Hobby Lobby decision a total disgrace: victory for the 1%, not freedom: Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal"...

rumitoid

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal" than individuals. Once the other disgusting decision that "corporations are people" as regards Super pacts was made, this Hobby Lobby was a natural consequence of erroneous Right wing thinking that favors the elite.
For those who rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision, please leave your emotions at the door and read what follows below with an open mind.
Cut and paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/01/christian-employers-birth-control-and-the-rights-of-employees/

Although the Hobby Lobbys case is ostensibly about the right to religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, its informing principle has in truth more to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. A company does not own the bodies of its employees. It therefore has no right to determine how its employees choose to use the insurance coverage they are required to offer their employees. Hobby Lobby doesnt purchase medical care for its employees; it purchases medical insurance, which it then offers its employees as one component of a total salary package that also includes such benefits as vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, a 401k plan, and so on. Hobby Lobby has no more right to tell its employees how to use their health insurance benefits than it does to tell them how to spend the money they earn, or where they should go on their vacation. Health insurance does not belong to the employer. It belongs to the employee.

Rick Warren, noted Christian author, said that requiring employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraceptive birth control is like making a law requiring Jewish delis to sell pork. No, Mr. Warren. Its like making a law requiring, say, 13,000 full-time employees of a nationwide chain of Jewish delis to obey their employers edict that they never use the money they earn while working at the deli to buy or eat pork.

As evidenced by David Greens quote above, Hobby Lobbys argument rests upon its assertion that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are abortifacientsthat is, that they cause abortions. But at best that is woefully misinformed, and at worst a purposeful misuse of inflammatory language. Neither method is an abortifacients so the Hobby Lobby case had no merit from the start.

If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldnt any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not of the world? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual error; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshipers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovahs Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?

Hartbreaker

rumitoid wrote:

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal" than individuals. Once the other disgusting decision that "corporations are people" as regards Super pacts was made, this Hobby Lobby was a natural consequence of erroneous Right wing thinking that favors the elite.
For those who rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision, please leave your emotions at the door and read what follows below with an open mind.
Cut and paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/01/christian-employers-birth-control-and-the-rights-of-employees/

Although the Hobby Lobbys case is ostensibly about the right to religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, its informing principle has in truth more to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. A company does not own the bodies of its employees. It therefore has no right to determine how its employees choose to use the insurance coverage they are required to offer their employees. Hobby Lobby doesnt purchase medical care for its employees; it purchases medical insurance, which it then offers its employees as one component of a total salary package that also includes such benefits as vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, a 401k plan, and so on. Hobby Lobby has no more right to tell its employees how to use their health insurance benefits than it does to tell them how to spend the money they earn, or where they should go on their vacation. Health insurance does not belong to the employer. It belongs to the employee.

Rick Warren, noted Christian author, said that requiring employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraceptive birth control is like making a law requiring Jewish delis to sell pork. No, Mr. Warren. Its like making a law requiring, say, 13,000 full-time employees of a nationwide chain of Jewish delis to obey their employers edict that they never use the money they earn while working at the deli to buy or eat pork.

As evidenced by David Greens quote above, Hobby Lobbys argument rests upon its assertion that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are abortifacientsthat is, that they cause abortions. But at best that is woefully misinformed, and at worst a purposeful misuse of inflammatory language. Neither method is an abortifacients so the Hobby Lobby case had no merit from the start.

If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldnt any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not of the world? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual error; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshipers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovahs Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case... (show quote)

So you want to define what is and is not abortion for another individual and then tell me what to believe. And some how that is not religious oppression. And Amish do not follow the same tax code as you and I do because of their beliefs. That was ruled decades ago. The rest is just plain stupid. You are taking things to the extreme while showing no actual knowledge of the beliefs you disparage. Your intolerance for others is evident throughout your tirade.

Sun worshippers do not believe that treating frostbite is somehow evil. Many Christians believe abortion is murder and even the law admits that paying for murder is the same as committing murder. None of the other issues even comes close to that conviction or its impact on the person paying and of course, some are purely facetious but then again, so is your whole argument.

You hate Christians and want to enforce your beliefs on them. That is your real point. Perhaps you should put your emotions on the shelf and try to see things the way others seem them before you go attacking them.

robert66

rumitoid wrote:

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal" than individuals. Once the other disgusting decision that "corporations are people" as regards Super pacts was made, this Hobby Lobby was a natural consequence of erroneous Right wing thinking that favors the elite.
For those who rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision, please leave your emotions at the door and read what follows below with an open mind.
Cut and paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/01/christian-employers-birth-control-and-the-rights-of-employees/

Although the Hobby Lobbys case is ostensibly about the right to religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, its informing principle has in truth more to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. A company does not own the bodies of its employees. It therefore has no right to determine how its employees choose to use the insurance coverage they are required to offer their employees. Hobby Lobby doesnt purchase medical care for its employees; it purchases medical insurance, which it then offers its employees as one component of a total salary package that also includes such benefits as vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, a 401k plan, and so on. Hobby Lobby has no more right to tell its employees how to use their health insurance benefits than it does to tell them how to spend the money they earn, or where they should go on their vacation. Health insurance does not belong to the employer. It belongs to the employee.

Rick Warren, noted Christian author, said that requiring employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraceptive birth control is like making a law requiring Jewish delis to sell pork. No, Mr. Warren. Its like making a law requiring, say, 13,000 full-time employees of a nationwide chain of Jewish delis to obey their employers edict that they never use the money they earn while working at the deli to buy or eat pork.

As evidenced by David Greens quote above, Hobby Lobbys argument rests upon its assertion that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are abortifacientsthat is, that they cause abortions. But at best that is woefully misinformed, and at worst a purposeful misuse of inflammatory language. Neither method is an abortifacients so the Hobby Lobby case had no merit from the start.

If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldnt any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not of the world? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual error; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshipers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovahs Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case... (show quote)

These arguments are totally logical and reasonable which is why Hobby Lobby or it's supporters will never listen to them. That and the fact that in no part of this post did it say "Jesus said" .

rumitoid

Hartbreaker wrote:

So you want to define what is and is not abortion ... (show quote)

I am not defining what is and what is not abortion: I was giving you scientific data that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are not abortifacients: and that destroys the Hobby Lobby case right there. Of course, you are free to disbelieve medical science in favor of your beliefs, but that does not change the facts.

I was not attacking Christians; I was showing how SCOTUS royally screwed up in their decision.

rumitoid

robert66 wrote:

These arguments are totally logical and reasonable which is why Hobby Lobby or it's supporters will never listen to them. That and the fact that in no part of this post did it say "Jesus said" .

I fear you right, as already evident.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

rumitoid wrote:

I fear you right, as already evident.

Time to quit ingesting your daily dose of guano.

jimahrens Loc: California

I am happy to see you know more than the Supreme Court. idon't know where you received your education. But i would rush back there and demand my money back.

rumitoid wrote:

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal" than individuals. Once the other disgusting decision that "corporations are people" as regards Super pacts was made, this Hobby Lobby was a natural consequence of erroneous Right wing thinking that favors the elite.
For those who rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision, please leave your emotions at the door and read what follows below with an open mind.
Cut and paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/01/christian-employers-birth-control-and-the-rights-of-employees/

Although the Hobby Lobbys case is ostensibly about the right to religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, its informing principle has in truth more to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. A company does not own the bodies of its employees. It therefore has no right to determine how its employees choose to use the insurance coverage they are required to offer their employees. Hobby Lobby doesnt purchase medical care for its employees; it purchases medical insurance, which it then offers its employees as one component of a total salary package that also includes such benefits as vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, a 401k plan, and so on. Hobby Lobby has no more right to tell its employees how to use their health insurance benefits than it does to tell them how to spend the money they earn, or where they should go on their vacation. Health insurance does not belong to the employer. It belongs to the employee.

Rick Warren, noted Christian author, said that requiring employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraceptive birth control is like making a law requiring Jewish delis to sell pork. No, Mr. Warren. Its like making a law requiring, say, 13,000 full-time employees of a nationwide chain of Jewish delis to obey their employers edict that they never use the money they earn while working at the deli to buy or eat pork.

As evidenced by David Greens quote above, Hobby Lobbys argument rests upon its assertion that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are abortifacientsthat is, that they cause abortions. But at best that is woefully misinformed, and at worst a purposeful misuse of inflammatory language. Neither method is an abortifacients so the Hobby Lobby case had no merit from the start.

If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldnt any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not of the world? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual error; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshipers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovahs Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case... (show quote)

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

It just means that religious beliefs are a higher priority when it comes to public laws about private business practices.

Yes, in some of your examples, it would mean a Scientologist business owner can refuse to pay for any part of the required health insurance that covers antidepressants or any psychotherapeutics. The Jehovah Witness business owner can refuse to pay for any part of the required health insurance that covers blood transfusions.

SCOTUS implies that if you work for any of these companies and you don't like it, go get your own insurance or find another job where it is covered because government can't tell them what to do - - at least until the time they decide to offer an IPO.

Look, it's this private person's business and there is a limit to what the government can tell them how to run the business. SCOTUS said the limit is any religious conflict with the law.

rumitoid wrote:

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal" than individuals. Once the other disgusting decision that "corporations are people" as regards Super pacts was made, this Hobby Lobby was a natural consequence of erroneous Right wing thinking that favors the elite.
For those who rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision, please leave your emotions at the door and read what follows below with an open mind.
Cut and paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/01/christian-employers-birth-control-and-the-rights-of-employees/

Although the Hobby Lobbys case is ostensibly about the right to religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, its informing principle has in truth more to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. A company does not own the bodies of its employees. It therefore has no right to determine how its employees choose to use the insurance coverage they are required to offer their employees. Hobby Lobby doesnt purchase medical care for its employees; it purchases medical insurance, which it then offers its employees as one component of a total salary package that also includes such benefits as vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, a 401k plan, and so on. Hobby Lobby has no more right to tell its employees how to use their health insurance benefits than it does to tell them how to spend the money they earn, or where they should go on their vacation. Health insurance does not belong to the employer. It belongs to the employee.

Rick Warren, noted Christian author, said that requiring employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraceptive birth control is like making a law requiring Jewish delis to sell pork. No, Mr. Warren. Its like making a law requiring, say, 13,000 full-time employees of a nationwide chain of Jewish delis to obey their employers edict that they never use the money they earn while working at the deli to buy or eat pork.

As evidenced by David Greens quote above, Hobby Lobbys argument rests upon its assertion that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are abortifacientsthat is, that they cause abortions. But at best that is woefully misinformed, and at worst a purposeful misuse of inflammatory language. Neither method is an abortifacients so the Hobby Lobby case had no merit from the start.

If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldnt any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not of the world? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual error; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshipers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovahs Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case... (show quote)

rumitoid

jimahrens wrote:

I am happy to see you know more than the Supreme Court. idon't know where you received your education. But i would rush back there and demand my money back.

The heavy bias of four justices in favor of Big Business has been obvious throughout their tenure, such as going away for a weekend with the Koch brothers before that week's hearing on Super Pacts. Coincidence, I know. We all know who lawyers, and apparently judges, can twist and distort the law or facts to favor their view (OJ Simpson, the Twinkie defense, McDonald's hot coffee to name a fraction of a fraction). The Justices are not above being tricked by their passions or causes into distorting the Constitution, were interpretation has a fairly wide range. They are not seeing clearly. Corporations are not people but SCOTUS just granted them First Class citizenship over their Second Class employees.

hprinze Loc: Central Florida

rumitoid wrote:

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal" than individuals. Once the other disgusting decision that "corporations are people" as regards Super pacts was made, this Hobby Lobby was a natural consequence of erroneous Right wing thinking that favors the elite.
For those who rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision, please leave your emotions at the door and read what follows below with an open mind.
Cut and paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/01/christian-employers-birth-control-and-the-rights-of-employees/

Although the Hobby Lobbys case is ostensibly about the right to religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, its informing principle has in truth more to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. A company does not own the bodies of its employees. It therefore has no right to determine how its employees choose to use the insurance coverage they are required to offer their employees. Hobby Lobby doesnt purchase medical care for its employees; it purchases medical insurance, which it then offers its employees as one component of a total salary package that also includes such benefits as vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, a 401k plan, and so on. Hobby Lobby has no more right to tell its employees how to use their health insurance benefits than it does to tell them how to spend the money they earn, or where they should go on their vacation. Health insurance does not belong to the employer. It belongs to the employee.

Rick Warren, noted Christian author, said that requiring employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraceptive birth control is like making a law requiring Jewish delis to sell pork. No, Mr. Warren. Its like making a law requiring, say, 13,000 full-time employees of a nationwide chain of Jewish delis to obey their employers edict that they never use the money they earn while working at the deli to buy or eat pork.

As evidenced by David Greens quote above, Hobby Lobbys argument rests upon its assertion that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are abortifacientsthat is, that they cause abortions. But at best that is woefully misinformed, and at worst a purposeful misuse of inflammatory language. Neither method is an abortifacients so the Hobby Lobby case had no merit from the start.

If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldnt any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not of the world? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual error; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshipers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovahs Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case... (show quote)

======================================

What an ignorant and disgusting diatribe that is.

Hobby Lobby, like every other business pays 100% of the premiums for insurance that covers 100% of all medical, prescriptions, hospital, doctors, prysical and occupational therapy, even short or long term disability for any work related injury or illness. There are no co pays or deductibles.

Now where do these slimeball politicians, labor unions, and community organizers get off telling employers they have to buy another insurance policy to [pay employees' non work related care/

The U.S. government has turned into a sick, despicable,
dictatorial entity.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

I think what it could mean is that citizens also have the right to refuse to pay for those parts of government mandated health insurance they religiously object to such as birth control (Catholic), blood transfusions (Jehovah Witness), psychotherapeutics (Scientologist), non-kosher and non-halal medicines such as insulin (Jewish and Muslim).

rumitoid wrote:

The heavy bias of four justices in favor of Big Bu... (show quote)

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

rumitoid wrote:

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case and everything to do with making corporations "more equal" than individuals. Once the other disgusting decision that "corporations are people" as regards Super pacts was made, this Hobby Lobby was a natural consequence of erroneous Right wing thinking that favors the elite.
For those who rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision, please leave your emotions at the door and read what follows below with an open mind.
Cut and paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/01/christian-employers-birth-control-and-the-rights-of-employees/

Although the Hobby Lobbys case is ostensibly about the right to religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, its informing principle has in truth more to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. A company does not own the bodies of its employees. It therefore has no right to determine how its employees choose to use the insurance coverage they are required to offer their employees. Hobby Lobby doesnt purchase medical care for its employees; it purchases medical insurance, which it then offers its employees as one component of a total salary package that also includes such benefits as vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, overtime pay, a 401k plan, and so on. Hobby Lobby has no more right to tell its employees how to use their health insurance benefits than it does to tell them how to spend the money they earn, or where they should go on their vacation. Health insurance does not belong to the employer. It belongs to the employee.

Rick Warren, noted Christian author, said that requiring employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraceptive birth control is like making a law requiring Jewish delis to sell pork. No, Mr. Warren. Its like making a law requiring, say, 13,000 full-time employees of a nationwide chain of Jewish delis to obey their employers edict that they never use the money they earn while working at the deli to buy or eat pork.

As evidenced by David Greens quote above, Hobby Lobbys argument rests upon its assertion that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are abortifacientsthat is, that they cause abortions. But at best that is woefully misinformed, and at worst a purposeful misuse of inflammatory language. Neither method is an abortifacients so the Hobby Lobby case had no merit from the start.

If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldnt any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not of the world? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual error; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshipers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovahs Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?

Religious freedom has nothing to do with this case... (show quote)

Actually yes, these are or at least were voluntary programs provided at the employers expense to attract employees. If you were good with the the salary compensation plus benefit package you would then decide to work for that particular company, if not you didn't. Companies that understand their market place strength lay in the quality of its employees will or would give their employees a larger or better total package.

If your a Christian working for a Jewish employer you might assume they will have a different employment package. Like different paid religious holidays or possibly even dress code. To tell people they must do something that from their point of view goes against their religion is against the constitution whether you like it or not.

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

UncleJesse wrote:

I think what it could mean is that citizens also have the right to refuse to pay for those parts of government mandated health insurance they religiously object to such as birth control (Catholic), blood transfusions (Jehovah Witness), psychotherapeutics (Scientologist), non-kosher and non-halal medicines such as insulin (Jewish and Muslim).

Hobby lobby is saying it won't pay for those items not that you as an employee can't purchase it on your own.

Ricko Loc: Florida

rumitoid wrote:

I am not defining what is and what is not abortion: I was giving you scientific data that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are not abortifacients: and that destroys the Hobby Lobby case right there. Of course, you are free to disbelieve medical science in favor of your beliefs, but that does not change the facts.

I was not attacking Christians; I was showing how SCOTUS royally screwed up in their decision.

rumitoid-I believe the HOBBY LOBBY attorneys are just as smart as you are and they proved their case to SCOTUS. Of the 20 birth control devices used by women HOBBY LOBBY covers 16 of them and are against the other four because they cause abortions which they are against. I applaud the sane Justices who prevailed. If women want to lead an active sex life let them buy their own contraceptives over and above those already provided. This is pure hogwash led by the NAG. National Association for Gals as Rush calls them. Good Luck America !!!~

Nickolai

rumitoid wrote:

I am not defining what is and what is not abortion: I was giving you scientific data that the IUD and emergency contraceptive pills are not abortifacients: and that destroys the Hobby Lobby case right there. Of course, you are free to disbelieve medical science in favor of your beliefs, but that does not change the facts.

I was not attacking Christians; I was showing how SCOTUS royally screwed up in their decision.

As long as the five conservatives on the court comprise a majority the screw ups will continue and crazy decisions such as Lobby Hobby and Citizens United will be the result. It highlights the need to elect progressive liberal presidents in 2016 and 2020 and swing the balance back to rationality