Just remember this, Green family: While you’re reveling in victory, millions of young people are fully aware of what you’re really celebrating. It’s not about “religious liberty” because your rights were never up for debate. We know you’re happy because, once again, Christianity has been used as a weapon of discrimination. Enjoy your Supreme Court victory while it lasts because, in exchange, you’re about to lose even more of your social power.

 

This is just a continuation of all those other times you used your power to make others’ lives worse. Every time you stood in the way of marriage equality, more people left their churches, vowing never to return. For years now, we’ve known that the reputation of Christians is that they’re anti-science, anti-gay, and anti-women. You’ve only solidified those stereotypes and churches will pay for that as they lose members fed up with being associated with an organization that takes joy in denying others freedom and happiness.

 

Read more: Supreme Court Rules on Hobby Lobby Case: Corporations (Somehow) Have Religion Beliefs

This is a classic example of winning the battle but losing the war.

I don't sympathize with the author's polemical expression, but I think there is an angle of accuracy in there. Except, I don't agree that it's a religious issue so much as a political one. I think a high-profile case taking issue with specifically women's contraceptives being celebrated as a major victory probably turns more people off in the long run. But, I don't think it's viewed as a Christian victory, but as a victory for people who have used Christianity politically, which, I think, is a major difference.

I don't sympathize with the author's polemical expression, but I think there is an angle of accuracy in there. Except, I don't agree that it's a religious issue so much as a political one. I think a high-profile case taking issue with specifically women's contraceptives being celebrated as a major victory probably turns more people off in the long run. But, I don't think it's viewed as a Christian victory, but as a victory for people who have used Christianity politically, which, I think, is a major difference.

 

Nobody has ever explained why birth control needs to be covered by a company's insurance?

I don't sympathize with the author's polemical expression, but I think there is an angle of accuracy in there. Except, I don't agree that it's a religious issue so much as a political one. I think a high-profile case taking issue with specifically women's contraceptives being celebrated as a major victory probably turns more people off in the long run. But, I don't think it's viewed as a Christian victory, but as a victory for people who have used Christianity politically, which, I think, is a major difference.

 

I like your thinking better than the author but either way the result is the same.

Nobody has ever explained why birth control needs to be covered by a company's insurance?

 

Pour that gas!!!

Wishful thinking on the author's part.

Nobody has ever explained why birth control needs to be covered by a company's insurance?

 

A lot of the women I know consider their birth control as a part of their routine health care. To that line of thinking, it's hard to see why so many things are covered but not this.

Wishful thinking on the author's part.

 

Burying one's head in the sand or being dismissive adds fuel too.

A lot of the women I know consider their birth control as a part of their routine health care. To that line of thinking, it's hard to see why so many things are covered but not this.

 

Defies logic, imagine that...

Nobody has ever explained why birth control needs to be covered by a company's insurance?

 

That's beside my point. There are plenty of things in the PPACA or in HHS decision-making that people disagree over. That the major point that achieved "victory" is one that came at the sole expense of women creates a certain perception over what constitutes a victory for conservatives. And that the ruling was received with such jubilation, particularly the aggressively antagonistic jubilation I've seen here and elsewhere, only compounds the negative optics of it and diminishes the more nuanced legal disagreement at the heart of the case.

Nobody has ever explained why birth control needs to be covered by a company's insurance?

The medication is not just for pregnancy prevention. A variety of gynecological issues are treated with it.

...

Edited July 1, 201412 yr by Jumper_Dad
Moved to other thread

I've not kept up with this case too closely...is it Preventative Birth Control they don't want to cover or just after the fact Birth Control that they are challenging?

Does it matter, now that the slippery slope has been set?

Does it matter, now that the slippery slope has been set?

Yes big difference in not covering preventative birth control which is taken for medical necessity by many women and not covering the "Oops Pill" that stops a birth after conception.

 

No slippery slope here IMO opinion...very distinct difference.