backtop


Print 135 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on Jul 19 at 11:07 AM


  (Source: National Blood Donors Month)
Likewise, can Jehovah Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions under the RFRA?

Could a doctor who owns their own independent practice or clinic deny patients a life saving transfusion, if they providing blood transfusions is against their religion?
 
Could an employer ask insurers to prevent employees from receiving payment for blood transfusions?
 
The recent ruling [PDF] by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. leaves open the possibility that doctors and business owners may now be able to refuse their employees/patients from life-saving blood transfusions.  And it's actually a legal issue that could be tested in the wild as there are some Jehovah's Witnesses working as medical doctors in the U.S. today, and even more that own their own businesses, employing non-witnesses.
 
Jehovah's Witness's guiding doctrine -- The Watchtower -- declares unequivocally:
 
Blood must not be eaten or transfused, even in the case of a medical emergency.
 
State Supreme Courts and appellate courts in some states have already upheld [PDF] an adult patient's right to refuse treatment (for themself) for religious reasons.  Could they refuse their employees or patients that right too, claiming their freedom of religion was at stake?

Jehovah's Witness
[Image Source: Atomic Market]

That could not be so, under the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) 2010 H.R.3590 (aka "Obamacare") -- or so it seemed.  Under that law employers were mandated to provide their employees access to no-cost access to twenty different kinds of contraceptives -- similar policies apply to other "essential" treatments such as blood transfusions.  This provision was designed in part because in the U.S., drugs are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Due to this regulation Americans cannot freely purchase birth control at or near cost; even generics carry relatively large markups.
 
However, the court ruled that under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 a corporation owned by religions may be able to exclude opt not to follow federal mandates to provide certain kinds of treatments.  The argument was that Obamacare was infringing on the corporations' (which are viewed as a "person" with freedoms in U.S. courts) were rights under the RFRA, hence a lower court decision granting an exemption from providing birth control to employees was upheld.

Blood transfusion
Patients and employees could potentially be denied blood transfusions if corporations choose to exercise their religious "rights". [Image Source: Rex]

The New York Times already posed the issue that pharmacists who own their own businesses could deny patients birth control under the RFRA.  It points to one study that suggests that 6 percent of pharmacists would refuse to give patients birth control if they could do so legally.

For now, the issue is somewhat overstated as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) offers one brand of off-prescription generic for $4 USD (per monthly pack) -- which is still not at cost, but at least much lower.  On the flip side that's one formulation out of 10-15 common birth control formulations -- the rest cost between $20-100 off prescription at last check.  And to be fair most don't realize that Hobby Lobby -- the defendant in the case -- had offered to pay for some forms of Birth Control, just not 4 out of the 20 suggested options, including Plan B.

Returning to the issue of blood transfusions, the decision states:

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. 

The phrase is "not necessarily'.  So the door is still open to demand that at some point -- but it will remain an issue for future courts to rule on and decide.  Or other interesting scenarios could also occur, such as an Islamic doctor not wanting to use pig-derived pharmaceutical.

The Supreme Court does assert that racism towards employees was not protected by religious exemptions.  But for something like blood transfusions, which do not represent an immediate transmittable public health risk if refused, such a religious freedom exemption might be possible, even if deadly.

Sources: SCOTUS [ruling -- PDF], SCOTUS Blog, The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

corporations are not people
By SigmundEXactos on 6/30/2014 8:50:59 PM , Rating: 4
1) As a corporation, the owners of Hobby Lobby are protected from personal liability of their company's actions. They should *NOT* also receive the additional protections that a person has.
Corporations should not be treated as people. They should not receive the benefits of people while protected from any responsibilities as people.

2) As someone who is anti-abortion, removing the 4 emergency contraception drugs (which either delay ovulation or prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg), will actually *INCREASE* the number of abortions.

3) Without insurance-negotiated rates, a lot of these contraceptives cost hundreds of dollars. It ain't chump change.

4) What is the difference between this ruling and Scientologists denying coverage of anti-depressants or Christian Scientists denying all medical coverage? None.

*CORPORATIONS* should NOT get to choose what kind of coverage their employees get.

Of course, I think companies shouldn't be the ones providing health insurance at all (except perhaps as a subsidy).




RE: corporations are not people
By chµck on 6/30/14, Rating: -1
RE: corporations are not people
By chromal on 6/30/2014 9:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
If corporations are people, then they are sociopaths. For-profit corporations have zero expectation of religious rights in any sane secular society.


RE: corporations are not people
By Solandri on 7/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: corporations are not people
By shabby on 7/1/2014 8:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corporations are just groups of people.

Unfortunately they put profit first and foremost, this skews everything compared to a group of surfers who are in it for the fun. Capiche?


RE: corporations are not people
By croc on 7/1/2014 8:57:00 AM , Rating: 4
Just in regards the definition of sociopathy, and how it applies to a business, here is one dictionary's definition:

"so·ci·o·path [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."

Seems to fit more than not... And more's the pity.


RE: corporations are not people
By FD80 on 7/1/2014 9:12:01 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think its a simple matter of right to religion being greater than right of health care. (And I recognize that the one right is certainly more Constitutionally vested than the other.) However I do not believe my right not to be murdered is specifically called out in the Constitution (at least not as formally as religious right), but if you kill me in accordance to a religious believe I'm pretty sure the court would rule in favor of my right not to be murdered. Constitution rights do have some practical limits. The classic example is that freedom of speech does not allow me to yell "fire" in a crowded building or lie under oath. There is our personal rights and then there is the area where that overlaps into the rights of others. The real issue is a classic: How does our religious rights interact with our obligations? Can I refuse to pay taxes that go to things against my beliefs? Can I sue my employer for not allowing me 2 weeks leave for a religious observance? If a police officer believes that it is not wrong to rape a woman, can he refuse to file the criminal complaint? Can I refuse the military draft due to pacifist views? It goes on and on. The weighing of our rights versus the need to keep a certain level of order is a balance and a debate perhaps older than our own Constitution.


RE: corporations are not people
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: corporations are not people
By FD80 on 7/1/2014 1:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent points. I merely noted the murder is not as specifically called out as religious freedom is, but yes it was an overly dramatic (and perhaps simplified) analogy. I will admit that. I was just trying to point out that the issue is not as cut and dry as some might make it. It goes beyond Obama, Mennonites, and condoms. There is more to it than weighing specificity of one right versus another. It makes for an interesting discussion.


RE: corporations are not people
By PhallicBaldwin on 7/1/2014 1:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Copper IUDs are not 4 dollars, and considering my wife is recovering from cancer, and cannot use hormone based contraceptives for 5 years...this is kind of a big deal.

Shockingly, you don't understand a women's health issue, and assume "moochers" want free shit.

..and why are all of you Ron Paul crazies so bad at basic economics? Free birth control pours a metric shitton of money back into the economy. Unwanted children from poor families end up costing you way more in the end.

What's so cool about this, is that I live in state that understands this and has had universal healthcare and great free women's clinics for longer than anyone....and guess what...we have average taxes, super low crime, and the best public education system in the entire country.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: corporations are not people
By FaaR on 7/1/2014 3:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Contraceptives have nothing to do with health. They have to do with the desire to not get pregnant.


There's also endometriosis. So so much for your absolute statements.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: corporations are not people
By PhallicBaldwin on 7/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: corporations are not people
By ebakke on 7/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: corporations are not people
By PhallicBaldwin on 7/1/2014 5:43:05 PM , Rating: 5
...funny you should say that. We also have the lowest incidence of teen pregnancy and abortion. (I'm talking about Massachusetts BTW)

These children "raised" by absent parents don't exist because they were never born, because we provide women here with safe and easy ways to control when they decide to get pregnant.

Do you really have no knowledge of the history of letting poor people "live with the consequences of their bad decisions?". They don't magically become productive members of society. They get desperate and the crime rates skyrocket.

Whats so stupefying about your position is that we already know what works. We already know how to lower crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and abortions.

You seem to think this comes out of some bleeding heart liberal agenda. It comes from a pragmatic approach to dealing with poverty. It comes from logical analysis of the data.

Giving out free birth control should be an incredibly obvious thing to do.


RE: corporations are not people
By ebakke on 7/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: corporations are not people
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 10:52:24 AM , Rating: 1
"I'm not opposed to birth control being available, and I'm certainly not opposed to charities offering it for free. I'm opposed to the government forcing 100% of the people to pay for something that <100% of the people want, and that benefits a fraction of the overall population. "

Only a fraction of the people get cancer should that also not be included? Nothing effects 100% of the populations except death, so I guess we should only have life insurance.


RE: corporations are not people
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
So where is this utopia you live in?


RE: corporations are not people
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 4:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hobby Lobby covers birth control medication, including those taken for endometriosis. They cover like 16+ forms of birth control.

They just refuse to cover birth control that's used post-conception, aka 'abortion' pills and devices.

So so much for whatever your point was supposed to be.


RE: corporations are not people
By PhallicBaldwin on 7/1/2014 6:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
...but all of the birth control they are not covering are not abortifacients.

They honestly just don't understand how a women's reproductive system works.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2014 8:38:31 AM , Rating: 1
Do you not understand the whole point of this debate? They don't WANT to cover it because they DO understand how it works. That at conception, life is created. Not at birth. Science agrees with them. And they choose to not want to pay to end innocent life because of their beliefs. You think it should be a right to kill a person because their mother doesn't want them. At what stage of development that person is at is irrelevant. They are still a human being. And in the US, human beings have a God given, legally codified right to life. At least when they've broken no law. And the unborn are absolutely the most innocent of us all.


RE: corporations are not people
By PReiger99 on 7/2/2014 11:14:16 AM , Rating: 4
Quote:"That at conception, life is created. Not at birth. Science agrees with them."

Please go back to school; science doesn't claims that life begins at conception because both the spermatozoon and the ovum are already alive before that point (it's called the "Cell Theory"). Moreover, a simple use of Logic 101 would tell you that for life to begin somewhere, it must be absent before the point you have arbitrarily chosen as the beginning.

Moreover, the "life begins at conception" absurdity assumes that science has a very special definition of life, just for us. Organisms that do not use sexual reproduction (i.e. that reproduce via binary fission, parthenogenesis, etc) are somehow not really alive. This absurdity also run into serious logical problems when dealing with identical twins, clones and dizygotic/tetragametic embryos.

Quote:"At what stage of development that person is at is irrelevant."

Unfortunately it is and always will be. A blank canvas doesn't have the same value as a completed painting. A pile of bricks and planks isn't equivalent to a house and a fertilized egg isn't in any conceivable way equivalent to a person... Unless of course you are so blinded by your faith that you are willing to disregard reason.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2014 2:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Once an egg is fertilized, the separate sperm and egg cease to exist and you have living human DNA. Before then, it isn't. I'm not arguing that before then those two separate entities aren't alive, I'm saying they aren't yet human. And I hold human life above all other forms of life.

And the life begins at conception argument is dealing with human beings, not all life on earth. And how is it a logical problem with twins and clones? They are also human beings. So what is the logical problem. They would deserve all the same rights as any other individual. I'm against human cloning though because its more of a moral issue. I think we'd start using them as organ banks which is inhumane.

And you're not blinded by yours? I believe that a human being exists at conception because science tells us that's what it is. DNA taken from a 1 second old human zygote that will later develop into a fully formed human being will test just as human as you. So for my argument, stage of development isn't relevant. If it's human, according to our laws, it falls under protection of our Constitution and has a right to its life. To develop as it will.

But your argument is that doesn't matter. It isn't breathing, blinking, laughing, crying, etc at you so therefore it isn't alive and can be terminated.

I'm being completely reasonable though. I value ALL human life. Not just the human life that can look at with my eyes.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2014 2:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
Science defines life if it meets 4 criteria:
- has a metabolism
- grows
- reacts to stimuli
- reproduces

Said zygote does all those things. Not in the same context as a fully developed person. But the same as any other zygote we define as alive.

So then the only other question (to me anyway) is, is it human? As I've already stated, we know the answer to be yes.

So again, tell me how the unborn at conception are not a human being deserving the same right to life as anyone else? Because they haven't reached the newly developed idea of "personhood" (in my mind developed so that abortion is easier to justify)?

One such explanation:
"What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. …A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person."

Even under this, a human zygote is a person. It has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions. Regardless of whether or not they're ever attained. They can't think rationally yet because they're too young but are still a human person because of their nature (their human DNA).

Of course some definitions of "personhood" don't even extend to newborns, toddlers, or the mentally disabled. If those definitions are used, then killing them too is ethical. Which some so-called "ethicists" are advocating for now. Are you one of those?


RE: corporations are not people
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 11:01:14 AM , Rating: 2

It doesn't end it it PREVENTS it. There is a BIG difference.


RE: corporations are not people
By ebakke on 7/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: corporations are not people
By PhallicBaldwin on 7/1/2014 5:51:45 PM , Rating: 4
...you do understand the concept of health insurance and why it's a good thing right?

Again...I feel good about it? I could give a fuck about it. I expect you to pay for my healthcare...just as I pay for your healthcare and have absolutely no problem doing so...like most human beings in first world countries.

I have a vested interest in you being healthy and educated. Stupid poor people are super expensive. I have an interest in allowing women to choose when they want to have a baby.


RE: corporations are not people
By ebakke on 7/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: corporations are not people
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 11:07:30 AM , Rating: 1
"Here's the problem though. You've decided for both of us what's expected, and what we're both obligated to do. I don't wish to participate in your system. I don't want you to pay for me, and I don't want to pay for you. I want *no part* in that."

Then you don't know what insurance is.
Hint: It's not just for you and your needs.



RE: corporations are not people
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/14, Rating: -1
By shikigamild on 7/1/2014 1:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked it's not illegal to be a sociopath.
What, are you going to deny their rights to sociopaths too?


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 11:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
You might actually look into Hobby Lobby before calling them sociopaths. Their minimum wage is $14/hr. And they treat their employees very well. But hey let's demonize them because they don't want to offer the morning after pill (but DO still offer birth control coverage) because it goes against their beliefs.


RE: corporations are not people
By Dorkyman on 7/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: corporations are not people
By Bobhacks on 6/30/2014 10:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Who every thinks corporations are people are fools. They aren't treated like "people" in any other way except when it comes to politics... hmmm. Corporations are only driven but the bottom line and not morals and ethical behavior.

I could make a huge case about this but im too tired to type.


RE: corporations are not people
By Griffinhart on 7/1/2014 10:09:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Who every thinks corporations are people are fools. They aren't treated like "people" in any other way except when it comes to politics... hmmm. Corporations are only driven but the bottom line and not morals and ethical behavior.


Untrue. For example. The Fourth amendment
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


Unless you are suggesting the government doesn't need a warrant to access corporate data and records....

A group of people, banding together, for any reason do not magically give up their individual rights. They are just as protected by the constitution and bill of rights. Motivations of such an organization could be altruistic or selfish, it doesn't matter. As long as they are law abiding.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 10:50:58 AM , Rating: 3
I've tried to explain the need for Corporate Personhood here before, as a legal construct, but have failed. They don't want to hear it.

Without Corporate Personhood the Government could arbitrarily seize your business or any number of things.

And while, yes, we could pass individual laws to block each instance of Government overeach; it's a lot simpler and all-encompassing to have the Constitutional protections granted the individual extend to the Corporation.


RE: corporations are not people
By ats2 on 7/1/2014 10:11:46 AM , Rating: 5
I'm perfectly fine with treat corporations as people when we tax them as people. Taxed on profit only? That's not how we tax people...


RE: corporations are not people
By Kenenniah on 7/1/2014 11:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually there isn't much difference. A person running a non incorporated business is taxed on income minus expenses as well.

Even individual income taxes have deductions, and if required to spend money in the generation of their income (driving a personal car for business reasons etc.) they can write that off as an expense as well.

Businesses just have more to write off since virtually all expenditures are spent in the generation of the taxed income.


RE: corporations are not people
By boobo on 7/1/2014 6:31:07 AM , Rating: 5
We know that legally they are people. What we mean is that the law is wrong. Corporations are made of people with, sometimes, thousands of different beliefs. However a few board members decide what the "corporation person" believes. The political leanings, beliefs, and principles of the rest of the people who make up, run and own the company are ignored.

Corporate Board members and high-level managers are selected to make the corporation money. They will remain in place while they do so. To pretend that they represent the will of all (or most of) the people in the Corporation in social or political matters is ridiculous.


RE: corporations are not people
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 9:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The political leanings, beliefs, and principles of the rest of the people who make up, run and own the company are ignored.


You don't have a "right" to work at that Corporation on your terms, sorry. What's with this ever-growing sense of entitlement lately?

If the company you work for has a mission statement that conflicts with your personal beliefs, guess what? You have the freedom to work somewhere else if it's that big of a problem for you! Nobody said a Corporation must represent ANY beliefs other than those that the people who run/own it want reflected.

Goddamn so many of you fail at the utter core concept of America, you MUST have went to public school. There's just no other explanation.

I don't mind if you can't name all the states. I don't care if you can't recall the Founders by name, or the dates and places. But for fu*k all, you should at LEAST be knowledgeable in the basic minimalist core reasons for it being and the purpose of the Constitution.


RE: corporations are not people
By boobo on 7/2/2014 1:22:42 AM , Rating: 3
I never said that the corporation should represent the beliefs of those who work for the company!

I said that they don't represent them (nothing wrong with that in and of itself). So the argument that corporations are people because they are made of people and run by people is invalid. Those people do not add up the persona of the corporation.

The point is not how the corporations should change in order to be people. The point is that they should legally not be people. They should be corporations.


RE: corporations are not people
By hyvonen on 7/2/2014 4:11:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Goddamn so many of you fail at the utter core concept of America, you MUST have went to public school. There's just no other explanation.


Apparently the private school that you presumably went to doesn't teach grammar... or basic morality. There's just no other explanation.


RE: corporations are not people
By carigis on 7/1/2014 7:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
yes, ... they are born.. they can live for ever, and can't go to jail.. just like all other people.


RE: corporations are not people
By arrandale on 7/1/2014 8:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention they can be dissolved and recreated in order to avoid responsibility and continue on as normal.


RE: corporations are not people
By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
So can regular people, it's called bankruptcy.


RE: corporations are not people
By carigis on 7/1/2014 8:00:58 AM , Rating: 3
oh yea..

f corporations are people according to the supreme court.. why can they be bought and sold like slaves in a hostile takeover? shouldn't that be illegal the same as buying and selling people... I mean you can't pick and choose the rights.. they are people (such an asinine decision).. and shouldn't they all have the right to vote as well..


RE: corporations are not people
By Meinolf on 7/1/2014 8:31:12 AM , Rating: 3
Just don't work there if birth control is against their gods believes they are F*king nuts anyway. They are the same people that piss and moan they have to pay for all the welfare cases out there that can't afford their kids.


RE: corporations are not people
By ebakke on 7/1/2014 3:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are the same people that piss and moan they have to pay for all the welfare cases out there that can't afford their kids.
This may come as an absolute shock to you, but some people don't want to pay for others' birth control *or* welfare. Nothing requires our society to do either, or both. If we collectively chose *not* to give others free birth control, we wouldn't be committing ourselves to providing welfare for unwanted children. That's an entirely separate choice we're making. We could just as easily chose not to do either, and insist that individuals live with the consequences (both positive and negative) of their decisions.


RE: corporations are not people
By dxf2891 on 7/1/2014 8:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
By that logic, so are churches and extremist groups and mainland terrorists.


RE: corporations are not people
By AllYourBaseAreBelong2Us on 7/1/2014 10:09:50 AM , Rating: 5
I'll start believing Corporations are people when we manage to put one in jail.


RE: corporations are not people
By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 1
We do, we put the executives who break the law performing their jobs in jail.

What is so hard to understand about Corporations being composed of people? You have the heads of corporations, who can be held legally responsible for crimes. Just because the system is corrupt and we don't, doesn't mean we can't.


RE: corporations are not people
By kattanna on 7/1/2014 10:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) As someone who is anti-abortion, removing the 4 emergency contraception drugs (which either delay ovulation or prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg), will actually *INCREASE* the number of abortions.


THIS.. bears repeating


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 11:51:03 AM , Rating: 1
If there was a life to end with an abortion, the morning after pill did the same thing. Just much earlier in the game. This is a retarded argument.

And one even more flawed by the fact that abortions aren't free either. So they have the money for an abortion but not the pill?


RE: corporations are not people
By KFZ on 7/1/2014 11:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
Corporations have many responsibilities and regulations to follow. Health benefits are just that: benefits. Only relatively recently has it become popular to believe that something like health insurance is a right and therefore a "responsibility" for employers.

Businesses provide jobs. Jobs pay workers. That's the deal.

If you want to change that fundamental contract, making the argument that employers owe workers things like insurance coverage (as if they're rights/entitlements), then, and I would add you clearly speak out against private insurance, you're probably looking at a form of socialism where you won't have to deal with rights and freedoms of private businesses.

You might as well get rid of the private sector if you don't respect private systems with private businesses that have private rights.


RE: corporations are not people
By Argon18 on 7/1/2014 11:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
"*CORPORATIONS* should NOT get to choose what kind of coverage their employees get."

Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS both agree with you. That isn't the question here. The question is about who will pay for it , and whether the government can force a business owner to pay for it.

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it, it doesn't mean workers simply can't get it. It means they either need to pay for it themselves, or the government can step-up and subsidize it. Nobody is denying access to anything here, it's a funding issue, nothing else.


RE: corporations are not people
By Dorkyman on 7/1/2014 3:59:53 PM , Rating: 1
Up until the massive mistake called Obamacare, corporations DID get to choose what kind of coverage their employees got. And it worked out well. Workers could weigh the pros and cons of working for Company A or Company B. Benefits were a part of that calculation. Worked fine.

Now Obama has come along and royally screwed the system up. But he's a Community Organizer and the smartest man on the planet, so he knows what's good for you. I truly detest the man's incompetence. Everything he's touched has turned to crap.


RE: corporations are not people
By hyvonen on 7/2/2014 4:17:00 PM , Rating: 3
Worked out well? Are you kidding me? More expensive than in any other Western society, with inferior results... that's what we had.

Obama tried to bring the American health care system to the level of other Western societies. Some selfish morons are resisting... and the failure is on them.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 11:45:31 AM , Rating: 1
Government shouldn't be able to choose what coverage people get either. Corporations should not be forced into providing coverage at all. People should not be forced to buy coverage at all or be forced to buy coverage they don't want or need.

Me and my wife must pay for birth control, smoking cessation, counseling, and many other products/services we don't want or need.

A business should absolutely be able to refuse to pay for things when the owners of the business reflect their beliefs in how they run their business.

If you ultimately can't afford birth control, there are very easy and effective manners to not get pregnant. Me and my wife don't use it. And you are kidding yourself if you think the morning after pill isn't the same as abortion. If there is a fertilized egg, you are aborting it by using the morning after pill. Yes it may not implant on its own. But you're still actively trying to prevent that life from further developing. The morning after pill is also extremely dangerous to use anyway. Women can and have died from taking it.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 12:01:58 PM , Rating: 1
And I'll add, corporations should definitely be able to choose what coverage they're willing to pay for for employees. There's nothing stopping employees from going out and paying for an additional policy for things they want that the company doesn't cover. At least there used to not be.

How about we go back to the 60s and 70s. Where people paid cash for services. And health insurance was for catastrophic coverage. Not everything under the sun. Get sick? Pay a small fee to see a doctor. Today though government compliance and malpractice costs have driven the prices through the roofs. Yet the government has the audacity to blame the medical industry for high costs? They could easily pass tort reform. But Democrats blatantly said they didn't want to because A) many of them are trial attorneys and/or B) many of their biggest donors are trial attorneys. They're not going to put caps on the ridiculous settlements that scum bag ambulance chasers extort out of doctors and hospitals or businesses.


RE: corporations are not people
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 12:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why stop at health care?

I think my employer should buy my next house as part of my benefits package. I mean, I'm entitled to it, aren't I?


RE: corporations are not people
By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
Come on guys, we all know that Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide health insurance if they don't want to. If they lost what would have most likely happened is they would have either cancelled the insurance all together or stopped providing employer match. Either way, in the end, only the little people would get hurt. That's what drives me nuts about liberals: these companies have a multitude of ways out and can and will find ways around these issues. Use laws to make sure people don't dump chemicals in our rivers or kill each other or in general provide safety, not social engineering.


RE: corporations are not people
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 12:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...they are required to. If they don't they're fined.


RE: corporations are not people
By ebakke on 7/1/2014 12:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
1) Sort of. If Hobby Lobby does something stupid and it costs the company money, it's not some mythical pseudo-person that pays. It's the owners who pay. Out of savings, lost future revenues. Whatever. The owners are on the hook for their share of the company. These people either bought their shares, or invested heavily in the company during the initial years. It's *their money* being used by Hobby Lobby.

2) Not necessarily. It *might*, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion. It *might* increase the number of *pregnancies*. What happens then is up to the women involved. Some might choose to abort. Some might not. And, Hobby Lobby never tried to dictate the actions of their employees or anyone else. They simply don't want to pay for something they find objectionable.

3) I don't care. Band together with other people who care about this and increase your buying power if it's that important to you. You have the internet at your disposal. Go forth and recruit!

4) [Shrug]. Let people of all religions deal with the ramifications of believing in them. Not my problem.

quote:
*CORPORATIONS* should NOT get to choose what kind of coverage their employees get.
I could not agree more. Individuals should get to choose what kind of coverage they want, need, and will purchase. Corporations should *absolutely* get to choose what kind of coverage their employees are *offered*, should they choose to offer anything.


By RapidDissent on 7/1/2014 3:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking as a corporation, I am offended by your comments!


No, no one is denying anyone anything
By geddarkstorm on 6/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By Ammohunt on 6/30/14, Rating: -1
By Dorkyman on 7/1/2014 4:02:19 PM , Rating: 1
To each his own. Feel free to no longer read it.


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By Jeffk464 on 6/30/2014 8:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
We need more information on companies like these so people can choose whether to shop there or not. By the say ged birth control is essential to most couples, how many people can afford 15 kids?


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By V-Money on 6/30/2014 9:11:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
how many people can afford 15 kids?


In all fairness, birth control is much cheaper than 15 kids...seriously though, I don't really see this as much of an issue, I think there is a lot of overreaction on this topic. Most types of birth control are inexpensive, and the ACA could simply incorporate price ceilings on the medications and procedures involving birth control if its that big of an issue.

I agree that without insurance negotiations these procedures and drugs can be pricey, but I think that is an issue all of its own (in that it is BS that we can be charged so much for so little if we don't submit to the extortion that is health insurance and the profits of so many middle men).

Lastly though, if you can't afford to have kids and think that you can't afford health insurance, try cutting back on the soda, the burgers, and any other bad habit you have that you really don't need. Also feel free to get off your fat ass and exercise once in awhile. If people did this more they would have more money and more savings from less expensive health plans since we wouldn't all have to subsidize the ~60% fat f@&*$ who are requiring the most medical attention these days.


By Jeffk464 on 6/30/2014 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
fyi I don't have a fat ass


By Ammohunt on 6/30/2014 11:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah blame the fat people! they will be the next persecuted class. Truth is being fat isn't anyone's business but their own; god forbid they start picking apart your destructive behaviors and inventing new way to persecute you....I know a stupidity tax!.

This issue is not about birth control since its trivial to obtain but rather the 1st amendment to the bill of rights specifically the free exercise of religion. Anyone still unclear as to why government run healthcare is a bad thing?


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 12:07:27 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah let's just throw out all reason and personal accountability. If your employer doesn't cover birth control, just like...totally have 15 kids! It's not your fault.

/facepalm

I don't know why this ruling is coming as a surprise. This is America, and this is how it's ALWAYS been. The only reason this had to even go to the courts is because the Socialist nutjob in the White House is going insane with Constitutional challenges left and right. When he supposedly took an oath to defend it.


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By Peter-B on 7/1/2014 3:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand the real problem here. It's not about birth control. The real issue here is that there's a law in place and some people have the right to avoid obeying the law base on their unrational beliefes. Doesn't this ring some alarm bells?


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By atechfan on 7/1/2014 7:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
The only irrational belief being shown is the idea that the government or a corporation should be responsible to pay for what you decide to do with your reproductive organs.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 9:21:51 AM , Rating: 3
Confused Liberals:

On Abortion Laws: It's my body! Keep your Government out of my vagina, I'll do what I want with my fetus, it's my choice!

On Healthcare Law: What!!?? The Government should FORCE these groups to pay for contraception and whatever else. They shouldn't have a choice, it's the law!!!

Real consistent belief system they have, don't you think??


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 9:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
Laws that violate people's Constitutional protections are not lawful.

That's what this ruling says. And any red blooded American should be behind that.

And I'm an Atheist. So for whatever that's worth, consider that.

It's really scary to read some of you people's comments on this and other issues. I think we're seeing why America isn't a pure Democracy. You people are the very voice of the 'tyranny of the majority'. No offense but if you guys were put in charge, I would be looking to relocate.

I think a LOT of things people have a right to are "unrational" (irrational). However if enough people agreed with me, and started making laws based on that, other people who feel different shouldn't be subjugated and disenfranchised because of it. That's tyranny!

I'm an Atheist, but I would die to defend someone's freedom of religion. It's one of THE most important and basic Constitutional protections, and something that makes America special.


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By Peter-B on 7/1/2014 10:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
How the hell can you defend the 'freedom' of religion if one's beliefes are affecting others? I'm all for total liberty of every person but not if it has a negative influence on somone else. If my religion prohibits the use of birth control pills fine, I won't use it, I'll teach my kids not to use it. But if I run a freaking pharmacy I sure won't deny it from others.

And how can you call it 'freedom' if the law has exceptions for some religions? Surely it cannot mention all possible religions, so there might be some which are left out. Isn't that discrimination? Isn't it discrimination against atheists? Religion is a personal thing and it has no need to be mentioned in the law or a court to make decisions based on a religion's teachings.

PS: sorry for my mistakes, I'm not a native English speaker


By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 10:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Again, there's no such thing as the "freedom" to be employed on your terms. If you have a problem with the practices of Hobby Lobby, there's a simple fix: Don't work there.

quote:
But if I run a freaking pharmacy I sure won't deny it from others.


Huh?? That's....not even the issue. Who's doing that?

quote:
I'm all for total liberty of every person but not if it has a negative influence on somone else.


Nobody is being negatively affected here. Nowhere does it say you have a right to employer-provided contraception.

quote:
And how can you call it 'freedom' if the law has exceptions for some religions?


It's in the Constitution. The problem with ACA is that, in SO many areas, it goes against the Constitution.

The problem was the law in the first place, it's fundamental flaws.


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to own and operate a pharmacy you are darn right you have the right to choose what you want to sell. You may choose to provide products that you wouldn't personally use. But you should be under no obligation to do so. Who's business is it? Yours or theirs? Or the governments? Should a hamburger restaurant be forced to offer fried chicken?

How can you call it freedom to begin with if you're not free to sell what legal products you want and not sell what you don't want? I sure don't call that freedom.


By ebakke on 7/1/2014 3:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
Boom. Nailed it.


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By SDBettas on 7/1/2014 9:27:44 AM , Rating: 2
The real issue here is that many of you feel as though your employer and other taxpaying American citizens should foot the bill for your choice in lifestyle, regardless of what that may be. Just like Sandra Fluke wants the taxpayers to "pay" for her birth control so she can spread the wealth around campus. Sandra Fluke and others can take 57 birth control pills a day for all I care, throw in a morning after pill every few weeks, doesn't bother me. I just don't want to have to pay for it.


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2014 8:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
You would rather pay for unwanted kids?


By geddarkstorm on 7/2/2014 12:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Lame. No one should have to pay for other people's kids either. Have some self control, planning, and foresight. That's how the world got along just fine before contraceptives.


By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that Hobby Lobby had no problem with 16 of the 20 birth control methods required coverage under the ACA?

They have a problem with Plan B and the "abortion" like birth control's that are required.


By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 2:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Because there are no other ways than contraception to avoid having 15 kids....


RE: No, no one is denying anyone anything
By geddarkstorm on 7/2/2014 12:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
People did just fine before birth control. You don't -have- to have sex, as most women will tell you.


By FITCamaro on 7/2/2014 8:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously. People were controlling how many kids they had long before birth control existed. Me and my wife don't use birth control and we've been married 3 months and still aren't pregnant. We just use a condom during times of fertility. It's quite easy to monitor and manage and still have an active, full sex life.


Not at all.
By Scannall on 7/1/2014 12:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
From the decision.

It would be nice If the authors of these kinds of articles actually read and understood what they were writing about.

(3)
quote:
This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.




RE: Not at all.
By room200 on 7/1/2014 1:06:09 AM , Rating: 3
That's the thing though; there's nothing that stops a company who's Muslim family wants to sue for a religious exemption. There's nothing that stops a company headed by a Jewim, or Mormon, or any other religion to sue for religious exemption. This case opens the door. This is taken directly from Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."


RE: Not at all.
By FITCamaro on 7/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not at all.
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 2:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
This is also the same woman who said this about the case.

"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage; that almost one-third of women would change their contraceptive method if costs were not a factor" - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Pg. 25 Hobby Lobby / Conestoga Dissent)

What exact bearing does that have on the case? Something isn't affordable to some people and they want it so therefore it is a constitutional right and must be provided? Well heck I guess I'll march down to the Chevy dealership and pick up my new Corvette ZR-1. I want it and can't afford it.


RE: Not at all.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 2:18:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage; that almost one-third of women would change their contraceptive method if costs were not a factor" -


Does this crazy bitch know what her job description is? Wtf does that have to do with ANYTHING regarding this case? Just..wow.

So cost is a factor in how we enforce, or don't enforce, the law or even the Constitution!?

Extreme Leftist wackos like this should never make it to the Supreme Court. How can you possibly defend the Constitution when you clearly HATE it?


RE: Not at all.
By room200 on 7/1/2014 7:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is funny. The supreme court is cool (the part that you agree with), but the other part that you disagree with are leftist wackos? LOL I can't WAIT until the door that has been opened creates situations that come to bite people like you in the ass.


RE: Not at all.
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2014 8:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
There may be decisions based on religions I don't agree with. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right to practice their religion. I don't agree with those who think medicine in general is wrong. But I'll stand up for their right to live their life like that.


RE: Not at all.
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 2:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Another part of the dissenting opinion.

"No doubt the Greens and Hahns and all who share their beliefs may decline to acquire for themselves the contraceptives in question. But that choice may not be imposed on employees who hold other beliefs. Working for Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, in other words, should not deprive employees of the preventive care available to workers at the shop next door,30 at least in the absence of directions from the Legislature or Administration to do so. Why should decisions of this order be made by Congress or the regulatory authority, and not this Court?"

Because courts DO NOT get to legislate.

And also take note of their statement....alluding to the idea that they have on the left...that somehow the employees are having the Greens and Hahns beliefs "imposed" upon them. As if they cannot go to plenty of other places to get contraceptives they want nowadays...even free.

The use of contraceptive BY AND LARGE is a WANT, not a NEED. Of course, regardless of which it is, the government has no authority to force a business to provide it to people for free or at a reduced cost. The things I want and need I am responsible for finding ways to provide for myself. Not demanding government to give it to me or make others give it to me.


RE: Not at all.
By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'll answer Ms. Ginsburg question: yes, yes and yes.

You don't want to work for the Jewish run company that won't cover "pig drugs"? GET. ANOTHER. JOB.

And no, this does not allow for Sharia law or any refusal of your rights under any religious pretext. Any drug being covered under a health insurance plan IS NOT A RIGHT.


RE: Not at all.
By arrandale on 7/1/2014 8:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, this makes the decision even more absurd. What's the difference, as far as constitutionality is concerned, between birth control and vaccinations or blood transfusions? The fact that the Justices singled out contraception is a pretty clear indicator that this either politically or religiously motivated rather than driven by a constitutional interpretation. In fact, it would be pretty easy to make the case that this ruling violates the first amendment since it gives preferential treatment to religions that support vaccinations and blood transfusions but not birth control. Ridiculous and absurd.


RE: Not at all.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not at all.
By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well not to mention the fact that the case was in reference to birth control. They kept the scope limited because it was brought to them in a limited manner. It also allows for supplemental rulings regarding other medical manners that will not overlap e.g. rule against blood transfusions.


RE: Not at all.
By Scannall on 7/1/2014 12:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
Because providing for your birth control isn't an 'Undue Burden'. Providing your own transfusions is. Have a look at the religious freedom act of 1993, signed by Bill Clinton. The why's and wherefores are in there.


Is this Dailytech or Dailypolitical now?
By Rob94hawk on 6/30/2014 9:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
Is this Dailytech or Dailypolitical now? I come here to read tech related articles not bullshit political ones. This crap belongs in Huffington Post or Fox news not here.




RE: Is this Dailytech or Dailypolitical now?
By Peter-B on 7/1/2014 3:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
While you're right about this site being a tech magazine, I do enjoy reading about this kind of stuff. It makes me realize what a f&cked up world we're living in if the most powerful country lets people avoid the law and influence others lives based only on their beliefs in supernatural.


By ebakke on 7/1/2014 11:44:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It makes me realize what a f&cked up world we're living in if the most powerful country lets people avoid the law and influence others lives based only on their beliefs in supernatural.

Equally appalling are the people who influence others lives based only on their beliefs in their own moral superiority. The government has no business dictating what insurance someone can/can't, will/won't have in the first place.

It is sad though that if you believe in the man in the sky, you get a certain set of rights. If you have the exact same objections but they're not because of a belief in the man in the sky, your rights are trampled by the majority. :(


By inperfectdarkness on 7/1/2014 5:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think this article falls under both.

For the record, this is just more evidence of how organized religion can really FUBAR things up for mankind.

What I'd really hate to see is a CORPORATION leveraging religion in order to minimize the amount of healthcare they have to provide for their employees--thereby cutting costs.

P.S.
How many active servicemembers are Jehovah's Witnesses? I can't imagine being in the infantry and not being able to have a blood transfusion.


RE: Is this Dailytech or Dailypolitical now?
By dxf2891 on 7/1/2014 9:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
As a former Marine Corps recruiter I can tell you that there were zero Marines who were Jehovah's witnesses (at least in the 9th Marine Corps District from June 86 through Sep.t 92). As a matter of fact, every Saturday morning when they ring my doorbell, I invite them in (with my Marine paraphanelia on the walls) and ask them if they realize that the Military allows them to practice their religion? I then attempt to persuade them to join the service. I've learned that under no circumstances can a JW take a human life. My house has since be listed as a "No fly zone" for Jehovah's Witnesses, lol!!!!!


By Monkey's Uncle on 7/1/2014 9:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
Lol!

I gotta try that the next time these guys come to my door!


RE: Is this Dailytech or Dailypolitical now?
By DanNeely on 7/1/2014 7:02:31 AM , Rating: 5
It's DailyClickBait, same as always.


By BRB29 on 7/1/2014 8:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick tends to stray into politics


By Monkey's Uncle on 7/1/2014 9:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well, they got you to click didn't they.

Sucker!


The second a "religious" doctor...
By Al Jalaikakik on 6/30/2014 9:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
Kills a family member of mine due to MALPRACTICE, I take every cent he has.

And if the courts decide that isn't going to happen, I take care of the matter myself.

Be REALLY careful what you wish for, religious imbeciles.




By HostileEffect on 6/30/2014 11:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think its time you turn off your internet.


RE: The second a "religious" doctor...
By room200 on 7/1/2014 1:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that won't happen in many states; the companies have gotten politicians to do their bidding for them. They kill your mother, brother, wife, kid? Many states have limited the amount of damages you can sue for. America is a great country having decided how much YOUR loved one's life is worth. Funny thing is, they get to sue the hell out of each other all the time, and NOT ONCE do republicans call those lawsuits "frivolous".


By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? Medical malpractice lawsuits continue to grow and there's been no slowdown. The US of A is the leader in tort abuse so I'm not sure where you're getting that we somehow limit lawsuits.


By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
This ruling has nothing to do with malpractice or flat out murder.

If you go to a doctor that won't do blood transfusions then that's your own idiotic fault. If a hospital hires one, then that's their fault (and you can sue.) In fact, prior to this law, a doctor didn't have to give a blood transfusion if they didn't want to. This ruling literally changes nothing in that regard and you're daft to think otherwise.


By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 3:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
What the frick are you talking about?

Even you probably don't know.

If a doctor has religious objections to something your family member wants them to do, they should/would refer them to another doctor. Malpractice doesn't even enter this argument. But I'm sure some idiot CNN host said something about it and you're just spewing the same crap they did.


Whats the big deal?
By ZippZ on 7/1/2014 1:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see what the big deal about this is...
1. If a doctor doesn't want to give a transfusion, fire him and get a new doctor or move him to a different field.

2. If an employer doesn't fund insurance for contraceptives, buy your own. Or get supplemental coverage yourself. I wouldn't want my taxpayer money paying for contraceptives for someone else anyways. Or don't have sex.

3. It's like these people expect other people to pay for their things.




RE: Whats the big deal?
By room200 on 7/1/2014 1:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
Do you not understand how insurance works? I don't want to pay for some old coot's Viagra either, but that's the way it works. Of course you don't want to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit YOU. I don't want to pay for government assistance when someone wants to build a house on the side of a mountain then the f@cker slides off the edge, or when a hurricane washed that expensive shore front property into the ocean, but I don't get to choose.


RE: Whats the big deal?
By chripuck on 7/1/2014 12:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
And prior to Obamacare you could buy insurance that didn't cover Viagra. Seriously, you didn't have to have your money supplement an old man's boner. You didn't have to have your money supplement my wife's $57k bill for the birth of our son (that we paid $100 for.) You see, before the ACA you had a CHOICE, now you do not.

But I'm sure you never once bothered to read up on what drugs were and weren't covered other than the ones you needed.


RE: Whats the big deal?
By room200 on 7/1/2014 7:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
WTF are you babbling about? You work for a company, you have the plans they offer. Anything more than that, the average person cannot afford. All the plans end up being the same in the end, hence you don't have any REAL choice. I suspect you didn't either, but just to be contrarian, you're going to claim you did. lol


Apple to orange
By zlandar on 6/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: Apple to orange
By GotThumbs on 6/30/14, Rating: -1
RE: Apple to orange
By bodar on 6/30/2014 10:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
When has logic stopped superstitious twits from making bad decisions, especially when it doesn't truly affect them in any way? Blood transfusions are life-saving procedures, yes. But if a Jehovah's Witness really wants to deny his employees insurance compensation for them, this SCOTUS decision would technically make it possible, giving him the "freedom" to deny coverage. I'm sorry, employers shouldn't be able to interfere with their employee's healthcare decisions. Period. Don't like birth control? Don't take it. Got a problem with others who use it? TFB.


RE: Apple to orange
By TheEinstein on 6/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: Apple to orange
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2014 12:29:35 AM , Rating: 1
Hey idiot, this decision was ONLY for the contraceptive mandate. They cannot deny blood transfusions on religious grounds, wtf kind of idiot are you?

quote:
I'm sorry, employers shouldn't be able to interfere with their employee's healthcare decisions.


And the Government shouldn't interfere and demand everyone provide your contraception for you.


RE: Apple to orange
By zlandar on 7/1/2014 9:04:08 AM , Rating: 4
The only reason Hobby Lobby is getting away with this is the very NARROW interpretation where contraception is viewed as something "optional" to one's health. Your not going to die if you don't have sex with no birth control though you may want to. Condoms and BCPs are widely available and are dirt cheap.

The minute Hobby Lobby or any other employer makes an insurance coverage decision on religious grounds that harms the health of an employee they will get their butts sued and lose. Badly.


Thy shalt not kill
By audioheaven on 7/1/2014 10:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Every religion that uses the Old Testament agrees that God commanded us not to kill each other in no uncertain terms. The message is far clearer than the issue of contraception. Can I now refuse to pay for the killing my Government does?




RE: Thy shalt not kill
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2014 8:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ruby Ridge

Better pay your taxes or the government might kill you.


RE: Thy shalt not kill
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2014 4:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Waco Texas.

Look, there's some people with guns here who may or may not do something bad. Let's kill them with fire because...just because. The women and children too.


Separate health care from business
By tayb on 7/1/2014 11:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
This ruling is idiotic but it shouldn't have been ruled on anyway. Why are businesses in charge of distributing health care to employees? It is absolutely ludicrous.

The idea that a business should be able to dictate what medicines I am allowed to take, what care I am allowed to receive, and who is allowed to provide care for me is INSANE .

Of course religious nut jobs would oppose contraceptives and oppose "paying" for the insurance for employees to receive contraceptives. This is not shocking at all.




By KCjoker on 7/1/2014 6:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
The idea that Government can force a company to pay for birth control that's against their religious beliefs is INSANE .


Hypocrisy
By room200 on 7/1/2014 2:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Hobby lobby is full of it. They don't want to cover contraception and abortions, but all of their cheap crap comes from China. Guess what China uses to stick to its one child per family policy; government funded abortion and contraceptives on demand. Not only that, in many families, when the a woman is pregnant with a girl, it is widely known that they will abort the baby SIMPLY because it's a girl. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833

So, if they're so religious, why do they do business with a country with these practices? Could it be that the dollar trumps religioun? Nahhhhh, lol.




And why....
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2014 11:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
is this on a tech website?




What a silly article
By Silvergoat on 7/1/2014 4:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
So you're a patient in the hospital, chained to the bed? There's something called a consultant, or a hospitalist, a hematologist. Your physician can't refuse your request to change services, or refuse a second opinion. If worse comes to worse, you are placed on the hospitalist's service (if you already aren't on it) and get the appropriate treatment. Then your original physician gets his or her credentials reviewed and likely lose their association with the hospital.

But hysterical mutterings of a partisan journalist must be aired.




Hobby Lobby ruling
By pub123 on 7/3/2014 10:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
1. Corporations are people, that's why they can own proerty, sue and be sued.
2. The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to federal law mandating a certain practice prohibited by RFRA (There was no ruling on First Amendment issues) - in the case of transfusions, state law and state police power remain unfettered.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki