home
RSS
January 11th, 2013
03:40 PM ET

Hobby Lobby finds way around $1.3-million-a-day Obamacare hit - for now

By 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.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Church and state • Courts

soundoff (4,609 Responses)
  1. called research

    If I was a child the size of salt,i would have requested abortion...i blame my mother

    January 13, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • Zingo

      I blame your mother too. She should have taught you reason instead of indoctrinating you with silly superstitions.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
  2. stew22

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So if a woman is r aped, you oppose her being able to get Plan B?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • Eric

      You need to buy a dictionary and figure out that there's a HUGE difference between mandating insurance and socializing healthcare itself.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • stew22

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Eric

      You should try and assemble some kind of a logical statement supported by facts, you're nowhere close to it right now.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • stew22

      what facts would you like me to present and I will gladly present them to you?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Stewie, you couldn't line up an argument if your life depended on it. You're a kid.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
    • Eric

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • Abortions are Splendid!!!!!

      All of you niqqers are fvcktarded, especially Tom Tom.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • stew22

      Tom, the rest of us just want our freedoms back and the federal govt. out of every detail of our lives.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Stewed Prune, what "freedoms" have you lost?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, that's what I expected. Are you on the toity making boom-boom, Stewed?

      January 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The day you grow a set, alert the media.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:35 pm |
    • The Truth

      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.

      January 14, 2013 at 11:23 am |
  3. Peter

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
    • Eric

      I'm sure there's absolutely no link between that and poverty rates.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And Henry Ford was a rabid anti-Semite.

      Do you advocate boycotting Ford?

      January 13, 2013 at 5:58 pm |
    • stew22

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • stew22

      Ford wasn't murdering 1.2 million people a year. However Hitler's eugenics movement turned out pretty successful, for a time.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Right. Because check-cashing stores, pawn shops, and free clinics of all kinds are found in wealthy suburban neighborhoods in equal measure, too.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Edit: a should have been "are."

      January 13, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
    • stew22

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • stew22

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And PP isn't "murdering" anyone, you imbecilic half-wit. Abortion has been legal for decades. Get over it.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The idiot brays:"I can get free contraction."

      Do tell. I'll bet that's the only time you get one, you moron.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • stew22

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • stew22

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Peter

      Watch the film Blood Money, The Business of Abortion by Martin Luther, King, Jr.'s niece.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
    • Peter

      I love the ad hominem attacks

      January 13, 2013 at 7:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      As much as I love the lack of facts you present, you little dolt.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:34 pm |
    • Peter

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
    • Peter

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm |
  4. rightforlife

    If abortion is a choice, why doesn't the fetus,child being murdered have a choice?

    January 13, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • Seyedibar

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • Eric

      Because the mother is the one that has to spend thousands of dollars and hours bringing it to term.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
    • t

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
  5. Thaddius

    @Socialism-Communisim-a-Love-Affair

    So what's your point? No one is forcing the owners of HL to run a business.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
  6. Steve

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • Eric

      They don't, but they tend to have a tough time competing for high end talent if they don't offer health insurance.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • Valid Point

      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"

      January 13, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
  7. Steve

    What does nanny say our health plans should have now?

    January 13, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
  8. Ed T Duck

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
  9. Tlynn

    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?

    January 13, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      Lol. Good luck getting ACLU to support them on that position.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • quicke mart clerk

      Wow. Never thought of the ACLU. Where ARE they in all of this? They're amusingly silent.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Steve

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
  10. LucyKTT

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
  11. Peter

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      BULL SH!T.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • Peter

      It's on the WHO website homie.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nope. Produce it or you're another liar just like TD and Chard.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Thaddius

      Liar.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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."

      January 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You are the idiot. Show me where it says ANYTHING about bc being comparable to lead paint as a carcinogen, DuckFvck.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      That's why I said he is partially correct. Goodness me, are you really this stupid?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      Tom: You are obviously a child who doesn't like his ignorance to be exposed.

      January 15, 2013 at 4:40 am |
  12. Peter

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Democide

      January 13, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
  13. kim

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Deb Ed

      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".

      January 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • The Other Bob

      Stop spreading this idiocy. Congress has the sam e healthcare insurance as other federal workers, and is not exempt from anything.

      January 14, 2013 at 8:31 am |
  14. TD

    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?

    January 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Chad

      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

      January 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Chad

      source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2900475/posts

      January 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Cite your source in which Plan B is referred to as an abortion pill by PP.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Neither is Free Republic, but lying Chard uses it anyway.

      Plan B is not an abortion pill.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Jorge Sedano

      wow... where'd ya find that on the internet and off course everything on the internet is true...

      January 13, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • The Four Fluffy Kittens of the Apocalypse

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • TD

      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

      January 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • 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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      TD: where on that link did you deduce that PP claimed Plan B was an abortion pill? I see nothing of the sort.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Chad

      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/

      January 13, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nor do I. Either paste the link, TD, or you're lying.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • Chad

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • Chad

      It matters not to the newly conceived child who is murdered that science has determined that "pregnancy" only starts after implantation occurs.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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"?

      January 13, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Chad

      "But you are one. "

      That is an incomplete sentence!!! :-)

      Boy, you sure are off today, you feel ok?

      January 13, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • chicadow

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Peter

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • TD

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Really-O?

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You fvcking moron, Plan B is NOT the same as RU486.

      Learn to read.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • The Four Fluffy Kittens of the Apocalypse

      That page is not part of the day-after pill pages. You are lying and misreprenting.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Chad

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • TD

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Thaddius

      TD – you're either a liar or someone with very very poor reading comprehension skills.

      Actually, I'm voting for both.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • The Four Fluffy Kittens of the Apocalypse

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Really-O?

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Thaddius

      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!

      January 13, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...oh...I forgot...I also do not respect his continued insistence, contrary to best evidence, that Plan B One-Step is an abortifacient.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
    • Jen

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:58 pm |
    • Chad

      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 ...

      January 13, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • Chad

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
    • Chad

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Medical definition of child:
      child
      Etymology: AS, cild
      1 a person of either s3x between the time of birth and adolescence.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you don't want to be accused of lying, Chard, maybe you should stop doing it.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Jen

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Steve

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
    • Chad

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • Zingo

      Maybe the zygote had some soul in it all along, in which case a hummer is soul food.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Cosette

      Chad & TD-Fantastic arguments! The unborn deserve a voice too and an intelligent one like yours. God bless! :)

      January 13, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php

      January 13, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ahahahhhhaha! "Cossette"? Gosh, did you "divorce" your other sock-puppet, Chard? What a fvcking dweeb you are.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
    • Jen

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...deep breath, Chad. I'm getting the feeling you're going to go off-the-rails soon. Please prove me wrong.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:44 pm |
    • atheist is not a dirty word but atheism is filthy

      just watch tom tom the sewers son rant like a lunatic

      January 13, 2013 at 6:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love it when the trolls come out of the muck under the bridge...

      January 13, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
    • Really-O?

      C'mon, Chad...tell me you haven't done the old duck-and-cover because the questions became too pointed and, therefore, too difficult.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
    • Chad

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
    • Chad

      "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

      January 13, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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?

      January 13, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...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?

      January 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm |
    • Chad

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Because, Chad, it's the truth. You ARE ignorant, you DO lie.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:02 pm |
    • Jen

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:03 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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..

      January 13, 2013 at 7:05 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad –

      Just a quick note...your last three posts have been off-the-rail, as I feared. Please get back-on-track.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Surprise, surprise (not). The questions get tough and Chad abandons the thread. Who'da thought.

      January 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @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"

      January 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
    • Grundig Glasswerks

      Chad's homies give him a shasta blasta each time he posts.

      January 13, 2013 at 8:58 pm |
    • Jen

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
    • Jen

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 9:40 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 9:53 pm |
    • Chad

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Any "masters degree" you have, Chard, came from a cow college.

      You're dishonest to the bone.

      January 13, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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?!

      January 13, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...you're a sad, sad, little man, Chad.

      January 13, 2013 at 10:54 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...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?

      January 13, 2013 at 11:00 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...sad, sad, little man.

      January 13, 2013 at 11:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @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..

      January 13, 2013 at 11:14 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 11:19 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 11:38 pm |
    • 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?

      January 13, 2013 at 11:45 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...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.

      January 13, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Baby Jesus is coming for you tonight, dishonest, sad, sad, Chad ...

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgeDh1WCyeM&w=640&h=390]

      January 13, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
    • 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.

      January 14, 2013 at 12:02 am |
    • Really-O?

      @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.

      January 14, 2013 at 12:12 am |
    • Really-O?

      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.

      January 14, 2013 at 12:19 am |
    • Really-O?

      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!

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4&w=640&h=390]

      January 14, 2013 at 12:30 am |
    • Chad

      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 :-)

      January 14, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      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?

      January 14, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • The Truth

      "- 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.

      January 14, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • Really-O?

      "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.

      January 14, 2013 at 7:11 pm |
  15. Johan S

    Maybe Hobby Lobby can avoid paying their employees a salary too under the pretext it can be used to fund an abortion.

    January 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Jehosephat. Jumpin

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • Peter

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's 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?

      January 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Peter

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • James F

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • James Horton

      They are witholding part of the pay package the employees earned.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php

      January 13, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
  16. Rob

    They should change their name to Hobby Evangelical Lunatic Lobby which spells HELL, which is where they're going.

    January 13, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • TD

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      They AREN'T 'legitimate' reasons, anymore than your claim about Plan B was legitimate.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • quicke mart clerk

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • kent

      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

      January 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
  17. Grumpster

    Atheists are a far more ethical and moral lot than these religious zealots.

    January 13, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • Peter

      Joe Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Tia

      @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.

      January 13, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • Peter

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 7:26 pm |
    • Peter

      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

      January 13, 2013 at 7:54 pm |
  18. Ed T Duck

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Kiki

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      or be excluded from ACA.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Ed T Duck

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
  19. Zizewitz

    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!!)

    January 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • Deb Ed

      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.

      January 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
  20. MR. SMARTYPANTS

    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.

    January 13, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • Yes

      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?

      January 13, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
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 61
Advertisement
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 with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.