning After Pill until Monday.

Sorry, I just felt like without clarifying my thoughts were being misrepresented.

Lemon81 · July 2014

I'm not sure the investments are even an issue. From what I understand, these investments are employee 401k accounts in mutual funds. I have investments in several mutual funds and I have no idea what they are invested in. That being said, investments in a mutual fund in a pharmaceutical company that makes a myriad of drugs including a morning-after pill are hardly reasons to call them hypocrites. If we are going that far, they should not cover any drug that is made by any company that also makes a morning-after pill because buying any drug from them would further their research and could inadvertently support the morning-after pill. That would just be crazy. That is just reaching and not the intent.

Soap1 · July 2014

Lemon81 said:

I'm not sure the investments are even an issue. From what I understand, these investments are employee 401k accounts in mutual funds. I have investments in several mutual funds and I have no idea what they are invested in. That being said, investments in a mutual fund in a pharmaceutical company that makes a myriad of drugs including a morning-after pill are hardly reasons to call them hypocrites. If we are going that far, they should not cover any drug that is made by any company that also makes a morning-after pill because buying any drug from them would further their research and could inadvertently support the morning-after pill. That would just be crazy. That is just reaching and not the intent.

@Lemon81 I agree with you completely. I think there are many, many things to criticize SCOTUS and HL about with this case, but I don't think this is one of them.

KatieKT · July 2014

C12H22O11 said:

The ruling probably won't keep me from shopping there, but I believe boycotting (by both consumers and employees) is an effective way to express displeasure with this ruling, should the individual feel strongly about the ruling.

This exactly. I have mixed feelings about the ruling but I know there are other huge chain craft stores that aren't denying employees coverage that's against their religious beliefs for me to shop at. That choice is what separates our country from a communist one.

KatieKT · July 2014

adinashoshana said:

KatieKT said:

C12H22O11 said:

The ruling probably won't keep me from shopping there, but I believe boycotting (by both consumers and employees) is an effective way to express displeasure with this ruling, should the individual feel strongly about the ruling.

This exactly. I have mixed feelings about the ruling but I know there are other huge chain craft stores that aren't denying employees coverage that's against their religious beliefs. That choice is what separates our country from a communist one.

I think that's a grossly untrue statement.

You're free to think that

hammysmommy · July 2014

Whether or not IUDs cause abortions goes to the crux of the entire ProLife/ProChoice battle that's been waging for decades. When is it "LIFE" - at fertilization? at implantation? after several weeks when there's a heartbeat? after 24 weeks (many of us saw our LOs around 20 weeks and I cannot imagine thinking that it's not a "LIFE" by the middle of the second trimester)?

A lot of religious, and nonreligious, people believe that it's a "LIFE" at fertilization, therefore they believe that an IUD/medication preventing implantation would essentially be killing said "LIFE". I honestly don't know where I fall on this spectrum of when the tiny cells are a "LIFE", but I feel strongly that it's not up to the government to make that decision for me, or for HL. Just like it's not up to the government to tell women that they cannot have an abortion or take the morning after pill if they so choose.

Can I ask an honest question? In what scenario would a non-hormonal IUD be the only option? What about diaphragms, spermacidal foams and condoms? I realize that these do require some measure of forethought, but they are an option...

notreal2 · July 2014

Diaphrams have to be replaced every time a person loses or gains I believe it is 25 pounds, so it remains cost prohibitive. Also all the methods mentioned by skoczera are far less effective than the paragard IUD.

KatieKT · July 2014

broccoli's_girl said:

adinashoshana said:

KatieKT said:

C12H22O11 said:

The ruling probably won't keep me from shopping there, but I believe boycotting (by both consumers and employees) is an effective way to express displeasure with this ruling, should the individual feel strongly about the ruling.

This exactly. I have mixed feelings about the ruling but I know there are other huge chain craft stores that aren't denying employees coverage that's against their religious beliefs. That choice is what separates our country from a communist one.

I think that's a grossly untrue statement.

Um, yeah... can you elaborate?

I meant that we live in a place that if our government or a craft store does something that causes outrage, we can do something about it. Hobby Lobby didn't like the mandate, so they appealed it. We don't like what Hobby Lobby did to its employees, so we'll buy our modge podge at Michael's and hope they go out of business. Not everyone in the world can say/do the same.

Soap1 · July 2014

KatieKT said:

broccoli's_girl said:

adinashoshana said:

KatieKT said:

C12H22O11 said:

The ruling probably won't keep me from shopping there, but I believe boycotting (by both consumers and employees) is an effective way to express displeasure with this ruling, should the individual feel strongly about the ruling.

This exactly. I have mixed feelings about the ruling but I know there are other huge chain craft stores that aren't denying employees coverage that's against their religious beliefs. That choice is what separates our country from a communist one.

I think that's a grossly untrue statement.

Um, yeah... can you elaborate?

I meant that we live in a place that if our government or a craft store does something that causes outrage, we can do something about it. Hobby Lobby didn't like the mandate, so they appealed it. We don't like what Hobby Lobby did to its employees, so we'll buy our modge podge at Michael's and hope they go out of business. Not everyone in the world can say/do the same.

Communism... I do not think that word means what you think it means...

hammysmommy · July 2014

I just read the opinion and found it interesting that the Justices mentioned that the government could extend the same exemption to HL as they do to Churches - which doesn't prevent employees from getting IUDs (at all), it's just done in a different way - they have a third party administrator which covers the cost of the IUD and then gets the $ from an insurance partner, who gets rebated from the government. It's convoluted, but actually seems fair. If the government says something should be free to the 'patient' as a preventative service, then they(the government) should have a means to provide it.

I wonder if HL's female employees who can't/won't use one of the several BC methods that HL is willing to cover, could go to PP (or another public clinic type place) and either submit a form to someone for reimbursement or maybe PP would be able to do it for them...

eta: "(or another public clinic type place)"

LetoileDuNord · July 2014

The broad lack of understanding about how family planning works tells me that we need comprehensive sex ed.

And apparently mandatory Intro to Politics. Because communism.

hammysmommy · July 2014

for those interested this is a decent explanation of how women who work for religious non-profit organizations can still get free BC (including IUDs):

"

Under an accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, separate payments for contraceptive services are available for women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization.

With respect to insured health plans, including student health plans, to be eligible for the accommodation, an eligible organization must provide a copy of its self-certification to its health insurance issuer. These plans must then provide separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. As explained in the final rules, issuers will find that providing such payments is cost-neutral.

With respect to self-insured health plans, to be eligible for the accommodation, an eligible organization must provide a copy of its self-certification to its third party administrator. The third party administrator must then provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement."

(link)

magentawarped · July 2014

car seat said:
So... this is happening now.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

"The day after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people."

-----------------------------------------

And this, people, is what happens when you're okay with these kinds of decisions.

Was literally just coming on to post this. And people think this ruling was just about birth control. SMH.

Codypup · July 2014

Car, that literally made my stomach drop.

Can I come to Candada too? JFC, I am so angry right now.

goobermom · July 2014

I agree with a lot of what Lemon said. I really believe that the government should let private companies run their business the way that they want it run. I am decidedly more "small government" in my thinking.

versed · July 2014

I want to agree that these companies are making inappropriate decisions based on inaccurate information. As it was covered, Plan-B doesn't work as many assume. Also, there's the IUD - many don't know how they work. I have Christian friends who won't use Mirena because it "goes against their beliefs" so they chose ParaGuard.

It's my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), that the Mirena works on three levels: first, it prevents ovulation; 2nd, it creates a non-hospitable environment for sperm; and 3rd, it thins the lining. So, most likely, you won't ovulate, however, if you do, it's unlikely that a sperm will meet the egg. If a super sperm makes it to your super egg, than it's unlikely that it will implant. Many just think sperm and eggs are fertilizing all over the place and just being killed off. I believe ParaGuard works by creating a non-hospitable environment for sperm. I don't get why one is "okay" for some Christians and one isn't.

Anyways, that's all I can add that hasn't been said: Mirena isn't killing all the babies.

hammysmommy · July 2014

Devil's advocate here...

Bookshelves said:

Here's the thing: All this nonsense about what should and shouldn't be covered? Those should be administrative decisions among insurance companies and employers.

An administrative decision among insurance company and employer,without government intervention, is all that the administration of HL was looking for...

MamaAllison · July 2014

I have nothing to add but Thank You all. Some idiot on my FB feed said "what's the big problem?" In regards to this matter and thanks to reading through all your opinions I was able to respond to that BS in a way that sounded intelligent instead of just mean.

I'm still betting I get defriended but I don't really need close minded friends anyway!

RondackHiker · July 2014

innanni said:
The stereotypical woman who chooses abortion is usually a scared teenager who doesn't want to "face her responsibilities". The reality is that 60% already have atleast one child. About 30% are married. Women choose abortion usually for multiple reasons, but 3/4 of the time they cite needing to care for other dependents as one of them.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/22689931/ns/health-womens_health/t/whos-getting-abortions-not-who-youd-think/

And an abortion is taking responsiblity.

You personally may not like her solution (general you, not you @innanni‌), but it takes care of her unwanted pregnancy is a solution.

boogerbearoriginal · July 2014

I'm going to state a likely really UO about abortion - so what if women are using it as BC or are NOT emotionally upset by it? I mean really, so what? How does that impact you, and further, how does it change things? If a woman has sex which resulted in an unintended pregnancy and she says, well I'll just get an abortion and does, why does she have to anguish over the choice for it to be "ok'? Perhaps she feels a sense of relief? Is that so horrible? Like PP mentioned, abortions are hardly just for a "teen in trouble". Married people have lots of sex too, and sometimes DON'T want a baby or can't afford a baby. Humans have been trying to prevent/end unintended pregnancies since the dawn of time.

We love to talk about how people shouldn't have kids they can't afford/support, but simultaneously take away highly effective ways of ensuring that.

But yea, this decision will have ramifications well beyond BC, and that some on SCOTUS truly don't see the broader consequences frightens me. Bottom line, SCOTUS continues to give more and more rights to corporations and I just, am baffled at the lunacy of it all. Although it furthers my support of single payer system because clearly the employer sponsored model is being dismantled. Sadly I think what's actually going to happen is that most employers will opt out of the insurance business and we'll all be responsible for individual policies which will leave the poorest people with increasingly shittier care and those who can afford to pay for better care will benefit most.

hammysmommy · July 2014

Mamosey said:

Ummm https://davidfeldmanshow.com/busted-hobby-lobby-doesnt-offer-paid-maternity-leave-employees-even-though-hobby-lobby-wont-pay-contraception

Since paid maternity leave isn't federally mandated (yet) I think that it's exceedingly rare for US companies to actually pay for it, or for paternity leave, without the employee using their vacation/PTO. I was only able to take 12 weeks because, after 15 years, I've accrued enough vacation/disability time to cover it. If I did not have the time in my bank, I would have been unpaid and only had the job protection for 8 weeks.

It's not really fair to "bust" a company for providing FMLA coverage (job protection) and not paying for leave themselves (instead of the employee using PTO) when that's pretty much the norm in this country. While the norm itself is "bust"-able, it's not fair to harp on a particular company that is not doing anything different (in the maternity leave world) than the majority of other companies in this country.

Lemon81 · July 2014

Mamosey said:

skoczera said:

Mamosey said:

Ummm https://davidfeldmanshow.com/busted-hobby-lobby-doesnt-offer-paid-maternity-leave-employees-even-though-hobby-lobby-wont-pay-contraception

Since paid maternity leave isn't federally mandated (yet) I think that it's exceedingly rare for US companies to actually pay for it, or for paternity leave, without the employee using their vacation/PTO. I was only able to take 12 weeks because, after 15 years, I've accrued enough vacation/disability time to cover it. If I did not have the time in my bank, I would have been unpaid and only had the job protection for 8 weeks.

It's not really fair to "bust" a company for providing FMLA coverage (job protection) and not paying for leave themselves (instead of the employee using PTO) when that's pretty much the norm in this country. While the norm itself is "bust"-able, it's not fair to harp on a particular company that is not doing anything different (in the maternity leave world) than the majority of other companies in this country.

<y leave was unpaid too...that's not the point. The point is that this is a company that is not providing the means for women to prevent pregnancy and then is also not paying them to take care of those babies when they are born.

But they do pay for 16 of 20 kinds of contraception.

boogerbearoriginal · July 2014

Donning my tinfoil hat - I think HL was more about getting the court to rule that companies can use religious beliefs to circumvent laws than the actual BC methods they are supposedly opposed to.

And I also wonder, if the same people touting their praise for religious freedom will be so pleased if a company owned by muslims starts using this ruling to circumvent civil liberty laws.

Lemon81 · July 2014

Honestly, I couldn't care less what kind of birth control a person uses, but I would argue all day that an individual (in this case the owners of HL) are entitled to their beliefs and should not be forced to pay for something they don't believe is ok. To me, this case is not about birth control. It is about government control of a privately held business.

coffeyandyogapants · July 2014

Booger+Bear said:

Donning my tinfoil hat - I think HL was more about getting the court to rule that companies can use religious beliefs to circumvent laws than the actual BC methods they are supposedly opposed to.

And I also wonder, if the same people touting their praise for religious freedom will be so pleased if a company owned by muslims starts using this ruling to circumvent civil liberty la

THIS EXACTLY.

Lemon81 · July 2014

Mamosey said:

Honestly, I couldn't care less what kind of birth control a person uses, but I would argue all day that an individual (in this case the owners of HL) are entitled to their beliefs and should not be forced to pay for something they don't believe is ok. To me, this case is not about birth control. It is about government control of a privately held business.
So you believe it is ok for a company to discriminate against a gay person because the owners don't believe being gay is ok?

No I do not. Discrimination against a person is completely different than not paying for a drug.

TyrannosaurusLex said:

Honestly, I couldn't care less what kind of birth control a person uses, but I would argue all day that an individual (in this case the owners of HL) are entitled to their beliefs and should not be forced to pay for something they don't believe is ok. To me, this case is not about birth control. It is about government control of a privately held business.
So if company owners don't believe in sex outside of it's role in procreation, they shouldn't have to pay for a drug like Viagra which *could* be used for recreational sex? Oh wait...HL pays for that. Birth control can serve other purposes besides birth control, from a medical standpoint.

I agree birth control does have other roles. I have been on bc pills for a long time due to endometriosis and PCOS, but it was not Plan B or an IUD. I don't know if either of those have therapeutic roles outside of birth control.

notreal2 · July 2014

For everyone who still thinks this is a great thing, considering how many parents are able to get out of vaccinating their children due to "religious beliefs" the government has already proven when it comes to health they are willing to play fast and lose with the definition of religious beliefs. Now that the "do what I want and call it protected by my religion" attitude can apply to corporations, it's only a matter of time until a corporation choses to ignore a law you feel is important and hides behind religion.

Lemon81 · July 2014

There are a whole ton of what-ifs here. I get that. Very few things are completely black and white. I don't believe this ruling applies to discrimination of people for the simple fact that the constitution trumps a Supreme Court ruling in the whole scheme of things. Since the constitution applies to everyone (gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, man, woman...), even if it did make it to the SCOTUS, discrimination should not be ruled on the same way as medications. It's just not the same.

Lemon81 · July 2014

car seat said:

Lemon81 said:

There are a whole ton of what-ifs here. I get that. Very few things are completely black and white. I don't believe this ruling applies to discrimination of people for the simple fact that the constitution trumps a Supreme Court ruling in the whole scheme of things. Since the constitution applies to everyone (gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, man, woman...), even if it did make it to the SCOTUS, discrimination should not be ruled on the same way as medications. It's just not the same.

I just think maybe you should learn more about your system of government and laws.

I know quite a bit about it, but disagreeing with an opinion, even the popular one, doesn't make me wrong. To be honest, since the SCOTUS is the one I am agreeing with, that technically makes me right within the laws of the US.

Soap1 · July 2014

Lemon81 said:

There are a whole ton of what-ifs here. I get that. Very few things are completely black and white. I don't believe this ruling applies to discrimination of people for the simple fact that the constitution trumps a Supreme Court ruling in the whole scheme of things. Since the constitution applies to everyone (gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, man, woman...), even if it did make it to the SCOTUS, discrimination should not be ruled on the same way as medications. It's just not the same.

The Constitution absolutely does not trump a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court decides what they think the Constitution means. The Constitution didn't actually apply to everyone/anyone until the Supreme Court decided that the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law, incorporation of the Bill of Rights to states, etc.) means that it applies to everyone and that discrimination is unconstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that the private sector can't discriminate, but SCOTUS tends to interpret the 14th amendment to mean that. They could easily decide that isn't true after all.

notreal2 · July 2014

Lemon81 said:

There are a whole ton of what-ifs here. I get that. Very few things are completely black and white. I don't believe this ruling applies to discrimination of people for the simple fact that the constitution trumps a Supreme Court ruling in the whole scheme of things. Since the constitution applies to everyone (gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, man, woman...), even if it did make it to the SCOTUS, discrimination should not be ruled on the same way as medications. It's just not the same.

Plessy v. Ferguson didn't just apply to trains and Roe v. Wade didn't just make abortion legal in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court decides specific cases, but those decisions are then applied nationwide on a broader basis as a precedent, because they are the highest court in the land, and who is going over rule them?

Hopefully someone who can make with the words better than I can describes it more coherently.

Lemon81 · July 2014

The natural interpretation of the 14th amendment does lean that way. I highly doubt that will change. I guess I worded that poorly. The SCOTUS is bound by the constitution. While some of it could be open to interpretation, I do not think the 14th amendment not applying to the private sector would be changed.

Lemon81 · July 2014

car seat said:

Lemon81 said:

car seat said:

Lemon81 said:

There are a whole ton of what-ifs here. I get that. Very few things are completely black and white. I don't believe this ruling applies to discrimination of people for the simple fact that the constitution trumps a Supreme Court ruling in the whole scheme of things. Since the constitution applies to everyone (gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, man, woman...), even if it did make it to the SCOTUS, discrimination should not be ruled on the same way as medications. It's just not the same.

I just think maybe you should learn more about your system of government and laws.

I know quite a bit about it, but disagreeing with an opinion, even the popular one, doesn't make me wrong. To be honest, since the SCOTUS is the one I am agreeing with, that technically makes me right within the laws of the US.

Dude. You don't know much about it if you can't think ahead to the impact that this is going to have. It's not about 4/20 birth control methods. It's about defining a company as a person. The implications are astounding, and if you can't see that, you need to learn more about how it all works and what this can and will mean for actual people.

I do completely agree with you there. It is not about birth control. Never once have I said it was. It is about the rights of a privately owned company and how much control government has over it. We are not talking about a publicly traded company. It is a private family business. A large one, yes, but still family owned. It should have never been a Supreme Court case because the benefits offered to employees by a private company should be decided by the owners of that company.

Want a personalized experience?

Current events- hobby lobby SCOTUS decision

Re: Current events- hobby lobby SCOTUS decision

Choose Another Board

Search Boards