• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Hobby Lobby continues contraceptive fight - The Galveston County Daily News : Laura Elder's Buzz Blog

November 26, 2014

Hobby Lobby continues contraceptive fight

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

47 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • sverige1 posted at 12:37 pm on Wed, May 1, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Well, I guess we get no answers as to why fetuses are "innocent", but full-term and borned babies become "sinners". No answers as to who will take care of these unwanted babies who do come to term.

    And now, no answers as to why opponents of official laws to have "equal work for equal pay" don't personally 'advocate' for just compensation for their own spouses. Must be a cowabunga of a time to "hang" with folks who fall into the conservative column.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:16 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    There are a lot of slippery slopes when it comes to compensation fairness. Even amongst men, what gets rewarded is not necessarily based on equality. When evaluating peers that are roughly equivalent in terms of job performance and workplace value, not only are there gender differences, but there are various other factors that might lead one person to be paid more than another. Factors that could also be considered discriminatory, but would also be tougher to prove because they'd only be, at best, inferred. There are the squeaky wheels, the folks that are a bit more up front with their salary and promotion expectations, the people with larger families, the people that are better "corporate citizens", the people that get more visibility, etc.

    While I'm sure there are still true neanderthals making salary decisions that reward gender, looks, race, etc., I think that most quality employers have stepped outside of that mold. It doesn't mean that everyone that does the same work at the same quality and productivity levels is getting the same pay, but the differences will probably be due to other factors than the traditional discrimination points.

     
  • gecroix posted at 4:06 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    Kevjlang, Kenny Rogers sang a song that tells us about playing a hand about as well as it can be explained.
    It's good advice all the way up to the time they close the lid.
    The trick is in knowing how much to bet along the way.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:42 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Jeepers, geocroix:

    Why didn't you, at least once, MAN UP and bat for her defense in regard of your wife getting the short end of the stick, and her not being fairly compensated. And, it sounds like she surpassed many of her colleagues in the intelligence department, as she was often their resource. Even more reason to fight for "just" compensation.

    Too late for y'all, but, now it's 2013. No woman I know will put up with such type of discrimination and oversight. No, "Aint nobody got time for that!" I got bronchitis!!

     
  • gecroix posted at 2:26 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    Equal protection under the law may include equal pay issues in some cases, but not always. Even those with the same job may perform at different levels, and be compenstaed accordingly, There's also the issue of a job paying what the job market will bear, experience level, benefits package considerations, etc.
    I have a wife who was never paid what her male counterparts were, despite being THEIR resource when they couldn't figure out their next move. The job, unfortunately for discrimination claims, required independent thought, analyses, and action, not cranking out X number of hamburgers or widgets in a specified time or wiping a specified number of noses. Ergo, no way to quantify the reason for the lower pay.
    It's not the same as running a stop sign or getting a health care law waiver, at least not to the non-hysterical side of the issue.
    She always had the option to go elsewhere, but chose not to. Also chose not to make an ass of herself with a lot of whining and bluster.
    But she was a real professional, as judged by results and by peers.
    I don't know if she ever ran a stop sign, but neiother she nor I are gettin g any ACA waiver.
    Maybe if we joined the DNC. But, after all these years, no reason to start making bad choices in life now.
    As usual, the 'medical professionsal' poster does a lot of imagining and air concluding to suit a point. maybe that's one reason for that 30 cents less.
    Grip that.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:21 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    gecroix, we've worked for equal protection and equal opportunity and equal rights, and equal everything else. However, we're working with fickle humans--and Americans at that (not to mention our politicians, too)--so we know that whenever we think we've closed the gaps, the game's going to change and we get to play by new rules. Resistance is futile.... Assimilate :-)

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:19 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    And, I'm still not getting answers as to why, in christian belief, that all humans are "sinners"....including newborn babies? ....

    ....Yet, when we talk about aborting fetuses, they suddenly become "innocent creatures". Kind of hard to figure out. They're not baptized yet. Heck, even the Catholics have to have a true-to-form baby to baptize him/her and wash away the inherent sin.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:59 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Response to Margurite posted at 1:44 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013:

    Scary, huh? To see that we still have vestiges of pre-civil rights thinking. The answer to your "equal work, equal pay" reference to some would simply be something like:
    "Just work your way up and be friendly to your [male] boss, and you'll get rewarded...if ya know what I mean [wink]". Or -
    "Look here, woman, you're always asking for time off to have babies and go to your kids' school dance recitals. So, we got to dock ya 'cause the fellas don't do dat, that's just the way it is."

    And, it's not trolling...it's speaking the cold, hard truth.

     
  • Margurite posted at 1:44 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    We are still trying to get permission to sue the "job creators" that work us equal then pay us 30 cents less than men. You think it's anywhere close to equal??? Get a grip!

    Lars and Kev - as a woman I appreciate the fact that you educate yourself on current issues rather than drag your knuckles to go see if the little woman kept the fire going for you in the cave...........[beam]

     
  • gecroix posted at 1:12 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    It's too bad we wasted a lot of time over the last half century working hard for equal protection under the law. The irony is who's working so hard to make that a distant memory.
    I guess we're done on the rest.
    I don't speak troll.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:09 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Well, I'm not feeling it in regard to the reference to this "AFA" thing. What I do know is that if the poor are subsidized with arms to protect their humble abodes and neighborhoods, then I doubt many of them would fall into the Tsarnaev brothers', Adam Lanza's, nor the Columbine basement kids' category.

    Seems as though the trend in these dangerous mass killings have been with individuals of affluence who have easily acquired the means to do their deeds - and then some. I doubt if a few subsidized weaponries would equip a 47-percenter to do such mass destruction. So, I'd be all for a government-subsidized distribution of arms to poor/underprivileged neighborhoods.

    And, Bred...let's all be glad that a lot of men have come to terms with our changing society. If it weren't for us liberated gents, we wouldn't have been able to get someone like Obama into the White House. I anticipate Hillary looking for someone to join her camp. Bottom line is the Hatfield and McCoy types are dying off. Good riddance to them all.

    Hillary/Biden 2016 OR
    Hillary/Michelle 2016

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:34 am on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    gecroix, you seem to be wishing for simple, straight-forward, everyone has the same skin in the same laws and regulations. I wonder which of us is guilty of wishful thinking this time :-) There isn't a politician around that would vote for a plain and simple law.

    On the other hand.... You want standardization in the laws, but not at the expense of the non-standard benefit you believe you're entitled to. Personally, I don't care for rugs being pulled out, either. There should be a better way of handling this.

    It's not that I don't care for the discussion about the AFA. I think it could be an interesting discussion. However, sometimes I get a craving for hot buttered popcorn, and to satisfy that craving, I have to turn over the discussion to other parties. I think Lars might generate more entertainment value on the subject :-)

     
  • Margurite posted at 9:20 am on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    I jsut realized the folks arguing here are men - how quaint. Most women agree with Kevin and Lars........... take a look at the polls - hell forget the polls - take a look at the last election......[beam]

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:59 pm on Mon, Apr 29, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    I worked nearly 40 years to earn, use, and upon retiring take with me a 'cadillac plan' - a good medical insurance retirement benefit from my employer. The 'bargain' was I'd perform my work and the company would pay part of my insurance costs even after I retired. I, and many, many others in many other jobs, too. The pass back to us is our premiums go up as company costs go up. Now, we could get dropped into the ACA.
    There's not a whole lot right with that, especially in light of the Presidents claims to the contrary. Nixon got driven out of office, and Clinton impeached, for lying about a lot less than 1/6 of the nation's economy.
    The goose should benefit no less than the gander from the same things. Our individual sin seems to be not carrying water in sufficient supply to influence the current powers that be.It turns out we really are NOT all in this together. Very 'progressive'.
    Kevjlang, you and I and most everybody else will be subject to all of the provisions, outcomes, taxes, fees, penalties, etc. of the ACA. We won't get to pick cherries depending on which ones we find sweetest and which sour.
    There's nothing wrong with being treated equally under a law.
    That's not the case with waivers to supporters.
    Sorry you didn't care for my AFA attempt at bulged cheek turnabout being fair play. I had hoped for some useful engagement in what would be a study in national ideological hypocrasy. Or personal ox goring, if one prefers.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:56 pm on Mon, Apr 29, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    I believe that the union exemption is probably with regards to the taxation of cadillac plans? If so, I'm not in favor of that. If those plans are what their bargaining units got in the contracts, they should be able to stay. However, the companies should be able to pass those taxes back to the employees in some respect.

    I do not believe that the UAW is getting an exemption to the birth control clause, however.

    I'm not touching AFA with a 10 foot pole. I'll let sverige1 carry that charge ;-)

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:53 pm on Mon, Apr 29, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Response to gecroix posted at 1:29 pm on Mon, Apr 29, 2013:

    You never was able to express what you would do if your teen daughter came to you pregnant. I'm not surprised, b/c often the pro-lifers have no logical answer to something as serious as pregnancy. Very likely that the teen will have a rough road ahead of her with the baby. You'd change your stance, knowing that if she terminated the baby, your daughter would be on much less shaky ground and have a chance to resume a meaningful life. She may or may not want to keep her baby. You, as her loving and supportive father would respect her decision and help her execute her choice. Yes, you would do this....if it ever happened to you and your daughter.

    Oh, and I see there's now a comparison on this thread regarding female pregnancy verses the company's contraceptive stance...and relating all this to guns?!? Glocks, Benellis, and other gun brands in this thread to correlate to pregancy, of all things?? Jeepers, you need to get out more.

     
  • gecroix posted at 1:29 pm on Mon, Apr 29, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    It's too bad we don't have a 2nd Amendment friendly Administration. It would be nice if we'd passed an Affordable Firearms Act to help the poor be as well protected as others (that would also include our badly underpaid teachers, so they could do more than crawl into a closet if need be).
    Then Hobby Lobby could provide as part of it's benefit package an AR of choice or perhaps a nice Benelli or a couple of Glocks, and if that proved too costly or against the company's beliefs, the Feds could fund the employee's arming at a federal firearms exchange set up to facilitate the AFA.
    There. The Hooby Lobby problem would have been solved. No company related BC pill or abortion issues anymore.
    No doubt this would have full citizen support, as it's expenditure of taxpayer monies would be no different at all than any other spending of such.

     
  • gecroix posted at 1:10 pm on Mon, Apr 29, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    So, then, Kevjlang, why shouldn't Hobby lobby get the same consideration as any of the other 2000 plus ACA law of the land waiver receivers who got one because it was something THEY did not want to deal with, for whatever reason?
    Are unions, for instance, a legally recognized 'protected class' or just one recognized as such by this Administration, and not just for ACA favoritisim, either. What is the legal cause for the UAW to be exempted, after they worked so hard and spent so much of their members dues money PROMOTING the very thing they imediately requested exclusion from?
    For that matter, we have the very folks who crafted and signed this mess into law, who are themselves 'waivered'.
    Why can't you and I get a waiver if we want one, if the ACA may prove negative to how we want to run our lives or business?
    Perhaps if Hobby Lobby contributed more to our President's perpetual campaign.
    There's still time, as it never has stopped.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:53 am on Mon, Apr 29, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    By not allowing access to all types of birth control available will not accomplish trying to change society's behavior.

    There are plenty of teens/young women who will get pregnant regardless of the birth control availabilities. I, for one, believe it is in all our best intrests in the long run if as many as the "surprise" or unwanted fetuses end their suffering sooner than later.

    If we disallow girls/women from terminating their pregnancies (when they're wanting to do so b/c they've decided they can't take care of the child)...if we disallow that, well, we will then have thousands of newly formed human beings to add to the "entitlement" populace. That's just cold, hard fact.

    We never hear of these guardians of these precious babies volunteer to adopt these unwanted ones who do make it to term and achieve birth.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:19 pm on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    However, that's not the law of the land. The law of the land is that the collection of drugs generically classified as "birth control", whether the "normal" ones, or the morning after ones, are part of the standard menu of covered drugs. What Hobby Lobby is requesting is to have a "protected class" invented and have itself designated as the founding member of that class. I question whether they can show legal cause for this "protected class" designation.

     
  • gecroix posted at 6:50 pm on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    So acknowledged, and for me that's an entirely acceptable use of 'choice'. Nobody should have to not only suffer rape or incest in the first place, and certainly not the end result of it.
    However, that's a sidetrack from the fact that most demands from the ever expanding entitlement crowd are not about rape and incest, but about convenience on demand, at someone else's expense.
    Women have been able to get free or low cost birth control for a very long time. Now, even those who easily can afford it themselves, a whole ten or so bucks a month, demand to be subsidized. It's a Fluke mess.
    You've come a long way, baby.
    Backwards.
    When the employee gets to dictate to the company, absent collective bargaining, what the benefits will be, I'm heading back into the work force, and demanding that one benefit be twice that of my current retirement. But after only 1 month of work.
    It's a great deal.
    For me.
    One better way to deal with it is to have people pay for their recreating themselves.
    That's all, in a nutshell, Hobby Lobby is expecting.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:37 pm on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    Certainly, very few get pregnant without engaging in sex. We must, however, acknowledge that not every participant in a sexual encounter is a willing participant. Telling that person that they cannot use their medical benefit to take a pill to prevent pregnancy seems to be punitive to the victim. Even for those cases where the participation is consensual, I just have a difficult time imposing my morals when the subject is legal activity. If their activity is legal, but immoral, they will have to justify that with their creator. Overall, I think there are more productive ways to deal with recreational sex and abortion that merely professing some moral high road.

     
  • gecroix posted at 11:43 am on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    Kevjlang, what is the failure rate in a future for the aborted baby who's only sin was being an inconvenient result of bad choices by others? 100%.
    THEY never got a shot.
    To be either for or against anything. To be a serious person, or hysterically myopic.
    I note that all who favor abortion for convenience had mothers who did not.
    A big part of our national problem is not the imposed morailty of business, but the lack of it by individuals.
    Even 'Jane Roe' finally concluded that indiscriminant infanticide is not the kind of birth control that civilized human beings practice.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:28 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Well, Kevin -
    The misperception regarding the blanket painting of young women who have had to get an abortion as "irresponsible" goes along with the same misinformed folks who think that all they simply had to do was "take the pill" - and all of these problems would have been over. If they had "taken the pill" - no further burden nor moral turpitude would be committed. Then again, we do know there exists the extreme fringe who attest that teens/young women on "the pill" are still in the camp of the immoral who are killing these "precious beings". Interesting that these same accusers are nowhere to be seen when the child grows up and needs new shoes, a few teeth extractions or braces, or long-term medical treatment for chronic asthma, et cetera.

    I've lived long enough to know that things aren't as simple as folks try to make it. Easy for us to condemn in the veil of moral christianity. THAT'S the hypocrisy.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:34 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    Not every woman can take birth control pills. Also, all birth control methods have their failure rates.

    As long as the morning after pill is a legally prescribed birth control method, Hobby Lobby is may be entitled to their opinion that it may be "abortion", but they have no legal right to enforce their opinion on how people may interact with their physician.

    If I were an employer and felt that obesity is morally reprehensible, I could not legally order my medical plan to not cover blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes medications. As long as the "immoral" behavior of my employees is legal, there's not much I can do to control what they do on their own time, or on advise of their physician.

    You are their employer. You are not their moral compass, you are not their minister, and you aren't their doctor.

    You can certainly allow stuff to be posted on the bulletin boards regarding people's options with regards to reproductive health, but ultimately, your employees have to make their own ethics decisions.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:28 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Response to Paul Hyatt posted at 6:24 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013:

    I'm curious, Paul - you say abortion is "sacrificing the innocent". But, I always thought in religious christian tenets that an un-baptized (including unborn) child really isn't innocent. That he/she still tainted with "original sin", and only a baptism can wash away the inherent "sin" of the little child.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:20 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Response to gecroix posted at 1:46 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013:

    Well, geocroix -
    May you never have a daughter who just might be placed in a circumstance that she (or you) never dreamed that could happen....becoming pregnant and having to make a decision that will affect her and so many people for decades to come.

    You've just clumped all young women who happened to have an unplanned pregnancy into the same vein: let's see - "unthinking", "lazy", and "seeking entitlement". Running for office? If you are, I guess you're not courting the women's vote in the next election!

    You do realize that there's many folks who are in a job-related field who must encounter pregnant teens/women. Aside from our personal beliefs (and trust me, my personal beliefs just might be almost identical to yours)...Despite that, it is our duty (as such workers, parents, etc.) to be humane and encouraging to people such as these young women who may have made a decision that we don't necessarily approve of. I take it that you're not in such a field, b/c if you were, you'd be changing your tune pretty quick.

     
  • gecroix posted at 1:46 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3146

    A representative of Planned parenthood was questioned by a Congressional committe member investigating the killer abortion doctor Gosnell's actions, as to what the proper course of action should be if an attempted abortion went wrong and the baby was moving on it's own trying to survive outside the womb on the abortionist's table. The PP rep said 'That's a decision best made by the patient'.
    The questioner replied back that, at that time, 'hasn't the baby on the table become the patient.
    So, how common is this advocate for infanticide's comment. I don't know.
    That it was made at all shows the level of devolution that's been reached since Roe.
    Human life reduced to a choice for no good medical reason, not to save the life of the mother, but just for convenience.
    We are way too close to deciding to 'conveniently' eliminate the bratty 2 year old that takes up too much of our party time, etc.
    The decision that killing for convenience is a good thing has already been made. It's a bedrock staple of 'progressive' thought and life. Now, the only decision left is what age limits will be observed, as the narrative 'evolves'.
    It doesn't get any sicker than that.
    What female capable of independent, or even assisted, thought these days doesn't know about birth control before the fact. No doubt the same number who've never heard that cigarettes are bad for you.
    This issue with Hobby Lobby has squat to do with 'women's rights', and everything to do with pushing an ideological agenda, and furthering a self-imposed sense of entitlement.
    if you're too lazy to take birth control pills, then you're probably too lazy to be taken seriously on anything else, either.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:38 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Well, Paul:

    Upon first look it does seem to be a dichotomy in that folks support the heart-wrenching decision to abort an unborn child, yet many of those same individuals are proponents of gun control - with emphasis on attempting to prevent gun-induced harm to existing childrens' safety.

    And, I believe, that is just the point. Many would think that there's a big difference in the level of suffering between a non-viable aborted fetus (probably doesn't "feel") and the suffering level of an existing first-grader who has been shot by a crazed gunman.

    Sure, there are those who would say that a fetus must feel great pain upon its demise through abortive measures. But, we all know that a child who suffers injury or dies from pain is unarguably real. Couple that with the years that the parent(s) has gotten to know the child and has grown to love him/her more and more each passing day. Thus, the argument would be that the demise of a fetus is different than the demise of an existing/feeling young child.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:04 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Is it just me, or is this software in these forums making it impossible for our CPs to "refresh" when they should refresh - in order to show the latest comment(s)???

    I often have to fish around for updated comments in the "Forum" section b/c newer comments often are not available in the COMMENT section of each article.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:02 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Another response to Jake:

    I too, theoretically believe that each private company should have the right to limit and also that we should question having to "pay for" others' contraceptives and so on. No one wishes on their daughter/neice/granddaughter the awful and heart-wrenching decision to terminate a fetus.

    I join the libertarian front as much as can be in this sense. HOWEVER: I look at the practicality of it all. If one hasn't birth controlled the child early on with "the pill" (or thru other pre-birth measures), thus saving on the child's future suffering...well, an atrocious life of poor care can be thwarted through the later decision to abort. In the long run - same result: future suffering of an unwanted child (or of one that cannot be properly taken care of) - future suffering prevented. Again, in the long-term - $ and future complication(s) saved. We will have spared an individual of suffering and it's results: psychological trouble, criminal life, et cetera.

    BTW - I doubt if the bigwigs of Hobby Lobby have ever thought through this type of thing. The big boss men (in their supped up luxury cars, living in million dollar homes) are NOT the almost minimum-waged individual working at H. Lobby who is wrestling with the consequences of keeping a child that cannot be properly taken care of.

     
  • Paul Hyatt posted at 6:24 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    Paul Hyatt Posts: 295

    No you will not nor will the other haters of Christians.... Hobby Lobby does own a Christian book store and they are being forced into the same concept of murdering the unborn.... Of course there are so many who have no problem sacrificing the innocent upon the altar of convenience that they call choice.... And yet they want to ban guns because of the children.... Hypocrites....

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:21 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Well, Jake:

    I too believe that some organizations can decide if their employees can go on certain health plans. But, I would think that those types of organizations would be limited to definitive religious-based organizations.

    A hobby store doesn't seem to fit into that category. There are plenty of employees and customers in a large retail hobby store environment like this who don't adhere to the puritanic concept of "ix-nay on the ortion ab-nay".

    If it were a christian book store or a church, I think lots of folks would understand it more.

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 10:58 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1718

    But maybe we do have the right to decide whether we want to pay for said treatment.

    Personally, I'm all for limiting births in general -- we have too many people on this planet, and it seems most of them are emigrating to this country! But I'm not sure the government has the right to force private enterprise to pay for limiting births in a particular way.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:55 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    Believe it or not, I ask that same question, Jake. Then again..whatever decision... To use contraceptive in the traditional sense beforehand, or after the fact abortion. Well, it eventually becomes a moot point. The issue at hand is how the mom (and dad, if in the picture) decide to manage the situation of either:

    A. An unwanted child, or
    B. A child that financially cannot be taken care of.

    Concern in the "hindsight 20/20 sense" of why child was not birth controlled in "the pill" route or through abortive measure... that soon falls by the wayside in importance in the long run.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:41 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    !! IHOG. - read my response to your post below!

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:39 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    !IHOG -
    I am humbled enough to agree with you that perhaps we would all be better off if I was included in the aborted statistic populace. Now, you must ask of yourself if your charmed presence on earth all these decades has been a benefit or a liability.

    A more on- topic question would be if your life thus far has been of quality and relative lack of burden to others. If not, you would have been better off not living a low and unmeaningful existence. That is how we look at the issue today - the quality of life of these potential "reaching-to-term" newborns.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:27 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    The way I see it is that the Government is saying that it's not the insurance company's right to restrict what a woman and doctor to be the right treatment for her health. Likewise, it's saying that it's not the employer's right to dictate the choices available to her and her doctor. The medical decisions should be left to the woman and her doctor. The moral decisions should be left to the woman, her family, and her spiritual advisors.

    Who believes that it should be their company's right to tell you and your doctor whether he can prescribe to you one of those blue pills for your "sexual performance" or some of that medicated cream to fix your bald spot?

    Regardless of how any of us feel morally about the use of contraceptives, including the morning after pills, as long as they are legal, none of us has the legal power to stop a doctor from prescribing them, nor the moral power to stop a woman we aren't even remotely associated with from taking anything prescribed to her by her physician.

     
  • Sandy Beach posted at 1:17 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    Sandy Beach Posts: 6

    The "nanny" in this case is Hobby Lobby, which is dictating to its female employees what their health care decisions should be.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:16 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3124

    Government isn't the only ingredient in inflation. Consumer and business activity is responsible for far more than government typically is. The mere consumption of a commodity causes scarcity which makes the next purchase of said commodity more expensive unless the supply of that commodity goes up faster than the demand.

    Even if we'd had total anarchy in the country (presumably a peaceful, benevolent anarchy) over the past 60 years, $3/hour still wouldn't come close to being able to buy a house or raise a family.

    Blame government all you want for what it's responsible for. However, don't try to paint a believable picture depicting government as the cause of everything detrimental to your vision of the "good ole days".

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:41 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    I remember when $2 an hour was a living wage.
    My parents bought a house, two cars and raised 3 children on one $2 or less an hour job. Starting pay at Monsanto, Marathon (Republic OIL), Amaco or UCC in the 50's was under $2 an hour.
    $5,600 a year, $2.69 an hour, was a good job in 1955.
    The reason it isn't enough today is government devaluation of the dollar. Devalued money pushes workers into higher tax brackets and reduces the cost of government debt.
    Treasury is stealing $40 billion from our paychecks each month by printing $40 billion of "counterfit" money to buy government debt.
    A win/win for government. When dollars are worthless the debt will be worthless too.
    How much will a "living wage" be then?

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:12 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Close or bow down to government?
    In what once was a free country.
    Hobby Lobby employees are used by Obama as hostages in his nanny state plan.

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:04 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    SVERIGE 1

    America would be better off if parents of people like you had believed in abortion.
    H. R. Clinton said, at a liberal woman meeting, abortions serve a public service by limiting the birth of low quality people.

    You may be proof she was correct.

    Hobby Lobby should offer free condoms to employees and termininate those too stupid to use them.

     
  • confusedemmy posted at 9:31 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    confusedemmy Posts: 256

    In response to the company starting FT employees at an almost-living wage... I would say there are probably only 3-4 FT employees per store, if that.

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 8:21 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1718

    Lars, why can't their female employees simply use traditional contraceptives?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:52 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3710

    They'll close eventually in defeat of this futile endeavor. The H. Lobby company's unrealistic and antiquated beliefs do no service to the multicultural and demographic diverse employees that they simply will always have due to the kind of business they are in.

    If the big honchos of the company want to espouse their religious and moral beliefs, they should close Hobby Lobby, then open up a church. Or perhaps they can open up a christian book store instead, or open up any another example of a much more narrow venue of business (not a retail craft store) - to continue with their free speech-given right to express.

    Sure, they'll continue to try to make their statement that women shouldn't abort, but if their female employees will indeed go through a pregnancy to full term (under logic of this stance) - will the Hobby Lobby company offer babysitting services, health care, and other financial aid to these little ones for the next 18 years (2 decades) - since their "moral" employee (who didn't abort) will theoretically continue to work with H. Lobby FOR these next 2 decades? Very likely not.

    Very unrealistic - most employees at these types of places don't stay with the company for 2 decades or more...the time frame of a baby growing up to 18/adult. Most employees move on much earlier. They go to another retailer to work, or they work in another field, et cetera.

    So, right here we see a smokescreen of a stance since Hobby Lobby company does not care one iota about the well-being of neither potential mother nor their future baby(ies). By then, the company will have "wished" the employee away, and blissfully go on in guise of this half-baked "moral" stance.

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 10:56 pm on Tue, Apr 23, 2013.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1718

    Though I personally approve of the use of many types of contraceptives, I also approve of the stand Hobby Lobby is taking. They are a private company that should have a say in the type of insurance they provide.

    I enjoy shopping at Hobby Lobby. I buy most of my Christmas ornaments, gift wrap, pots, vases, and even small furnishings there.