City Journal Autumn 2014

Current Issue:

Autumn 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Dennis Saffran
After Hobby Lobby « Back to Story

View Comments (14)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 14 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
If you get pregnant because you refuse to use any of the 16 covered contraceptives, then close your legs, quit Hobby Lobby, find a job elsewhere and stop demanding that others subsidize your irresponsibility in ways that offend them. Pro-choice ALSO means respecting the choices of those who do not choose to participate in the aftermath of your bedroom activities.
"Specifically, the companies argued that being forced to pay for coverage of two types of intrauterine device and two forms of the “morning after” pill—which they regard as abortifacients, because these methods block implantation of an already fertilized egg[...]"

No, they don't.

http://www.allourlives.org/wp-content/uploads/ECFacts.pdf

Unfortunately, the Court said that it basically doesn't matter whether this claim is true or not. That's still no reason to go around repeating false claims.
If any group has an obsession with sex, it's the religious conservatives who cite outmoded religious texts to express disapproval of homosexuals or young women (but not men!)who have sex outside of marriage.
What business is it if yours who people choose to have consensual sex with? The fact is that homosexuality has been with us for thousands of years - about ten percent of the male population across time and cultures have been gay. It is no more unnatural than being
left-handed. Who are you to judge them?
"I have a right to keep and bear arms. Does this mean my employer - a publicly held corporation - has to buy my rifle and ammunition for me?"

No. But if there was a federal law saying that all sellers of guns have to provide ammunition along with each gun sale, the court has now said that some gun sellers, in a situation where you are signed to certain sellers because of your job, don't have to sell certain kinds of ammunition (they get an EXCEPTION to federal law) because of their religion.

You don't have to agree or disagree with the ammunition requirement in the analogy, nor with Obamacare, to see the problem here. This precedent will soon be used for all kinds of things that could well fundamentally change our society.

The ruling and the situation would be somewhat defensible if we were dealing only with owners and partnerships. A privately owned company should be able to do what it wants. But a corporation is a public entity - an entity granted priviliges by the state and traditionally subjected in return for this protection to some restrictions in the public interest. The Roberts court continues to batter away at the obligations while leaving all the protections in place. If we're going to have Obamacare, I see no problem with requiring public entities like corporations to comply and maintain religious neutrality. People and companies can have and live by their religion. Public entities should not have religious priviliges or exemptions.
This is only slightly about a particular health care law. What this court decision means more fundamentally is that people can violate federal law if they can offer a religious justification. The floodgates are open for a feudalization of our legal system (and eventually our economic life) based on religious affiliation.

(On the narrow issue of health care the obvious solution is to separate health care from employers. Raise pay. Cut benefits and let people shop for their own insurance from competing providers.)
Patrick MacKinnon July 08, 2014 at 9:37 PM
Well of course an employees sexual organs are not the business of the employer. Isn't that what the court is saying? Take care of your own organs we are trying to regulate our borders which you have made our business.
I have a right to keep and bear arms. Does this mean my employer - a publicly held corporation - has to buy my rifle and ammunition for me?
How about we stop financing Viagra and put that money towards birth control and abortions?

The planet, especially NYC, is way too overcrowded!

Viagra is just a luxury party drug anyway - it's totally unnecessary! We need to put the brakes on reproduction in this country!

If you can't afford them you can't have them!
Seems one of the few comments makes it clear why women s/n/b priests...

Well writ article. We need to realize the left's arguments are never what they seem, just another way to censor debate.

The complexity of these details is the food of life for those committed leftists... no one with a real life will want to enter the fray. I only test the waters to confirm nothing much has changed... and it hasn't!
NO ONE had denied access to what these liberal women want, all the court was saying is they should pay for it THEMSELVES and not have the government force their employers that disagree with it be forced to pay for it for them. You don't like it? QUIT! Make room for a MORAL person to get a job at the limited number of MORAL companies left in this country. I wouldn't demand the government to mandate my employer buy condoms or viagra for men either. If a man can not afford to buy condoms at the very least then MAYBE that MAN should not be having sex at all. Its called PERSONAL responsibility! Maybe these feminazi Women need to find some of their own and learn there are repercussions for their actions. If they want one of the 4 medicines that abort their pregnancies then by all means go get it. Their access to it is not denied, and if they to can not afford the $50 for the miscarriage pill, that is just as ridiculous as saying your employer has to pay for boner pills for those men that cant get it up anymore with their ugly wives.
@NPS:

If an employee's reproductive organs are none of her employer's business, then why did the government just try to force the employer to pay for their upkeep?

I love the double think on the part of the left here: Employers should have no interest in what I'm doing in my bedroom, which is why I'm using the threat of government force to subsidize my sex life. If you don't want your boss in your bedroom, then you shouldn't have hired the government to chain him to your bedpost.

I also love that you assume the only reason the majority made its decision is because they're male Catholics. That seems to be simultaneously a sexist argument, since you assume the men didn't use logic but simply voted with their genitals, and an anti-Catholic argument, since you assume Catholics are mentally incapable of making a legal decision separate from their religious beliefs. If you claim 'sexism is as despicable as racism' it is probably best that you refrain from assuming that male Catholics are incapable of making informed or rational decisions.
Sorry you whiny DemocRATS, but the Supreme Court has refused to let you liberal losers tell us what we can & cannot do concerning our healthcare & religious beliefs.
The left has had a psychotic episode over this case. Hobby Lobby doesn't have to provide 4 out of 10 contraceptive modes and suddenly we have sharia law! Women's ovaries are being violated! This is a slippery slope over a gigantic non-sequitur. It is Hobby Lobby that was being violated by the oppressive and unworkable Obamacare law, not women's rights. It is the mandate that is the abomination, not small business that should have be left alone to do business as they see fit. That the culture war has come down to a battle over who should pay for Sandra Fluke's contraception shows how modern feminism has truly lost its mind.
Baloney. An employees' reproductive organs are none of her employer's business. Five male Republican-appointed judges who belong to a church that does not think women are fit to be priests disagreed. Sexism is as despicable as racism.