geo wrote:Johnson makes a good point. There are a lot of parents out there who have no idea how to raise a child because they themselves weren't parented. It's a vicious cycle of dysfunction and poverty.

Society should provide a safety net without enabling dysfunctional behavior and prolonging the vicious cycle. I would argue that Obamacare isn't going to do much to help people in the long run. But I don't really know that. It's more of a gut feeling that comes from being generally anti-government. My wife works with a lot of kids who are from the kinds of dysfunctional families that Johnson is talking about and she sees the kinds of bureaucratic entanglements with Medicaid that are only going to get worse under Obamacare. I'll see if I can describe some specific situations later.

Also, just to point out, anyone who wants birth control can just go to the local Health Department and get it for free. What Obamacare does is require employers to provide it to employees as part of their health plans. I would suggest that we look to what Obamacare was supposed to accomplish when they first passed it and what it actually does accomplish. Better care for everyone? I'm highly skeptical.

Let's not let this thread get stupid. We can disagree with each other and still be respectful of other points of view.

Hobby Lobby does provide contraception, Geo.
And there are other means to obtain "emergency" contraception.

Hobby Lobby would have been fined over 400 million dollars annually for not providing a pill thats strictly for thise moments when you "forgot" to use the contraception provided.

His reasoning is stupid and overbearing. The
And he's either ignoring the Religious Freedom Act test as it appies to this matter. Or he doesnt give a d am n because its coming out of someone elses pocket.

He doesnt give a damn.

Dumb

So I am the owner of Hooby Lobby and Johnson works for me.
He and his wife are trying to start a family but poor Mr Johnson has trouble getting it up.

So Johnson visits his doctor and asks about viagra.
His doctor tells him "That would help except for one thing: for some reason your plan doesnt pay for viagra"

Johnson sues me.

Should I be helping him get it up?

Am I not taking care of my village child in this case?
What if my religion forbids artificial interference in the act of conception?
TOO BAD? One of the village children is desperate to get it up?

does your car warranty pay if you want to add chrome wheels and a speaker system to your car?

johnson1010 wrote:

Geo:

There are a lot of parents out there who have no idea how to raise a child because they themselves weren't parented. It's a vicious cycle of dysfunction and poverty.

This exactly.

If people not only don't have hope for being able to raise a baby, but really don't want to do it, they need to be able to back out. Before there is a baby to worry about.

If people are worried about having to pay for such people's irresponsible choices, forcing them to have unwanted babies will do nothing to make tax payers pay less for them.

It's interesting to see how people interpret this ruling in different ways. I don't see this ruling as an obstacle to birth control. As I've already mentioned, the Health Department gives out birth control. I believe even Hobby lobby isn't opposed to barrier methods of birth control. Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its funding from the federal government and no one is suggesting that will stop.

To me this is about individual freedom versus the collective good. Historically companies have had the freedom to put together their own health care plans. Under Obamacare you now have the government dictating what must be in health care plans. It seems Orwellian to me.

But another guy I know sees this ruling as a dangerous precedent of granting individual status to corporations. If that were true, I would agree it's a scary precedent. Because I'm anti-government AND anti-corporation. So where do I stand on this? Thankfully, this was a narrow ruling and probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

"RFRA “prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.”

Opinion of the Court:

"The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would"

On the merits, it doesnt get much more straightforward than this.

It's brutally foolish to want to argue against the ruling based on the law and how it's applicable here.
There is no denial to access to healthcare taking place. Thats another fact thats being overlooked for the sake of advancing emotional arguments, some of which are from self proclaimed rationalists.

RFRA passed unanimously in 1993.
It's RFRA thats the real problem here thats stuck in the craw of some people.
Regardless, the law is crystal clear.

It's bizarre that youre hearing things like women's rights and women are being disrespected, we need to care for our "village children" this is religious tyranny, Hobby Lobby sucks, etc etc.

Religious freedom and toleration have been one of the bedrocks of this nation. It's as if some people just dont have the guts to say what they really feel - they are tired of religious toleration.

And then we are hearing all these what if scenarios.
Thats precisely why we have courts of law, to deal with what ifs on a case by case basis.

The crimes against rationale by some people here are unbelievable!

What about women that do take care of themselves and would take exception to being thought of as a child that needs the government to provide birth control and emergency morning after pills?

Quite frankly I think generalizing that it takes everyone to "care" for women as it applies specifically to this case can be considered patronizing and demeaning.

Im certain there are millions of responsible women who dont want the government to hand them everything they ask for or dont ask for.

But another guy I know sees this ruling as a dangerous precedent of granting individual status to corporations. If that were true, I would agree it's a scary precedent. Because I'm anti-government AND anti-corporation. So where do I stand on this? Thankfully, this was a narrow ruling and probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

I'm partially anti-government, but that part is there mainly because private interests have a great deal of control over a system which should be public. I don't mind a large government, but it should be far more fair than it currently is, not giving out rents yet redistributing where capitalism fails, and highly transparent. There are some things which make sense with larger pools and in non-profit fashion, such as healthcare. The issue is that Obamacare is meant to appease both sides, and falling halfway between what each side wanted it worse than if it had been fully public.

Dexter wrote: It's because you've mandated a decision that should be private that it creates a conflict over values.

There are conflicts over values all throughout legislature, where interests collide. This isn't a special case, and the waters are muddied when you say it's a "decision that should be private". The use of the product is private, sure. But acquisition is not the same as use. There are many things covered by insurance that are private and also decision based. The conflict over values is that this territory is on the border between public healthcare and sacrosanct private beliefs. Ant is right that the issue is about the religious freedoms act more than big government/small government.


When you look at the big picture, the fuss this has created is sort of comical. Both sides have good points, and the issue isn't really that bad in either direction. Our separate views have honed our disagreements to a grey area, where they rightfully belong. Orwellian is more to the left, anarcho-capitalism or theocracy more to the right.

I just wish we'd make a fuss over other issues. Like campaign finance and government transparency/accountability.

A late reply... but as I think you asked an interesting question... here it is.

geo wrote: I mean that the law requires employers to cover contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans. I know that many of us don't think birth control is a big deal. But some religions are opposed to some methods of birth control. If you own a business, why should you be compelled to provide something to your employees that goes against your religious beliefs?

Why shouldn't you? I'm not saying this to be argumentative. I am, OK, but not completely in some kneejerk fashion. Here is my premise: A business has no right to hold values. A business has no right to an opinion, belief or mood. A Christian owner may believe that contraception is morally wrong but his business is regulated as is the marketplace he operates in. He is not being forced to be a business owner after all. Now if an owner is for the end of patent protections and so on well... good for him. I'll take this guy seriously. A business operates to make a profit, and does so in a system designed for it to make that profit. In return for this, an owner must endure certain concessions (aka punishments) - pay taxes, refrain from excessively fouling the environment (lol) and obey the law.

For that matter, why should the government mandate full coverage (no co-pay) of a small regular expense like $10/month for The Pill and not aspirin or vitamins or diapers? Does this make sense?

No. But private insurers make no sense to me.

If a person is paying the monthly premiums for insurance, they are in essence paying for contraceptives. As such, they should be allowed to have the contraceptive option on their plans if they so choose.

Any insurance that is willing to pay for Viagra should be willing to pay for contraceptives (birth control). If they aren't then that is patently sexist, because they arew sayign a man's right to get a hard-on is more important than a woman's right to not get pregnant if she doesn't want to.

As a side note, because this is an argument I've gotten into several times, abortion is not a form of birth control, and I for one don't know of any sane, rational people who view it as birth control. Please stop lumping it together with the pill.

ant wrote: But can you tell me how women are being denied contraception by other means?
The ruling indicated that they are not denied by other means. Tell me why they are wrong in stating that.

So it's only the morning after pill then? Is it only a matter of time before it's the pill in general? Could it lead to that?