Satanists Using Hobby Lobby Ruling to Shield Women from Anti-Choice Laws

satanist-1I learned a long time ago to be careful what you wish for.  When the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby could use its religion to violate parts of a federal law, anyone with half a brain knew that the floodgates had just been opened.

Because that ruling wasn’t just about Hobby Lobby being given the right to deny four different types of birth control to their employees, it essentially established the precedent for people or businesses to use their religion to try to get their own way and ignore federal laws.

Similar to how a woman in Florida is suing a health clinic for religious discrimination because she admitted during her interview that she wouldn’t prescribe birth control to patients because it was against her religion.

Well, in a very interesting take on this whole situation, The Satanic Temple is urging women to print out a letter they’ve drafted to present to their physicians that exempts them from having to comply with several of the anti-choice laws that have been passed in many states around the country.

They’re calling this push, “The Right to Accurate Medical Information.”

Many states have anti-choice laws that require things like women to have a sonogram performed, or basically be subjected to conservative “pro-life” propaganda, before having an abortion.

And I’m not sure how these women could be denied their right to bypass these laws.  Even going beyond the argument The Satanic Temple is using, couldn’t a woman simply say that it’s against her religion to comply with these anti-abortion laws?

That’s essentially what Hobby Lobby’s argument was in their case.  That providing certain types of birth control violated their religious rights.

I’m not sure how you can justify allowing that argument for one person, business or group but deny it for another.

But this is just the beginning.  It’s going to get worse, and far more ridiculous.  And this is exactly what people said would happen when the Supreme Court issued their ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.  Individuals, groups or businesses using religion to justify violating laws that they deem to be “against their beliefs.”

Though it’s going to be interesting to see how this move by The Satanic Temple plays out, because I want to see how a court would justify forcing a woman to abide by these anti-choice laws even when she rightfully claims they’re against her beliefs.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    No employer has the right to prevent any employee from using whatever form of birth control they choose. No employee has the right to force some employers to pay for any kind of birth control they want. Perverting these concepts does nothing more than discredit the one doing the perverting.

    • Pipercat

      Nice Jimmy, except this doesn’t have anything to do with employers or employees.

    • William Fite

      This is exactly what the HL case was about. Very good Mr. Bean

    • mandate0

      What does perverting the concept have to do with it. People will pervert anything in order to get what they want. Kind of like the gun nuts perverting the second amendment in order to open carry in a place like Target. I’m quite sure that is not what our forefathers had in mind. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

    • Gary Smith

      That’s not the point and you should know it. The employers pays for “health care” as part of their employees’ compensation. It’s not “free”, it’s part of their pay.

      Employers have no right to second guess which procedures and medications their employees’ doctors prescribe. The employers are not medical professionals and have zero business inserting themselves between a patient and their doctor. Particularly since their “sincere religious belief” (as if an artificial legal construct aka corporation can have religious beliefs) has no medical nor scientifically validity.

      When people spoke out against this ludicrous “religious exception for corporations” nonsense, they warned of the situations that it would open the door for: Catholic, Mormon or Sikh employers refusing to pay for circumcision for their employees’ babies on religious grounds; Christians Scientist employers resisting paying for necessary surgery at all because of their religious beliefs that invasive medical procedures are against God’s will; etc.

      The thing is, the “narrow exception” of the HL ruling being only for closely held corporations …. well that only applies to 9 out of 10 corporations in America and covers over half of all American workers.

      There’s an old adage: “legislate in haste, repent at leisure” which applies to this ruling as well.

      The ugly flower of unintended consequences fertilized by this bullsh*t ruling is just beginning to bloom.

      • davidalbro

        The fact that IUDs and Plan B can cause the termination of human life has no scientific validity?

      • Di Kelley

        Daviddalbro, honestly, as much as killing typically bothers me, I don’t really consider the prevention of the implantation of a fertilized egg to be killing. The fertilized egg has no true consciousness as yet, it feels no pain because you’ve locked the front door, so to speak, and prevented it from implanting. Late trimester abortion? Yeah, that I take issue with. Plan B and IUDS? Not so much.

      • davidalbro

        And I can respect that. It is, however, by definition, killing. I don’t think it is unreasonable for Hobby Lobby to not what to participate in something that is killing.

      • Di Kelley

        To not want to? Yeah, all well and good. But there is also something called freedom of choice. Don’t want to use plan b or an IUD? Don’t use it, no one is forcing you to. But at the same time, they do not have a right to force someone else *not* to because they don’t want to (which is essentially what they are doing by refusing to provide insurance that covers such, considering the price of any kind of preventative care nowadays).. And that is what this is about.

      • davidalbro

        I agree with freedom of choice. It is unreasonable for the government to force businesses to provide health care that most likely ends human life. Do you not agree?

      • Di Kelley

        Nope. I don’t. Because that is allowing that business to dictate what another human being can do with their own body, due to the price of health care without any insurance.

      • davidalbro

        Well, that is the fault of the government for setting up this problematic system that forces businesses to provide health insurance. But ultimately the business is not dictating what the person does with their body. They are still free to take these medications. If there is any hindrance to this because of high medical costs that Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to subsidize because of clearly legitimate moral reasons, then that is the fault of the system not Hobby Lobby’s beliefs. Put blame where blame is due. Don’t punish someone for their beliefs or take away their freedom because an artificial system. Fix the system.

      • Di Kelley

        I have actually thought they should take it out of teh insurance company’s hands and made things single payer a long time ago, fully socialized medicine like Canada.

      • davidalbro

        There we agree.

      • Di Kelley

        Though most conservatives would rage about that shit >>

      • chaserblue

        You cannot keep holding on to the “moral” argument when they take money from abortion providers. I don’t care what their reasons are. They shot themselves in the foot. They used to provide it for women until they decided to take it to the Supreme Court, so they stopped. They didn’t have a moral argument before that. So now, the S.C. has left this gigantic loophole, which I hope every two bit religious lunatic fringe group exploits to the furthest extent.
        The only other choice would have been for the government to provide health care for everyone, but you conservatives would have apoplexy, even though it’s been proven to work, your heads would explode. And while amusing as that might be, it would create a mess…

      • davidalbro

        Well, I have to go for now, but…I am NOT conservative, and it indicates your level of reasoning ability by saying that a company has no moral ground because it complied with a federal law that violated its conscience until it decided to challenge the law in Federal court.

      • chaserblue

        Why do you believe you have some moral right to dictate what a woman has to do for the next 20 years or longer of her life because of your religious beliefs? That to me says that YOU believe you have the right to enforce your religious beliefs on another human being. There’s a better than good chance that they don’t believe as you do, yet you feel that YOUR beliefs are much more important than what they believe and what THEY will have to live with. Not you! You won’t have to live with your demands on their lives. They will. That to me speaks of insufferable arrogance to believe that your will is more important to their life than their own.
        And it IS a religious belief. There are religions that don’t believe that the soul enters the body until the first breath—in fact, numerous passages of the bible state that exact thing.

      • davidalbro

        There is so much to respond to here. I’ll start by saying I agree. Religions do vary that’s why it is important to bring as much science into this as possible. We know that life from a purely scientific definition begins at conception. Even if you would want to argue this we know that there is strong scientific basis for this therefore it is highly reasonable (if not most logical) for someone to believe that life begins at conception. Given this, is it fair to force owners of a business to provide health insurance that promotes the ending of human life? The reasonable answer is clearly no.

      • chaserblue

        No, it’s not. The answer is unless it’s your life, you have no say. That’s the reasonable answer.

      • davidalbro

        Well, thousands of years of law and ethics disagree with you. It is illegal for healthy individuals to take their own life. Religions mirror this sentiment. Also, using your own statute, women should not be able to take the life of their unborn child. The child has right to autonomy. The embryo inside them is distinct for the mother in virtually every way. We know this, too, from science.

      • badmoodpixie

        well, if the “child” expelled from a woman’s body due to inability to implant in her uterus autonomously decides to find another place to grow and develop then…oh, wait…that’s not possible, probably due to the fact that despite being distinguishable from the mother, an embryo is not yet a person and doesn’t have the ability to survive without a host. and if one did not decide to host another, then it is completely within their rights to have the uninvited party to clear out.

      • Bob

        My 5 year old son does not have the ability to survive without my wife and I as hosts. Does this principle apply here also? Are we well within our right to have the “uninvited party” clear out?

      • badmoodpixie

        Your 5 year old is no longer existing inside another person’s body. Also, i assume you and your wife have chosen to keep him around, so he doesn’t sound uninvited. But, you could choose to give him up if you so chose.

        I won’t even begin an argument regarding “immaculate conception”, but i will say that there are many couples who never wish to have children who still enjoy engaging in physical intimacy with their partner. since no form of birth control in 100 percent effective, plan b is sometimes a good, well, plan b…hobby lobby objects to IUDs, which are actually among THE most effective types of birth control, meaning they are actually potentially contributing to an increase in actual abortions…

      • Bob

        So you posit that one has dominion over their body but does not have dominion over their home? Essentially, you suggest it is not about the extraordinary burden a child places upon another, but rather a matter of location. This makes no logical sense.

        As to the latter part of my argument, your response serves to highlight my point. You argue that because my wife and I have “chosen to keep him around”, that constitutes an invitation. This same dynamic exists in pregnancy.

        Pregnancy does not occur spontaneously. And because we as humans are aware (or should be aware) of the behaviors that are the primary cause of pregnancy (sexual intercourse between a male and female), the conscious choice to engage in said behavior, constitutes an invitation of pregnancy. To use a metaphor: If you open the door, you are inviting them in.

      • badmoodpixie

        actually, you’re not making any sense. i did say, and it is true, that you could oust your child from your home if you chose; but my point was more than a matter of location, and i THINK you know that (though i suppose it is possible i overestimate your capacity for reasoning).

        pregnancy can occur despite precautions taken to prevent it. if you kept a fence around your home and an alarm system in your house and someone still managed to get in, would you allow them to take what they want? or to stay? no, because it is still your home and you still have rights, even if the precautions you took failed to prevent a negative occurrence. having nice things in your home is not an invitation to a break in; having sex isn’t an invitation to pregnancy.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        That was an idiotic response

      • Bob

        Then you should have no problem providing a sound counter argument. I’ll wait.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Haven’t you had enough of them for one day?

      • Bob

        Still waiting.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        I would only be repeating what others have already said.

        Why would I want to beat a dead horse?

      • Bob

        Annnnnnnnnd, still waiting.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        You’re obviously as dumb as a box of hair…

      • Bob

        Maybe next time. Thank you for your very civil ,respectful, and might I add, tolerant discourse.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Thousands of years of law do not agree that a fertilized egg is a seperate entity. Until recently in history if (for example) a pregnant woman is murdered the murder would only be charged with one count of murder, and even now that will only apply after a certain point in pregnancy. Old Testimate laws require very little retribution for the death of an infant until it is nearly a month old, let alone prior to birth. Health insurance treats pregnancy as a medical condition of the woman; prenatal care is billed as her health care and not the medical care of a seperate entity. We don’t have thousands of years of law considering the fertilized egg it’s own independent entity. Actually, while a fertilized egg mets the scientific qualifications for life, it also meets the qualifications for a parasite. In fact, a woman’s immune system weakens during pregnancy, partially to prevent the immune system from attacking the fertilized egg.

      • Michael Doyle

        You don’t know anything of the kind. You BELIEVE anything of the kind, which is not the same thing.

      • davidalbro

        I’m kicking myself right now even responding to you because this forum has largely digressed to anti-intellectual rhetoric, but science does show that a fetus is separate from its mother. Both mother and embryo have separate blood supplies and often blood types are more importantly they have completely unique DNA that will stay with them the rest of their life. Science lets us KNOW that an embryo is distinct from its mother. That I have to even tell you this shows what kind of people I’m dealing with here.

      • jaggedlittlepill

        So where does the fetus’ blood come from? An alien? It can’t possibly be a separate blood supply unless the Keebler Elves are pumping it in at night when the mother is asleep. And it’s also a scientific fact that a fetus cannot possibly live on it’s own until it’s at least at five months (with perhaps a few extraordinary exceptions). If you took a fertilized out of the mother as soon as it was fertilized, could you then leave it on a counter top and expect it to live? NO. You’re stupid…

      • badmoodpixie

        except that while it is inside another person, it is obviously not ACTUALLY “separate”. you know, because it is attached to a person’s body and dependent upon that person for development.

      • Linear Equalist

        You have no idea what you’re talking about here. Clearly you have no actual knowledge of medical science and reproduction, yet you insist that your beliefs (note, not scientific fact, but your personal beliefs) should be enough to control the behavior of women you have never and likely will never meet in your lifetime. You don’t get to do that.

      • Linear Equalist

        No, from a purely scientific perspective, pregnancy begins at implantation. A woman carrying a fertilized egg that has not implanted itself in the womb, is not pregnant, and by that definition is not carrying life.
        Science, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      • Thom Mills

        You are wrong in so many ways. Go educate yourself. The scientific community has not defined life as beginning at conception and none of the birth control methods HL was against are abortifacients.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy terminates the pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy tends to attach in the Fallopian tube (hence also being referred to as a tubal pregnancy, although the fertilized egg can attach elsewhere.) The pregnancy stands little chance of thriving and can risk the mother’s life if left untreated. It terminates the pregnancy though, so should treatment be covered by companies that consider conception the beginning of life and refuse coverage of products they believe terminate life?

      • This is why women in highly religious countries (and some unfortunates in the US who have no nearby hospitals that are not run by the religious) find themselves facing death from pregnancies that cannot possibly be maintained to term.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Very true. It is sad that female life has so little value to some people that a ball of cells that can’t be carried to term is more important.

      • As someone who almost lost three friends to ectopic pregnancies, this is a potential restriction that hits way too close to home.

      • davidalbro

        And no one is stopping these woman from taking abortive medication. Hobby Lobby just didn’t want to be party to it which is way more that reasonable.

      • Di Kelley

        Again, see below. They are pushing their views onto their employees because 99% of them can not afford said medications without their insurance. And it isn’t as if they are being forced to *personally* hand out said medications should they have to provide insurance that covers it.

      • davidalbro

        Well, I’m sorry that the system is broken, but we can’t take away personal freedom because the US government forced their hand. And although the owners of Hobby Lobby are not personally handing out Plan B, it is reasonable for them to feel the pang of conscience by financially subsidizing these medications.

      • highwaterjane60

        This is not about conscience, this is about religious beliefs and pretty false ones at that, since as it’s been pointed out, most of HL’s inventory comes from China. So, in the end, it’s about HL wanting to control women.

      • Linear Equalist

        You mean subsidizing these medications by investing in them, right?

      • Isn’t limiting the medical care an employee can access taking away personal freedom?

      • me987654

        So it’s ok for a corporation to dictate what medical care their employees are allowed to have? Absurd

      • davidalbro

        Yes, it is absurd for a corporation to dictate what medical care their employees are allowed to have. That’s not what is going on here, however. It is absurd to force a company to fund procedures that could be deemed ethically questionable by a reasonable person.

      • highwaterjane60

        Again. Hobby Lobby was not paying for it. Health insurance is not a gift they give to employees, it is part of the employee’s compensation package and for which they actually contribute cash on top of it from their own paychecks.

      • Jim Bean

        The employer decides what the compensation will be. The employee decides whether he’ll take the job offer. Employers don’t exist for the sole purpose of providing entitlements to others.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Don’t bother he will never get it..

      • Bob

        I believe this has been stated very clearly. Hobby Lobby does not prohibit nor infringe upon their employees right to USE birth control. Hobby Lobby refuses to provide it through their company provided health insurance. If their employees wish to obtain an use birth control, they are free to provide it for themselves.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Which is just a roundabout way of controlling the actions of females covered by the employer insurance. Forms of birth control can be very expensive. Stating if you want or need (because yes, some do help control medical conditions) then you must cover the total cost which may be hundreds of dollars can effect the ability for a woman to obtain such products. An IUD can easily cost more than $500, which is a large expense and it is realistic to think that the appointment to have such a device inserted wouldn’t be covered either since it would violate an employer’s moral views. Birth control pills can cost roughly $50 a month, which in a year that’s around $600 out of pocket. An employee may find it difficult to cover that expense effectively forcing the female covered to adhere to the moral views of the employer.

      • Bob

        With due respect, none of that is the employers concern, anymore than the high cost of rent, food, fuel, and just about everything else.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Sad but true. Employers moan about the lack of loyalty to companies by employees but they don’t care if employees actually have the means to survive or will have a job in a few years because it will create larger profits to move to another location. No consideration to employees that are expected to spend a fair amount of their lives working there, but why can’t we go back to a time when people got a job and planned to retire from that company?? Although when it comes to this, it is the employers problem. Do not claim you have health insurance as one of the benefits for compensation if it isn’t going to cover medical needs, because for roughly 20% of the women that use birth control they use it to treat problems unrelated to preventing pregnancy. If a company wants to have zero regard for the health of their employees then fine, but refuse to offer health insurance and take the tax hit. Don’t offer insurance but arrange it so it might be useless to female employees and family members of employees and pat yourself on the back over the benefits you offer.

      • Di Kelley

        Again, essentially they do because of the system that is in place so far as paying for health care. It’s hard to afford any kind of health care without your insurance, so. . .in essence they are infringing by not providing health care coverage that pays for such because unless you make more than most stores like that pay at lower levels you can’t afford to pay for it. Hobby Lobby’s management *knows* this.

      • Di Kelley

        Again, coverage which the employee is paying for out of their own paychecks. Which means the employee should have a right to decide what is covered under it. Not HL.

      • Bob

        Stiil provided, and payed in part by the employer. Of course they could always opt out of their employer provided plan and sign up for Obamacare.

      • me987654

        So what if they decided they didn’t want to fund blood transfusions? What about organ transplants? What about chemotherapy?

      • Rhonda Oliver

        Then why do they buy from China, where women can be forced to abort their babies?

      • davidalbro

        Because China makes cheap products? The answer is obvious, but I know what you are trying to get at. My question in response would be: Do you really think that buying products from businesses that are located in a country that promotes abortion is in anyway promoting abortion? Wouldn’t that mean using any product that was produced in China would be off limits? Oh, no. Hobby Lobby can no longer use soy sauce made in China because it promotes abortion. That is ridiculous.

      • Di Kelley

        Just as ridiculous as saying that providing insurance with gives a woman the *option* (mind you not all of them will use it) to purchase an IUD or plan b would be.

      • davidalbro

        If you can’t see a huge difference in the degree of separation between providing health insurance that provides medication that causes abortion versus the degree of separation of buying from business that are separate from the country in which they reside that fines individuals for not having an abortion if they live in the city and have more than one kid, then I seriously question your ability to think logically.

      • Michael Doyle

        FORCRISSAKESIT’SNOTABORTION!

      • davidalbro

        If you don’t believe that the termination of an embryo that has not attached to the uterus is not an abortion, fine, it’s an ‘abortion’. However, whatever you call it, that is what Hobby Lobby and millions of Americans have issue with.

      • jaggedlittlepill

        By definition, any embryo that has attached has also started becoming a baby. A miscarriage is nature aborting a baby. Any embryo that is NOT attached, fertilized or not, gets washed away with the menstrual cycle. It MUST attach to live. You’re not terminating anything – and wouldn’t need to – if the embryo has not attached. You men really need to educate yourselves on pregnancy before you start spouting “scientific facts”.

      • davidalbro

        Man, you guys love to make up your own science and then accuse me of being unscientific. An embryo starts at first cell division according to Wikipedia. Cell division occurs starts days before implantation into the uterus. This just shows how intellectually lazy you are. Not only do you get basic science wrong (and then accuse me of getting it wrong), but don’t take a minute to make sure what you are saying is correct. Unbelievable, but it shows the type of people I’m arguing with here.

      • Cemetery Girl

        By that logic every day women’s bodies are aborting babies every day. Seriously, it is such a common occurence for a fertilized egg to be expelled and typically go unnoticed (just assumed that it is typical menstration) that you could find several that have had it happen through the world every day. This is completely ignoring the fact that at implantation it is a ball of cells and indistinguishable from a ball of cells that would become a pig or a dog. Why must we pretend that it is so horrible for a ball of cells not to implant? It is by no means an uncommon occurence even without any influence by the medical field to make the uterus less suitable.

      • Well, they could insist that all female employees be subject to microscopic examination of their menstrual blood each month, and penalize them if they see evidence of a fertilized egg. It would be much more expensive than covering birth control, but apparently far less morally repugnant.

      • Cemetery Girl

        I just about choked on my iced tea. I now have a whole new reason to be glad for my hysterectomy: no need to collect menstrual blood so it can be microscopically analyzed so I can keep a job. (Oh, the mental pictures might be morally less repugnant for some, but they’re pretty repugnant! I think that’s a dirty job even Mike Rowe wouldn’t touch.)

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        davidalbro doesn’t masturbate because he think sperm is little tiny babies

      • chaserblue

        Then Hobby Lobby should not invest in companies that make “emergency contraception” and abortion drugs, yet they do. That tells me they’re hypocrites. They certainly don’t mind taking money from people that provide abortions and emergency contraception.
        So they lost every moral leg they have to stand on. I don’t agree with them anyway—but that just proves it’s not about the religion—it’s about control.
        If you don’t believe me, google “Hobby Lobby invests in birth control” and see what crops up.

      • davidalbro

        Hobby Lobby did not buy directly buy stock in companies that make emergency contraception. Part of their employee’s retirement plan, which is managed by an outside company, had portfolios that included many companies, a few of which are pharmaceutical companies that happened to make emergency contraception among many, many other things. While this does not look good for Hobby Lobby, it in no way denies them their freedom to refrain from subsidizing the taking of human life.

      • chaserblue

        Oh…excuses. Of course…
        BS. If they can take their controlling asses to the Supreme Court, then they can control what their money gets invested in. That’s seriously the silliest excuse EVER.

      • davidalbro

        I did not mean to imply and never said that they could not control how their money was invested. I was just showing the huge difference between the example you cited and the issue at hand (providing abortive medication). Furthermore, even if they were blatant hypocrites (which they’re not), it would in no way deny them their freedom of conscience.

      • chaserblue

        And this is where you’re not making an iota of sense…repeat after me, CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. THEY DO NOT HAVE RELIGIONS, THEY ARE NOT CONSCIOUS, NOR DO THEY HAVE A CONSCIENCE.

      • davidalbro

        And this is where I see that I may not continue my discussion with you much further. You are clearly not a strong thinker. Corporations have had some of the same rights as individuals for decades, but I don’t think this is what you were saying. However, corporations are owned by people who do have personal freedoms (that have been long been carried through to the corporate entity).

      • Michael Doyle

        They are also not actually paying for the contraceptives either. I’m sure that not allowing an insurance company to include these BCs doesn’t lower the premiums they pay. Also, do the good people at Hobby Lobby pay the entire cost of premiums for this coverage? If the employees have to contribute to that, then The Employees should have a Religious Right to Choose of their own as well.

      • kiki2u

        No, but they certainly buy the crap in their store from China…you know, the country that still hauls 7 month pregnant women out of their homes to strap them to a table and force them to have abortions. Nope, not a moral leg to stand on.

      • davidalbro

        By your standards, it would be morally reprehensible for you to own a single item made in China. But we all know you have and do so that makes you a hypocrite.

      • jaggedlittlepill

        We all have stuff from China, but we don’t all go to the Supreme Court to grind personal axes and use “religion” as the bullshit excuse to get our way. Although, believe me, we will now since HL opened the door. There are all kinds of things I want changed because it’s against MY religion.

      • kiki2u

        I don’t have a problem buying stuff from China. I’m not the one going around telling people they can’t have the morning after pill. If I was telling people that, then yes I would be the hypocrite. But they are the hypocrites for buying stuff from China AND telling employees they can’t have the morning after pill. See how that works?

      • Cemetery Girl

        So it is completely acceptable that a company has not refused to invest in companies that manufacture products which they have a moral objection to because their money is given to a third party to dispurse as the third party wishes, yet it is completely unacceptable for that company to give money to a third party that will possibly use some of that money to dispurse for the payment of the products which they have a moral objection to? What we are arguing here then is basically it is ok to ignore your moral standards when it makes you money, but moral standards are valued when they can be applied to others.

      • highwaterjane60

        Oh, so every time you have your morning breakfast, you are killing baby chickens and frying them up in a pan?

      • jaggedlittlepill

        You know what kills me is the bunk about “moral obligation” and “religious freedom” when in reality all they are doing is taking away OUR religious freedom when they force theirs on us. My question to them is this: Are you saying that God isn’t doing His job? Are you saying you can do a better job than God? Are you relieving Him of the tedious job of judging people? Because if you’re not, and if God thinks I’m doing something wrong, I am 100 % positive that HE will let me know when I stand before HIM. Unless you’re taking command of HIS job, it’s between me and HIM and none of your damn business!! Who are you to tell others what they can and cannot do? And for the record, with the exception of the morning after pill, birth control PREVENTS PREGNANCY from happening in the first place. It does not cause spontaneous abortion because it prevents the development of something to abort. It’s a preventive measure, not a corrective one. What a bunch of idiots!!

      • Cemetery Girl

        Does Hobby Lobby have feminine hygiene vending machines in their bathrooms? Technically, the egg is a LIVING cell, even if it does not become fertilized. It won’t live much longer if it remains unfertilized, but it is a living cell. Are feminine hygiene products just the objects to control bloody egg genocide? If we are going to pretend that every fertilized egg that fails to implant regardless of reason is some atrocity (even though some don’t implant naturally because they would not develop properly), then let us also mourn all the living cells that were wasted

      • jaggedlittlepill

        And not all fertilized eggs become embryos. Only about 2/3 of all fertilized eggs make the cut. If they don’t, they are washed away in the menstrual cycle. Does he think having a period is the same as abortion, because technically that’s what a woman’s body does every month. It washes away the egg, sometimes fertilized and sometimes not. Just because an egg has been fertilized doesn’t mean it will always automatically become an embryo. Kind of like sitting in the garage doesn’t make you a car.

      • Sydalish

        Scientific research doesn’t support the claim that Plan B and IUD’s terminate human life. So, no, it doesn’t have validity. Of the contraceptives under attack, IUD’s are the only ones which MIGHT prevent implantation. Might. But even that instance would be rare. Primarily, they and other contraceptives work by (1) preventing ovulation (2) preventing sperm from reaching an egg in the event of ovulation (3) preventing sperm from penetrating the egg if it manages to reach one. Interestingly enough, the female body “aborts” or prevents the implantation of fertilized eggs quite often all on it’s own, and statistically this happens even less when a woman is using contraception.

      • jaggedlittlepill

        Key word here is PREVENT. Big difference between preventing a pregnancy and aborting a zygote. Birth control prevents having anything to abort.

      • Michael Doyle

        No. Since neither does that.

      • Cemetery Girl

        You do realize that it isn’t uncommon for an egg to be fertilized and not implant, right? Ask any OBGYN, it happens and often a woman won’t even realize it happened. With the early pregnancy tests that are available, a woman may get an early positive but then have her cycle start anyway. She will assume the test was just wrong (a false positive) but it is likely that egg either did not implant or did not develop. Yes, a fertilized egg can even implant but fail to develop (if this is detected it is called a blighted ovum.) Nature interferes with plenty of fertilized eggs, do we really need to moan over the influence of outside forces? Why, we should just treat every female that menstruates as first and foremost an incubator. Let’s require that every woman eat healthy, take vitamins, exercise, and be denied any medication that can interfere with the development of a fertilized egg (which exceeds just contraceptives and includes medications that can treat mental disorders and physical diseases unrelated to her reproductive organs.) She’s nothing more than an incubator, right?

      • rtknight

        You really need to understand the science behind IUD’s they do NOT terminate anything, period. Your lack of understanding about how they work only speaks to your ignorance.

      • Linear Equalist

        Considering that according to science, they don’t actually cause the termination of pregnancy (which I can attest to, having become pregnant with an IUD in place, and now have a six year old daughter to show for it) no, the fact that you believe that they work in ways that they don’t actually work does not have scientific validity.

      • Gary Smith

        Preventing fertilization and preventing implantation is absolutely, unequivocally NOT the same as terminating a human life. There is no valid scientific evidence to that effect.

        You are entitled to hold your opinion, but it’s completely without any sort of proof. That which can be posited with no evidence or proof can be dismissed out of hand.

      • Gary Smith

        Here’s a clue, something you seem sadly deficient in:

        IUDs prevent an egg from being fertilized in the first place. No human life is terminated.

        Plan B prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. No human life is terminated.

        Science, bitches!

      • Jim Bean

        This is an interesting statement: “There’s an old adage: “legislate in haste, repent at leisure” which applies to this ruling as well.” First of all, its suggests the Supreme Court legislates. It doesn’t – to the Lefts delight or horror – depending on the ruling. Second, the ‘legislate in haste, repent at leisure’ applies most aptly to the ACA legislation itself. You also forget that the court earlier ruled that Big Bro cannot force employers to provide you with any health insurance whatsoever. They can only tax employers who do not. The new health insurance entitlement is not an employer responsibility, its the Federal Government’s. Understanding that concept is critical to understanding everything that transpires afterwards.

    • Michael Bean

      Just pointing out that this tool is not related to me

    • davidalbro

      Contrary to what Gary Smith says, I think this is exactly the point. It is the federal government who imposed laws that put themselves in this situation. There is no reason that healthcare should necessarily be part of someone’s compensation. Certainly not healthcare that causes the end of human life and conflicts with the conscience of the people who help pay for the healthcare.

      • Anonymous

        Agreed (in part)! But then I will argue that I should be paid more so that I can afford my own healthcare. None of those options “end human life.” Not. One.
        But if we’re discussing conscience, who are they to regulate what my own conscience says? Who are they to dictate my morals? If your employer came to your house and told you what morals you should be living by and teaching your family, I’d bet you would have a problem with that.

      • davidalbro

        Well, we agree about the conscience part. An employer should not be able (and could never be able to) dictate one’s conscience. But, as many people who like to discuss such issues are ignorantly unaware of (which blows my mind) both Plan B and IUDs can keep an embryo from being implanted into the uterus. Both. Of. Them. Because we know in an age of scientific enlightenment that life begins at conception. Both Plan B and IUDs end human life. Both. Of. Them.

      • Di Kelley

        Life begins at conception, which most scientists and medical doctors take to mean implantation now.

      • davidalbro

        Well, I was ready to tell you that you are dead wrong about this, unfortunately you are not. At least not completely. Conception, by definition, is the point when sperm meets ova, not when an embryo is implanted. However, looking at WebMD, they, again, have changed language to suit a prochoice agenda. Wikipedia, clearly shows that fertilization and conception are the same thing. I have never seen a group of people change the definitions of words to fit their agenda as I have prochoicers. They are changing the definition of life, conception, contraception, and abortion.

      • Brian

        I suppose Web MD and your personal bias are the final word on the debate of abortion then, you arrogant sod?

      • davidalbro

        Well, if you read my post you will see that WebMD actually did not favor my opinion. And no, my opinion is not the final word on this debate just as yours is not. I do, however, like to look to facts and science for the final word.

      • chaserblue

        No, you don’t. You look to your own prejudices and beliefs for your final word. Thank the gods that your final word is not the law of the land at this point…
        You believe you have a right to dictate what another human being does with their body and their life according to your own sanctimonious religious beliefs. You think that terminating a pregnancy is murder. It’s not. It’s terminating a pregnancy. What it IS doing, is terminating a *potential* life. But even the bible gave instructions to Moses for abortions. This “new found” crusade to control women by controlling their reproduction is only that, a desire to control. Maybe you should look closer at your reasons for wanting control over other living, breathing human beings.

      • davidalbro

        Again, so much to say. I am not religious, nor do I want to control anyone. Just the opposite. And since you claim that I look to my prejudices even though I have provided scientific reasoning whereas you have not, I will leave you because you clearly don’t want to reason but are stuck in your own illogical beliefs.

      • chaserblue

        You still have not addressed various points, but since you have no argument for them, then I can understand your reluctance to debate them. You want to believe that a zygote is a person. That to me is ridiculous. I don’t honestly care what scientists say about it. It does not negate the fact that there are some women, for whatever reason, cannot have a child at that particular time. I am more concerned with her reasons than with scientific belief. Too many unwanted children end up dead or in the worst circumstances imaginable. Too many women who are pregnant and can’t take it, end up destroyed. Your rigid “one size fits all” mentality leaves the human condition out of the equation, which is wrong on so many levels. But as long as you have control, you seem to be happy, even so far as to being an apologist for a soulless corporation when it was pointed out that their hypocrisy was showing.
        Good luck to you, Sir. You seem to have your life rigidly boxed in. I do feel for those around you that may think different than you.

        So…ta-ta!!

      • davidalbro

        Nope. Never said it or implied that a zygote was a person. On the contrary I stated that it was reasonable to belief that life begins at conception from a scientific perspective. Furthermore, I don’t believe that a zygote is a person. You, for a third time, have assumed wrongly about me.

        I am disappointed that you blatantly state that what science has to say takes a back seat to one’s opinions because I feel that is true with far too many today. I’m not overly surprised though by your other responses. You continue to state things about me that are untrue and you care more about personal feelings than scientific evidence. That is intellectually lazy and dangerous..

      • Science says that an embryo (or zygote or blastocyst, or even an early fetus) is unable to feel pain or think, which means that whatever you do to it, it’s not going to be aware enough for ending its life to be something of a moral dilemma.

        Science says that there is a point before which a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb.

        Science says that a fetus that is mentally or physically deformed in some way *will* feel the pain of death or pain resulting from its deformities, but will not suffer if it is aborted before a certain point.

        Science also says that potential life is not the same as life, and that certain qualities exist that are incompatible with life.

        Psychology and sociology say that certain qualities that exist after birth are detrimental to quality of life, as well.

        All those sciences support the idea that aborting a child who has conditions that are incompatible with life or detrimental to life is preferable to being born into suffering – and only the mother is qualified to decide that. Sometimes the father. Never the employer, who will not bear any responsibility for the child’s quality of life, and seldom (if ever) provide support for that child to insure its quality of life.

      • davidalbro

        This is an argument for the legality of abortion and although I think it is a weak one it does not begin to undermine the fact that it is reasonable to believe that ending human life in its most basic form is repugnant. Because of this, it is not right for any government to coerce the owners of a business to go against their conscience when it comes to this issue.

      • Since when is it the owners of a business who have the right to decide what is best for its employees outside of the workplace? If an employer finds something morally “repugnant,” then it should stop providing health insurance in the first place and give its employees a raise so they can purchase unrestricted insurance in the new healthcare market.

        Deciding on behalf of its employees what is and is not “repugnant” is not the prerogative of an employer. Restricting employees choices by forcing them to enroll in a limited insurance program is “repugnant.” If they’re really concerned, then they can give employees the option to take the company insurance or the money. By not offering that option, they are forcing their own morality upon people who do not necessarily share it – and that is, indeed, repugnant.

      • Brian

        You’ve yet to mention any science at all. All you do is say “this is the scientific thing” without backing it up. You make ridiculousy, extraordinary claims that actually go against medical science while being all holier-than-thou. Then you went on about how all the scientific sources are conspiring for pro-choice.
        You’re full of it. Post some proof of your outlandish claims. Put up or shut up.

      • highwaterjane60

        Bullshite. You twist facts and science to fit your false sense of superiority and need to control how women conduct their lives.

      • chaserblue

        How about life begins when it can live outside of the host unassisted? Because until then, the woman’s body is the greatest mass murderer, seeing as how over 1/3 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. But then, you conservatives think that anyway—that women should be controlled and forced to do your will with their lives and their bodies. You get apoplectic if anyone even mentions gun regulation, yet you’re all for regulating what people can do in their bedrooms and in the privacy of their own bodies. The hypocrisy is just staggering.

      • davidalbro

        Well, I’m not conservative, and to think that life begins when it can live outside the host unassisted is absurd. A baby can’t live outside its mother for years, but no reasonable person would say that it isn’t alive. I understand that you were actually trying to advocate this position but were merely providing a red herring to distract the feeble-minded. However, my point this stands. It is REASONABLE to believe that life begins at conception therefore it is REASONABLE for owners of a business to believe that providing abortive medication is reprehensible.

      • highwaterjane60

        Looks like dalbro fell off the edge on his comments above– ” A baby can’t live outside its mother for years…” Huh?

      • Linear Equalist

        A baby can live outside of the mother at about 5-6 months into the pregnancy. At the point when it is born, and able to survive outside of the womb, anyone can care for that baby, otherwise every child put up for adoption would die as an infant.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Wait, wait, wait… How long do you think human pregnancy lasts??? On average, it is 40 weeks (a year is 52 weeks), not only does a baby not remain in the uterus for years most doctors agree that beyond 42 weeks there is a risk to the health of the child because the placenta can start to degrade and not function well enough to support the life of the baby. A baby can be born earlier than 40 weeks, heck a hospital is unlikely to attempt to stop labor at 36-37 weeks, but typically they will consider birth from 24-25 weeks on possible for the baby to live. (The premie survival relies on the care of a NICU which tries to provide the second best environment to a mothers uterus.) Now, if you are trying to argue that an infant relies on the care of a mother for years you are sort of right. An infant requires care from an adult, but by no means must be the biological mother. After birth a child does fully become their own entity, relying in care from others but that care can come from any adult (male or female.)

      • highwaterjane60

        So, when I crack open a fertilized chicken egg and throw it in the frying pan, I’m really murdering a baby chicken?

      • Cemetery Girl

        Have you considered that medical knowledge has brought about this change? Studies show that at least 25% of fertilized eggs do not lead to pregnancy. How can they tell? (Great question!) Daily blood tests on a test group. An elevation in hcg for three days, and the women tested includes women unable to get pregnant (just to keep it all scientific.) Studies like this have shown that at least 25% of the women that have elevations in hcg (indicating fertilization) will end up having what can be construed as a typical menstrual cycle (hence, the woman probably wouldn’t have even known!) The detection of this hormone has been improving for years, to the point where some home pregnancy tests can boast the ability to get a result nearly a week before menstration is expected (so basically around implantation). Medical understanding of how the body functions continues to improve, and as it does views will change.

      • Linear Equalist

        Doctors and scientists have always taken implantation to be the beginning of pregnancy. It’s the anti choice crowd who changed the definition of the beginning of pregnancy to conception.

    • Brian

      I work for my healthcare. It’s not something charitably given to me out of the goodness of my drunken Australian boss’s heart. My pay stubbs tell me what my gross salary is, says what gets removed for taxes, what gets removed for healthcare, and what my net salary is.
      I earned that healthcare. He has no right to tell me what I can and can’t do with it. It’s mine. Not his.

    • AntonSirius

      Hey Jim, please explain what difference you see between these two scenarios:

      1 – “My religion says abortion is a sin, therefore the health care provided by my business shouldn’t have to cover birth control methods that I have decided are actually abortifacients.”

      2 – “My religion says homosexuality is a sin, therefore the health care provided by my business shouldn’t have to cover HIV medications that might enable homosexuals to continue sinning.”

      Because personally, I see no difference at all between the two arguments.

      • Jim Bean

        That’s an easy one. Here’s your explanation. ‘My business is not legally obliged to provide any health care insurance to its employees whatsoever. So if I voluntarily decide to provide it, I get to decide whether it will include abortifacients and HIV medications, just like I’ve always had the right to decide whether it will cover dental and vision, how much the employee will contribute, what the deductibles will be, and whether family members can be included in the plan.’

    • highwaterjane60

      Insurance is not like going out to dinner and you order a peanutbutter sandwich and your friend order steak, then at the end of the meal, your friend suggests you split the bill. The whole idea of insurance is for everyone to pool their money in order to insure that if one of those people needs medical care, the risk is spread across the entire group. In the end, some people will end up paying more than they used and some people will end up using more than they paid for. That possibility of overpayment is the cost for the security of knowing that should you be one of the unfortunates who need more care, you will not end up penniless.

    • Cemetery Girl

      The employer is not directly paying for anything. If an employee went to their manager and slapped a bill for contraception on the desk, that would be wrong (unless said employee is having a sexual relationship with the manager, which really then that’s more of a private matter.) Few employers cover 100% of the premiums for insurance, many employees have some or all of the premium taken from their paycheck (the benefit being the employee has, in theory, a less expensive premium by taking advantage of the group rate), and of course the employees have their co-pays/deductibles to cover. And this ignores the fact that the employers money for premiums can go towards contraceptives even if they don’t allow plans that cover them if the insurance company has plans that do cover contraceptives because it is ridiculous to think that any insurance company sets aside those payments only for certain uses. The argument that an employer has the right to decide how money it spends in labor compensation is used is ridiculous. It really is arguing that employers have the right to have an influence over the personal lives of their employees. The cost of contraceptives can be rather high, hundreds of dollars, which without some sort of insurance coverage can make the ability to pay for them unrealistic to the employee. The employer is then controlling the options of the employee, forcing their views on the employee. We can argue that an employee always can just find some other job, but in an uncertain job market that can be easier said than done and doesn’t mean that other job opportunities will be any less restrictive.

  • Stealth Avenue

    Religious exemptions are entirely discriminatory against the non-religious. I demand that they be struck from the books forthwith and in perpetuity.

    • exmotogo

      AMEN! or, whatever

    • zaphod1

      TAX THE CHURCHES!

  • Laura

    I agree with the principle of this article. However, from a medical standpoint, you cannot have some abortive procedures past a certain time period. RU486 cannot be taken past 8-10 weeks effectively. Some woman think they are not as far along as they really are and that determination needs to be made somehow and that is where the sonogram comes into play. There needs to be a more efficient way of testing for sure as even sonograms can be wrong but until that happens its the only efficient way to test. Its not that the doctors are trying to use anti-choice laws, its the equipment that they have to use. Nothing personal on the medical side.

    • ‘Ibrahim M Shabazz

      google bob “governor ultrasound” mcdonnell. they are trying to force doctors to perform embarrassing and MEDICALLY unnecessary procedures on women seeking to have an abortion.

    • If the procedures won’t work past a certain point, then you don’t need a test. They won’t work.

    • Linear Equalist

      My issue has never been with having a single ultrasound to determine stage of pregnancy. It’s that many laws requiring ultrasounds before an abortion can be performed also require that the woman be subjected to a pro life, detailed description of the fetus at this stage, because somehow if she “only knew what she was carrying” it would change her mind. These women know “what they’re carrying”. An ultrasound to determine time frame is medically necessary. Forcing a woman to watch and listen to the description is not.

      • Cemetery Girl

        I think it’s interesting that if someone wants to have an abortion they want to force them to see the ultrasound, but if you aren’t having an abortion and they are doing an ultrasound because of a possible problem with the pregnancy it is “policy” to make sure the screen is turned so the woman can’t see the screen and a doctor will notify you of the results after they’ve reviewed the ultrasound. (That has been my experience with the medical centers around me, if there is possibly a problem it is “policy” not to allow the woman to see the ultrasound.)

  • Mike

    Religious freedom only applies to Christians. When are you liberals gonna understand that?

    • jaggedlittlepill

      Satire. right??

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        No! Christianity is the only true religion worthy of special rights

    • webone

      Right – religious discrimination only applies to christians too — If anyone else wants equal rights, they become “special rights” and that group is immediately labeled “anti-Christian,” “immoral,” or “the want to destroy the church.”

  • Equality Jones

    I’ve always used this analogy in my mind: In the U.S, we all get a vanilla sundae. There are endless toppings that you may put on your own sundae; this is your choice and you are ensured the right to top your sundae however your tastes dictate. However, you don’t get to put toppings on or withhold toppings from someone else’s sundae. Would you like it if you hated nuts but someone forcibly put nuts on your ice cream? Would you keep someone who loves caramel from enjoying what they love just because you detest caramel? You are guaranteed by law to build and enjoy your own personal sundae, and your sundae is protected by law from others keeping your beloved toppings from you and also from them forcing their toppings upon your sundae. One whole sundae with your favorite toppings is enough for anyone. So enjoy it and stop worrying about what other people have or don’t have on theirs. Other people’s sundaes being unlike yours will not and should not take away from your enjoyment and appreciation of your own sundae in the least…and if it does, then you don’t get what this country is really about at all. Also, if you are a corporation, you don’t get to dictate which toppings your employees get to choose for their sundaes. You do not get an extra sundae as a corporation. You got your one sundae already and one is enough for anybody. You are not special, so eyes and mouth back on your own sundae please. Enjoy.

    • Bob

      I want a chocolate sundae.

      • Bob

        And I want everyone else to pay for my toppings.

      • highwaterjane60

        That’s what I’ve seen conservatives accuse progressives of repeatedly. As if progressives don’t pay their own way, too.

      • jaggedlittlepill

        You got that right, highwaterjane60!! Conservatives act like they are the only people on the face of the planet that have to pay taxes. I’ve had enough of their rubbish rhetoric. By “everyone else”, you’re suggesting that there is an exclusive group of long-suffering martyrs that shoulder the entire burden for one person. The analogy is correct, but you’ve got the wrong players. It’s a handful of people and thousands of businesses who get the sundae, and the entire middle class is paying for their toppings. Meanwhile, THEY don’t have to pay for anything, hide all their toppings in other countries to take out and enjoy whenever it suits their fancy, steal other people’s toppings in addition to what those people have already paid for, and gobble up their sundaes like the gluttons they are, To add insult to injury, they punish the people who pay for their toppings by denying them a sundae of their own. Conservatives are the greediest, most wasteful people on earth and they’ve convinced themselves that it’s the “christian” way to be. They need to change the name of the party to Gluttonous Old People with a big fat sow as the mascot instead of the elephant (who is by far more intelligent than anyone in the party). Republicans spend massive amounts of money on useless bullshit and crap and then whine and cry like little girls if anyone in need gets a single dime for anything – like feeding their children. They bitch about the paltry 1.45% of their paycheck that goes to Social Security, but don’t seem to mind the nearly 25% that goes to Uncle Sam for subsidies to the richest corporations in the country. No matter how you slice that, it’s convoluted logic and the absolute height of stupidity.

      • Mark Fielding- Pritchard

        God ice cream is good. If I want non domestic ice cream can I stop Obama from bombing my sundae because I live in Europe or does the freedom of sundae act only apply to the US territory?

      • rtknight

        Sorry Bob, chocolate sundaes are against my religion, so I’m going to have to take away your ability to have one.

    • Hope Childress Neudert

      How has this not gotten more likes? Well said Equality Jones!

    • Stephen Barlow

      In REPUBLICAN Totalitarian America you do!

    • Karrde

      I love this analogy. You should have the right to choose whatever toppings you want for a sundae. Love whoever you want in whatever way you want and the moment those choices create a new life, you do not have the right to deny that life his or her own sundae. This is a major hypocrisy that anti-life people fail to see.

      • Truth Hertz

        “Anti-life”?

        Here’s an analogy. Please stick your head in an oven, and stop wasting the oxygen the rest of us need.

        Pro-choice isn’t anti-life, and regardless, this is about birth-control, which if was made more available, would reduce the number of the abortions you get so bent out of shape over.

  • Alan Williams

    What SCOTUS did was overturn 80 years of settled employment law. Previously any company that had more than 15 employees and conducted interstate commerce was subject to federal employment mandates.

  • Angela

    Like I said, why should a business be forced to pay because someone was careless and didn’t want to use protection to prevent pregnancy? That’s how Hobby Lobby should have put it, not because of religion. Something like “We are NOT paying for your fuck up.” You make your bed, you lie in it. IF a woman gets raped, that’s a different story. I can understand not wanting to raise a baby that stemmed from a painful emotional/physical experience. But being allowed to terminate a pregnancy because you were too stupid to think before you acted? That’s on you. Sorry. And I know I’ll get flack for this stance, but I don’t believe that woman should have the right to take pills because they messed up to fix what happens. Give the baby up for adoption-there are plenty of people who CAN’T have babies that would love to adopt a little one.

    • Brian

      How is a business paying for it? My paycheck stubbs say that my healthcare plan is deducted from my earned, gross salary. I’m paying for it. Not my employer. Do you even work?

      • Angela

        So you pay FULL price for your insurance? Nope…the company you work for works with insurance companies for the best premium prices…and they pay part of it or they get a really good deal. And yes I work, but what business is that of yours? NONE. And the EARNED GROSS SALARY you speak of is PAID to you by YOUR company, so technically they DO pay for it. Unless you’re self employed, which in that case your comment in invalid.

      • Then they should offer employees a tax-free pay hike in the amount of their insurance premiums to purchase their own plans. I don’t see that happening.

      • Angela

        Ummm….nobody makes anyone purchase the health insurance from an employee. And since you have an answer for everything, how would you make the economy better so employers can do that? I’m waiting…..

      • If an employer provides health insurance for an employee, then it is paying the full amount of the premium unless there is an employee contribution. If the employee opts out, then the employer saves the money that it would normally pay in premiums. Ergo, if the employee opts out, then the employer should compensate that employee in the amount that the employer is saving, or else it is paying that employee less than other employees in comparable positions. The only time this is not an issue is if the employer is not offering any insurance benefits whatsoever to any employees.

      • highwaterjane60

        You are right about that. The employer actually gets to deduct on his taxes for the portion of an employee’s health insurance that the business pays for. This entire argument about an employer’s morality and choices would go away if we had a single payer system of insurance — expand Medicare!

      • tigalily

        Lol…so you are saying the wages earned by you for your hard work…shouldn’t be spent the way /you/ want to…you think your boss can decide how you spend your money?

        do you know the labor-money transaction?

      • Brian

        So I should work for free is what you’re saying? My salary is also paid out of the goodness of my employer’s heart and that if he deems not to pay me I should show up for work the next day anyway? Sorry, that don’t sit right with me.
        The government says I have to have healthcare. I have healthcare and I pay for it out of my salary which I earned. If my boss suddenly decides to tell how my salary is going to be used, I will ram his whiskey bottle down his throat.
        I don’t care if part of it is paid for by the company, that is, again, money that I made and contributed to the company. My boss is not a licensed medical professional and neither is his preacher. He has no right to come between me and my doctors.

    • KSsoccermom

      I work for a foster care agency and we have over 1200 children looking for families as we speak – when shall I expect your application to adopt?

    • chaserblue

      So…birth control failure falls under the heading of “careless” to you? Birth control fails all the time.

      You act like people use it as birth control because they’re stupid, careless or they don’t care. But statistics don’t hold your argument. There are MANY reasons why someone would need emergency contraception or an abortion. And those reasons should be personal to them, not up for your sanctimonious moral superiority. It’s their life, they have to live it, not you. If they’re paying for their insurance through whatever—their employer, their job…themselves—then they have a right to choose their care. NOT YOU. NOT EMPLOYERS. Unless you have a medical degree, it’s basically noneya.

    • Nice slut-shaming. You do know that birth control is never, ever 100% effective, right? I know a woman who got a tubal ligation after her second child, and got pregnant. She and her *husband* decided to keep the child, but he got a vasectomy just in case. Yes, they got pregnant again, and decided to abort. Are you saying that it is just and good for these two people and their three children to pay for their (quoting you, here) “fuck up”?

      And if there are so many people who would love to adopt a little one, why are there close to a half million children in this country waiting to be adopted, and 23,000 every year who age out of the system without ever being adopted at all?

      • Angela

        I’m not slut shaming…never called anyone a slut. Fuck up is the words I chose to dummy it down. And while your friends had issues, they should have sued the hospitals or got checked because obviously something didn’t go right or somebody didn’t get the procedure done (there is no way they have had both things done and STILL gotten pregnant). And there are so many kids because not ALL of them are adoptable (there ARE kids in the system who have horrible parents, and legally they cannot be adopted until all avenues of getting them back to the parents have been exhausted). Also, I do know that BC is not 100% effective-I’ve gotten pregnant on BC and my mom got pregnant with me on BC. But we both realized that there is always a reason for things….maybe that child would be the one to come up with a cure for all terminal diseases. But the plan B pill and the abortion pill (two different things) DO stop pregnancies. And just remember, I never used the word “slut”…you did. Guilty conscience? Have a nice day.

      • TVulgaris

        So you’re WEREN’T a slut when your BC failed, or your Mom? Just a fuck-up? I’m glad you clarified that, as being called a slut would no doubt be horrendously painful, but hereinafter, we can just call you a fuck-up, as that’s not insulting, demeaning, shameful, or any other maliciously-intended predicate adjective. And your Mom.
        Your reasoning to counter the justification for abortion is equally valid for contraception, by the way. Double standard? “Have a nice day.”

      • highwaterjane60

        Yes, you did slut-shame, whether you called it that or not. Also, suing the hospital would not change the situation. Just because you and your mother had the ability to make the best of a situation you didn’t plan for, doesn’t mean everyone can. Finally, are you willing to pay more taxes to support poor women who can’t afford more children? I sure hope so.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Suing the hospital would have been useless. Tubal and vasectomy are not considered 100% effective because in both surgeries there are rare cases of pregnancy occurring after the procedure. Now, if someone had been told that organs had been completely removed and still managed to get pregnant, that could warrant a lawsuit.

      • highwaterjane60

        Heaven quakes when anti-abortionist shake their antiabortion tambourines while ignoring the cries of 30,000 children who STARVE to DEATH each and every day!

  • hermanprovi

    The Supreme Court Judges, that ruled, in favor of Hobby Lobby have earned their place in American Jurisprudence, and it AIN’T pretty! They in effect abrogated the First Amendment! The majority put religion above the Constitution!

  • Jimmy Reynolds

    This reminds me of the Louisiana legislator who was horrified to learn that her school voucher bill could benefit Muslim or other non-Christian schools as well as her pet fundamentalist ones.

  • Matthew Kreps

    Let us as a nation of Good Christians help the Satanic Temple in doing the Lord’s work. Remember bearing false witness, which is what the anti-choice laws are, is a sin and violates one of the Ten Commandments the Conservatives like placing around courthouses.

    • Eoin Maloney

      That would make for a hilariously uncomfortable coalition.
      “Say there, sonny, that looks like Latin on your arm. What’s it say?”
      “Oh, it says ‘Kneel before the mighty Adversary, Lucifer.”
      “Gee, well. I, uh, isn’t that, uh, somethin’?”

  • Eoin Maloney

    What if I founded a religion that specifically forbade religious exemptions? Would that require that the ruling be suspended in order to respect my faith? Would the paradox cause Antonin Scalia to implode in confusion? I hope so.

    • TVulgaris

      Call it Science,Bitchez,tology

      • Eoin Maloney

        Slowclap.gif

  • Stephen Barlow

    It’s what I told you would happen. Except that the suits filed will most likely come before RED War on Women judges.

  • Kiera Nomin

    //Ave Satanus. I stand with the Satanists on this one.

    • Gort1

      Me too. Crazy christians opened the flood gates…now they can deal with it. Lol