Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should anyone but the person engaging in the sexual act pay for the contraception? If the answer is because the consequences are more of a burden then that is called blackmail.
I guess asking women to close their legs is too much to ask. If a woman can't figure out how to obtain contraceptives, then that woman and the man involved should be neutered or otherwise rendered incapable of engaging in the act.
Leave it to liberals to figure out a way to blame other for their inability to obtain contraception without getting others to pay for it.
These woman who are working for HL are PAYING for healthcare coverage, you are assuming they are all single ...is this what you'd tell a married woman who is trying to be responsible? I've pointed out that IUD's that are now not covered under HL insurance for many woman who can't take bc pills this is the most effective alternative and much better than the OTC things. IUD's can cost upwards of $1000. yet we as woman pay a hefty health insurance premium and now having an IUD is not covered.
Health insurance companies have been covering this procedure for decades it is a standard form of care not only for birth control but for medical necessities.
So what we have here is an argument between a "conservative" who sees everything through a filter based on religious and/or nationalistic absolutes,
vs. a supposed "liberal" (but likely calling herself a "progressive" nowadays) who immediately resorts to stereotyping that would immediately draw the wrath of the Politically Correct, if and only if it were directed at the opposite side of our present polarization.
Stereotyping? Are you talking about my satirical remark directed at the OP's handle of ALPHA MALE?? It's called humor. I suspect that OPs handle is satirical in nature anyway. I wouldn't spend too much time worrying that I hurt his feelings.
Oh, and for the record, I'm a moderate democrat. If we're going to be classifying people in large blocks instead of talking about an individual's actual thoughts on a particular subject, let's at least figure out the correct box to put me in first.
On the topic of the ruling, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a scathing multi-page dissent in the case.
This case may turn into an important, precedent-setting decision.
On the topic of the ruling, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a scathing multi-page dissent in the case.
This case may turn into an important, precedent-setting decision.
I hope so.
The Bush-Gore decision was an eye-opener.
The Citizens United decision was disheartening.
But if this gutting of the separation of church and state isn't a wake up call, it ought to be.
What if an auto insurance corporation doesn't want to provide blood transfusions because it goes against their religion (Jehovah's Witnesses)? Does that mean anyone who gets in a car accident covered by that insurance is allowed to bleed to death?
What if another CEO's religion doesn't believe in Viagra believing that if the good Lord meant for old men to get it up they wouldn't need any little blue pills to do it?
Why we are handing our nation over to the 1%ers is beyond me.
Why we allow churches to lobby for legislation and openly support political candidates and then operate tax free while the rest of pick up their share of the tax burden is beyond me.
Why anyone would think this SCOTUS decision is wise and moving us in a positive direction is beyond me.
God, this country is really in downward spiral. The religious nut jobs are really destroying our country. I mean, if you want to pray to a god who killed himself to save humanity, that's your business but please keep that out of my life.
I've read all the posts so far, and it's interesting that some won't answer the questions that are asked but instead choose to obfuscate.
Tell me again why Hobby Lobby (or any other CLOSELY HELD CORP, usually family run) should be FORCED to cover birth control?
------------------
As for the union case, I'm a union member and pro union (because of job benefits and protections) BUT in this case the unions were absolutely wrong. They argued that becase a person gets medicaid funds to take care of a disabled child -- they should technically be considered a state worker. WHAT?!
The below is from Font Page magazine's website: In the union case, plaintiff Pamela Harris serves as the primary caretaker for her son, Josh, who has a rare genetic syndrome. She receives Medicaid funds and essentially functions as a state employee.
During the administration of disgraced ex-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) saw an opportunity to expand by organizing two groups of people: home-based caregivers in the state’s Medicaid program and daycare providers.
Neither group had previously been considered state employees, and for good reason: Most of these caregivers watched over disabled relatives at home, and the daycare providers were small businesses that took in children from low-income families that received state child-care subsidies. Calling people in either group “state workers” just because they took advantage of a public social program would be as crazy as classifying food stamps recipients as state employees.
Why should anyone but the person engaging in the sexual act pay for the contraception? If the answer is because the consequences are more of a burden then that is called blackmail.
I guess asking women to close their legs is too much to ask. If a woman can't figure out how to obtain contraceptives, then that woman and the man involved should be neutered or otherwise rendered incapable of engaging in the act.
Leave it to liberals to figure out a way to blame other for their inability to obtain contraception without getting others to pay for it.
Do you realize that women use "contraceptives" for things that do not involve contraception?
My sister had to start taking the pill at age 13. Not because she was sexually active or even thinking about it, but because for her periods were debilitating. They meant 3 days of nausea and painful cramps followed by several days of heavy bleeding. She couldn't go to school. She couldn't walk around or even sit up straight when her period was visiting due to the pain. This meant missing several days of school. Even now, well into adulthood, she has the same symptoms if she misses her doses of the pill.
I am absolutely sure, that soon, some company is going to claim cancer treatments are against there religion, and they don't want to pay (because it is expensive).
God, this country is really in downward spiral. The religious nut jobs are really destroying our country. I mean, if you want to pray to a god who killed himself to save humanity, that's your business but please keep that out of my life.
I agree.
I find it so odd that they are forcing their preferences on others under the guise of their religion.
As has been noted several places, Hobby Lobby invests funds in contraceptive manufacturing companies and buys a boatload of inventory from China with all its abortions. Seems like a truly religious outfit would not be involved in either of these despicable endeavors.
This is little more than the right wing undermining the rule of law and replacing it with religious nonsense.
Our founders were clear that allowing religion into politics would put us on the road to hell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
