Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/27/2014 12:02:35 PM PDT by shepardspie33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: shepardspie33

So?

Did they lie to their employees? People are welcome to go find another job.


2 posted on 03/27/2014 12:04:42 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

Is this from your own blog?


3 posted on 03/27/2014 12:05:07 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor 13: 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

“Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs - Plan B and Ella - that could cause an abortion” (pg. 15, pt. #55)”

There’s a difference in “Could cause” as in side effect and deliberately prescribing them to cause an abortion.

Their abjection is to mandated funding for abortion and infanticide. Not potential side effects of some medications.


5 posted on 03/27/2014 12:08:43 PM PDT by CrappieLuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

This should be a Constitutional ruling not a hypocrisy one.


7 posted on 03/27/2014 12:12:08 PM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

The issue is FREEDOM.


9 posted on 03/27/2014 12:13:34 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

I’d like to see the exact formulary. Most drugs used for abortions are naturally occurring hormones or metabolize into them, and as such also have legitimate medical uses.


11 posted on 03/27/2014 12:17:19 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Richard Warman censors free speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33
What does it say about their commitment to the “unborn” that they had no clue that they have been for years providing the drugs which they assert “can cause abortions”?
It says that their commitment is very high considering their actions since they learned about those drugs.
12 posted on 03/27/2014 12:18:19 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

Brian Woodward

@brianwoodward24

Writer, Political Junkie, Study political science at the University of Oklahoma

Norman, OK

https://twitter.com/brianwoodward24


13 posted on 03/27/2014 12:19:17 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

The statements above from the article are contradictory. The second statement suggests that Hobby Lobby did not know that its insurance policy included abortion-related drugs until the HHS mandate prompted Hobby Lobby to take a closer look at the fine print. Corrections welcome.

14 posted on 03/27/2014 12:19:19 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33; humblegunner

writing on blogs is fun! it’s even more fun when its mandatory!!

Thus the logic of the hobby lobby case.


16 posted on 03/27/2014 12:21:00 PM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

Brian Woodward

Brian Woodward is a native of Oklahoma and currently resides in Norman, Oklahoma. However, he has lived and worked across the country in several cities including New York, New York; Austin, Texas; and San Clemente, California. He studied political science at the University of Oklahoma and describes himself as politically homeless, refusing to subscribe to any certain ideology.

17 posted on 03/27/2014 12:21:40 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33; xzins

What they did in the past is irrelevant.

The parties to this suit have all stipulated that Hobby Lobby has a heartfelt religious opposition to being required to provide insurance which pays for abortifacients.

The ruling will be based on this stipulation. The court cannot question the legitimacy of stipulated facts. The must assume that those facts are true.


19 posted on 03/27/2014 12:22:50 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them

_________________________________________________________

When the headline is a boldface lie, its easy to dismiss the article as crap also.

First of all - Hobby Lobby DID NOT provide contraceptives. The group health insurance company they contracted with may or may not of provided for that. But that is beyond the scope of Hobby Lobby.

Second of all. Did I mention this article is crap? I did? Good.


21 posted on 03/27/2014 12:30:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33
"They may have, as they assert, not known it was part of their policy. That is fairly feasible."

OK, so what's the problem?

The company is called "Hobby Lobby", it's not called "Medical Formulary Analysts for Employee Coverage Benefits".

It's also very likely that their previous insurer did not make the huge issue out of "women's health rights and family planning" that the ACA has, not to mention mandating specific coverages. Which served to draw everyone's attention, including the company's, and there you go. Their previous "generic health care plan" came under scrutiny as well as the new Obamacare mandates. Better late than never, and completely understandable.

Query: if you have health-care insurance from an employer, have you ever asked the owner/CEO/President if she/he knows exactly what's covered under "women's health"? OB/GYN...could be a lot, could be a little, but a normal CEO would go for providing a "comprensive" but not "deluxe" benefit at a reasonable cost, based on the insurer's available and recommended policies, and that's ALL! They wouldn't read the entire detailed benefits analysis, they have other things to do, and I see nothing "hypocritical" about that.

JMHO.

22 posted on 03/27/2014 12:31:39 PM PDT by 88keys (broken glass GOP; it matters, replace the Dems. 2014!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

Were they aware that these drugs and devices were covered? Was the onus of paying for them put totally on them?


23 posted on 03/27/2014 12:31:49 PM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

http://shop.hobbylobby.com/


24 posted on 03/27/2014 12:32:04 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

I’m guessing some affirmative action hire in HR saw Plan B and Ella in the pharmacopeia and had nary a clue what they were.


29 posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:59 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

I wish the blogger had explained exactly how the Hobby Lobby insurance offered these drugs before?
Unless the old policies paid 100% then it is not exactly the same
I bet it was an options choice among so many things offered and I bet it didn’t cover it 100%

and I can easily see how this provision could have been unknown by them.


30 posted on 03/27/2014 12:45:04 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

“It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously”

It’s a lot harder take Red Dirt seriously!


34 posted on 03/27/2014 12:54:01 PM PDT by Rock N Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shepardspie33

A company should not be allowed to limit medical care based on their religious beliefs. If they believe having a blood transfusion is a sin, then they could eliminate having a blood transfusion from that policy. To allow a company to offer only what they consider to be “Godly”, is a slippery slope into their dominating what care one can get. A government shouldn’t be able to limit your medical care and neither should a company. Democrats want to limit your medical care and so does this company. Perhaps it doesn’t bother you due to you won’t use these pills, but what if blood transfusions or making an incision into the body is the next medical procedure they think isn’t “Godly”?

Don’t say go get another job. If a person has a job right now, that person can’t just quit and immediately find another job.


37 posted on 03/27/2014 1:10:18 PM PDT by Marcella ((Prepping can save your life today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson