SC Weighs Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate

Clean

Clean

5,000+ Posts
Do family-owned companies, that provide health insurance to their employees, have to pay for certain methods of birth control that can work after conception, in violation of their religious beliefs?

Should be an interesting decision. It probably all boils down to Kennedy again. Unless, of course, Roberts abdicates his duty to defend the Constitution, like he did in upholding Obummercare in the first place.
 
The actual question is whether a for profit corporation can pick and choose what parts of the law it follows by a reverse piercing of the corporate veil to ignore its separate legal existence.

This should be a simple question to answer.
 
What is even dumber is that people are claiming they are being denied access to birth control.

And if you do not like your employer, find a new job.
 
AS BO said for what you pay for your cable or cell you could pay for your own birth control


and still have money for Starbucks
 
"The actual question is whether a for profit corporation can pick and choose what parts of the law it follows by a reverse piercing of the corporate veil to ignore its separate legal existence."

That's some funny stuff considering the POTUS seems to be able to pick and choose his own parts of the law to enforce.
 
"The actual question is whether a for profit corporation can pick and choose what parts of the law it follows".......

Nope, this is only for the Executive Branch.
 
Will be interesting if they decide to just shut the company down and lay everyone off in the event they lose.
 
if the US can tell mormons they can't have 80 wive, I don't see why they can't tell a ketchup manufacturer they have to pay for birth control or circumcisions or female genital mutilation.

Drawing lines about what the government can do is always a problem.

I personally always had problems with military conscription but enough of us raised hell about it that they got rid of it sort of.

Of course you still have to register or risk going to prison. Unless you are a non-penis person, in which case you don't have to register.

Funny, but you don't see any of the lesbians whining about that little bit of discrimination.
 
And i will tell you now exactly how the justices will vote:

five of the six catholics will vote to scuttle contraceptive coverage, with only Sotomayor joining the three jews.

There are no protestants on the court, so they don't count.

So much for diversity and its many benefits
 
The corporation's beliefs are well documented and part of their mission and vision of the company THEY want to be. And guess what, the corporation has every right to have those beliefs.
 
Can't Hobby Lobby just write a big *** check to the DNC and make this all go away? Surely they could've received an exemption if they were pro-gay marriage, anti- gun rights and backed up unions?
Isn't the "reward your friends, punish your enemies" Obama strategy still afloat in the ACA?
 
It'll be interesting how Hobby Lobby moves forward if the ruling goes against them. If they sincerely stick to their convictions they'll have to either opt for dropping health care for their employees or close their doors. Otherwise they'll come out looking like a company that just wanted to cause problems.

I happen to think that any privately held company should have the right to choose whichever benefits they want to offer for their employees for religious reasons. I'm not sure if I believe the same for publicly owned companies since the owners (share holders) are so religiously diverse it isn't possible to have a clear religious view point.

But to be clear, I still think all companies should be able to offer whatever benefits they want to their employees as long as they are administered the same with all employees.

I also think the employees should get to choose whether or not to be employed at a business based on compensation, benefit options, working conditions, etc.
 
Here is the law that Hobby Lobby relies upon: the "[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except ... in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and ... if it's ... the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

You guys really want to tell me with a straight face that providing optional contraceptive coverage to employees is a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby's (pretend) exercise of religion? The claim is (or should be) considered frivolous.
 
Yes. They are limiting two types that basically cause an abortion. I think they should limit all if that is their belief. For them, that is definitely a substantial burden. If someone does not like it, find a new employer or just pay for it yourself.
 
Yes, they should be able to pick and choose what benefits they offer. What don't you get about that? If the gov't wants to demand everyone can get it then provide it.
 
Different mind sets Paso but my being forced to pay for someone's abortion would present a substantial burden on me.
 
paso is correct.
The cost of these particular controls or Birth control in general is NOT a substantial burden
heck as BO pointed out it is less than a cell phone bill or a cable bill
MUCH much less
and as BO pointed out it is about priorities.

so I agree with paso, these people could pay for their own BC with only a tiny bit of prioritizing

they don't need for the rest of us to pay for that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top