Left creating false crisis with “straw men” in contraception debate
by Kelli
The way they frame it, supporters of the intrusive HHS mandate are simply arguing that it isn’t a boss’ place to tell a woman whether or not she should use birth control…. Guess what? Conservatives agree. Employers shouldn’t make personal decisions for their employees, nor should they “interfere” with contraceptive choices. According to a Gallup poll released after the birth control mandate controversy boiled over, Republicans are statistically just as likely as Democrats to view birth control as morally acceptable.
Nobody is trying to “ban” contraceptives. What conservatives object to is the idea of the State coercing a relatively small number of religious employers to pay for other people’s contraception. There’s a coruscating distinction between trying to outlaw or limit access to a product, and asking not to be forced to violate one’s conscience by directly facilitating the use of that product. The Left is actively seeking to obfuscate that distinction because the public isn’t on their side when the question is presented even reasonably fairly.
Beyond that point, the memo from NARAL, et al also cites a 2009 CDC survey indicating that access to birth control clearly wasn’t a problem prior to the Obama administration’s decree. If 99 percent of sexually active women used birth control in the “bad old days,” what crisis is this blanket mandate solving?
~ Guy Benson, discussing “The Left’s Contraception Deceit,” Townhall.com, March 25
Note: Newsbusters has some interesting examples of some of these straw men on display at the Supreme Court this week.
[Photo via Townhall]

It’s the ‘company’ which pays for the cover, not the ‘religious person’. It’s not coming directly from their pocket, it’s coming from company turnover.
Hobby Lobby et al are not religious businesses. They are businesses which happen to be owned by people with particular religious views.
What if the owner of a business claimed blood transfusions were against their religion? What if they were a christian scientist?
Hi Reality,
There’s something fundamental that you’re missing/ignoring here. No employer owes anyone even a JOB, much less contraception (btw, Hobby Lobby already does cover many types of contraception) or a benefits package.
You get a paycheck, freaking buy your own birth control. Women have done it for decades.
Also, since hot water, good plumbing, a good sewage system, proper heating, and personal care items like soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, washcloths, towels, and toilet paper are all essentials for good health, then I want to know who is paying for my new hot water heater, my water and sewage bills, my electrical bill, and my personal care items.
This isn’t about “access” or “affordability,” it’s about working over those who disagree with them, because they can (at least for the moment). In the eyes of progressives, everything that is not forbidden must be compulsory, those who object are to be destroyed from within and without. If they are willing to kill an unborn child, what respect are they bound to give to those who disagree?
The HHS Mandate has done its job — it provided a distraction from Obama’s failings and created panic over the phony “war on women.” It got Obama re-elected, just barely.
And now, the Supreme Court is going to give Obama a face-saving way to wriggle out from under the weight of his own cover.
The gentle signs hoping for Religious Freedom actually play into Obama’s irrational meme that religious people hate women. We need protests that put the blame where it belongs — on Obama. We need signs that say, “NO MANDATES FROM TYRANTS!” ” IMPEACH OBAMA!” ”VIVA LA REVOLUCION!” “POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”– with pictures of Obama and Sebelius burning or hanging in effigy.
mmmike917, there’s no reason to feed the troll.
Sounds to me that if one is having sex and not open to life, one is making oneself a sex object. Does not matter if one is male or female so this is not a “War on Women”. Makes sense to me.
Their straw man arguments will next have other’s paying for bondage, S & M items, etc. These are sick times if not end times!
I would expand this beyond the religious argument. Birth control is not medicine, period. Pregnancy is not recognized as an adverse medical condition anywhere in the professional community and thus prevention of it is a political population control issue and nothing more.
No employer should be forced to pay for a pill purpose of which is a lifestyle choice and not a valid medical intervention.
BTW, that sign makes no sense at all…..
Hormonal contraceptives are used as medication for various health issues sometimes Thomas, not just for preventing birth. It’s not even that uncommon of a usage.
I’m sure a whole bunch of non-doctors will jump in and tell me that using hormonal contraceptives as medications is wrong and etc, etc, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are used that way and have some legit medical usages besides pregnancy prevention.
There are other medications that do not intervere with the woman’s ability to conceive and do not have such horrendous side-effects as hormonal contraceptives do.
As with any prescribed medication, there are also many side effects to be aware of. The most common side effects are: weight gain, acne, nausea, dizziness, headaches, depression, vaginal infections, high blood pressure, loss of libido, and blood clots, to name a few. There are also several rare and extremely dangerous side effects that are worth mentioning. Stroke, liver tumors, gallstones, and jaundice are rare but possible side effects of hormonal birth control methods.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/4635802
As with any prescribed medication. All meds have side effects. Tylenol puts like 500,000 people in the hospital yearly.
Anyway, I was right. Non-doctors are going to tell me that they know better.
But anyway, I don’t agree with the HHS mandate and I think it’s infringing on religious freedom. I think women who work for these type of businesses should have access to a free insurance addendum provided by the government or a non-profit or something to get covered, I think that would be a good compromise, unless we get universal healthcare at some point. I was just arguing against your (false) assertion that hormonal contraception is never used for medical treatment.
Why should *anybody* have to pay for your husband’s diabetes meds, Mary?
Blue Velvet,
*anybody* doesn’t. We do.
When is *anybody* going to pay for hot water heaters, plumbing upkeep, water and sewage bills, and personal care items that are essential to good health?
The point is that you share costs for your husband’s medications with other people in your insurance pool, Mary. It’s kinda how insurance works. You might pay a co-pay, but your costs are drastically reduced because of the paid premiums by everyone in your pool, and your insurance company’s ability to collectively lower the cost of the medications.
You’re uninsured and paying out of pocket?
People who are uninsured and pay out of pocket pay something like 300% more than insurance companies do for the same meds. It’s a disaster and incredibly unfair. When I was uninsured I got some charges knocked down for a hospital stay because I called and complained, but it was still way, way more than insurance companies would pay for the same treatments I would pay. I’ll probably never get it all paid off. It just seems like a huge scam to me.
“Anyway, I was right. Non-doctors are going to tell me that they know better.”
Don’t you voice opinions on wide range of topics even though you are not “qualified” to do so not being a professional in those areas Jack. So now if you want to call me out for being a non-doctor you may as well not voice any opinions that “infringe” on that profession. Follow what you preach… I will take note of medically-related comments you make.
Comparing Tylenol to hormonal contraceptives is like comparing apples to oranges anyway….
“Don’t you voice opinions on wide range of topics even though you are not “qualified” to do so not being a professional in those areas Jack. So now if you want to call me out for being a non-doctor you may as well not voice any opinions that “infringe” on that profession. Follow what you preach…”
You misunderstand me. You can voice whatever opinions you want, that’s your right just as it’s mine. But if you say blatantly false things like “hormonal contraceptives are not medications” when that’s easily shown to be untrue, I’ll refer to people who study this stuff for a living. Does that make more sense?
Not according to me as I know there are a wide range of safer medications to take. Taking hormonal contraceptives is a double-edged sword.
Hi Jack,
I’m aware of that. We have the option of how much we pay out of pocket for prescriptions and diabetic supplies, thus paying less into the pool. Also we write it off on taxes. We have only minimal coverage, for hospitalization, etc. Thankfully my husband is on prescription insulin only, quite remarkable for a diabetic. He is on prescription thyroid but since we get it from a compounding pharmacy, we pay out of pocket. We are both into vitamins, etc., which we pay out of pocket. I think they are why he does so well.
Okay Thomas. You can believe what you want, but I’m probably gonna defer to the people with medical or pharmaceutical degrees for this kinda stuff. Just how I roll!
Given that I see vitamins, supplements, and chiropractic care as essential to my good health, should I demand my employer cover all this?
Fair is fair.
I still want to know if my employer or insurer should be obligated to pay for my new hot water heater and to have my septic tank cleaned and maintained.
Pharmer, please jump in at any time!!!
Reality, we’ve covered the “blood transfusions” question already. If your employer doesn’t cover something you think you’ll need or want, and this is enough of a deal-breaker for you, then change jobs.
What if the owner of a business claimed blood transfusions were against their religion? What if they were a christian scientist? – See more at: https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/03/benson-left-is-only-erecting-straw-men-in-hhs-mandate-debate/#sthash.aYM8EknD.dpuf
Anyway, all this is ridiculous because HL is paying for some contraceptives *anyway*, just not only abortifacients and IUDs. But other kinds (ie, the kinds that are used for medical purposes), are covered.
So no one is sitting there denying what they are covering and what they aren’t.
Also, it’s up to the employer to cover what they want to cover. They don’t have to provide vision or dental (I dont’ think so anyway), or whatever else. Or at least they shouldn’t have to. Maybe no one will work for them, but if that’s their choice, fine.
The pro-aborts are looking mighty desperate on this issue….
And Thomas, yes, BC is used for other things to prevent pregnancy. Sure, there might be other options for *some* women but you are not their doctor. Every person has different medical needs and histories and reacts differently to different things.
This whole blasting all contraception makes us look silly.
We should educate women about the dangers of using it, but not demonize women who do.
So does an insurance plan *have* to cover diabetes meds? Maybe dear hubby should have either taken better care of himself or saved carefully so he didn’t have to rely on insurance handouts. Bootstraps are free, ya know.
And Thomas, yes, BC is used for other things to prevent pregnancy.
Shucks I did not know that LibertyBelle. Yes I did. :)
Did I demonize any woman, no. I posted side-effects for the exact same reason you discuss in your March 27, 2014 at 3:56 pm, to educate. Whether a woman takes that poison is up to her…
If the drugs that are commonly marketed for “birth control” are used for some other sort of hormonal therapy to restore a woman’s health, then it is no longer birth control. It is some sort of real healthcare. The (hopefully) temporary infertility is an adverse side effect of the therapy.
Blue Velvet,
“Dear hubby” as you so eloquently put it has Type 1 diabetes which is an autoimmune disease(look up what autoimmune diseases are) and not related to how well he took care of himself. In fact, he ate well and was physically active when he suddenly developed it at the age of 28, which is a rather unusual age of onset for Type 1. You should dispense with the sarcasm when its obvious you have no clue what you’re talking about. You only make yourself look even more foolish. As I told you we pay the bulk to keep our insurance payments low so we hardly get “handouts”. We also use alternative medicine which is out of pocket.
His insulin, like that of Type 1 diabetics, is essential to keep him alive.
Also, if an employer wants to provide contraceptive coverage, go for it. If your employer doesn’t provide coverage that you want, seek employment elsewhere.
“f the drugs that are commonly marketed for “birth control” are used for some other sort of hormonal therapy to restore a woman’s health, then it is no longer birth control. It is some sort of real healthcare. The (hopefully) temporary infertility is an adverse side effect of the therapy. ”
I don’t even get what you’re saying, not trying to be stupid but I am confused. Are you looking at it from the Catholic “principle of double effect” thing, where the intent makes a difference and the “evil” of preventing pregnancy isn’t the intent so that’s a valid use?
Preventing pregnancy is okay with me, I don’t think it’s wrong or bad or immoral. The only thing I think is iffy is the physical and environmental side effects of widespread hormone usage, because I’m just a hippie like that. I’ll probably advise my daughter when she’s older to avoid taking hormonal contraceptives unless she has a health issue that needs addressing. I’ll tell her that condoms + NFP is pretty physically and environmentally safe, while it has a high rate of preventing pregnancy if used correctly. Maybe other non-hormonal methods as well (she won’t be old enough for this for over a decade, I’m sure there will be other methods coming up within the next few years).
But anyway, like I said, whatever birth control does or doesn’t do is kinda besides the fact of the Hobby Lobby thing.
“If your employer doesn’t cover something you think you’ll need or want, and this is enough of a deal-breaker for you, then change jobs.”
But this is the crux of the matter, really. How is that balanced at all? Where are the employee protections? I get that religious protection need to exist, really I do, but there has to be a balance somewhere. Switching jobs is much easier said than done, in this job market. I tend more conservative on employer rights in some ways, but employees need rights too.
Like I’ve said before, I’d much prefer that we go to universal healthcare where my boss can’t decide to drop coverage for essential healthcare because of his morals. I just don’t see how it’s gonna work otherwise.
Whether a woman takes that poison is up to her…
The use of the word poison is a judgement and does demonize or at least guilt trip women. What if there’s not much of a choice? It’s the same with the anti-vaxxers. “ZOMG if you make this informed decision you are POISONING your child.”
Please use nicer words and give people some respect.
“The use of the word poison is a judgement and does demonize or at least guilt trip women. What if there’s not much of a choice?”
Makes about as much sense as calling medications like Accutane “poison”, considering Accutane actually has a higher percentage of side effects (and can cause rather horrific birth defects, to the point that they will not allow women taking Accutane to refill prescriptions without a pregnancy test or give blood). The only unique to hormonal birth control concern, really, is the environmental effects of hormones in the water supply which can cause damage to fish and amphibians and disrupt the ecosystem, plus there’s a concern about how the hormones in the water supply is affecting male human sexual development and fertility in some areas (men and boys are not supposed to ingest large doses of female hormones, it’s dangerous). It’s a pretty serious concern that I do think needs to be addressed. Still doesn’t mean that women should be shamed for choosing to use birth control, though, it’s much more something that scientists should be studying and working on correcting.
I do think that women deserve full information on possible side effects from birth control that I think a lot of people don’t get. I know several female friends who weren’t told that antibiotics can affect the effectiveness, for example. Something like this website would be good: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/hormonal-methods-of-birth-control-beyond-the-basics
Oh sure I totally agree. And I have friends who ask me if I was on it and what I thought, and I’ll honestly tell them that for me, the side effects weren’t worth it. There is a lot to consider.
I’m just asking that people who are against it give women the benefit of the doubt and not use arbitrary and untrue words like “poison” when, like you said, other drugs have the same or worse side effects… if that’s what you’re going on….
Lol well after my drug addiction nearly killed me (and it started out at age eleven or twelve with “acceptable” drugs like prescription pain medications, those are more dangerous than anyone besides addiction specialists and former junkies realizes), I am pretty iffy about using medications in general. I don’t even give my kids medications except if they really need it and under supervision from their doctor (like vaccinations, or my son’s asthma and allergy meds). If I were a woman I seriously doubt I’d use hormonal contraceptives and when my ex was on them for five seconds before she had a bad reaction I wasn’t ecstatic. But I don’t think my personal opinions on the subject should dictate what other people do, and as long as people are truly informed on what they are taking adults can make their own choices.
But anyway, it’s all besides the fact when it comes to the Hobby Lobby thing. I just get tired of people fear-mongering and making false claims about hormonal contraceptives or the people that use them.
But anyway, it’s all besides the fact when it comes to the Hobby Lobby thing. I just get tired of people fear-mongering and making false claims about hormonal contraceptives or the people that use them.
Yeah me too. And I guess I jumped on the bandwagon because I’ve seen the same line of reasoning with anti-vaxxers and let me tell you. The judgement and pressure that was lobbed at me both before after baby sent me into some really bad depression and anxiety so it’s a sore spot.
I get why there are concerns about things like that. I totally get it. But give me the courtesy of not assuming that I’m just gonna dope my kid up because I’m a sheep. Honestly, people. Same with BC.
But yeah I do agree that drugs can be super dangerous. It’s really sad and reason to be wary, for sure.
But for people who are addicted, let’s have compassion for them as well. People can get all judgey about being addicted to drugs like it’s some kind of choice or game.
everything that is not forbidden must be compulsory – you know that isn’t true.
A corporate entity isn’t capable of practicing religion.
If the religious owner of a company wants to dictate what is and isn’t included in the health cover the company provides as part of conditions of employment then why not take the next step and allow that person to dictate which groceries etc. employees can and cannot buy with the wages the company pays them as part of their conditions of employment. If they believe in tithing should they be allowed to deduct a percentage of their employees wages?
Perhaps if a company owner doesn’t like what is covered in healthcare packages they should convert the equivilent cost to additional wages for employees (hopefully without the tithing).
“And I guess I jumped on the bandwagon because I’ve seen the same line of reasoning with anti-vaxxers and let me tell you. The judgement and pressure that was lobbed at me both before after baby sent me into some really bad depression and anxiety so it’s a sore spot. ”
Awww, don’t be sad. Vaccination is very important for children and all the scientific evidence (despite insistence otherwise) is firmly on the side of vaccinating. I hope you are getting help for your depression and anxiety too.
“But yeah I do agree that drugs can be super dangerous. It’s really sad and reason to be wary, for sure.”
I don’t know why stuff like Viagra and Cialis don’t get the same kind of treatment hormonal contraceptives do, tbh. Viagra is completely optional for most people (you don’t have to have sex, not gonna kill you to go without) and can have some major side effects including death for some men. And it also has legit medical usage as well, it’s a vasodilater so it can be used to treat some heart issues in both men and women (it doesn’t have male hormones in it so it doesn’t mess women up hormonally). Pretty similar in those ways to hormonal contraceptives, but I’ve never heard people oppose and complain about erectile dysfunction meds like they do BC (even though there are more medical usages for BC meds than ED meds!).
“But for people who are addicted, let’s have compassion for them as well. People can get all judgey about being addicted to drugs like it’s some kind of choice or game. ”
I’m much harder on drug dealers (like I was in addition to being an addict myself) than I ever am addicts. Addiction is a beast, I’ll probably never stop craving heroin, but my true regret is selling it to others. No matter how young I was, it was a terrible thing to do. I can actually feel a lot of sympathy for Hobby Lobby in that way, because regardless of whether or not you agree with them, they do really feel like they are being forced into participating in something evil. I think it’s possible to disagree with them and still have sympathy for their position.
Corporations aren’t people
Period
This should be an easy case if the justices go with the constitution over political agendas. Very easy.
EGV,
What do corporations consist of? Who runs them and who works for them?
They are made up of individuals. But they aren’t individuals. They simply aren’t, and the court has long ruled that.
I mean, how does a corporation have a personal relationship with God, and how do they express that?
If Hobby Lobby or others want to be individuals, let’s let them see if they want to sign away their corporate status as it relates to taxes, limited liability, and other perks. My guess is they’ll quickly rush to say they were a corporation then.
If Hobby Lobby wins, it would be a massively narrow ruling that applies to very few companies (maybe S corps) – but Roberts, given his lean to not be an activist group, is not going to give a win to radically changing how we’ve long seen corporations.
EGV,
You mean they’re made up of people, right?
Thank you.
Mary -
Did you not know that people work for businesses? Is that news to you? Have you not worked at a company before and seen people walking around? Did you think dogs or cats worked there? I’m confused by your confusion.
What you ask though is the wrong question – the question better asked is do the constitutional rights that exist for an individual exist for corporations? And if so, why don’t we treat corporations like individuals in more instances? For example, look up limited liability and ask if you think it would be beneficial for this country to throw limited liability out the door.
There’s a reason why the big corporation groups (like the us chamber of commerce, which is typically active in these filings) didn’t submit briefs. And how many public, fortune 500 companies submitted briefs? Look it up – the number rhymes with hero though. Or nilch.
EGV,
LOL. You said corporations aren’t people.
I was just curious as to who you think runs them and works for them. Dogs and cats? I’m not the least bit confused. I’ve always known they were owned and operated by people.
You answered my question EGV. Thank you.
Regarding your March 27, 2014 at 5:01 pm LibertyBelle:
I am giving women respect in that I caution them against the dangers of hormonal contraceptives. That stuff is not at all healthy and even Jack acknowledges this a few posts above. You acknowledged that the side effects are not worth it. I used the term poison because that is how I view hormonal contraceptives whether used as birth control or for some other reason. I think, with all due respect to you LibertyBelle, that I will stand by my assessment…
Two questions mary.
Your fridge is full of food. Does that mean you can eat your fridge?
If a company has 20 employees, whose religious liberty wins?
Are you as nonplussed as I am by what the point of that little attempt at making some sort of point was meant to be Ex-GOP?
EGV,
I told you that you answered my question. Thank you.
Reality – very confusing.
There are many points that can be made…that was not one of them.
EGV,
You persist in making an issue of a question that you very graciously answered and I thanked you for doing so. I must admit I don’t understand why you are so confused.
Mary –
I’m not the only one confused.
If you are trying to make a point regarding the constitutionality of the case, you aren’t making it. There is no dispute that people work at businesses. So if that is the line that you’ve drawn in the sand, then you don’t have enough of an understanding of this issue to carry on the conversation.
Bit of a go-nowhere question was that.
My fridge isn’t full of food. The refrigeration part is good for keeping drinks ever so slightly below room temperature and the freezer compartment is good for storing stuff that needs to be kept refrigerated. Frozen stuff is in my work fridge’s freezer. I don’t eat either appliance.
Reality,
On this we will definitely agree.
EGV,
I never looked to carry on any conversation after you answered my question. You’re the one who won’t let it go!
On your question being a nowhere question or something about my current food storage habit Mary?
Reality,
Actually I was referring to you current food storage habit.
I consider my question already answered.
Reality –
Moving on…do you think the court comes back with the narrow decision for Hobby Lobby (some of Robert’s questioning seems to hint at that) or a government win? I just don’t see much of a chance for a Hobby Lobby win with a wider ruling – it’s a very conservative court, but I still don’t see it.
Ex-GOP says:
March 27, 2014 at 7:08 pm
Corporations aren’t people
Actually…. No one seems to have a problem realizing that non-profit corporations, LLC’s, and S-Corps are really organizations owned and run by families and religious organizations…. that is, people. Persons with values and consciences.
Take a look at Hobby Lobby’s own website. They are a “private company” (an S-Corp), and their self-description reads like a family’s Christmas letter:
http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/
Clearly, if you want to work for this family then you are going to have to buy into their values — unless the government coerces them to violate their conscience. No one is coercing you to work for Hobby Lobby…. Do we really want the government to coerce Hobby Lobby to violate their conscience?
There is a law that allows such violation, but only if there is a compelling need to do so. And that is what is at stake here: There is not a compelling need for employers to pay for abortifacients in a company’s healthcare insurance. The Supreme Court appears to realize this, and only a fierce political agenda could blind them to the obvious lack of “compelling need.”
So you’re saving to buy a new fridge too Mary?
I am curious Mary. You pressed the question, it was answered and nothing. Did you intentionally ask the question with no point in mind?
Well I hope a rational decision is forthcoming Ex-GOP. I just don’t see how any company or corporation can be considered to have a religious aspect. Unless it is specifically a religious business, which the Hobby Lobby’s of this world are not.
I caught something on a news site earlier which said pretty much what you have said about ‘if corporations become recognised as people….’
If the outcome goes Hobby Lobby’s way then I’m sure there will be further action.
Del –
Do you feel that Hobby Lobby is ready to relinquish their limited liability status?
Hobby Lobby has a conscience? When does it sleep? When does it pray? What does Hobby Lobby do for a good time? Does Hobby Lobby dream? I’d like to have a conversation with Hobby Lobby – does he/she have a facebook page? It is a he or she?
I’m not doubting that Hobby Lobby has people that work there, and that those people have religious beliefs, dreams, hopes, facebook pages – all sorts of things. But companies are companies for a reason, and to ascribe to them the thought that they have personal relationships with God, and that they worship, and that they have those viewpoints – I just don’t see where the constitution and previous rulings have supproted that viewpoint.
Do we really want the government to coerce Hobby Lobby to violate their conscience? – Hobby Lobby is not capable of having a conscience. The owners are. The healthcare cost comes from Hobby Lobby, not the owners pockets.
Reality,
Where did you get the idea I’m saving for a frig?
I didn’t press anything. I asked a question, it was answered, and I thanked EGV for his answer. It was the two of you who persisted for reasons known only to you when I had informed you both that the question had been addressed.
Mary
Move on.
EGV,
I was answering Reality’s question that was addressed to me.
Mary, and earlier I answered Reality, and then you butted in and have continued this odd train of thought that we wouldn’t let it go.
Let it go – move on.
Thanks
EGV,
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? In his 10:41 post Reality asks me a question. I answered it in my 10:46 post.
You were saying something about butting in?
Where did you get the idea I’m saving for a frig?
You – On this we will definitely agree.
Me – On your question being a nowhere question or something about my current food storage habit Mary?
You – Actually I was referring to you current food storage habit
This was after I indicted that my fridge is all but deceased.
Are you ok?
Reality – I’m done with questions for Mary, unless she has questions regarding the topic at hand, or an actual point.
Do you have any unfinished business with Mary on this thread?
Reality,
I’m fine. Actually I found your post humorous. A little back and forth there Reality, nothing more. Seriously, got a new frig just a few years ago. Blew black soot all over the place. But works fine.
I think its become rather moot Ex-GOP. Moving on………
…..although I might just add that I’m planning to get a TRADITIONAL, white, upside down one just like my dearly loved, 15 year old one which is on it’s last gasp.
I just hope the electrical store I choose to buy from isn’t a religious fundamentalist of some sort which refuses to sell it’s appliances to atheists.
……..well if you suddenly notice a lot of soot, you’ll know where its coming from. Never did figure that one out, just glad it finally stopped.
“Left creating false crisis with “straw men” in contraception debate.”
I see that “straw men” is in quotation marks, but still, I don’t really see how that applies. Shouldn’t it be a “false dilemma” or… something….?
Nooooo, I’m buying an electric one, not a steam one.
Reality,
LOL
Actually mine is a wood burning one. :)
The steam one died out a few years ago.
Thought it was time to modernize.
Reality,
Mentioning steam you remind me of the old homes with their steam radiators sitting right there in the rooms. I remember how noisy they could be. My aunts would cover them with doyles and nic nacs when not in use. They’re classic and I love to see them in older homes and buildings. As a young girl my mom accidentally backed into one and had “American Heating” branded on her for a few days.
Ex-GOP Voter says:
March 27, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Del – Do you feel that Hobby Lobby is ready to relinquish their limited liability status? Hobby Lobby has a conscience? When does it sleep? When does it pray? What does Hobby Lobby do for a good time? Does Hobby Lobby dream? I’d like to have a conversation with Hobby Lobby – does he/she have a facebook page? It is a he or she?
I don’t follow your thinking here.
Real persons must make the decision to offer healthcare insurance. Those persons must sign the contracts and authorize the payments. Those persons have to sleep at night in the hope that they did the right thing for themselves, their employees, and their communities.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, those people are the Green family members who own and control the business. And those people have the constitutional right to free exercise of their religion and conscience under the First Amendment. That protection covers every hour of every day over every square inch of America. Their natural human rights do not disappear as they do their jobs as owners of Hobby Lobby.
Congress passed a law specifically to protect such people. If the government seeks to compel people of conscience into violation of their conscience, the government must
– Prove that there is a compelling need for the government to act in this way.
– Show that there is no adequate alternative other than forcing employers to comply.
The HHS Mandate loses on both counts. There was never a need to compel employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs. And the government already has Title X programs in place for handing out free contraception.
The HHS Mandate does not hinge on whether a family business operation has a conscience. It hinges on whether the government has a compelling need to interfere.
Del-
Quite simply, the Greens don’t pay for insurance for the employees – the Greens, taking full advantage of corporate law, created a company, which is a separate legal entity. A company is not an individual – to claim it is being religiously harmed is laughable.
So the rest of your post falls apart if you can’t equate a company to a person – the act that you talk of was regarding individuals. This is a company. And companies are treated differently under the law.