1hopefulChik

ANY WOMAN can buy birth control of her choice. There are no prohibitions. NONE!!!!! How dishonest and sneaky that some keep trying to make this about ACCESS when it's about PAYING FOR IT! This is NOT that big a deal. It wasn't before ACA. It isn'...

SCOTUS ruled HL is permitted to opt out of SUBSIDIZING birth control methods that contradict their well-established beliefs. It's AGAINST THE LAW for an employer to tell you have to spend your wages- which is why the SCOTUS ruling is nothing like the...

Lie much?!

You didn't answer the question. HOW are they telling employees how to spend their own money?

So you agree I'm right about progressives finding a bogeyman when they have nothing to advocate without villification!!! Your post was an EXCELLENT example of my point. When you can't handle the message, try and kill the messenger. Funny, yet sad.

What you said is so dishonest and foolish I can't respond to it. It's not based in fact or reality. I'll answer you right after you explain exactly how HL is telling employees how they can spend their money. You won't because you can't!

By nature, progressives are always 'fighting' against something. If they don't have a cause, they make one up. This is the same tired 'war on women'- except no bullets and no teeth!

Sorry for sounding so cynical but what absolute hogwash!!!! ANY WOMAN can buy birth control of her choice. There are no prohibitions. How dishonest and sneaky that some keep trying to make this about ACCESS when it's about PAYING FOR IT! HL nor an...

I see progressives are digging up their bogeyman for the elections. When they don't have something to run on, they rail against something-anything- no matter what it is. This topic is old news. Thankfully, this hysteria is not contagious and the ge...

There was NO DECISION mandating tax payer involvement. I'm not an 'either or' thinker- as extremist thinking tends to be all or nothing. I say focus on everything in between, particularly those options that minimize taxpayer exposure.

Nope. If you work, use your income to supply your own needs. If you need help, there are plenty of public and private organizations that can help. Leave taxpayers out of expenditures that people could afford if they prioritize.

I've actually had that happen! I'm arguing that benefits are not mandatory. Health benefits can be compensation and optional at the same time, just like bonuses. Benefits and bonus. Payable to the employee. Not mandated or required.

Last I checked the Supreme Court can't order anything because they can't legislate. The brief pointed out that as an alternative the government could opt to cover what an employer declines to pay under ACA law. It was introduced as an option, not an...

Even if it were, it's income that could go away as soon as the employer decides- because the employer owns it.

WOW! Everybody's a hypocrite because we all fall short of standards for excellence in our own life. I guess you've NEVER contradicted your own beliefs ever, right? If so, why stop there. Violate ALL your beliefs since you messed up in a few. Many ...

If you're really a business owner, then you know the federal govt requires that for corporate taxation purposes. When employees file their taxes, health insurance coverage is not considered taxable nor is it income. In fact, employees can deduct t...

It could mean the govt could cover it. Question is: which govt? Federal? State? Local? I supported the decision and I doubt most other supporters support the govt paying for things employers won't pay for. We have free healthcare already in place ...

Health insurance is VOLUNTARY. Companies have a right not to offer. After the ACA they now have to pay a 'tax' if they don't, but it's still an option the employer has. My logic wouldn't conclude what you did. Wages are mandated by law. Health ...

Religious beliefs are to be practiced in all areas of life. Owning a business is only secular to someone who does not operate from a religious viewpoint. To someone of faith, everything may require consideration of their religious values or edicts, ...

Benefits are entirely voluntarily. An employer can discontinue benefits at anytime; however, they may not discontinue paying wages. The plan belongs to the company. They can discontinue both the plan and the coverage at anytime, without the employe...

I understand your frustration. You or I may not like it but you work with what you got. The good news is that most of us have the wherewithal to exercise options. Also, it's highly unlikely that a bunch of companies are gonna have this issue.

If you study the law, you'll learn the RFRA was an reaffirmation of the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of HL based on law- not philosophy, science or politics.

All your questions are irrelevant. The right to choose is based on personal constitutional protections, not tax exempt status.

It was an affirmation of the individual's right to function, live, work and financially support things in accordance with their beliefs.

This case involved a legal, constitutional question- not a science project. Why would the SCOTUS need science to determine the company's right to choose?