SCOTUS decision in on Hobby Lobby case

[vickie gee]

With the hypothetical situation of female circumcision as a belief of a business owner: They could not force their employees to go through such a medical procedure. It would not require any sort of court to determine that since it would be criminal activity and likely the employees would have already resigned or never accepted employment from such a company. If a company kidnapped an employee and had such procedure they would find themselves in a court for certain but it would not be the Supreme Court of the U. S.

Trying to come up with a different situation that actually falls into the same guidelines as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which is actually what the case in point was based on. Say that up in the Ozark Mountains there is a company that has workers that go back with deep hillbilly roots. Not making fun of them, I used to live there and even purchased a book about Ozark superstitions so I could understand the history somewhat. It was entertaining to say the least. Anyway, getting back on track with the subject let's say that some of these employees were struggling with being able to conceive and the granny spell that their culture recommended for fertility was to drink blood from a rooster that crowed at dawn. I realize this sounds silly, but hang with me for a minute. Ok, let's say there was actually a pharmacy that has legally procured this blood from a local Wiccan camp in the area that is well known for their late night nude ceremonies and cutting off the head of a rooster at dawn. The family that owns the business thinks this blood drinking goes against their Christian religion. They do provide medical insurance for their employees but they say that they simply do not want the insurance to cover paying for the fertility blood. This should fall into the law of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the company should come out victorious. The employees would have the option of paying for their rooster blood or obtaining it on their own.

 

[Carriage]

Ah, the law......... Not knowing the law is never admissible as a defense. Not knowing Constitutional law is, as we can see, quite catastrophic. However, the law is not "convenient" to the polar position. How about the law for the unborn? Are we saying that these do not deserve the law and it's iron clad protections? That becomes a sticky whicket to debate from because of follow on questions clearly exposing both the fallacies and inherent weakness to the position.

And what do we see of the polar position? Hypotheticals, These are used to degrade and then control the dialog. They also serve to dismiss salient fact and truth being an active part of the discussion.

We see clearly stated fear and as stated, very visceral fear. If true, well, For the sake of brevity I won't venture into an analysis here. If not true, then we again see and attempt to control the dialog using very visceral emotionalism. Keeps the other side off balance and puts them into a defensive posture rather than an offensive one. Well, it's supposed to unless one has been schooled in the tactics....

Many of the points generally originate from some attempt to manipulate or control the dialog using emotion as the battering ram.

We see the claims of my body, my choice. some folk should not have kids, I couldn't afford another child the child would have been formed incompletely or with fatal flaws. This list is quite extensive....

But what important thing do we not see in any of these arguments? At no point does the unborn Child ever achieve top billing and in a few recieves NO consideration or billing at all. I can't find it curious at all as we talking about a being, created in the image of it's Creator and as such, ENDOWED by that Creator with certain (as in NO question about it) Un alianable rights. Not rights given by the expecting Mom but by that Mom's Creator as well. This government was instituted to protect those rights among other things. As such HOW this ruling can be scary or even concerning is beyond me and the clearly written word of both that creator and secular writings, specifically, the Constitution.

There is a 6000 pound elephant in the room what needs addressed. What about the baby? Seems that everybody gets a choice and chance EXCEPT the baby. This IS the loss of humanity. Ignoring it won't do any good, it just adds weight to the "mill-stone".

Well said Miss Vickie.

Thanks for your time,

Bb

 

[KanoasDestiny]

It drives me crazy that people refer to the morning after pill as an abortion pill. They are definitely not the same thing. Plan B will not abort a fetus that is already attached to the uterus. You can not be against the morning after pill and yet agree with the use of birth control pills.

There are different kinds of birth control pills - some have high estrogen, medium estrogen, low estrogen, and some have no estrogen at all. Depending on what kind of pill a woman takes, and the amount of hormones it has in it, the pill will work in different ways. Some pills will prevent ovulation, where others will prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the endometrial lining.

The morning after pill works in the same way. It will either delay ovulation after intercourse, or it will prevent the egg's ability to attach. It's funny because women who are on birth control pills, don't even have to take a morning after pill. Taking an extra bc pill the morning after (doubling up in one day) will work the same way to prevent pregnancy. Of course the government doesn't want women to know that because they make money off of women who panic.

Too often I see people complaining about the morning after pill (Plan B) when they have absolutely no idea what the pill actually does or doesn't do. Plan B consists of hormones that are already present in a woman's body (throws them out of whack). The abortion pill is a chemical pill that blocks the action of progesterone (vital during fetal development), which then terminates a pregnancy.

 

[Sonya]

I will keep this short and simple with one picture: doesn't specifically say morning after pill but same applies.

(This of course does not address the issue of rape or incest, which accounts for a very tiny percent of abortions, or morning after pill)

 

[KanoasDestiny]

I have mixed emotions on whether the company/government is right or wrong in this situation. I don't believe an employer should be involved with any decision that involves what I "choose" to do with my body. Period.

Take pregnancy for instance. I don't believe it's my employer's responsibility to help pay for the care I would receive while pregnant. It is a decision a woman chooses to make, and no one other than her and her spouse should be financially responsible for that decision. It isn't a "medical issue" such as getting sick, heart disease, cancer, car accident, etc. Just like if a woman chooses not to be pregnant, the means in which she goes about making sure that doesn't happen (birth control, an abortion, etc), is also her responsibility. I wouldn't expect my employer to buy my condoms for me. I believe that any medical care that is a "decision" (plastic surgery, pregnancy, birth control) should be the sole financial responsibility of the person receiving it.

 

[Sonya]

I agree 100% Sara...feminists argue: it's my uterus I can do whatever I want with it, but yet they expect others to pay for their wants. If one wants insurance for child birth, birth control, abortions etc...it is their responsibility to pay for said insurance, not anyone else's. If they want to keep control of their bodies that includes paying for it as well. It's called personal responsibility.

 

[Riverrose28]

I'm also a firm believer in the fact that all of us need to except personal responsabiliy and have health ins. especially in the case of child birth. It is also our responsibility as parents to educate our children to this fact. So many of our young adults don't seem to think that this applies to them. They think they won't get pregnant or in a car accident or fall off their horse, etc. it goes on and on and they don't have insurance. I'm hoping that this affordable health care act forces them to take personal responsability for themselves and pay up. So many without ins. go to the hosp when injured and don't pay, so who pays the rest of us tax payers. My daughter works in medical billing you would be shocked at how many medical bills are unpaid. It drives the cost up for the rest of us that have insurance.

 

[KanoasDestiny]

My health insurance doesn't cover helping women who can't have children, to get pregnant. So why should it cover the women who can get pregnant? Maybe if people had to pay to have children, less people would want them (or at least so many of them).

 

[Sonya]

Well from people I know the ACA has not helped them at all, both of my SIL live at home and make slightly above minimum wage/part time jobs, both have 2, they are in their mid 20s, the amount they were quoted for insurance from ACA was unbelievable, $1200 a month, they did not qualify for subsides...the state of PA exempted them from ACA, so they still have no insurance, right back to square one and they don't have to pay the 'fine'. I guess every state is different when it comes to ACA, it's very confusing. My niece and her husbands insurance (they pay on their own, he is self employed) went up $600 month because of the mandates of ACA, they make roughly $40K a year...how is this helping middle class? It's hurting them, but I guess that's another topic.

 

[vickie gee]

Yep, ACA is a train wreck. Adds new meaning to hope, but hey, we got change. As Little Red Riding Hood said, "my, what big teeth you have.!"

 

[Ashley]

Very few insurances cover helping people get pregnant. Any religious grounds would fight having to pay that as well as it would fall under unnatural conception.

As for insurance company's and not covering prenatal care we would be a population on the brink of extinction.

 

[Carriage]

The argument "My uterus...." becomes a false argument once there is a baby in said uterus. Now it becomes the babies whole world if only temporary. Again, the solution in 96-97% of these "unwanted pregnancies" is simplicity itself. The baby is dependent on the mother for protection, rather then that mother becoming that babies only enemy during a VERY short life.

What about the baby?

Thanks for your time

Bb

 

[Ashley]

So if somebody wanted the morning after pill after being raped it's ok to deny her that?

 

[Debby - LB]

absolutely NOT ok

 

[vickie gee]

Not sure who would be denying the raped person the after morning pill. The doctor would not. The pharmacy would not. An insurance company that does not cover that type of pill would simply not cover the cost but the victim would have free choice to purchase the pill. There would be no case by case consideration. An insurance company that does cover it period would not be checking into the circumstances. Hope this clears up the confusion.

Having been a rape victim myself (one man held me down while another forced himself on me) I realize that had I not already had tubal ligation surgery and if the morning after pill had been available it would have been a decision for me and me alone to make. I would not have been in a good state of mind to make any decisions. The only decisions I made was to not open up to anyone. Prior to the rape I had been offered work overseas. I was leaning toward taking the job assignment. Taking the assignment was my escape. I did not press charges. I cried day and night for the two weeks before I left. I thought I would die from heartache. It was a long time before I could find comfort in the truth of what doesn't kill you will make you stronger.

I think the best thing a person pregnant from a rape could do would be to read all about Ryan Bomberger. His mom found herself in that exact situation. She gave birth to him but did not raise him. I can't do justice to the story. He is truly worth reading about. Thanks for listening. Color me done.

 

[FurstPlaceMiniatures]

I'm all for insurance dropping birth control coverage and employers not providing it to employees when Viagra goes through the same treatment. It's not a pregnancy/choice issue it's a woman's equality issue - and I still can't believe we need to protest this BS.

if I was a female employer, and said I would not pay for insurance that paid for Viagra for my male employees, the supreme court would sue the ever living crap out of me 1,000 times over for 'discrimination,' or something else along those terms.

If an employer doesn't want to fund insurance that funds birth control, whatever, that's cool, more power to them for sticking to their beliefs. Don't like it? Don't work for that employer. Either they won't have employees and will eventually change their insurance policy, or they will hire people like minded to themselves. Go ahead, hire only white males. See how far that gets ya - if it gets them somewhere - yay for them, if not, they will eventually change their insurance coverage.

I do not recieve ANY insurance with my 60 hour a week job. It's not a huge deal. I still get my birth control I need for reasons other than 'controlling birth.' i go to a low cost women's clinic for people in my situation. My birth control is well under $50 a month. When I got it through the college it was $10 cash a month. If feminists spent less time fighting the nay-sayers and more time funding and supporting those who support their beliefs, we'd get A LOT further.

 

[Ashley]

Viagra will more than likely always be covered because sexual dysfunction can lead to mental health issues

 

[Riverrose28]

Birth control pills are prescribed for other issues beside just pregnancy prevention. So is Viagra, but you are right about this whole equality issue.

 

[Tab]

The world could use more with the uncommon sense of Vickie Gee. I respect that not all agree as we do, but I am impressed that Hobby Lobby was willing to risk IT ALL for their beliefs. That's what we are called to do in life. It's called courage, and very few possess it any longer. I'm responding to Vickie's posts only. You go girl! That said, everybody has a right to their opinion... another right that is going away. (Fenced in free-speech area.) Soapbox off lol.

 

[Ashley]

I totally agree with RiverRose on this one, many years ago in the store breakroom I listened to a man spout off his views on abortion. He made the mistake of asking my opinion. I went up one side of him and down the other. I let him know that in no way did I want ANY man to have control over what I did with MY BODY! I am not talking about rape or incest, if a woman has made a mistake or her life is in jeopardy then let no one pass judgment. I'm not talking about late term abortions but right after the deed is done and the sperm hasn't formed a life. I am a firm believer in birth control. There are too many unwanted children in the system, I don't hear anyone mentioning them. What quality of life do they have, these kids grow up in foster care or warehouse type institutions. One girl who was my friend in my teens was taken in by a foster family. She said her brother was left behind because no one wanted him. I think more dialog should be on what is being done for all the unwanted children. I'm Methodist and read my Bible, please no spouting of Scripture. I'm still looking for the place where it says marriage is for same sex and not between a man and woman.

I'm confused as to what your last comment has to do with any of this?