8 years ago
5
'Hobby Lobby' Is About Blocking Contraception Access, Not Religious Liberty
Hobby Lobby supporters claim that they aren't out to take away contraception, just to keep religious employers from paying for it. Now that the Obama administration has made that possible, however, they are still throwing fits.
Continue Reading
http://rhrealitycheck.org
-
New rules for ACA birth-control mandate
Women who work for companies with moral objections to birth control can still get it at no cost under rules announced Friday.
Join the Discussion
Misleading, they accept most forms of contraception except the ones that cause an abortion. Christianity believes the fetus is a human being and having an abortion is murder. Making the insurance pay for the abortion pills will raise the cost of the health insurance for the employer, which means they are forced to pay higher rates to have abortion pills covered.
Contraceptives are long established as neutral or even negative in terms of cost relative to reproduction.
Their definition of "causing an abortion" is neither medical nor legally acceptable. Why not be honest and just admit that they're not concerned about abortion or contraception at all, they're concerned about women behaving like sluts.
The DailyKOS is a biased source. Christianity does teach no sex out of marriage. In this case a baptist minister went a bit too far on that. Married couples who don't want to have a baby would use contraception as well, which invalidates your argument that it is only for sluts. http://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/702/how-t...-an-abortion-with-pills--misoprostol--cytotec Yes there are pills that will cause an abortion. These are the ones Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/
Please review what the ruling affects and doesn't affect.
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
It does affect:
• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.
That's a weak complaint.
Which is fine. If you don't want to have sex out of marriage then don't have sex out of marriage. But that doesn't give anyone the right to dictate morality for anyone else, which is what social conservatives are trying to do by restricting access to contraception.
You might have a point there if that were an isolated case, but it isn't. It's a common attitude among social conservatives, and it's clearly on display with the objections to the new contraception rules.
Then social conservatives should stop angling to restrict or ban contraceptives.
Again, that is neither medically nor legally valid.
That's their problem. They don't want to use those things, they don't have to. They have no medical or legal right to prevent anyone use from using them if they choose.