Amazon.com Widgets

The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling: Does a private, non-religious business have the right to refuse to provide birth control coverage to its employees?

The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling: Does a private, non-religious business have the right to refuse to provide birth control coverage to its employees?
  • Yes, of Course!

    If your boss is in your bedroom, call the police. Or stop inviting him in. When you ask him to pay for what you do in the bedroom, you are inviting him in. Want him out? Good. Then stop making your birth control into a national headline. Deal with it yourself, privately.

    You don’t forfeit your First Amendment freedoms when you decide to start a business.

    Of course I have my freedoms, and of course I maintain those freedoms when I start companies and form associations. Of course, if I am a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian, I have the right to act as a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian. In fact, I must especially maintain my freedoms in my actions and associations, because otherwise my freedoms are just things that exist as long as they are unseen and unnoticed by others. But they are useless freedoms if I can only have them in solitude.

    Progressives are rolling their eyes and scoffing at the notion that ‘a corporation can be religious.’ But a corporation is not some kind of disassociated entity that exists as a force independent of human involvement. A corporation, like a government, is comprised of people.

  • Do you have the right to refuse to provide birth control to me?

    That is the essential argument.

    The Hobby Lobby argument wasn't about providing birth control, like Obama's executive orders and Obamacare would ever have such power in a nation of people who care about freedom more than their own greed.

    Hobby Lobby refused to provide certain types of birth control, those that have the potential to induce abortion of a newly conceived child.

    It's a lie that you've been instructed to believe that drugs like the morning after pill don't cause abortion. Of course they do. That's why they're called "morning after." You don't take drugs after the fact if you don't intend on disposing of the unwanted child just conceived in your fallopian tubes.

    However, with the question you asked, does a business have a right to refuse to provide coverage for birth control? Yes, simply because we live in a nation that claims to believe in personal liberty. That basically means that I don't have the right to enforce you to buy something for me.

    And if I don't like what you do offer to pay for, I can find someone who does offer to pay for what I want. It's called everyone having their freedoms.

  • Isn't that what feminists want?

    If the employer paid for a woman's birth control, does that not mean that the employer is taking part in her reproductive life? One would think that this ruling is in favor of women being independent and strong individuals who are not at the mercy of their employers. The fact that this has not been the case leads me to believe that these people would rather be taken care of than be strong and independent human beings. So of course an employer may refuse to pay for a woman's birth control, just as that same employer may refuse to pay for a man's prostate exam (that being hypothetical). It is not in the best interest of liberty to force an employer to provide a service which he does not wish to provide, as it will force him to dock the pay of his workers to pay for the birth control that he does not even support.

  • Birth Control is the Individuals Responsibility

    I can't see why any company would have any responsibility to their staffs birth control measures. Education should include understanding birth control, beyond that, it should become the individual persons responsibility to fund and action their own birth control methods. I cannot see how any company has a responsibility to do this for their staff

  • Absolutely! No question about it!

    This doesn't even need to apply to birth control coverage. A business should be allowed to decide what they want to supply and what they don't in their health insurance plans, even for non-religious reasons. If the government forces business to supply things they don't want to, then that is tyranny. But back to the birth control debate. People say that Hobby Lobby is taking away women's right to birth control. Not true at all. Firstly they only will not pay for 4 types of birth control that they believe are abortifacients. Whether they really are or not is beside the point. They believe it is, and thus should have a constitutional right to not supply it to their employees. If you are one of their workers, and you have a problem with this, there are several options. One, you can pay for it yourself. It costs $45 for an over-the-counter Plan B at Wal-Mart. If you can't afford that, then there are other options. You can use the other 16 types of contraception that are still covered under Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It may not be as effective, but if you are really that concerned about not getting pregnant, then you can pay for the ones that aren't covered yourself. Or you could go to Planned Parenthood, where they supply it. But what if you don't want to do that? You can quit, and get a job somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to work at Hobby Lobby. There may be some trade-offs, but it is ultimately up to the individual to decide what their best course of action is. What I'm getting at is that the business is not saying that their employees cannot use the contraceptions they won't supply, it's just that they won't supply it to you, and you can either use what they give you, use other methods to get what they won't supply, or work somewhere that does supply it. The alternative is the government forcing individuals to supply something that they believe is morally wrong, and against their religion.

  • Yes, a private, non-religious business has every right to refuse birth control coverage to employees.

    Private businesses have the definite right to deny provisions of birth control coverage in their health care systems. Birth control is not a necessary health insurance by any means, and such coverage has nothing to do with the business or the work environment, which is all that a business should be concerned about. Birth control is better left to individuals and other private organizations that have interest in birth control coverage.

  • Yes, Private Companies Are Private For A Reason.

    Yes, private, non-religious companies has the right to refuse to provide birth control coverage to its employees. The decision to be a privately owned organization affords the freedom of being controlled by the demands of the public at large. Though this is a sensitive topic, it is not the reponsibility of the employer to make personal, life decisions, such as having a child or not, for its employees. Instead, the employee must take into the consideration the culture of the employer prior to joining the team.

  • No, a private business does not have the right to refuse birth control coverage to employees.

    A health care plan that is purchased through work is a part of one's compensation package, just as is a salary. Business owners should not have any say in how we use our salary money; we can spend it on alcohol, cigarettes and many other things that conflict with the religious beliefs of others. It needs to be the same way with our health insurance coverage.

  • A... Religious... Corporation

    How can a corporation possibly be religious? Sure the ceo's and the workers and such can be, but what does a religious corporation even mean? Basically what we have created out of corporations are "super citizens". They have all the rights of a normal citizen, but they can't do things such as go to jail. How do you throw a company in jail? Does this ruling mean that if I were to start a business except my religion does not allow me to pay taxes, I wouldn't have to pay any tax to the government? Interesting.

  • NO. And neither does a private "religious" business

    This is America, where our medical care should not be held hostage by employers and corporate rulers.

    This is just one more step along the path to pure oligarchy.

    When people start denying their workers cancer treatment, because Chemo causes impotence, then we will see what this ruling wrought.

    It is amazing that vasectomies and ED medication are STILL COVERED.

    Because religious businesses don't have a problem with MEN having sex. Just women.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
SweetTea says2014-07-02T09:10:24.427
Part of me says that a company has the right to select what it does or doesn't cover, in its health program. The other part of me feels like this is a very slippery slope that basically imposes a single religion, or denomination, on many. Yet, we are a country that supposedly has religious freedom. It will, due to legal precedent, set the tone for many lawsuits. And it will drastically change group health coverage, on things far beyond the pill.