 |
|
|
|
|
January 11th, 2013
03:40 PM ET
Hobby Lobby finds way around $1.3-million-a-day Obamacare hit - for nowBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Editor Washington (CNN) - By Friday, Hobby Lobby would have racked up $14.3 million in fines from the Internal Revenue Service for bucking Obamacare. But in keeping with the great American tax tradition, they may have found a loophole. The company is facing $1.3 million a day in fines for each day it chooses not to comply with a piece of the Affordable Care Act that was set to trigger for them on January 1. The craft store chain announced in December that, because of religious objections, they would face the fines for not providing certain types of birth control through their company health insurance. The penalty was set to go into effect on the day the company's new health care plan went into effect for the year. Peter M. Dobelbower, general counsel for Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. said in a statement released through the Becket Fund that, "Hobby Lobby discovered a way to shift the plan year for its employee health insurance, thus postponing the effective date of the mandate for several months." The statement continued that "Hobby Lobby does not provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in its health care plan. Hobby Lobby will continue to vigorously defend its religious liberty and oppose the mandate and any penalties." Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Last month Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected the company's appeal for a temporary relief from the steep fines while their case made its way through the lower courts. Hobby Lobby announced a day after the ruling that it "will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs." In September, Hobby Lobby and affiliate Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain, sued the federal government for violating their owners' religious freedom and ability to freely exercise their religion. The lawsuit says the companies' religious beliefs prohibit them from providing insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. As of August 2012, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, requires employer-provided health care plans to provide "all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity," according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Churches and houses of worship are exempt from the regulation and a narrow exemption was added for nonprofit religious employers whose employees "primarily share its religious tenets" and who "primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets." The Internal Revenue Service regulations now say that a group health care plan that "fails to comply" with the Affordable Care Act is subject to an "excise tax" of "$100 per day per individual for each day the plan does not comply with the requirement." It remains unclear how the IRS would implement and collect the excise tax. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment on the high court's move last month. White House officials have long said they believe they have struck an appropriate compromise between religious exemptions and women's health. The White House has not commented specifically on the Hobby Lobby case. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories The Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby chain has more than 500 stores that employ 13,000 employees across 42 states, and takes in $2.6 billion in sales. It is still privately held by CEO and founder David Green and members of his family. "The foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with biblical principles," a statement on the Hobby Lobby website reads, adding that one outgrowth of that is the store is closed on Sundays to give its employees a day of rest. MORE BACKGROUND: Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare The Hobby Lobby case is just one of many before the courts over the religious exemption aspects of the law. The case represents by far the biggest for-profit group challenging the health care mandate. Part of the reason Sotomayor rejected their appeal to the Supreme Court she wrote was because their case is still pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. A spokesperson for the Becket Fund said on Friday a date has yet to be set for the case to be heard in the 10th Circuit. soundoff (4,557 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next »Post a comment
Next entry »Hindu holy book coming to a nightstand near you
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Friday, January 11, 2013
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
If I was a child the size of salt,i would have requested abortion...i blame my mother
I blame your mother too. She should have taught you reason instead of indoctrinating you with silly superstitions.
Sotomayor was appointed by Obama and is extreme liberal so there's no surprise there. Good for Hobby Lobby for sticking to what they believe.They're a private company but that doesn't mean much anymore. Half of America voted for this crook and now we're all going to pay, you vote for socialized healthcare that's what you get. I hope Hobby Lobby can continue to find loop holes, I wish the rest of us could. I will be shopping there more in support of their fight against the establishment and the crooks that run our country.
So if a woman is r aped, you oppose her being able to get Plan B?
You need to buy a dictionary and figure out that there's a HUGE difference between mandating insurance and socializing healthcare itself.
I know freedom, and govt. mandates are not freedom. The federal govt. should not be involved in national health care. It should be privatized or left up to the states.
You should try and assemble some kind of a logical statement supported by facts, you're nowhere close to it right now.
what facts would you like me to present and I will gladly present them to you?
Stewie, you couldn't line up an argument if your life depended on it. You're a kid.
Literally any woulbe a good start. Freedom isn't inherently good, I think we can all agree that removing the freedom of people to steal from each other was a pretty solid move.
All of you niqqers are fvcktarded, especially Tom Tom.
Healthcare is costing this country billions. Having a single-payer plan would have been ideal, but the ACA is the best alternative we have at the moment. If you think that the status quo is sustainable, I have a bridge I'd like to sell YOU, Stewie.
Tom, the rest of us just want our freedoms back and the federal govt. out of every detail of our lives.
Stewed Prune, what "freedoms" have you lost?
By the way, you were challenged to provide facts, prune-boy. Where are they?
You little kids are so amusing when you try to play grown-up.
Yeah, that's what I expected. Are you on the toity making boom-boom, Stewed?
The day you grow a set, alert the media.
So stew22, I guess you don't buy auto insurance in your State? In my state it's "mandated". Do you register your vehicle with the State? That's mandated too. How about how fast you are allowed to drive? How about the mandate to pay federal income tax? There are still some loons who believe that to be illegal too. The government is there to serve our needs, and the MAJORITY of us like to have laws that safeguard our lives and liberty. If you don't like it then go love where there are no "mandates" like Somalia.
Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger who was a Eugenics supporter and believed that lighter skinned people were a superior race, any coincidence that 80% of abortion clinics are still located in minority areas? Watch Blood Money, The Business of Abortion by Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece.
I'm sure there's absolutely no link between that and poverty rates.
And Henry Ford was a rabid anti-Semite.
Do you advocate boycotting Ford?
Peter, thank you for pointing that out. No one in the mainstream media talks about that but it's absolutely true. Planned Parenthood targets black inner city youth, they always have. The US black population continues to go decrease steadily every year in large part to this very movement which had a large hand in the 1.2 million fetuses aborted in 2011 in the US.
Ford wasn't murdering 1.2 million people a year. However Hitler's eugenics movement turned out pretty successful, for a time.
Right. Because check-cashing stores, pawn shops, and free clinics of all kinds are found in wealthy suburban neighborhoods in equal measure, too.
Stew22: please support your suggestion that the black population is decreasing in the US.
On the contrary, Census data shows it grew from 29 986 060 to 40 818 541 from 1990 to 2011.
Stewie, you and your pal a lame pair of trolls. Sanger is long gone. PP provides millions of women with contraceptives and screenings. Get over it.
Edit: a should have been "are."
Pawn shops, free clinics, and check cashing stores don't murder people, Planned Parenthood does. And they target black youth. This is a statistical fact.
Bullsh!t. There is a PP clinic down the street from where I live. I can assure you that it's a suburban, largely white neighborhood. In addition, you seem to be unaware that since abortion became legal the rates have steadily declined. PP provides contraceptives at low cost to women who might not otherwise be able to afford them.
You are such a loser.
Tom, I can get free contraction at the local bar and walmart charges $2 for birth control pills. Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business, plan and simple. Yes, you can get an exam there, but do you really think 17 year old girls are lining up for a pelvic exam from Planned Parenthood? No.
And PP isn't "murdering" anyone, you imbecilic half-wit. Abortion has been legal for decades. Get over it.
The idiot brays:"I can get free contraction."
Do tell. I'll bet that's the only time you get one, you moron.
How would you know, stewie? I doubt you ever get any tail from anyone who's 17 or 70, regardless, so the point is moot. If you don't want to use PP's services, then get lost. Nobody will miss you.
It's so interesting when others fail to find a valid argument or are flat out wrong that they resort to name calling. A sure sign of a coward and lack of intelligence.
LOL! I'm so glad I have moral standards. I get plenty of tail...for my hot a** husband, I'm in my prime (and hot) and I don't have to worry about spreading disease like the rest of you low lifes. Good luck.
Watch the film Blood Money, The Business of Abortion by Martin Luther, King, Jr.'s niece.
Knock it off with your promotion of a piece of propaganda, you little dolt.
When are you going to figure out that your sort has had DECADES to try to overturn R v W and have failed at every turn?
Get a clue. Get a job. Adopt one of the kids who are in foster care if you're so concerned about them.
I love the ad hominem attacks
As much as I love the lack of facts you present, you little dolt.
In 2009, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that women starting the pill before 18 nearly quadruple their risk of triple negative breast cancer. Even more shocking, Swedish oncologist Hakan Olsson concluded that pill use before the age of 20 increases a young woman’s breast cancer risk by more than 1000 percent.
A 2006 Mayo Clinic meta-analysis that concluded that breast cancer risk rises 50 percent for women taking oral contraceptives four or more years before a full-term pregnancy.
If abortion is a choice, why doesn't the fetus,child being murdered have a choice?
Because it hasn't yet developed a brain large enough to be self aware. Just like the eggs in a carton have no real opinion about the other hens in the yard.
Because the mother is the one that has to spend thousands of dollars and hours bringing it to term.
Because the system states one needs to be sentient and autonomous. Have you ever tried to get an answer from a developing fetus before? If so, how did it go? Did the folks in white coats want to talk to you afterward?
@Socialism-Communisim-a-Love-Affair
So what's your point? No one is forcing the owners of HL to run a business.
a lot of companies find it cheaper to dump the insurance and just pay the fines. I wonder if they checked into that option. Kind of absurd anyway, why does our employer owe us health insurance? Why not shoes too? People need those too.
I suppose they don't owe us insurance, but insurance only works if you have a large pool of premium payers, and it's easiest to achieve this by forcing employees to provide health insurance.
They don't, but they tend to have a tough time competing for high end talent if they don't offer health insurance.
It's a valid point. Employers shouldn't be required to provide insurance. But as long as the financial services sector owns Congress (see the OpenSecrets website), we will not get the right solution, which is Universal Healthcare, single payer or otherwise. It works in every civilized country and delivers better care for their citizens for half the price of the US system.
There was a time when companies saw health insurance as another way to retain employees. Now that insurance has gotten so inflated they don't want to pay. So they should be looking at what works and makes it so that other countries can provide healthcare without adding a direct cost to manufacturers.
It could be paid for with much lower tax rates under "The Transaction Tax" or "Automatic Payment Transaction Tax"
What does nanny say our health plans should have now?
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son: to enlighten you on other's positions.
1) Even though pregnancy is defined after implantation, some people hold that life begins at fertilization. Thus, preventing implantation is akin to aborting.
2) While a recent review of evidence does not support Plan B as preventing implantation, the same can not be said of IUDs or Ella, both of which are on the FDA-list that ACA covers.
Hope you understand some people's objections a bit better now.
Of course, many would disagree with 1) and not define life so early.
I, however, prefer to err on the side of caution, and it would seem to me to not cause too many additional problems to define the start of life in that way.
With that said, Ella and IUDs should not be on the FDA-list, at least not until independent studies rule out implantation prevention as being a possible mechanism of action.
What "some people hold" is not fact. There isn't a medical school or a hospital or an OBGYN anywhere who defines pregnancy as beginning before implantation. And no matter some quack or some religious zealot believes, using religious belief to flout the law is not permissible. That's all there is to it. HL can either comply or pay the fine. Or it can leave and start up in a country that has different laws.
Of course, I agree that what some people hold true is not necessarily fact. In the same way, just because the majority of the medical profession would not define life starting at that point also does not make it fact.
Defining the start of life is obviously a grey area and requires some compromise.
The point of my argument, which you seem to miss, was that, defining the start of life at fertilization would encompass most people's definitions (leaving only those who define it at the point of coitus), yet introduce few additional problems. This is one of the reasons I support that particular definition.
The employees of Hobby Lobby do not have coverage NOW for the abortion pill so it is NOT something they "earned as part of their salary package". Business owners should NOT be penalized for how they running their business according to their beliefs unless they are illegal! Where is the ACLU in this issue?
Lol. Good luck getting ACLU to support them on that position.
Wow. Never thought of the ACLU. Where ARE they in all of this? They're amusingly silent.
The problem is a moronic citizenry who, by some measure of extreme stupidity has come to believe that health insurance can only come from an employer. Shoes don't apparently come from employers, we get those on our own, but for some reason employers are supposed to ensure you have a health plan. The dumb people believe that if their employer is paying the health insurance, then it is "free". This is the level of intelligence we are dealing with. They believe their paychecks emanate from a magic well.
Since Plan B is an over the counter drug (though kept behind the counter) requiring NO prescription.... insurance does not cover it AT ALL under any plan. Hobby Lobby is just blustering and making up excuses so as to not provide health care for their workers.
Not true. You *can* get a prescription for it (even though not required), and then insurance will cover it.
In the same way, I can get a prescription for ibuprofen, even though it's readily available on the shelves.
The World Health Organization lists birth control in the same carcinogenic category as lead paint and asbestos – but the government wants to pump American women full of these drugs.
BULL SH!T.
It's on the WHO website homie.
Nope. Produce it or you're another liar just like TD and Chard.
He is somewhat correct:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8759578/ns/health-womens_health/t/hormone-pills-added-list-carcinogens/#.UPM5vKHs3lQ
It's not all birth control pills though.
Liar.
U.N. agency says hormonal menopause therapy can cause cancer
You are both idiots. They are discussing HRT. Not birth control. Jesus Christ on a Triscuit.
No Tom, you idiot, keep reading.
"The cancer research agency also concluded that a common type of birth control pill, taken by about 10 percent of women of reproductive age, increases the risk of more types of cancer than previously thought."
You are the idiot. Show me where it says ANYTHING about bc being comparable to lead paint as a carcinogen, DuckFvck.
That's why I said he is partially correct. Goodness me, are you really this stupid?
Are you really this dishonest? If ten percent of women take this contraceptive, is this a valid concern for ALL who use contraceptives? If there are concerns about these contraceptives being carcinogens, does that put them in the same category as lead paint? If the ass wipe is only "partially accurate" then why aren't you addressing HIS inaccuracies instead of supporting the minuscule amount of "truth" in the post, you lying little sh!t?
Tom: You are obviously a child who doesn't like his ignorance to be exposed.
The World Health Organization lists birth control in the same carcinogenic category was lead paint and asbestos – but the government wants to pump American women full of these drugs.
Democide
If Obamacare is so great, why is congress exempt? Why did so many of Obama cronies request and were granted exemptions? This should have been about both sides of congress putting aside their differences and working together as grown ups to pass legislation to reduce the cost of health care for everyone. Instead, what we got was a piece of legislation that will do a lot more harm than good to citizens and businesses.
EXACTLY. If everyone has to be on ObamaCare, it should start at the top, beginning with the president. So how far would all of these politicians get when they get old and extremely ill and are told "sorry, you're too old and sick for ObamaCare to put money into you".
Stop spreading this idiocy. Congress has the sam e healthcare insurance as other federal workers, and is not exempt from anything.
I was curious so I researched Plan B and read through the whole process and description on the Planned Parenthood website. They themselves refer to it as the abortion pill throughout their description, including the different medications – RU486/Misoprostol so regardless the arguments made that it isn't abortion, it sure sounds like it.
So again, setting aside the politics, why should any private company be forced to provide coverage for something that violates their religious principles? And do some of you people have the same outrage over the many companies, groups and unions that have negotiated exemptions from Obamacare? Are you boycotting those companies and expressing such an outrage against them or is it only if they are Christian?
Atheists hate Christianity..
List of Obamacare Exempt Companies:
24 Hour Fitness
Allied Building Inspectors IUOE Local 211 Welfare Fund
Alpha Omega Home Health, LLC
Andersen Corporation
Bowman Sheet Metal Heating & Air-conditioning
Bricklayers Insurance & Welfare Fund
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 60*
Carey Johnson Oil Co, Inc
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany*
Cement Masons' Local No. 502 Welfare Fund
City of Bloomington VEBA Health Savings Plan*
City of Burnsville*
City of Olathe*
Clausen Miller PC
... HUNDREDS MORE
source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2900475/posts
I support your position, but to put things in perspective, Planned Parenthood is not the best place to get the facts as they are behind on the recent science.
Cite your source in which Plan B is referred to as an abortion pill by PP.
Neither is Free Republic, but lying Chard uses it anyway.
Plan B is not an abortion pill.
wow... where'd ya find that on the internet and off course everything on the internet is true...
I just looked at the Planned Parenthood site, and you are one hell of a liar! It never refers to Plan B medications as abortion pills, and never lists RU486 as a Plan B medication. It says:
"What Emergency Contraception (Plan B) isn't: It is not RU486 (the "abortion pill") nor is EC routine birth control. It should only be taken in emergencies. It will not protect you from sexually transmitted infections."
You are a proven liar.
Here is the link where I found the description of the morning after pill – http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp
Because the company chooses to operate in a country where that's the law. If the owners were so upset by this law, they would leave the US and move elsewhere. A company doesn't get to flout the law simply because their religious beliefs are in conflict with it.
You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.
And what part of this says that Plan B is an abortion pill, TD?
I am not believing this. I pulled that from the planned parenthood website and on multiple pages. To think some of you are actually attacking the source, PP, is priceless and pretty much the height of hypocrisy from those of you who are from the left.
TD: where on that link did you deduce that PP claimed Plan B was an abortion pill? I see nothing of the sort.
From the Plan B web site
Plan B One-Step® is one pill that has a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for several decades. Plan B One-Step® works in a similar way to help prevent pregnancy from happening. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of the sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).
– source http://www.planbonestep.com/
Nor do I. Either paste the link, TD, or you're lying.
TD, the quote I posted in bold came directly from PP's website. If you cannot post a link to refute it, your outrage is the height of hypocrisy.
And to the lying Chard: Pregnancy occurs after implantation, not before. A fertilized egg is not an embryo. And Plan B's PRIMARY action is to delay or prevent ovulation. There is no proof that it prevents implantation. You're way behind.
TD, it's very simple:
- All Christians are liar's
- Any site that a Christian uses to support a position, is lying
- What ever position a Christian opposes, is true
- Any thing a Christian, or Christian company does, is wrong.
- If a non-Christian is doing the same thing, that's irrelevant, the issues is that the Christians are doing it.
It matters not to the newly conceived child who is murdered that science has determined that "pregnancy" only starts after implantation occurs.
It's "liars," Chard, and not all Christians are liars. But you are one. And so is TD if he can't produce evidence for his claim. If you are on his side it says a lot about your respect for truth and even more about your worth as any kind of representative of the Christian faith or the god you claim you love.
Chard, do tell us all what you remembered the day after fertilization occurred for you.
You idiot, there's no "child". There's no embryo. There isn't a pregnancy. You really are a stupid man, aren't you. I wonder what you do when your wife has her period. Do you accuse her of aborting a "child"?
"But you are one. "
That is an incomplete sentence!!!
Boy, you sure are off today, you feel ok?
Sorry TD, I looked up the link you provided. Nowhere is it referred to as "the abortion pill". You lied, then gave proof of your lie, i assume hoping nobody would look at it and prove you to be a liar.
You aware what is wrong with this country today. People knowingly use false information to try to make a point, and unfortunately it often goes unchecked.
When you are trying to sleep tonight, just remember, you are a liar. Hopefully the next time you lie, the people you lie to will get to see your face. And watch you squirm.
Oh yeah, you should probably apologize to God for misrepresenting him too.
Because Planned Parenthood would never deceive people. They claim to offer mammograms but don't and former Planned Parenthood workers have said they purposely give out the cheapest condoms and the least effective birth control with the intent that the women will come back for an abortion if they get pregnant. One former worker even said if the pregnancy test came back negative they would say an ultra sound would show for sure and they would tell women they were pregnant then they and perform the procedure on these women just to get $300 from them. Watch Blood Money by Martin Luther King's niece.
I feel fine, Chard. I've got you emoting all over the place. You're so intent on promulgating lies that you are fairly farting out smilies today.
Tell us again whether your wife is having an abortion when she gets her period, Chard. After all, 40% of fertilized eggs never implant.
If your wife were ra ped, would you approve her use of Plan B?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp
To those of you who cannot read that I said "multiple pages", who are too lazy to do any research yourselves, and who lack the personal integrity of checking facts before calling someone an outright liar. And you wonder why this country is locked in a political gridlock. Look in the mirror.
Surprise! Chad's being dishonest again.
-The companies Chad lists in his January 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm post simply received waivers until 2014 for compliance with the PPACA's restrictions on annual benefit caps. These companies will be required to fully comply in 2014.
-While Chad is correct that Plan B One-Step's insert includes a statement that levonorgestrel may prevent implantation, the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics has release an official statement that asserting that "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling." (http://www.figo.org/files/figo-corp/MOA_FINAL_2011_ENG.pdf). Chad is aware of this and is simply ignoring it because it does not support his position. That's dishonest.
You fvcking moron, Plan B is NOT the same as RU486.
Learn to read.
TD, why are you even commenting here when you are completely unable to read simple English. RU486 is a prescription-only medication intended to cause abortion. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS PLAN B.
That page is not part of the day-after pill pages. You are lying and misreprenting.
I oppose killing unborn children (I oppose the death penalty for the same reason)
I do not "oppose" miscarriages or other natural mechanisms that result in the death of an unborn child (I do not "oppose" dying by natural causes for the same reason)
I would not support using Plan B under ANY circ umstances. No child deserves to die just because he/she isnt wanted.
Of COURSE, Chard's ignoring that information. I've repeatedly posted a NYTimes link that makes this clear and yet he simply pretends not to understand what it says.
You aren't even capable of reading, Chard. See Really-o's post? Read it. You are an idiot. You and TD must be one and the same.
What Is the Abortion Pill?
The abortion pill is a medicine that ends an early pregnancy. In general, it can be used up to 63 days — 9 weeks — after the first day of a woman's last period. Women who need an abortion and are more than 9 weeks pregnant can have an in-clinic abortion.
The name for "the abortion pill" is mifepristone. It was called RU-486 when it was being developed.
Directly from the website. Again if you were not dishonest and lazy, you would have seen that.
TD – you're either a liar or someone with very very poor reading comprehension skills.
Actually, I'm voting for both.
TD, you must be a poe. NOBODY can be that stupid. Look at the pages for PLAN B. It is a different medication. It is a contraceptive. It does not cause abortion. It CANNOT be used more than a very short time after unprotected s3x, unlike RU486. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Are you brain-dead?
You lyingly claimed that RU486 was part of Plan B, which is relevant to Hobby Lobby. You referred to Planned Parenthood Pages on Plan B, which prove RU486 is not Plan B, and you now provide RU486 pages that also deny your assertion. And RU486 is not part is anything that relates to Hobby Lobby.
You are busted playing bait and switch. Liar.
How Does the Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) Work?
One type of emergency contraception (Plan B One-Step, Next Choice, Levonorgestrel Tablets) is made of one of the hormones made by a woman's body — progestin. Another type (ella) blocks the body's own progestin.
Both types of emergency contraception work by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm.
You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.
Giving credit where credit is due - I want to acknowledge the consistency of Chad's positions delineated in his January 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm post. The only exception I take with this post is the inaccurate, imprecise, and equivocal use of the term "child"; with the exception of this transgression, I respect his post.
TD's just on auto-pilot like the majority of right-wing morons that parrot every inane argument that they pick up from Faux News and other right-wing blogs. It's garbage in, garbage out with these guys.
Squawk squawk!
...oh...I forgot...I also do not respect his continued insistence, contrary to best evidence, that Plan B One-Step is an abortifacient.
Who's talking about RU 486. We are talking about the MORNING AFTER PILL. Must be used within 72 hours. It takes a woman at least 6 days to become pregnant after s-x.
ah, Really-O
as you well know, the scientific community has varying positions on Plan-B and implantation (you just like to ignore that and accuse everyone else of lying.. How does that work anyway?
)
From the National Institute of Health:
12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
12.1 Mechanism of Action
Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.
======
Those companies received exemptions, they are exempt. That exemption lasts only until 2014, but they are exempt as indicated.
So, I presume you are organizing a boycott of all companies on that list?
no?
why oh why I wonder ...
child A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
The existence of the child starts at conception.
Pregnancy is defined as starting up to 10 days after conception, when the newly conceived child becomes implanted in the mothers uterus.
@Chad -
You're correct that the actions of levonorgestreol are not fully understood the drug and may prevent implantation; however, full review of the current clinical evidence indicates that levonorgestreol cannot prevent implantation. Insisting that levonorgestreol is an abortifacient is ignoring the probability of the evidence. That said, I honestly understand your position.
With regard to the companies you list as exempt from PPACA – these companies are only exempt from the restrictions on annual benefit caps...and this exemption is only in effect until 2014. The companies are not exempt from PPACA. If you simply misunderstand this, then my accusation of dishonesty is not just.
...honest, civil discourse...see how nice that this?
If you have somehow had a change of heart and do desire to start having civil discussions, a good place to begin would be to stop the incessant and inaccurate accusations of lying..
just saying.
Medical definition of child:
child
Etymology: AS, cild
1 a person of either s3x between the time of birth and adolescence.
fetus /fe·tus/ (fēt´us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
If you don't want to be accused of lying, Chard, maybe you should stop doing it.
@Chad – "The existence of the child starts at conception"
Sorry Chad, but it's generally accepted – without question in the medical community – that a "child" refers to a human after birth (an unborn human is referred to as a fetus or an embryo)..., but that's all equivocation. You're position, which you must admit is based on no empirical evidence, is that, at conception, the zygote is infused with a soul. That position is a deal-breaker in any kind of rational discussion with regard to pregnancy termination.
Chad, NOT A SINGLE INTELLIGENT PERSON believes that a pre embryo is a child, I assure you. As a mother of three children who had many ultrasounds, the early ultrasounds did not display a child. They did not show a baby. They didn't even show a fetus.
How many children do you have?
Interesting point, Chad. Is a lie a lie if the person believes it? Depends – most pathological liars lie to themselves and believe they are not lying, even though deep in their subconscious they know they are. I've known a few of the real kind, and they are in total denial of their action, despite the speed at which they change stories and distort facts.
So really, even if one is in denial about their habitual lying, the are still liars.
And you sure seem to fit the behavior of a pathological liar in denial.
Chad actually loves to be called a liar – not only is it true, it goes along with his deep seated christian persecution complex. And it's way better than being recognized as the idiot he is.
@Chad – "honest, civil discourse" question for you...
On what do you base your assertion that a zygote is infused with a soul at the moment of conception?
The death knell on all arguments that attempt to rationalize murder of unborn children is the fact that our society has created an artificial point in time whereby prior to that murder is ok, and after that, murder is a criminal act.
A mother can legally murder her unborn children so long as they are under the age of ~20 weeks or so, depending on the state.
Now, here is the death knell: what is the difference to that child being 19 weeks old vs 21 weeks old?
18 vs 22?
17 vs 23?
and so on.
That child is a developing human being, at 16 weeks and at 24 weeks. The law says it's ok to murder him/her up to 20 weeks, but not after.
but, that arbitrary distinction (viability, which continues to shorten as medical science progresses), matters not one whit to the child.
Do you know that the unborn child feels pain prior to 20 weeks?
That his/her heart is beating and pumping blood at 6 weeks.
unbelievable.
Maybe the zygote had some soul in it all along, in which case a hummer is soul food.
Lying again. There is NO evidence that a fetus can sense any pain until the very last weeks of pregnancy, Chard.
If you have to lie to make a point, you have no point.
The issue of fetal pain is used by anti-choice nuts like you when you have nothing else.
@Really-O? "On what do you base your assertion that a zygote is infused with a soul at the moment of conception?"
@Chad "I never made that assertion, right?
Why are you claiming that I did? (you would at this point spin off into a relentless rant on "distortion" if the tables were turned)..
I have no idea when the unborn child receives a soul.
Chad & TD-Fantastic arguments! The unborn deserve a voice too and an intelligent one like yours. God bless!
@Chad -
Your January 13, 2013 at 6:31 pm post sounds a bit frantic. I do, however, understand your points and (believe it or not) agree with most of them (your assertion that, "the unborn child feels pain prior to 20 weeks" is not the consensus position in the medical and research communities).
So, again...an "honest, civil discourse" question for you...On what do you base your assertion that a zygote is infused with a soul at the moment of conception?
http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php
Ahahahhhhaha! "Cossette"? Gosh, did you "divorce" your other sock-puppet, Chard? What a fvcking dweeb you are.
If it is a child at conception Chad (ie what point during conception does it become a child? Conception does not occur instantaneously), who cares when it's heart starts beating? Or when it feels pain? You aren't even smart enough to know not to contradict yourself. At one point you say a child is a child is a child. And then you talk about how it becomes more like a child. Hilarious.
@Chad -
If you "have no idea when the unborn child receives a soul" then on what do you base your assertion that the "existence of the child starts at conception" and it is therefore immoral to terminate any pregnancy?
...deep breath, Chad. I'm getting the feeling you're going to go off-the-rails soon. Please prove me wrong.
just watch tom tom the sewers son rant like a lunatic
I love it when the trolls come out of the muck under the bridge...
C'mon, Chad...tell me you haven't done the old duck-and-cover because the questions became too pointed and, therefore, too difficult.
lol
A. I never made any assertion about when an unborn child is vested with their soul, and I dont really know when that happens.
B. "when in doubt, just accuse the theist of lying or irrationality but never specify exactly what the lie or irrationality is"
C. murder has nothing to say with respect to the soul, murder occurs when you kill a person, which occurs when brain activity has ceased.
D. tearing an unborn child limb from limb such that they bleed out causes brain activity to cease.
"duck and cover"
ah, yes, thanks for the reminder:
1. If the theist has time to spend at that particular point in the day, and continues to answer questions, accuse them of "always having to get in the last work"
2. If the theist has other things to do and has to step away, accuse them of "running away from the argument"
atheists are a unique bunch
@Chad -
Another pointed question for you – if you take the whole "immortal soul" bit out of the equation, what differentiates a zygote from someone in a persistent vegetative state or, for that matter, someone in the immediate moments after clinical death?
Please note – these are honest questions within the realm of "civil discourse". Prove you're up to the challenge.
@Chad -
OK, I see you're still monitoring and participating in this thread – good on ya. However, you haven't answered this honest question -
If you "have no idea when the unborn child receives a soul" then on what do you base your assertion that the "existence of the child starts at conception" and it is therefore immoral to terminate any pregnancy?
...nor this one -
if you take the whole "immortal soul" bit out of the equation, what differentiates a zygote from someone in a persistent vegetative state or, for that matter, someone in the immediate moments after clinical death?
No, Chard, as usual, you lie. "Murder" is as legal term; it refers to "unlawful killing." Abortion was NEVER considered murder under the law, even when it was illegal. You and your pals love to dwell on abortion p0rn, detailing the "tearing of limb from limb", when the vast, VAST majority of abortions take place within the first trimester, long before any pain receptors exist and before any sort of surgical abortion is needed. The late-term abortions you describe are nearly always done when the mother's life is at risk or when the fetus is dead, dying, or is so abnormal that it will live only a few short, painful hours after birth. Most of the time, the pregnancy was planned and the birth anticipated. These late-term abortions are tragic and horrible for the parents.
and..
3. if the theist points out that something the atheist said is inaccurate, accuse them of being uncivil and stupid
4. if the theist cites info, accuse them of not thinking for themselves
5. if the theist does not cite info, accuse them of being ignorant.
Because, Chad, it's the truth. You ARE ignorant, you DO lie.
So you just have proven you are a liar. You say that preventing implantation is murdering a child. The definition of a child is from birth to adolescence. And because the pre embryo has no brain it's brain activity has not ceased. Hence no murder. Thanks.
@Chad -
I do understand having to "step away" – I must do so at this time. Fingers crossed I'll receive thoughtful, honest, direct responses to the questions posed in my last two posts. Don't disappoint..
@Chad –
Just a quick note...your last three posts have been off-the-rail, as I feared. Please get back-on-track.
Surprise, surprise (not). The questions get tough and Chad abandons the thread. Who'da thought.
@Really-O? “On what do you base your assertion that a zygote is infused with a soul at the moment of conception?
@Chad –I never made that assertion. I have no idea when the soul “enters” the body.
========
@Really-O? “If you "have no idea when the unborn child receives a soul" then on what do you base your assertion that the "existence of the child starts at conception" and it is therefore immoral to terminate any pregnancy?
@Chad “so, I guess you are tacitly acknowledging that I never made that assertion and your claim was incorrect. Had I done what you just did, uou would at this point start accusing me of twisting and lying, etc, etc, etc…
In any case, regardless of when the soul enters or leaves the body, you are intentionally taking a life, killing a living person. Certainly, the unborn baby is alive from conception on.
Life The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional...
=======
@Really-O? “If you take the whole "immortal soul" bit out of the equation, what differentiates a zygote from someone in a persistent vegetative state or, for that matter, someone in the immediate moments after clinical death?”
@Chad “a baby is alive, if a person is being kept alive by machinery, they are still alive. After death, you are no longer alive.”
======
@Really-O? “Surprise, surprise (not). The questions get tough and Chad abandons the thread. Who'da thought.
@chad “I already got that one..
1. If the theist has time to spend at that particular point in the day, and continues to answer questions, accuse them of "always having to get in the last work"
2. If the theist has other things to do and has to step away, accuse them of "running away from the argument"
Chad's homies give him a shasta blasta each time he posts.
Again you ignore me Chad as you have never once won a debate point against me ( of course it isn't a fair fight as my education far surpasses yours). You have been caught in a lie again. No one is intentionally taking a life by taking the morning after pill. How can you possibly take a life intentionally when there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to show there was a life to begin with? You can't. It's impossible.
Beat you again.
@Jen "of course it isn't a fair fight as my education far surpasses yours"
@Chad "really? What is my education?
lol
=====
@Jen "No one is intentionally taking a life by taking the morning after pill. How can you possibly take a life intentionally when there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to show there was a life to begin with?"
@Chad "life begins at conception.
One of the ways that the Plan B pill is thought to work is by preventing implantation of the newly conceived child in the uterus, therefor purposefully depriving it of that which it needs to continue living. In other words, killing him/her.
@Chad -
I concede that I have never seen your assertion that the soul is infused at the moment of conception. I surmised that based on your Evangelical affiliation and previous statements. If my conclusion was wrong...my bad. If you don't believe a soul is infused at the moment of conception, why are you opposed to abortion within the first days following fertilization?
Your definition of "life" (correct, by the way) applies to most living human tissue. Your own argument would make an appendectomy "murder".
You still haven't answer the question – "If you take the whole "immortal soul" bit out of the equation, what differentiates a zygote from someone in a persistent vegetative state or, for that matter, someone in the immediate moments after clinical death?” A zygote is "alive" without consciousness. A person in a persistent vegetative state is "alive" without consciousness. In the first moments after clinical death, the person is "alive" (cells are still metabolically active) without consciousness. Without consciousness there is no "self". Without consciousness there is no suffering. Without consciousness, there is life, but not one who lives. I don't expect you to understand this.
I won't address your last point other than to say my assertion was based on experience and the accusation has been levied against you numerous times by numerous posters. Self-reflection is in order.
@Chad – "life begins at conception."
That's just nonsensical, Chad. An ovum is alive. A sperm is alive. Life does not begin at conception. Life precedes conception. Without life, there could be no conception. Your argument just falls apart here unless you assert that a soul is infused in the zygote at the time of conception.
It's definitely not a masters degree like I have. My university would never grant you a degree based on your poor reading and writing skills (seriously, who uses the at symbol when speaking in the first person???). A person with a masters degree would have answered my question. How can you intentionally take a life when you have absolutely no way of knowing if conception occurred??? How is that 'intentional'?
Also, you call abortion murder all the time. You defined murder above as ceasing another's brain activity. How is abortion in the early weeks (especially right after conception) murder?
@Chad -
On further observation...in your post at January 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm you stated, 'I do not "oppose" dying by natural causes', yet at January 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm you stated, "if a person is being kept alive by machinery, they are still alive". I would have to conclude from the former statement that you would not oppose removing life support ("machinery") from a person in a persistent vegetative state as that person's death would be completely "natural" ( what is unnatural is the implementation of technological interventions – often "heroic" – to prolong "life" without consciousness or hope of recovery). I wonder if you can see the logical disconnects in your positions.
@Really-O? “ If you don't believe a soul is infused at the moment of conception, why are you opposed to abortion within the first days following fertilization?”
@Chad “taking a human life is wrong”
======
@Really-O “Your definition of "life" (correct, by the way) applies to most living human tissue. Your own argument would make an appendectomy "murder".”
@Chad “I should clarify; human life is what I am talking about. I do not consider mowing the lawn, having an appendectomy or cutting my fingernails taking a human life.
======
@Really-O “You still haven't answer the question – "If you take the whole "immortal soul" bit out of the equation, what differentiates a zygote from someone in a persistent vegetative state or, for that matter, someone in the immediate moments after clinical death?” A zygote is "alive" without consciousness”
@Chad “yes I did, see above and re-stated here: “a baby is alive, if a person is being kept alive by machinery, they are still alive. After death, you are no longer alive.” taking of a human life is wrong.
A human does not have to be “conscious” to be alive. A person in a “permanent” vegetative state is still alive.
======
@Really-O I won't address your last point other than to say my assertion was based on experience and the accusation has been levied against you numerous times by numerous posters. Self-reflection is in order.”
@Chad “your assertions are nearly always wrong
I quick scan up the page shows that to be true. You are one of those common atheists, that continually accuse others incorrectly of that which they are guilty of themselves.
======
@Jen,
I have more than one masters degree, not that it matters, but it is true.
Any "masters degree" you have, Chard, came from a cow college.
You're dishonest to the bone.
@Chad -
"taking a human life is wrong" – what is the definition of a human life as opposed to "human life"?
An appendix and a zygote equally satisfy you definition of "human life".
"A human does not have to be “conscious” to be alive" – so, what is the definition of "a human" if consciousness is not required. Again, what is the definition of a human life as opposed to "human life"?
I've scan my posts in this thread and can't for the life of me see anything that is not well reasoned or a single accusation in kind from anyone other than you, Chad. To the contrary, you're, once again, taking a sound beating from the forum. Self-reflection is in order.
Regarding your claim of possessing "more than one masters degree". I call BULLSHIT! Who the hell do you think you're kidding, Chad?!
...you're a sad, sad, little man, Chad.
...Several weeks ago Chad had no familiarity with Nihilism. Would someone please explain to me how someone could complete community college, let alone completing several masters programs, without having been exposed to Nihilism?
...sad, sad, little man.
@Really-O? "taking a human life is wrong" – what is the definition of a human life as opposed to "human life An appendix and a zygote equally satisfy you definition of "human life".”
@Chad “no they don’t. An appendix has no capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent”.
=======.
@Really-O "I've scan my posts in this thread and can't for the life of me see anything that is not well reasoned or a single accusation in kind from anyone other than you"
I concede that I have never seen your asertion that the soul is infused at the moment of conception.
@Chad "just one of many..
Really-O Regarding your claim of possessing "more than one masters degree". I [disagree]”
@Chad “well, just add that to the list of things you get wrong..
I see that Chad is up to his usual tricks of redefining every word however he wants to at the moment he wants to and then claiming he's not dishonest. Boring.
@Chad -
–A person in a persistent vegetative state has "no capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent”.
–I still don't see a statement that is not well reasoned (I admitted I made an assumption about your belief regarding the soul) and I don't see any poster but you asserting that my "assertions are nearly always wrong". Is English not your first language, Chad?
–If you attended any institution of higher learning, Chad, you need to bring a lawsuit against that institution and recoup all of your tuition because it clearly was taken from you fraudulently. In case you don't catch my drift, Chad, you're an idiot and there is no way in hell you could have passed the GRE, let alone the courses needed to obtain an undergraduate degree. You're not fooling anyone (not even yourself), Chad.
...oh, and the medical community estimates that perhaps 50% of all pregnancies ("children", using your dishonest term, Chad) have "no capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent” because they are spontaneously aborted. So how does that bit of nonsensical fluff come into play?
...and Christ, Chad...you're own definition of life was:
"Life The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional..."
Where exactly did, "capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent” become part of the definition of life.
Being a dishonest douche makes baby Jesus cry, Chad.
Baby Jesus is coming for you tonight, dishonest, sad, sad, Chad ...
@Really-O? "A person in a persistent vegetative state has "no capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent”.
@Chad "incorrect, see for example Kate Adamson. Learn to use google.
=====
@Really-O? ...oh, and the medical community estimates that perhaps 50% of all pregnancies ("children", using your dishonest term, Chad) have "no capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent” because they are spontaneously aborted. So how does that bit of nonsensical fluff come into play?"
@Chad "as usual, your statement is incorrect.
Those unborn children did indeed HAVE the capacity to become a thinking rational moral agent, unfortunately their short lives were ended naturally (not as the result of human intervention), as are millions of persons every day.
@Chad -
Ms Adamson's own website indicates she recovered from paralysis, not PVS. Learn to think, Chad, and to be honest.
(One preemptive correction – I meant permanent vegetative state, not persistent vegetative state).
If 50% of pregnancies will never survive, debate over there potential capacities is simply more equivocation.
And, Chad, cite the source where "the capacity to become a thinking rational moral agent" is part of the definition of life, human or otherwise. Oh, right, IT'S NOT! Being a dishonest douche makes baby Jesus cry, Chad.
And, as a preemptive strike against Chad posting Fox News or religious website's opinion about Ms. Adamson's condition, here's the opinion of a medical doctor and assistant professor of medicine at UCLA:
" Adamson described herself as having been completely paralyzed and ventilator-dependent yet entirely aware of her environment. As anyone who has read my article on the definition of PVS would know, she most assuredly did not meet the criteria for this condition." (http://califmedicineman.blogspot.com/2005/03/differences-between-terri-schiavo-and.html)
Again your making the wee Jesus cry.
OK. This has been fun. We've reconfirmed that Chad is a dishonest tool, but we all knew that. However, for the first time Chad has reached new heights of dishonesty and claimed he possess several masters degrees. Lord!
so, same as always from you..
- you quickly degenerate to ad-hominem
- you never seem able to accept the fact that people who disagree with you might actually be intelligent, reasonable and educated persons.
- you seem to always blame the person you are dialoguing with for your outbursts.
anyway, to the points one last time:
- life begins at conception
- the actual definition of what a "human life" has of course been debated for centuries, mine is "capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent"
- that definition is consistent with life beginning at conception, it is also consistent with the statement that "consciousness isnt required to be alive".
- the difference between "persistent" and "permanent" vegetative state, is the later lasts for a year at least - The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS (1994). "Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State— Second of Two Parts". New England Journal of Medicine 330 (22): 1572–9.
- many people have recovered from permanent" vegetative states
that's about it
And you quickly resort to pansy-assed smiley faces when you're losing the argument. Did you use those in your grad school papers, too, you little liar?
"- life begins at conception
- the actual definition of what a "human life" has of course been debated for centuries, mine is "capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent"
By Chad's definition he and every other male on the planet have committed mass murder every time they w.ank it. A sperm does have the "capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent".
The law defines when life starts and that's when the fetus is able to live outside the womb at about 22 weeks. Who cares what numb nuts Chad thinks. Some people don't step on bug's because they think they will come back as one, Chad's ancestor however must have stomped on a whole field of horse shlt.
"life begins at conception"
–Nonsense. Nothing but a meaningless assertion. Sperm and ova are alive before fertilization. Life precedes conception. Without life, conception could not occur.
'...mine [definition of life] is "capacity to ever be, or become a thinking rational moral agent"'
–Well, Chad, you've just made zombies out of every individual with profound mental subnormality (ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code F73). These are people who have never been and will never be "thinking rational moral agents". Good luck convincing their families and caregivers that they are not alive.
"many people have recovered from permanent" vegetative states"
' a persistent vegetative state can be judged to be permanent 12 months after a traumatic injury in adults and children; recovery after this time is exceedingly rare and almost always involves a severe disability."
(New England Journal of Medicine 1994; 330:1572-1579)
Your ignorance is objectionable, Chad. You should invest in actually obtaining some higher education rather than simply claiming you've done the work. You're not fooling anyone.
Maybe Hobby Lobby can avoid paying their employees a salary too under the pretext it can be used to fund an abortion.
That is effectively what they are doing. The health care is part of their pay package, earned by work. The employer is witholding part in order to tyrannize and oppress the workers' choices.
Tyranny? PLEASE no one is being forced to work for Hobby Lobby, they can quit if they want an employer to pay for abortion coverage. This is America son.
Yes, Petey, it is. And the law says otherwise. HL is breaking the law and trying to skirt it by finding a loophole. It's dishonest and underhanded. But you'd know all about that, wouldn't you?
That is why there are hundreds of organizations suing the federal government over this mandate. I never claim to be perfect. I am a sinner.
That's not even logical. Hobby Lobby get Health Ins as part of their salary package. They still get Health Ins as part of their salary package. Hobby Lobby is not fighting to deny their employees Health Ins, they are fighting the government dictating what that Health Ins must contain.
If Hobby Lobby did not care about their employees they would have copied Walmart and moved everyone to 32 hours and benefit-ineligible or like other companies to a 1099 basis as independent contractors. Instead Hobby Lobby found a way to protect their employees by continuing their heal Ins coverage As-Is while they fight against this government tyranny.
They are witholding part of the pay package the employees earned.
http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php
They should change their name to Hobby Evangelical Lunatic Lobby which spells HELL, which is where they're going.
What am I missing that this company is generating such hatred toward it for not wanting to provide something they are philosophically and morally opposed to? There is a lot of hate here that seems more rooted in persecuting religion and Christianity than anything else. Hobby Lobby is trying to get an exemption for apparently legitimate reasons. Big deal.
They AREN'T 'legitimate' reasons, anymore than your claim about Plan B was legitimate.
Hobby Lobby provides hourly pay and benefits that are much higher than the average. Considering that they put their money where their mouth is, in contrast to anonymous and spiteful posters, I'll lean in their direction. A company should not have to choose to support something they are normally against. And it's not as if the issue of abortion was NOT a hot debate in this country.
I am in favor of a women's right to choose and I am assuming you are, but yet you are not in favor of a business having the right to choose what the wisest business practices are for them or their employees.
It is ridiculous that we fund something that is a clear choice by the individual
Atheists are a far more ethical and moral lot than these religious zealots.
Joe Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.
@Peter – Stalin was a Catholic and Pol Pot was a Buddhist. Stop believing the propaganda that your parents no doubt told you and try using that brain and you might discover the truth. I say might because honestly, I doubt you would accept the truth if Jesus appeared before you and tried to tell it to you.
Stalin wasn't Catholic. If he was practicing any religion it would have been Orthodox probably Georgian Orthodox since he was from Georiga not Russia and neither the Russian or Georgian Orthodox churches are in communion with Rome and haven't been since the 400s.
If Stalin was Catholic like you claimed and I believe he would have been Georgian Orthodox not in communion with Rome, then why on earth was the Catholic Church persecuted in the Soviet Union? Lets be serious the Soviet Union hated the Catholic church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_victims_of_Soviet_persecutions
Kiki: your assumption that I haven't done my homework is incorrect. Note that I said "some or all" of the emergency contraceptives on the FDA-list are suspected of preventing implantation. I am well aware of the recent evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation. However, that is not the case for the copper IUDs and Ella (ulipristal acetate), both of which are on the FDA list.
Perhaps it is *you* that needs to do their homework.
Ella is still be investigated and is possible but not likely that it inhibits implantation. It is not as widely available as Plan B which they continue to untruthfully claim is an abortifacient. it has received less attention but is currently under clinical evaluation so and we will have to wait for the results. Hobby Lobby specifically stated this was about abortion inducing drugs and so I am not sure how IUD is applicable to this conversation since it is a device.
That is precisely my point. Not enough is known about some of the emergency contraceptives on the FDA list to say they do not prevent implantation. It being a pill or device is irrelevant, the objection is to how it prevents the pregnancy.
I prefer to err on the side of cation- those particular emergency contraceptives that are suspected of preventing implantation should not be on the FDA list.
or be excluded from ACA.
I would also like to point out, that to my scientific mind, the fact that IVF fertilized eggs still implanted to uterine cells in the presence of Plan B is not sufficient evidence that it does not happen within the womb environment. The action of levonorgestrel on the uterine wall may not be direct, but rather via modification of a host of other hormone levels.
The evangelicals, an low intelligence people based sect, which teach children that Evolution, even if pkainly visible, doesn't exist.
idolater guns, oppose healthcare for the poor and hate blacks, Latinos and Asians, uses the Bible's old testament (which they never read andeven if so, do not understand) as justification of their outrages, should use their anti-abortion stance to achieve that between other, only fetuses less than 3 months old can be aborted, with the obvious exceptions.
But obviously, they will continue with they stupid ranting, which only gives atheist arguments by showing against in God believing people. Fortunately, the former will more sooner than later disappear (Lucifer is anxiously waiting!!)
What a very stupid statement. Just because you may not like that most of us believe in God, got off your soap box. I'm tired of atheists trying to push their agenda on us. If you don't like a cross in public, DON'T LOOK AT IT. If you don't like seeing the 10 Commandments in public, DON'T LOOK AT IT. If you don't like that someone is praying in public DON'T LISTEN TO IT. Hope you had a wonderful CHRISTmas.
As a family man without the time to wade through a couple thousand comments, I'm not sure if anyone has already pointed out the outright hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby being one of China's largest customers. HL is as phony in their issue with the ACA as are most "Christians" who have forgotten that the first five letters of Christian spell Christ.
One of the few groups Jesus repeatedly says are doomed is rich people. Makes you wonder what rich christians are thinking when they get to those "camel through the eye of the needle" and "You cannot serve both God and money" "sell your goods and give the money to the poor" statements Jesus made. Do they put the blinders on and turn the page?