Letter From CEO of Hobby Lobby inregard to Obamacare

[wanamingo]

We do know that the morning after pill is much different than a chemical abortion. Chemical abortions are most definitely not covered.

The guy thinks that by taking a contraceptive pill that a viable birth is being aborted. Not the case.

I understand both sides of the case, there is a valid argument for a business having a religious affiliation and not offering services that "contradict" their morals.

But at the same time just because you employ a person does not give you the right to choose their healthcare and decide what is best for them. Let the person decide, not the employer.

Maybe it just comes down to opinion, I dont think there is any difference between tax dollars having to pay for penis pumps, viagra, penis implants and contraceptives for women.

 

[riser]

We do know that the morning after pill is much different than a chemical abortion. Chemical abortions are most definitely not covered.

The guy thinks that by taking a contraceptive pill that a viable birth is being aborted. Not the case.

I understand both sides of the case, there is a valid argument for a business having a religious affiliation and not offering services that "contradict" their morals.

But at the same time just because you employ a person does not give you the right to choose their healthcare and decide what is best for them. Let the person decide, not the employer.

Maybe it just comes down to opinion, I dont think there is any difference between tax dollars having to pay for penis pumps, viagra, penis implants and contraceptives for women.

I don't believe he is against birth control. He is against the morning after pill. That pill is strictly designed to change body hormones to detach the fertilized egg from the uterus and be discharged. If at conception the egg is fertilized and that pill is introduced afterwards, it by definition aborts the fetus.

Whereas taking birthcontrol keeps the body from even being capable of supporting a fetus and/or even releasing an egg for fertilization. Being preemptive is fine, being reactive is an issue as conception has already happened.

 

[zabethebabe]

"Thats not what the guy wants, he doesnt want to offer any form of birth control for any reason, the owner considers them abortion drugs. "


Totally untrue. He states "we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill."

They offer birth control that prevents pregnancy, just not any that will end a pregnancy.

 

[wanamingo]

I don't believe he is against birth control. He is against the morning after pill. That pill is strictly designed to change body hormones to detach the fertilized egg from the uterus and be discharged. If at conception the egg is fertilized and that pill is introduced afterwards, it by definition aborts the fetus.

Whereas taking birthcontrol keeps the body from even being capable of supporting a fetus and/or even releasing an egg for fertilization. Being preemptive is fine, being reactive is an issue as conception has already happened.

Respectfully you are wrong, the process is stopped before the sperm even make it to the egg. Its been a while since sex ed so I had to do some research but most pills (Plan B especially) delay ovulation, because fertilization does not happen in the womb itself, or they do other things having to do with making the womb more hostile to sperm. There are no pills available that act after fertilization, those are classified as chemical abortions, something different from emergency contraceptives.

So no problem if it stops the process before the sperm meets the egg?

@ OMG in a perfect world no one would have control over your healthcare except yourself, but in the real world I feel that if employers have to offer healthcare then leave the medication decisions to the patient (Employee) not the owner, or board of directors.

 

[wanamingo]

"Thats not what the guy wants, he doesnt want to offer any form of birth control for any reason, the owner considers them abortion drugs. "


Totally untrue. He states "we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill."

They offer birth control that prevents pregnancy, just not any that will end a pregnancy.

Heres the quote I pulled from the op/

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

One could argue, he who is without God lives a fairytale.
So, dont tread on me goes both ways, and shoving it down someones throat isnt the best approach.
Granularity within the governments plan could forestall this particular issue and preserve everyones respective rights, that is if youd rather stick it down someones throat

 

[johnsonma]

I like how your argument is now to distract from the original argument. This is a typical thing of the liberal left - distract and make something else and claim a win.

I only took a more holistic view, I am guessing that you missed my point and deflected it with political rhetoric.

 

[johnsonma]

Before conception it is just as you say, a lump of tissue we call an egg. Introduce some sperm and suddenly all this amazing activity starts taking place. At a microscopic level it looks like someone just turned on the carnival lights at midnight. Life happens, and a process is set in motion to eventually form a thinking sentient human being.

If there were no conception, do you know what would happen? Nothing.

It doesn't really matter if you believe this or not. Mr. Green does, and he has the freedom (at least for now) to believe as he wishes.

Never said it was tissue, just a grouping of cells replicating. Your body does the same thing every day and yet it doesn't produce another thinking sentient human being. Turns out that the Plan B pill doesn't even cause an abortion either.

Mr. Green is personally not being forced to do anything here. The only ones affected on an individual level in this circumstance are the employee's.

 

[Tien23]

Wow...I read through the first page of this topic. I really hope the tone changed through the remaining 2 pages. From what I read I am absolutely disgusted. I hope most of you do not vote as you have absolutely NO understanding of the Constitution and the basic principles upon which our country has been established. So many of you are arguing points based off of personal feelings and your narrow interpretation of how things ought to be. I am talking about those of you who think this business owner is wrong and the government right.

I have my own set of religious beliefs, but are we not all allowed to believe and worship how we desire? I am free to open a business and run it off of the principles I believe in. Employees can either choose to work for me or seek employment elsewhere. That is their right. No where in the constitution does it say I MUST provide health care to my employees. This is a benefit I would offer to stay competitive when seeking the best employees.

Some of you say this CEO is a religious nut. I believe he is not but again, we are each entitled to our own opinion. As such, he is entitled to run his business in the manner in which he sees fit. It is wrong for the government to force him to provide a service that he believes to be morally wrong. This is unconstitutional and is not in the spirit of the founding of our country. Those potential workers seeking employment with health benefits covering contraceptives can seek employment elsewhere. I have an Android but I love iTunes. Should I push our legislators to require that Android OS enable support for iTunes? NO! I have a choice! I can buy Apple if I am not satisfied with Android. It should not even be required for an employer to provide health insurance. Let the free market handle this. If an employer does not offer health insurance, but everyone else does, then he will find it difficult to hire good employees as they will want to work elsewhere. The market will require he provide health care or he will have to deal with a high turnover rate. It is his choice. Same goes for a man who says he will only hire Canadian women. This is absurd but he should have the right to do this and his business will suffer because people may not like that he only hires Canadian women. Maybe he is racist against non-Canadians and sexist against men. If YOU do not like this then YOU can boycott his business. We do not need government to step in and force him to run his business the way government "sees fit". If this man wants to remain competitive he will hire those with the skill sets he needs, regardless of sex or nationality.

I could go on and on but I plead with many of you here to do some basic research on the Constitution and the formation of this nation.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Its the easy way out.
Have government do it, throw more money at it til it get someone reelected, then throw more money at it, the new American way.
One must never forget, this is simply a tax, and no rights are given, but some are taken away, by those whose POV is different from someone elses POV, and arguing someone rights are being taken away.
Obviously, its Mr Greens

 

[johnsonma]

Wow...I read through the first page of this topic. I really hope the tone changed through the remaining 2 pages. From what I read I am absolutely disgusted. I hope most of you do not vote as you have absolutely NO understanding of the Constitution and the basic principles upon which our country has been established. So many of you are arguing points based off of personal feelings and your narrow interpretation of how things ought to be. I am talking about those of you who think this business owner is wrong and the government right.

I have my own set of religious beliefs, but are we not all allowed to believe and worship how we desire? I am free to open a business and run it off of the principles I believe in. Employees can either choose to work for me or seek employment elsewhere. That is their right. No where in the constitution does it say I MUST provide health care to my employees. This is a benefit I would offer to stay competitive when seeking the best employees.

Some of you say this CEO is a religious nut. I believe he is not but again, we are each entitled to our own opinion. As such, he is entitled to run his business in the manner in which he sees fit. It is wrong for the government to force him to provide a service that he believes to be morally wrong. This is unconstitutional and is not in the spirit of the founding of our country. Those potential workers seeking employment with health benefits covering contraceptives can seek employment elsewhere. I have an Android but I love iTunes. Should I push our legislators to require that Android OS enable support for iTunes? NO! I have a choice! I can buy Apple if I am not satisfied with Android. It should not even be required for an employer to provide health insurance. Let the free market handle this. If an employer does not offer health insurance, but everyone else does, then he will find it difficult to hire good employees as they will want to work elsewhere. The market will require he provide health care or he will have to deal with a high turnover rate. It is his choice. Same goes for a man who says he will only hire Canadian women. This is absurd but he should have the right to do this and his business will suffer because people may not like that he only hires Canadian women. Maybe he is racist against non-Canadians and sexist against men. If YOU do not like this then YOU can boycott his business. We do not need government to step in and force him to run his business the way government "sees fit". If this man wants to remain competitive he will hire those with the skill sets he needs, regardless of sex or nationality.

I could go on and on but I plead with many of you here to do some basic research on the Constitution and the formation of this nation.

You should read the entire thread.

 

[riser]

Respectfully you are wrong, the process is stopped before the sperm even make it to the egg. Its been a while since sex ed so I had to do some research but most pills (Plan B especially) delay ovulation, because fertilization does not happen in the womb itself, or they do other things having to do with making the womb more hostile to sperm. There are no pills available that act after fertilization, those are classified as chemical abortions, something different from emergency contraceptives.

So no problem if it stops the process before the sperm meets the egg?

@ OMG in a perfect world no one would have control over your healthcare except yourself, but in the real world I feel that if employers have to offer healthcare then leave the medication decisions to the patient (Employee) not the owner, or board of directors.

Read up on it more. It can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. How does it do that? It changes the hormone levels to make the body think it is in a different stage. It makes the uterus lining thin again, not ready to carry a baby. By legal definition this isn't an abortion.

There is a 3 day period per cycle that women can get pregnant. Only 3 days per monthly cycle... think about that. It is easily tracked as well and this pill is specifically designed for end that process in a 3 day window. It does that by causing the uterus lining to change. Even if the egg is implanted, the uterus lining is going away and the egg does not stay implanted.

I know what you'll argue.. fertilizing the egg. Well, unless we go about sticking up a scope up every skirt, we will never know if it happened. Therefore, not funding such a thing would be the most realistic route to go to stay within your religious belief system.

Women who take regular birth control never get into the phase of ovulating and having their bodies prepare to hold a fetus. Whereas people who rely on Plan B are ones whose body would be prepared to hold a fetus and are not likely to be on regular birth control. They are essentially using it to abort the process. They should be on regular birth control, not using an emergency pill.

 

[wanamingo]

Progesterone.

That is the name of the FDA approved emergency contraceptive drug. It does not terminate an already planted pregnancy, so if you (Well not YOU per se... but hey it is the internet) have a fertilized egg sitting in your uterus, doing its thing, progesterone will not terminate that process.

This is the drug you are thinking about, which is not covered.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/facts_mifepristone.html

Also as a side note to make me appear less creepy.... I did some research into this because it had been a while since Ive had any formal education about this, one thing I did remember is that they really hit home certain contraceptives did not abort viable pregnancy.

 

[riser]

Outside of healthcare, birth control is cheap and already provided for $30/month by the health department which happens to be around the same price as a co-pay.

Not to move away from the argument at hand, I'm simply pointing out that the argument is being made over something stupid to distract from the true issue.

The health department is not bound by religious doctrine and can hand out a variety of birth control (such as the daily pill) while I don't know if they do the stuff that is inserted, I do know they offer the shot and the daily pills.

Given that it is already made affordable and readily accessable to everyone with/without a job, do you still feel the argument worthwhile?

Anyone needing birth control simply can go to their local health department and get it for a low cost, if not even free as samples. I have several female friends who do this which is how I know.

 

[chunkymonster]

I understand both sides of the case, there is a valid argument for a business having a religious affiliation and not offering services that "contradict" their morals.

But at the same time just because you employ a person does not give you the right to choose their healthcare and decide what is best for them. Let the person decide, not the employer.

Now you're starting to understand. Privately owned businesses maintain the right to set company policy as they see fit. This business owner is practicing the epitome of democracy within our republic. It is a fundamental responsibility as an American citizen to challenge any laws proposed or passed by the government that are not empowered to them by the Constitution. Ultimately, it should be neither the employer or government who determines what health care plan an employee chooses!

Wow...I read through the first page of this topic. I really hope the tone changed through the remaining 2 pages. From what I read I am absolutely disgusted. I hope most of you do not vote as you have absolutely NO understanding of the Constitution and the basic principles upon which our country has been established. So many of you are arguing points based off of personal feelings and your narrow interpretation of how things ought to be. I am talking about those of you who think this business owner is wrong and the government right.

+1 Million points to you! This whole issue has been politicized as a religious issue when the primary argument should remain about the egregious overstep by the federal government of mandating health care to the individual citizen and American businesses.

 

[riser]

+1 Million points to you! This whole issue has been politicized as a religious issue when the primary argument should remain about the egregious overstep by the federal government of mandating health care to the individual citizen and American businesses.

Which is great but the SCOTUS has ruled on it as a tax which makes it still legal. The only feasible challenge present right now is that of a religious course. Granted, by labeling it as a tax, the SCOTUS allows for continued debate and challenge against it. It will eventually get repealed as it is only a matter of time for people to understand what the law really is and what it really does.. since no one seems to fully know what it does.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

You neednt believe in God to completely hate this issue.
And, given a choice, and not driven down your throat, you simply wouldnt do it

 

[johnsonma]

Which is great but the SCOTUS has ruled on it as a tax which makes it still legal. The only feasible challenge present right now is that of a religious course. Granted, by labeling it as a tax, the SCOTUS allows for continued debate and challenge against it. It will eventually get repealed as it is only a matter of time for people to understand what the law really is and what it really does.. since no one seems to fully know what it does.

At least in 4 years we will have discernible results with which to judge the effectiveness of the reform laws. A lot of the arguments against it right now are just speculation and political rhetoric.

 

[riser]

Look before you leap. We're going to have 4 years of trying to figure out what is in this law. I don't think that's a good idea. I would like to know what the law is before enacting it. The truth is no one really understands the law and/or knows what it is going to do. They know what the penalties are though. No one really knows what the benefits are truly going to be.. but we all know it is going to be really expensive.

 

[chunkymonster]

At least in 4 years we will have discernible results with which to judge the effectiveness of the reform laws. A lot of the arguments against it right now are just speculation and political rhetoric.

Look before you leap. We're going to have 4 years of trying to figure out what is in this law. I don't think that's a good idea. I would like to know what the law is before enacting it. The truth is no one really understands the law and/or knows what it is going to do. They know what the penalties are though. No one really knows what the benefits are truly going to be.. but we all know it is going to be really expensive.

Just to reinforce what riser is saying...direct form the head idiot herself...Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it

 

[riser]

Ah, we're all screwed anyways. By the looks of it Obama is hoping to plunge over the fiscal cliff. Immediate cuts and tax increases fixes the issue.. the government will continue to get paid, just the gov't worker bees will be the ones losing out.

 

[johnsonma]

Its already been passed and its not going to be repealed in the foreseeable future. As soon as you accept that you will understand that over the next 4 years we will see the results and be in a better position to judge the effectiveness of the legislation.

 

[riser]

Its already been passed and its not going to be repealed in the foreseeable future. As soon as you accept that you will understand that over the next 4 years we will see the results and be in a better position to judge the effectiveness of the legislation.

It is sad that we pass and enact a law without understanding it.. and that we have to go 4 years through it to see how it turns out. From view is that we should fully understand the impacts of a law before putting it into place. Essentially we going to do this trial by fire and hope it works out. How much money are we going to throw at it until it 'works' the way we want to it? Really, it is a law. It is already defined, cut and dry. It disturbs me that we do not know what it does.

The benefit of the Constitution is that when confronted with an issue defined within the paperwork, we already know the answer long before. Our founding fathers created an entire country, fought a war and won, and made it become the beacon of light for the world.. and with a few sheets of paper.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And in such good economic times as well, as we tumble near that cliff

 

[johnsonma]

It's not that we don't understand it we will just have to see how effective it is. Its not even fully implemented yet and people already want to string it up as a failure. I am not saying lets wait 4 years to see what it does, I'm saying lets see in 4 years how effective it is.