Even the righ wing extreemist are left of the SUPREMES

__________________________

so, this 'close held', family owned company is so set in their religion that they can't stand the thought of providing the BC to their employees.. are not concerned with their religion enough to stand in the way of their profits?  they are so 'hands on' with the company they can't stand the thought of having their money buy such a travesty.. yet, they don't care enough to stop making money off the product? yep, i'm having a 'knee jerk' reaction. and you're more blind than helen keller!

For T only.  Was the four drugs abortion inducing or just ones that would prevent fertilization?  I'm a liberal lefty, but would vote against abortion.

Actually t is not a gynecologist and his knowledge about birth control is no more relevant to the subject than any medical dictionary. My argument is not about birth control but the invention of a new entity now called a “closely held company” which will henceforth effect court decisions yet untested.

The other concern is assigning a privilege to this so-called closely held company due to religious preferences that is not likely the position of many of its employees.

t thinks there is a law that says you should not have to pay for contraceptives in an employee health plan. where is the law t?

______________________________________________
The decision stated at least 51 percent.

At present, there is another case against nuns-- the Little Sisters of the Poor. If, DoJ has an ounce of brains, they will drop this suit.  Of course, presuming an ounce of brains in Holder's DoJ is a major assumption.

Even a warped mind like yours cannot deny that the Hobby Lobby health plan will indeed offer birth control to its employees.  Maybe you're the one who is blind, and I bet I know why.

While Michelle Moore railed against Halliburton, his portfolio was well invested in it.

hoob you must be brain dead, who cares what birth control is involved the problem is interpreting laws based on religious radical beliefs. we'll just see when some group of Muslim extremists use this as precedence to argue for religious preference on some issue. 

While Michelle Moore railed against Halliburton, his portfolio was well invested in it.

Who is Michelle Moore?

hoob, a "family friendly" store will not have to suffer your bringing guns in stores once this reaches the Supremes.

the hobby lobby caper may be a blessing in disguise if it disarms you lunatics.

_______________________________________
Sorry, Michael Moore

I would expect only a true turd like yourself to consider someone who opposes abortion as being a radical.  Additionally, only a brain dead moron would believe this would set a precendent for radicals, like yourself, from destroying this country.  Your already well on your way to completing that task.

You libs still have to get around the document ya'll despise so much;  the Constitution.  Too bad it contains the words "shall not be infringed".  Haven't seen that phrase after the words health insurance within our Constitution.

hoob, it also contains the words 'well regulated militia, but you seem to chose to ignore that part...

now, as per this ruling... corporations are now people with religious beliefs ... slippery slope, indeed!

1130, Companies become responsible for many parts of employees lives.  Safety in the workplace immediately comes to mind. A fair wage and working conditions such as the required number of hours an employee has to work are responsibilities of the employer. Healthcare insurance furnished by an employer is considered a part of the wage of an employee and if promised at the time of employment is a responsibility.

dang hit wrong key,,,  an employer is responsible to provide a safe work place.. not one's safety when they are not at work.  providing a fair wage is a   vague term, each person has the right to find another job if not happy with pay, benefits, etc.    It is their business, their money and the govt. should not tell them how to run it. what benefits they have should be their choice not yours or the govt. just as it is the employee to find another job. I support that the company I work for should have the right to let me go , just as I have the right to leave them.  

The company has their own priority's and the individual has their own. Govt, and liberals are taking choice away from companies , which means taking choice away from individuals.

jt,

in answer to your question, you first have to ask yourself if you believe life is based on conception (the time of the egg fertilaization) or at birth. Fundamentalists christians like the Greens (and the other families here) believe that life begins at conception, and their fundamental teachings do not believe that the destruction of that life is necessary.

The four drugs of contention (not the the other 16 which they have no problem wit) all work AFTER the egg is fertilized.  The drug, ella I believe, is a form of RU-486, the so called morning after pill that prevents the fertilized egg if present from being implanted. It is a one time dose agent, unlike the typical maintenance contraceptives which regulate hormones, prevent fertilization, and are also used for other ailments such as acne, dysmenorhea (painful and heavy periods), and to alleviate PMS, amongst other reasons.

These four drugs, or tiems in the case of the IUD, were the only ones on the formulary that they had a problem with, and thus were the only ones they balked at providing.  Remember churches, religious universities, and others, had already been given this option.

And QD is right about ONE thing, I am not a gynecologist, and did not even stay at a Holiday Inn last nite, however I did once pick up a coloring book at Shoney's which taught me more about contraceptives than he knows, and I have also taken the time to become aware of the case. The business continunes to offer their well paid and happy employees access to birth control and preventative women's care.  They are a small family owned (greater than 51%) comapny which is not publically traded. To my knowledge, and the knowledge of every scholar I have ever heard who knows the Constitution, there is currently no law, nor likely will there ever be one, which states that an entity, be it individual or company, HAS to provide funds to end the life of another human beings if they have religious objection to doing so.  That is slippery slope which someone in this adminstration tried to climb and it was challenged. Whether it was intentional or not, according to who you listen to, is another question, but these midcations were challenged in court and found my a majority to be closely related to abortifacients, and therefore they could not be forced to provide them based on basic rights.

Now QD can huf and puff and call down Muslim extremists if he wants, but you should ask yourself this....if the shoe was on the other foot, and he has a business which he owns the majority, should he be forced to do something that he finds morally objectionable? I know he is an advocate of women's rights and minority rights, and suppose an elected Republican president declared that he must put up posters degrading women or blacks in his establishment or face a $1000 a day penalty, how would he feel then?

I have said all I am gonna say to this garbage, and will not be drug into the mud with him on it.  I plan to go out and the 4th, since the courts have displayed this week that there is still some semblence of freedom left in the US despite the intentions of some.

Have a good and safe weekend.

The SCOTUS majority opinion was written as a very narrow interpretation.on purpose. Progressives are hiking up their skirts, running around as if the world will end, fainting and having cases of the vapors. And, that's just their menfolk. 

FYI vapors means passing gas.