Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-03-2014, 08:31 AM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,745,785 times
Reputation: 13868

Advertisements

For those of you buying into the liberal spin here are the facts:

The left is accusing Hobby Lobby of stopping women’s rights to contraception, consider that the company has covered and plans to continue covering 16 of the Food and Drug Administration’s 20 approved forms of contraception.

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

There were four types of birth control at the center of Hobby Lobby’s have issue with,

Plan B, which is also known as the “morning after pill,”
Ella, another emergency contraceptive,
Copper Intrauterine Device and
IUD with progestin

forms of birth control that some believe can cause or are akin to abortion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2014, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,226,365 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
For those of you buying into the liberal spin here are the facts:

The left is accusing Hobby Lobby of stopping women’s rights to contraception, consider that the company has covered and plans to continue covering 16 of the Food and Drug Administration’s 20 approved forms of contraception.

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

There were four types of birth control at the center of Hobby Lobby’s have issue with,

Plan B, which is also known as the “morning after pill,”
Ella, another emergency contraceptive,
Copper Intrauterine Device and
IUD with progestin

forms of birth control that some believe can cause or are akin to abortion.
The religious men haters will never listen to the facts you give
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 08:53 AM
 
139 posts, read 85,645 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
The religious men haters will never listen to the facts you give
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not in favor of the SCOTUS ruling even though I am religious. My problem stems from the precedent that this ruling sets: private employers have the right to eliminate the coverage of contraceptives from a policy on religious grounds.

Why should an employer be able to impose their religious views on their employees, who more than likely are paying into the health insurance? The policy is part of the compensation plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 08:54 AM
 
7,006 posts, read 6,996,400 times
Reputation: 7060
Common sense

Hobby Lobby Decision Reveals The Left’s Obsession With Entitlement
A. Nobody's "access" to birth control is being denied. This is the New Left. Worse than the Old Left. It used to be the left would say, "Stay out of my business." Now they say, "Stay out of business! Oh and you have to pay for it." This goes back to what Rachel said the other day to a protester at the court about rights and "access."

B. If your boss says, "Sorry, I am not going to pay for the coverage for __________ " in your health care plan, he/she is not having a say in your health care decisions. This is similar to her previous complaint. But now she's extending to where not only is she supposedly being "denied access" to contraception, but her boss is somehow making her healthcare decisions for her.

C. What was at stake here was Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This has nothing to do with men or women. It has to do with liberty. What the Supreme Court decided was that a business owners do not have to check their religious beliefs at the door simply because they want to run a business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 08:56 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,222,338 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not in favor of the SCOTUS ruling even though I am religious. My problem stems from the precedent that this ruling sets: private employers have the right to eliminate the coverage of contraceptives from a policy on religious grounds.

Why should an employer be able to impose their religious views on their employees, who more than likely are paying into the health insurance? The policy is part of the compensation plan.
They are not imposing their religious views on you. I'm not sure why this has to be repeated over and over. You can still do whatever you damn please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:04 AM
 
139 posts, read 85,645 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
They are not imposing their religious views on you. I'm not sure why this has to be repeated over and over. You can still do whatever you damn please.

From my persective, religious views are being imposed in the form of denying coverage. For example, if I was a Hindu owner of a private business, and I wanted to deny coverage for cardiovascular medication because I saw a correlation between eating meat and heart disease, would I be justified in doing so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,226,365 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not in favor of the SCOTUS ruling even though I am religious. My problem stems from the precedent that this ruling sets: private employers have the right to eliminate the coverage of contraceptives from a policy on religious grounds.

Why should an employer be able to impose their religious views on their employees, who more than likely are paying into the health insurance? The policy is part of the compensation plan.
Because they have done nothing to stop their employees from using any bc the choose. No one has lost any rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,226,365 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
From my persective, religious views are being imposed in the form of denying coverage. For example, if I was a Hindu owner of a private business, and I wanted to deny coverage for cardiovascular medication because I saw a correlation between eating meat and heart disease, would I be justified in doing so?
Your free to make that argument to the sc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:09 AM
 
139 posts, read 85,645 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Because they have done nothing to stop their employees from using any bc the choose. No one has lost any rights.
I agree. No one has lost the right; however, the ease of accessibility has been diminished on religious grounds, which I don't agree with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,226,365 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
I agree. No one has lost the right; however, the ease of accessibility has been diminished on religious grounds, which I don't agree with.
They can access it anywhere they choose no one is denying them access
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top