SCOTUS

[OC_An Khe]

Okay, SCOTUS has ruled on Hobby Lobby and contraception and also on the IL. healthcare workers and agency fee, any thoughts?

To me the ruling on Hobby Lobby reverse previous SCOTUS ruling which always put individual rights (freedoms) over business entities. Business entities are not people.

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

Individuals run corporations and those individuals have rights like the rest of them. Talk to President Obama and the democrats who control the senate (which has been blocking house bills left and right) as to the state of the economy. Don't want to work for a given company, free will works both ways -- they don't owe you a job, and you don't owe them to work there if you don't want to work there. Have trouble leaving a place of employment, that's your business, not societies. Personal responsibility should never be a novel concept.

[toomuchbaloney]

Individuals run corporations and those individuals have rights like the rest of them. Talk to President Obama and the democrats who control the senate (which has been blocking house bills left and right) as to the state of the economy. Don't want to work for a given company, free will works both ways -- they don't owe you a job, and you don't owe them to work there if you don't want to work there. Have trouble leaving a place of employment, that's your business, not societies. Personal responsibility should never be a novel concept.

First; no one disputes the notion that each individual may have rights. The dispute is over whether or not the more powerful entity has the right to impose their beliefs upon another who happens to be in a contractual labor arrangement with them.

Second, please provide me with a list of the bills proposed by the republican House of Representatives which are intended to improve the state of economy that have been blocked by the Senate so that we might discuss in detail the objectives and goals of the House.

Third; no person here has indicated that HL or any other entity "owes" a citizen a job. However, that employer did hire those folks without mentioning that the religious beliefs of the secular incorporated business would impact their health care (contraceptive) descisions.

Fourth; what is the issue relative to personal responsibility in this discussion? We are speaking about gainfully employed women who were hired and working under the understanding that their employer provided a comprehensive health insurance benefit to which they contribute a portion of their pay. Where is there a sense that these women are behaving in some irresponsible manner?

Here is a novel concept...choose not to be offended by things which are none of your business and are paid for by the employee (remember they contribute to the cost of the policy too).

[TriciaJ, RN]

Some posters here apparently are under the impression that there are an abundance of jobs available for people to simply pick and choose from. Seriously, do you think that people can walk away from jobs because there is some sort of an employment glut in the country? Do you think that women should just step into unemployment because they have their choices for contraceptives reduced by their "religious" corporation? Are you willing to extend their unemployment benefit if they have trouble finding a comparable position?

Right, I didn't think so.

Nope, it seems that the stance is that the corporation has the right to impose their "religious" beliefs upon the employees lest the corporations be offended by their choice of contraception. It seems that it is unfair to expect the corporation to provide comprehensive health insurance which covers contraception and allow the women to choose their own method dependent upon the recommendations of their health care provider, their woman's own needs, and based upon the woman's personal religious beliefs. What other reproductive rights of the female employee should we expect that "religious" corporations might want to impact as part of their "constitutional rights"?

The fact that there aren't a lot of good jobs out there means you are in less of a position to dictate your terms, not more so. Because you can't easily find a good job somewhere else does not oblige an employer to deliver everything you want.

Hobby Lobby may be right or they may be wrong. As an employee you still have a choice whether to work for them, try to find another job or live under a bridge.

[toomuchbaloney]

The fact that there aren't a lot of good jobs out there means you are in less of a position to dictate your terms, not more so. Because you can't easily find a good job somewhere else does not oblige an employer to deliver everything you want.

Hobby Lobby may be right or they may be wrong. As an employee you still have a choice whether to work for them, try to find another job or live under a bridge.

Did I miss something? Women were pressuring these two corporations to delivery everything they wanted? How the heck did I miss that?

Silly me, I thought that the corporations petitioned the court system to allow them to impose their religious sensibilities relative to contraception upon their female employees and won. Perhaps you could provide some additional information relating to these demands and pressures.

I wonder, did these women know, when they accepted offers of employment with full health benefits, that they would be restricted in which contraceptives they might use because of the "religious" beliefs of the company?

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

The Supreme Court decision respects one religious belief and specifically stated the same criteria for corporate employers whose religions prohibit blood transfusions or vaccinations would not hold.

Text of the decision: Hobby Lobby ruling full text PDF - POLITICO.com

[toomuchbaloney]

The Supreme Court decision respects one religious belief and specifically stated the same criteria for corporate employers whose religions prohibit blood transfusions or vaccinations would not hold.

Text of the decision: Hobby Lobby ruling full text PDF - POLITICO.com

I am not impressed with that. The SCOTUS did not seem very good at projecting the fallout from their "corporate citizen" thinking or how badly their decision on the voting rights act would adversely affect some citizens...why would we presume that they have any idea, or even care, how this will evolve relative to the rights of the lowly individual citizen?

[Been there,done that, ASN, RN]

How can you say business are not people? If you started a business and it is your business, how is it okay for the government to tell you that you MUST provide birth control to employees? That is YOUR business an this is a free economy. Nobody is forcing the employee to stay there; if they don't like what the employer has to offer, move on. My business, MY freedom of religion.

Corporations are NOT people. Corporations are out to make money for the top echelon and the stockholders.

Just because they own the business, it does not mean they own the employees, or their individual rights.

You are saying that any business owner has the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

Good day:

I think Paula Priesse has it right

"July 2nd – Hobby Lobby had no problems with 16 out of the 20 birth control methods mandated by Obamacare, it was only 4 (including the “morning-after” pill) that owner David Green & family felt violated their religious beliefs. No matter, after SCOTUS agreed Monday with Hobby Lobby’s position, screams of “War on Women” were heard from leftist feminists & Dem politicians. For those upset two “radical” ideas: 1) Don’t work for companies like Hobby Lobby or 2) Pay for the few methods a company refuses to cover Are companies with coffee vending machines waging a “War on Coffee Drinkers?” Working women wages under O dropping nearly 10%, gas prices doubling, the fed debt exploding & failing schools are all “women’s issues.” As are sex selection abortions in Asia, schoolgirls being kidnapped in Nigeria, barbaric stonings and the total subjugation of women in other parts of the world. If those with their knickers now in a twist wish to be viewed as adults, and not as self-absorbed brats, perhaps they should show concern for these issues as well. P" -- Paula Priesse

Thank you.

[toomuchbaloney]

I dont care if they cover 100 other options that they "approve" of. I believe they are over reaching the boundaries of THEIR rights to the degree that they are interfering with the rights of their female employees when they decide which options may be available to the employee. The responsibility they took on was to provide health insurance coverage for their staff, now they want to make that some sort of religious exercise that the employee must participate in if she wants contraception.

[toomuchbaloney]

Good day:

cartoon removed copyright

Thank you.

So if this is how democrats are courting female voters, how would you suppose republicans are courting them?

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

Good day, toomuchbaloney :

As I previously shared, this Supreme Court decision only occurred due to BIG government overreach. We don't need government (either party) courting anything other than the constitution and bill of rights for which they were sworn to protect. Our country was founded on freedom including freedom of religion. It was not founded on free birth control or even health care for the matter. Freedom, including freedom of religion was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

Men and women who are personally responsible don't need to outright force others to take care of them as if they were victims; real men and real women pave their own way, pay their own way, and earn it. They don't need force involved.

Thank you.

[Been there,done that, ASN, RN]

Life begins at incorporation.

Mindy Fischer, Writer