A federal judge has ruled against Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned company that describes itself as a "biblically founded business" in its attempt to apply for exclusion in one of the Obamacare mandates. Hobby Lobby believes that the "use of the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb," CBS.com reports. This is the largest corporation to file suit against the mandate. It has, however, been denied.
Churches and religious institutions and corporations have been given a reprieve from these particular mandates, but not businesses. A government attorney said that the drugs "do not cause abortions," and that the U.S. "has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them."
The Green family who founded Hobby Lobby face a $1.3 million daily fine, beginning Jan. 1, if they ignore the law. It is reported that they plan to appeal.
Should businesses founded on religious principles also be required to comply with this mandate or, like churches and religious organizations, should exclusions apply in such cases?
Absured is the notion that some religious freak be allowed to dictate to an insurance company what medical procedures they should cover foir his employees based on his favorite invisible man. Let's take it to the next logical step. Suppose this idiot decides cancer is God's way of punishing the wicked and believes that people stricken with the disease should just curl up and die because it's God's will? Nope, the law states that if you employ X people you provide access to insurance. The Constitution states that "congress shall make no law establishing religion" . If the government gives an idiot a pass based on his bugnutty superstitions they are indeed "establishing religion" You are right , it is simple and as the appeal will go the way the original case did
I've already answered your other stupid question. If you are not happy with the BENEFITS offered by your employer, find an employer who gives you the benefits you want. The government has no right to dictate company benefits. I like the way you completely ignore the analogy with dental and eye wear coverage!
A couple of points ...First vision correction and dental are not included in the healthcare law (that BTW was originally penned by the republicans) , hence your mention of them was irrelevant and thus ignored. Secondly your suggestion that employees who dont wish to be subjected to the superstitions of their employers is already well covered in existing law so , my scenario is far from "stupid" it's a perfect example of why Hobby Lobby will lose their court case Have a nice day
I have paid for my own health insurance for 35 years. I make life choices based on being able to afford to do so, like taking care of myself so my rates stay low. This includes not accidentally knocking anyone up. Obamacare stunts the need for people to be responsible for their personal choices, just like most government programs.
@Hal - Outraged about CT, yes. Supporting gun control, yes. You're the one who cited Planned Parenthood as an easy option for morning after pills. Screaming? When and where, Hal? I think it is you who is screaming with all those !!! and caps. Is ED a disease? Insurance coverage for Viagra and Cialis - check. Pregnancy is a medical condition that can bring on other health issues. It's discriminatory to exclude women's specific health needs from a comprehensive medical insurance plan offered by any employer. If men could become pregnant there would be no controversy over this issue. There's something very wrong with people who value an unborn fetus more than babies after they're born.
If men could get pregnant my position would not change one iota.
Ask an OB/Gyn about the many health complications and diseases (diabetes, hypertension) which can occur with pregnancy. Not all pregnancies are normal - tubal pregnancy is very dangerous to the mother and threatens her life and health. Pregnancy can occur even when precautions are taken. Male pregnancy may not change your mind, but you can't speak for the rest. It's a moot point except to point out the disparity.
I don't understand why these two are allowed to harass another participant, especially in the vulgar way they do.