Was the Supreme Court right to rule that the Affordable Care Act violated the religio
1024
No - The ruling allows bosses to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Besides, the Constitution grants religious freedom to individuals, not corporations.
483
Yes - The religious beliefs of company owners take precedence over their employees' right to have access to birth control.
Should religious family-owned companies be required to cover contraceptives under their insurance plans? The high court says no.
I'm curious how you nurses feel about this? Please take a second to vote in our quick poll.
This is a highly political topic, I'd rather not turn this into a hot argumentative subject, so please keep your comments civil :) But please feel free to comment. Thanks
In a 5-4 decision Monday, the Supreme Court allowed a key exemption to the health law's contraception coverage requirements when it ruled that closely held for-profit businesses could assert a religious objection to the Obama administration's regulations. What does it mean? Here are some questions and answers about the case.What did the court's ruling do?
The court's majority said that the for-profit companies that filed suit-Hobby Lobby Stores, a nationwide chain of 500 arts and crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a maker of custom cabinets-didn't have to offer female employeesall Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptivesas part of a package of preventive services that must be covered without copays or deductibles under the law. The companies had argued that several types of contraceptivesviolate their owners' religious beliefs. The ruling also covers a Hobby Lobby subsidiary, the Mardel Christian bookstores.
I feel sometimes like EVERY conversation.....EVERY topic....
We're not supposed to say "every" and repeatedly so (it has an accusatory tone as you know, lol!).
But I will say this, Hobby Lobby's stand on the morning-after pill being an abortifacient is scientifically accurate. Just because we don't agree with them doesn't mean it isn't scientific. Do a quick search on the net and you will find that human life does indeed start at fertilization so HOBBY LOBBY has every right to claim a violation of conscience for the morning-after pill- and a violation of our conscience regarding the taking of a human life is pretty significant and UNconstitutional.
Many of us may have our conscience violated in various ways NOT involving the taking of a human life - for example, couplings not in a marriage between man and woman (recently MSN reported a marriage between a woman and her dog). This violation of conscience does not involve the taking of a human life so is on a different and lower level than taking a human life.
The right to avoid a violation of conscience specifically regarding the taking of a human life (which has already started in the womb) must be protected, even at the cost of an employee having to 'jump thru hoops' to get their coverage via the Federal government. One clearly trumps the other here.
Proverbs 20: Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?
As a woman's health nurse who counsels women on birth control and pregnancy options every single day, I've got to say that I've never been so angry and upset by a thread at AN than I am at some of the responses in this thread. I just need to leave this thread before my head explodes.
same here. but if we can get through to just one, it would be worth it. I doubt that we can at this point, as the troll keeps posting its inane ramblings and we cannot have a discussion. I've been following this thread since last night and I am seriously considering the DNP after I finish my Masters, so I can perform the services so many women need. Nurse Practitioners can prescribe RU-486 in my state, and recently became eligible to perform early abortions. Women's Health DNP seems like a way to fight this tyranny.
Your statement is UNscientific. According to scientists and biologists, Hobby Lobby's stand on when life begins is scientifically correct. Life begins at fertilization and BEFORE implantation:
When life begins: The consensus from the scientific community
The predominant definition in medical dictionaries and which is consistent with the scientific data is life begins at fertilization/conception i.e. at the moment of fusion of sperm and egg..
Yes, and when you think about women who are infertile and then use donor eggs or use their own eggs with a surrogate . . . .well, they meet up with sperm in a petri dish and make human life which is THEN implanted in a uterus.
If that union between the egg and the sperm is not human life, then how does placing them in a uterus make people parents?
This is crucial - the reason Hobby Lobby made the choice they did.
Again, if people wish, they can disagree with this. However, this doesn't make it not true. At least it would give folks some understanding about the WHY . . . . .
MunoRN said "In an effort to keep this on topic, I'll reply with this question: If there was any substantive basis or view that these drugs are abortifacient why wasn't that the basis of the case, or at least an argument put forward, since there is much firmer legal ground to make Hobby Lobby's case if it can be argued these are abortifacients? Why would the five conservative catholic justices on the supreme court suggest we directly violate federal law by making abortifacients federally funded? Why wouldn't they separate abortifacient and non-abortifacient drugs in their decision if they believed there was a viable argument that some of these drugs were abortifacient?
And again, I'm still not sure what you think this has to do with the court's decision?"
Answer: I don't know.
Legal tactics tend to favor those with a direct approach. Since the SCOTUS (in 1973 Roe v Wade) has already said the determination of when life begins is out of their ability and 'expertise' to decide, any argument regarding what constitutes an abortifacient or not, much less when life begins, is decidedly more complex and indirect.
However, since 1973, we now have much more scientific data today which conclusively demostrates that life begins at fertilization and BEFORE implantation, as the numerous quotes from scientists in the post above shows.
Hobby Lobby's stand is consistent with the scientific data on this. It doesn't mean we have to like that stand, but their stand is scientifically accurate.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
We're not supposed to say "every" and repeatedly so (it has an accusatory tone as you know, lol!).
But I will say this, Hobby Lobby's stand on the morning-after pill being an abortifacient is scientifically accurate. Just because we don't agree with them doesn't mean it isn't scientific. Do a quick search on the net and you will find that human life does indeed start at fertilization so HOBBY LOBBY has every right to claim a violation of conscience for the morning-after pill- and a violation of our conscience regarding the taking of a human life is pretty significant and UNconstitutional.
Many of us may have our conscience violated in various ways NOT involving the taking of a human life - for example, couplings not in a marriage between man and woman (recently MSN reported a marriage between a woman and her dog). This violation of conscience does not involve the taking of a human life so is on a different and lower level than taking a human life.
The right to avoid a violation of conscience specifically regarding the taking of a human life (which has already started in the womb) must be protected, even at the cost of an employee having to 'jump thru hoops' to get their coverage via the Federal government. One clearly trumps the other here.
Proverbs 20: Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?
They could believe that fairies leave babies under cabbage leaves and that snails are abortifacients for all any of us care...that does not change the perspective that we are SUPPOSED to live in a free country where their religious beliefs are NOT allowed to directly affect the life of another.
I don't really care when you believe that life begins, it should have no impact on my ability to obtain legal health care using my health insurance. The Bible tells me what I need to know relative to this issue, I am not in need of the interpretation of another person...especially not the opinion/interpretation of my employer or similar.
You should not be concerned with the "sin" of any beyond yourself. Of course, if you are a follower of Christ your sins have been forgiven already.
Yes, and when you think about women who are infertile and then use donor eggs or use their own eggs with a surrogate . . . .well, they meet up with sperm in a petri dish and make human life which is THEN implanted in a uterus.
If that union between the egg and the sperm is not human life, then how does placing them in a uterus make people parents?
This is crucial - the reason Hobby Lobby made the choice they did.
Again, if people wish, they can disagree with this. However, this doesn't make it not true. At least it would give folks some understanding about the WHY . . . . .
But that's not actually the WHY of the court's decision.
Well if the Supreme Court will rule that a corporation has the same right of free speech as a US citizen (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), then it would be inconsistent to deny a similar entity the right of free religion as provided by the same Amendment invoked in their previous ruling. I don't agree with Citizen's United or this decision as I don't believe corporations should be looked upon as people.
No but it does explain the WHY of Hobby Lobby's thoughts.[/quote']
Then back to original question; if the supreme court didn't agree that these were abortifacients and included even the forms of contraception Hobby Lobby seems to agree are not abortifacients, (not to mention suggesting we should publicly fund supposed abortifacients) did they get it right?
Woman's Health DNP seems like a way to fight this tyranny.
The real "tyranny" against women resides in the abortion clinic. Hobby Lobby knew this and the stand they took at SCOTUS was done so they, and most of the rest of America, can thankfully remain free from that REAL tyranny. Why should Hobby Lobby side with tyranny against women?
As NPs, we have the right to not have our conscience violated, so when someone comes in for an abortion, I don't even refer them out. This is our right and it is law. Hobby Lobby has that same constitutional right.
If anyone doesn't have their conscience violated by what happens to women in these clinics, they have no conscience to begin with. This is what Hobby Lobby didn't want ANY part of (whether by insurance coverage, payment or otherwise):
"We were hiding from the women some of the pieces of truth about abortion that were threatening....It is a kind of killing." (Former clinic administrator Charlotte Taft quoted in "Abortion at Work: Ideology and Practice in a Feminist Clinic", Wendy Simonds, Rutgers University Press, 1996)
"I have never yet counseled anybody to have the baby. I'm also doing women's counseling on campus at Albany State, and there I am expected to present alternatives. Whereas at the abortion clinic you aren't really expected to." (Ref: Anonymous Abortion Counselor, "Rachel Weeping and Other Essays About Abortion", J. Tunstead Burtchaell, editor, 1982)
"They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heartbeat, they wouldn't want to have an abortion." (Dr. Randall, "Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet", by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct "New Dimensions" magazine)
"From May to November 1988, I worked for an abortionist....I thought I was pro-choice and I was glad to be working in an abortion clinic. I thought I was helping provide a noble service to women in crisis... I was instructed to falsify the age of the babies in medical records. I was required to lie to the mothers over the phone, as they scheduled their appointments, and to tell them that they were not 'too far along.’ Then I had to note, in the records that Dr. Tiller's needle had successfully pierced the walls of the baby's heart, injecting the poison what brought death... Mine was the agony of a participant, however reluctant, in the act of prenatal infanticide." (Luhra Tivis quoted in "Where is the Real Violence?", Celebrate Life, Sept/Oct 1994)
"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort immediately." (Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas)
"In fact many women will come to me considering abortion, and I have been personally told that I am to turn the monitor away from her view so that seeing her baby jump around on the screen does not influence her choice." (Shari Richards, quoted from the John Ankerburg Show, 3/7/90)
"It is extremely difficult to watch doctors lie, clinic workers cover up, and hear terrifying stories of women dragged out of clinics to die in cars on the way to the hospital without beginning to question the party line. I began to wonder if we were really caring for these women, or if we were just working for another corporation whose only interest was the bottom line." (Judith Fetrow, Former Planned Parenthood worker)
Unfortunately, pro-abortion folks want what they want so badly that scientific truths don't matter - so they resort to UNscientific lies. Hobby Lobby stood for SCIENTIFIC truth.
cncyana
47 Posts
We're not supposed to say "every" and repeatedly so (it has an accusatory tone as you know, lol!).
But I will say this, Hobby Lobby's stand on the morning-after pill being an abortifacient is scientifically accurate. Just because we don't agree with them doesn't mean it isn't scientific. Do a quick search on the net and you will find that human life does indeed start at fertilization so HOBBY LOBBY has every right to claim a violation of conscience for the morning-after pill- and a violation of our conscience regarding the taking of a human life is pretty significant and UNconstitutional.
Many of us may have our conscience violated in various ways NOT involving the taking of a human life - for example, couplings not in a marriage between man and woman (recently MSN reported a marriage between a woman and her dog). This violation of conscience does not involve the taking of a human life so is on a different and lower level than taking a human life.
The right to avoid a violation of conscience specifically regarding the taking of a human life (which has already started in the womb) must be protected, even at the cost of an employee having to 'jump thru hoops' to get their coverage via the Federal government. One clearly trumps the other here.
Proverbs 20: Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?