The Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case raises at least two questions: How will it affect access to contraception, and what do the drugs and devices the company objected to on religious grounds actually do?
A growing body of evidence shows that it is already hard to obtain certain kinds of contraception, and the ruling seems likely to increase barriers. A significant number of pharmacists — 6 percent in one study — say they would refuse to dispense oral contraceptives or other medications to patients for moral reasons if they were permitted to do so.
This dynamic played out in a recent study by a health services researcher, Tracey Wilkinson, who had callers pose as adolescents to see if pharmacies had emergency contraception and would dispense it – legally – to them.
I don't even have a uterus and I find this ruling appalling. Hobby Lobby says they don't want to support taking a life, but they've got no problems with denying their employees paid maternity leave, and they certainly don't pay their rank and file employees a living wage, so clearly this is punishment for people who decide that they like doing what biology has wired them up to do.
Boy, I hope this wakes people up for the upcoming midterm election. A lot more damage can be done to civil rights in the name of religious freedom if the GOP takes over both the senate and house. This just so appalling!
I don't even have a uterus and I find this ruling appalling. Hobby Lobby says they don't want to support taking a life, but they've got no problems with denying their employees paid maternity leave, and they certainly don't pay their rank and file employees a living wage, so clearly this is punishment for people who decide that they like doing what biology has wired them up to do.
Do they actually have paid maternity leave? I don't know if they do and I'm not going to look it up.
But it's one thing to say you're for paid maternity leave, it's another to actually have paid maternity leave as one of the benefits in a payroll
package.
The Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case raises at least two questions: How will it affect access to contraception, and what do the drugs and devices the company objected to on religious grounds actually do?
A growing body of evidence shows that it is already hard to obtain certain kinds of contraception, and the ruling seems likely to increase barriers. A significant number of pharmacists — 6 percent in one study — say they would refuse to dispense oral contraceptives or other medications to patients for moral reasons if they were permitted to do so.
This dynamic played out in a recent study by a health services researcher, Tracey Wilkinson, who had callers pose as adolescents to see if pharmacies had emergency contraception and would dispense it – legally – to them.
I don't even have a uterus and I find this ruling appalling. Hobby Lobby says they don't want to support taking a life, but they've got no problems with denying their employees paid maternity leave, and they certainly don't pay their rank and file employees a living wage, so clearly this is punishment for people who decide that they like doing what biology has wired them up to do.
I am devastated by the continuing betrayal by our government on the female citizens of our country. I feel perpetually put down as a second class citizen with increasingly limited rights as given to me by the male leadership because they have no desire to give up control or see women as equal people with rights and brains and a life outside of a human breeder. We are going backwards in time and I fear this is far from over.
Do you think for one minute if any religion denied a man his choice on anything that it would be accepted as a good idea let alone law. I don't often over dramatize things but I feel my rights are being publically and politically raped and battered without mercy. There is no one to turn to, to make this right as the protectors of our rights have turned against us.
I truly feel violated. :(
MzNobody
I don't even have a uterus and I find this ruling appalling. Hobby Lobby says they don't want to support taking a life, but they've got no problems with denying their employees paid maternity leave, and they certainly don't pay their rank and file employees a living wage, so clearly this is punishment for people who decide that they like doing what biology has wired them up to do.
Do they actually have paid maternity leave? I don't know if they do and I'm not going to look it up.
But it's one thing to say you're for paid maternity leave, it's another to actually have paid maternity leave as one of the benefits in a payroll
package.Nope, they don't have paid maternity leave for hourly employees.
I don't even have a uterus and I find this ruling appalling. Hobby Lobby says they don't want to support taking a life, but they've got no problems with denying their employees paid maternity leave, and they certainly don't pay their rank and file employees a living wage, so clearly this is punishment for people who decide that they like doing what biology has wired them up to do.
Do they actually have paid maternity leave? I don't know if they do and I'm not going to look it up.
But it's one thing to say you're for paid maternity leave, it's another to actually have paid maternity leave as one of the benefits in a payroll
package.Nope, they don't have paid maternity leave for hourly employees.
That's what I figured. :lol:
They have their Good Graces though. They provide people with their benevolences and good favors in allowing people to work for them.
It's a privilege to work for Hobby Lobby.
More like “Hobble Lobby” now. Currently, All employees are covered under FMLA, giving them unpaid medical leave usually for six weeks. Employers can’t fire them while on leave and they are covered under their current medical policy but that’s about it. SCOTUS now opens the door for other “religious” companies (the Amish run furniture stores comes to mind and Xtian scientists who may not pay for blood transfusions etc.) to descriminate. Let the law suits commence! http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
Cap’t Jack
I mis-read your post ColdHeart. I didn’t see “denying” in your text.
I read it as “providing” or something. That makes my reply to it a little off kilter.
but they’ve got no problems with denying their employees paid maternity leave,
Ginsberg needs to retire. I don’t care what way she swings.
Her mere presence there is indicative of the stultifying nature of that court. Great Scot!
Plus she needs to get replaced during the right Administration. Better to engineer it than take any chances.
Then Kennedy needs to go. Now. What a tool.
I wonder if that guy basks in what he perceives to be his Solomon-like even handedness?
These people are in the wrong Zeitgeist. What a joke. Bader-Ginsburg? Get lost!!
Look at the silly raiment she wears. It’s a goddamned joke.
Hillary will f$&k this all up. I guarantee it. Ughhh. The crap we have to settle for.
I figure the first appointment Hillary will make to the Supremes is a former Harvard Constitutional expert, and quite a bit of federal executive government experience. Let’s see, his intials are B.O.
It seems to me that the atheists and humanists should figure variations on this ruling and drive the SCOTUS guys crazy with their lawsuits.
Also, the Atheists and Humanists should publish a list of all closely held companies that apply this ruling so all of us can avoid patronising them.
However, it does remind me of many years ago after my wife’s multiple miscarriages, I got a vasectomy, and the company insurance wouldn’t pay for it. When I challenged their reasoning the agent said, “Well, we consider a vasectomy sort of cosmetic surgery, which we don’t pay for.” This pissed me off so much that I said (although I didn’t even come close to doing it), “OK. since cosmetic items are for viewing, as I walk through your office I’ll make sure I show all your employees, especially the female ones, my cosmetic surgery.”
Occam
Lets not forget the other recent utterly insane action of SCOTUS:
US Supreme Court Rules 35-Foot Buffer Zones Outside Massachusetts Abortion Clinics Are Unconstitutional
By Suman Varandani
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-supreme-court-rules-35-foot-buffer-zones-outside-massachusetts-abortion-clinics-are-1613542
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf
What really get's my blood boiling is hearing these vindictive Christian Thugs boasting about their great "love" -
disgusting as disgusting gets.
Their egomania knows no bounds. :down:
If corporations have the same rights as individual people, I pose the question if individual people have all the rights of corporations?
I am not that familiar with law but it seems to me corporations enjoy certain priviliges designed to stimulate the economy. Can individuals now claim all the rights and privileges which corporations enjoy?
I have a feeling that corporations enjoy greater freedoms and priviliges than individuals, which to me sounds unconstitutional.
Ginsberg needs to retire. I don’t care what way she swings.
Her mere presence there is indicative of the stultifying nature of that court. Great Scot!
Plus she needs to get replaced during the right Administration. Better to engineer it than take any chances.
Then Kennedy needs to go. Now. What a tool.
I wonder if that guy basks in what he perceives to be his Solomon-like even handedness?
These people are in the wrong Zeitgeist. What a joke. Bader-Ginsburg? Get lost!!
Look at the silly raiment she wears. It’s a goddamned joke.
More than agreed! Our SECULAR legal system, created by Enlightened statesmen is now in the hands of six (freekin six!) hard core Catholics, believers in transubstantiation and now backing corporations whom they claim have the same religious rights as people. Ok then, lock up the CEOs of GM for killing 13 citizens. Hey they're just like us now, right? If we have to treat them as people then I'm suing Hobby Lobby for offending my ears with simpy xtian hymns while I shop. Believe me, this is just beginning. Unless the generally bucolic Hobby Lobby employees stand up and file a class action suit they'll be holding mandatory church services in the break room.
Cap't Jack
While I agree that the justices shouldn’t be popularly elected to avoid lobbying and outside group support, I do think that we need a Constitutional amendment such that every six years after appointment, say, four of the justices are listed on the ballot, and the public has to vote on whether his/her appointment should be terminated and a new justice appointed. I’d guess that the female vote would strongly influence the continuing position of any Bush appointed justices this year.
Occam
I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when “religious rights/beliefs” trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people. I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don’t/can’t where will it end?
I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when "religious rights/beliefs" trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people. I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don't/can't where will it end?
The problem is that reason cannot prevail here. This is scripture and unalterable for any earthly reason. Wars have been fought over these issues for centuriess.
That’s the other part that bothers me, because next the strict, far right, Jews and Muslims may start trying to claim “Jewish Rights” and “Islamic Rights”. I can see that leading to several battles, not just in courts.
