SCOTUS and birth control

Maverick - The Heritage Foundation floated the idea as part of its job as a think tank. It was ultimately shot down. Furthermore, what Mitt Romney employed in Massachusetts affected about 8% of the /Massachusetts/ population. It also cost a lot less. To say they are the same thing as Obamacare is like saying a tree and a sheet of paper are the same thing. Sure, they're made of matter. There's carbon and phosphorous in there. They have a common ancestry. But they aren't the same thing. The corporation isn't /forcing/ its beliefs on anyone. Corporations can't force anyone to do anything. They set out rules and regulations. Employees follow or don't. If the employee follows rules and regulations, a certain series of protocols are followed. If an employee doesn't follow rules and regulations, a different series of protocols are followed. As the government isn't establishing a religion, merely upholding rights of a religion, the First amendment isn't affected at all. The Ninth isn't at play at all here. Because not giving something material to someone else isn't infringing on their rights. Denying your rights would be something to the effect of unlawful detainment. The Bill of Rights is essentially things the Government can't do. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Government is saying "The Government can't force people, who have religious opinions, to buy things that go against their religious beliefs." Xueli - I pay for medical treatments that my health insurance doesn't. I don't see the problem here. If they're expensive, then I'll pay in installments. While you do have a point about there being medication or procedures being too expensive for some people to pay for, you're not addressing the root cause. But in a world where resources are finite, we have to make priorities. The stated goal behind Obamacare was to make healthcare affordable - Affordable Care Act" anyone? But what ended up happening was the Government dogmatically declaring that Health Insurance companies have to cover people regardless of condition and that children up to the age of 26 are under their parents coverage. How does that address the costs? Yeah, forcing Insurance companies to do those things does cover more people. But it also makes the costs higher. This is treating the symptoms, not the problem. But the logic of "if companies don't provide insurance, they're denying healthcare rights" is entirely wrong. Eating affects your health too. If someone is hungry and I have the means of feeding you, but I choose not to. You can think I'm being mean spirited, you can think I'm being a jerk. But that's not denying rights. However, if someone breaks into my house and takes my food, that IS denying rights. My rights. Maverick - You said Religion shouldn't trump someone's rights. You are correct. Fortunately, this is not the case. Employees of Hobby Lobby are not prohibited from any action not otherwise banned by law. Hobby Lobby's only role in this is that they aren't paying for or endorsing all of those actions.