1.3M a day fine?

[pam]

Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Hobby Lobby is getting ready to face a $1.3M fine a day for refusing to cover contraceptives under their employee insurance plan for religious reasons.

This just makes me furious that this would come to this for this company.

[bytebear]

I find it incredulous that the government is forcing employers to even provide any kind of benefits. I would much prefer we all get a base wage, and buy our insurance privately. There is far too much government interference in private commerce.

[Anddenex]

Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Hobby Lobby is getting ready to face a $1.3M fine a day for refusing to cover contraceptives under their employee insurance plan for religious reasons.

This just makes me furious that this would come to this for this company.

Yes this is infuriating, however this is Obama-care.

[Maureen]

David Green has stated:

...A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business must provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance....

David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO, Explains HHS Lawsuit

His argument is against providing drug coverage to his employees (those that would use the coverage) because he believes abortion-causing drugs are included in the healthcare mandate. The HHS mandate has a list of the contraceptives that are covered, and from what I can see and understand they prevent pregnancy. The morning-after pill even states that it is not a abortion drug and if taken when pregnant could not cause an abortion or harm the fetus. His argument for not wanting to provide coverage is based on his ignorance or misunderstanding on the contraception covered under this mandate. From what I can tell he does not have a problem with contraception per se (preventing pregnancy), he only has a problem if these drugs covered will cause abortions. The contraceptions listed under this mandate do not cause abortions, therefore he has no case.

M.

[MarginOfError]

Under the current interpretation of the ACA, the penalty constitutes a tax. This makes HobbyLobby's case even weaker as it is not a tax exempt organization. (Religious based non-profits are exempt from the penalty)

[pooter1]

What do you think about the situation with Hobby Lobby not following the Obama care on abortion.How far do we go with following the law of the land as members of the church. Am i wrong or is it a commandment to obey the law of the land?

[mnn727]

David Green has stated:

The contraceptions listed under this mandate do not cause abortions, therefore he has no case.

M.

Birth Control pills do not prevent conception, they prevent the attachment of the potential baby to the lining of the womb and thus in the broadest sense could be considered an abortion.

What was passed (the so-called Obama care) is nothing more than a bonus to insurance companies that does not come close to providing health insurance for all Americans.

Unless/Until we have Universal Single Payer healthcare (like Canada's Provinces or England) we will not have total coverage.

Edited December 31, 2012 by mnn727

[bluedreams]

I really don't hold any sympathy for the company on this. Hobby Lobby isn't a religious group, it's a company that hires various people from various backgrounds who have the right to have their health care meet up to current standards. I think current standards could be better (something along the lines of what mnn said) but that does not negate their responsibility to pay their taxes. A company shouldn't have the right to decide which laws they will or will not follow. Period.

With luv,

BD

[rayhale]

I read an article in Deseret News where it said how LDS members who own a business who have refused to be any part of a gay wedding (a wedding photographer, DJ, wedding planner, etc.) and have been sued for discrimination. One of the LDS business owners lost and was forced to close her business so she wouldn’t be forced to photograph the gay wedding.

This is just another battle between free speech and freedom of religion. Who is right? Which one is better? In today’s world it’s who has more money and power.

[Maureen]

Birth Control pills do not prevent conception, they prevent the attachment of the potential baby to the lining of the womb and thus in the broadest sense could be considered an abortion....

Actually this is how the birth control pill works.

These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

Birth Control Pills - Types, Effectiveness, and Side Effects of Birth Control Pills

M.

[kapikui]

I read an article in Deseret News where it said how LDS members who own a business who have refused to be any part of a gay wedding (a wedding photographer, DJ, wedding planner, etc.) and have been sued for discrimination. One of the LDS business owners lost and was forced to close her business so she wouldn’t be forced to photograph the gay wedding.

This is just another battle between free speech and freedom of religion. Who is right? Which one is better? In today’s world it’s who has more money and power.

I don't see how this is any type of fight between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. You have a right to freedom of speech, I don't have to listen, and I don't have to work to support something you're saying if I don't want to.

[Guest]

Actually this is how the birth control pill works.

These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

Birth Control Pills - Types, Effectiveness, and Side Effects of Birth Control Pills

M.

Maureen, you hit it right there - birth control is not 100% guaranteed to stop fertilization. Once fertilized, the egg will die when it cannot stick to the womb. For those who believe that the soul is created with the body at the point of fertilization, that is a death of a spiritual human being and is something completely unacceptable when done on purpose. Miscarriages are considered the will of God after all we can do. Miscarriages caused by the conscious choice of taking birth control pills is no less than the conscious killing of a human being.

[pam]

Maureen, you hit it right there - birth control is not 100% guaranteed to stop fertilization. Once fertilized, the egg will die when it cannot stick to the womb. For those who believe that the soul is created with the body at the point of fertilization, that is a death of a spiritual human being and is something completely unacceptable when done on purpose. Miscarriages are considered the will of God after all we can do. Miscarriages caused by the conscious choice of taking birth control pills is no less than the conscious killing of a human being.

Of course I don't know but perhaps this is the stance that the owners of Hobby Lobby have taken.

[MarginOfError]

Miscarriages are considered the will of God after all we can do. Miscarriages caused by the conscious choice of taking birth control pills is no less than the conscious killing of a human being.

What I'm about to say here I am not saying because I think it will persuade you to believe any differently than you do. I am saying it because I think it is important that those reading the discussion are clear in their understanding that this is your interpretation of LDS doctrine. The Church's official position on the use of contraception is that it is between a husband, wife, and the Lord. The Church does not submit those who take birth control pills (or use other forms of birth control) to any disciplinary measures.

Also, in a June 1972 Priesthood Bulletin, the First Presidency stated

As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.

The current handbooks support that statement, although it does not appear explicitly. To be direct, I don't think there are many in the Church leadership that would agree that the conscious choice to use birth control pills is a conscious choice to kill human beings.

[Dravin]

MoE, is that Anatess' understanding of LDS doctrine? Or is she simply pointing out that some people believe such. The second sentence in the paragraph you quote is:

For those who believe that the soul is created with the body at the point of fertilization, that is a death of a spiritual human being and is something completely unacceptable when done on purpose.

Is she stating a position that would object to birth control, or is she stating her position? In past threads on the topic of abortion Anatess has shown she understands the differences between the Catholic and LDS positions on it and ancillary matters, and her paragraph reads rather Catholic. To be fair I can see how one could read a personal position from the paragraph.

[Dravin]

MoE, is that Anatess' understanding of LDS doctrine? Or is she simply pointing out that some people believe such. The second sentence in the paragraph you quote is:

For those who believe that the soul is created with the body at the point of fertilization, that is a death of a spiritual human being and is something completely unacceptable when done on purpose.

Is she stating a position that would object to birth control, or is she stating her position? In past threads on the topic of abortion Anatess has shown she understands the differences between the Catholic and LDS positions on it and ancillary matters, and her paragraph reads rather Catholic. To be fair I can see how one could read a personal position from the paragraph.

[Guest]

What I'm about to say here I am not saying because I think it will persuade you to believe any differently than you do. I am saying it because I think it is important that those reading the discussion are clear in their understanding that this is your interpretation of LDS doctrine. The Church's official position on the use of contraception is that it is between a husband, wife, and the Lord. The Church does not submit those who take birth control pills (or use other forms of birth control) to any disciplinary measures.

Also, in a June 1972 Priesthood Bulletin, the First Presidency stated

The current handbooks support that statement, although it does not appear explicitly. To be direct, I don't think there are many in the Church leadership that would agree that the conscious choice to use birth control pills is a conscious choice to kill human beings.

MoE, is that Anatess' understanding of LDS doctrine? Or is she simply pointing out that some people believe such. The second sentence in the paragraph you quote is:

Is she stating a position that would object to birth control, or is she stating her position? In past threads on the topic of abortion Anatess has shown she understands the differences between the Catholic and LDS positions on it and ancillary matters, and her paragraph reads rather Catholic. To be fair I can see how one could read a personal position from the paragraph.

Of course I'm not saying it's the LDS position. Pre-mortal existence is a bedrock of LDS doctrine. I'm saying there are those who believe spiritual life begins at conception and that artificial birth control offers the chance of aborting spiritual life. And they're not just Roman Catholics either. There are some Protestant sects and some non-Christian faiths that believe the same.

This is one of those "big deals" I considered when I was investigating other faiths outside of Roman Catholicism. I don't understand the contradictory positions of religious organizations who believe that life begins at conception and yet are okay with abortion either from artificial birth control methods or within the first trimester or even for reasons of incest or rape. Only the LDS doctrine on life offered a non-contradictory position that made sense in the whole scheme of things. Pre-mortal existence is one of those truths that have been lost and needed to be restored.

Edited January 2, 2013 by anatess

[MarginOfError]

Spend a few years as a pro-choice Mormon and you'll have the 'abortion is cold-blooded murder' argument thrown at you enough times that you'll be quick to jump the gun anytime an argument resembling it is laid out.

My apologies if I lunged at this one a little too aggressively.

[Maureen]

Maureen, you hit it right there - birth control is not 100% guaranteed to stop fertilization. Once fertilized, the egg will die when it cannot stick to the womb. For those who believe that the soul is created with the body at the point of fertilization, that is a death of a spiritual human being and is something completely unacceptable when done on purpose. Miscarriages are considered the will of God after all we can do. Miscarriages caused by the conscious choice of taking birth control pills is no less than the conscious killing of a human being.

The problem is that fertilization does not mean pregnancy. If a fertilized egg does not implant to the uterus, there will be no pregnancy or baby. Implanation is necessary for a pregnancy to occur.

Implantation occurs once a fertilized egg has adhered/implanted into the lining of your uterine wall. The medical community, including: the FDA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the National Institutes of Health are in agreement that a woman is not considered to be pregnant until implantation has occurred. So, medically speaking, successful implantation equals the start of a pregnancy....

...the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days -- because once an egg is fertilized, it will have to travel up into the uterus for implantation to occur. As the fertilized egg (known as a blastocyst ) makes this journey, it will continue to grow in size. At the same time, its cells will continue to divide and reproduce. It is thought that implantation of a fertilized egg is estimated to take place about 9 day (+/-) after ovulation. So, this journey of conception occurring, to the blastocyst traveling up into the uterus and then for implantation to take place within the uterine wall may take an estimated 7 to 14 days from the date you had sexual intercourse.

So, to recap the journey towards implantation and pregnancy... first conception occurs (a sperm fertilizes the egg). Next, it's time for implantation. Implantation refers to the process where the fertilized egg has become attached (or implanted) into the uterine wall. Implantation is the first “step” that triggers your body to start producing the hCG, or pregnancy hormone. Because pregnancy tests, both at home and doctor’s ones) screen for the presence of hCG to confirm a pregnancy, implantation must occur to elicit this hormone. If not, a pregnancy cannot be diagnosed through a pregnancy test.

Implantation refers to the process in which the fertilized egg, also known as the blastocyst, becomes attached to the wall of the uterus and starts to produce hCG. Because hCG is the hormone that pregnancy tests look for, it is necessary for implantation to occur before a pregnancy can be recognized through a pregnancy test.

The establishment of a pregnancy can take several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg has implanted in the lining of the woman's uterus. The medical community defines that you are officially considered pregnant once it has been established that the implantation of the fertilized egg has occurred. And, as mentioned above, this confirmation can typically take place by the use of pregnancy tests. If you receive a positive (i.e. pregnant) reading on a pregnancy test, then you can feel fairly confident that implantation has occurred since your body had started to produce the hCG hormone that was confirmed by the test. If you take a pregnancy test before implantation occurs, the test will tell you that you’re not pregnant since the trigger for the hCG hormone has not yet occurred, so this hormone will not be in your system.

So the bottom line: implantation defines the beginning of a pregnancy. A fertilized egg must make its way into the uterus and find a nice, cozy spot to attach to. If not, the fertilized egg will just be emptied out of your body, probably during a period. So conception does not automatically equal implantation. A trophoblast (type of tissue) actually develops from the fertilized egg and then surrounds it. This trophoblast joins the egg to the inside of the uterus and begins to push its way into the uterine lining. Then, the trophoblast, in fact, pulls the egg inside of the endometrium (uterine wall). This trophoblast will then occupy your blood vessels and divert your blood to the fertilized egg. At this point, you can officially say that implantation has occurred and a pregnancy has begun!

Implantation

Editing to add: Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. If there is no pregnancy, an abortion cannot be performed.

M.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Maureen

[Guest]

The problem is that fertilization does not mean pregnancy. If a fertilized egg does not implant to the uterus, there will be no pregnancy or baby. Implanation is necessary for a pregnancy to occur.

Implantation occurs once a fertilized egg has adhered/implanted into the lining of your uterine wall. The medical community, including: the FDA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the National Institutes of Health are in agreement that a woman is not considered to be pregnant until implantation has occurred. So, medically speaking, successful implantation equals the start of a pregnancy....

...the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days -- because once an egg is fertilized, it will have to travel up into the uterus for implantation to occur. As the fertilized egg (known as a blastocyst ) makes this journey, it will continue to grow in size. At the same time, its cells will continue to divide and reproduce. It is thought that implantation of a fertilized egg is estimated to take place about 9 day (+/-) after ovulation. So, this journey of conception occurring, to the blastocyst traveling up into the uterus and then for implantation to take place within the uterine wall may take an estimated 7 to 14 days from the date you had sexual intercourse.

So, to recap the journey towards implantation and pregnancy... first conception occurs (a sperm fertilizes the egg). Next, it's time for implantation. Implantation refers to the process where the fertilized egg has become attached (or implanted) into the uterine wall. Implantation is the first “step” that triggers your body to start producing the hCG, or pregnancy hormone. Because pregnancy tests, both at home and doctor’s ones) screen for the presence of hCG to confirm a pregnancy, implantation must occur to elicit this hormone. If not, a pregnancy cannot be diagnosed through a pregnancy test.

Implantation refers to the process in which the fertilized egg, also known as the blastocyst, becomes attached to the wall of the uterus and starts to produce hCG. Because hCG is the hormone that pregnancy tests look for, it is necessary for implantation to occur before a pregnancy can be recognized through a pregnancy test.

The establishment of a pregnancy can take several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg has implanted in the lining of the woman's uterus. The medical community defines that you are officially considered pregnant once it has been established that the implantation of the fertilized egg has occurred. And, as mentioned above, this confirmation can typically take place by the use of pregnancy tests. If you receive a positive (i.e. pregnant) reading on a pregnancy test, then you can feel fairly confident that implantation has occurred since your body had started to produce the hCG hormone that was confirmed by the test. If you take a pregnancy test before implantation occurs, the test will tell you that you’re not pregnant since the trigger for the hCG hormone has not yet occurred, so this hormone will not be in your system.

So the bottom line: implantation defines the beginning of a pregnancy. A fertilized egg must make its way into the uterus and find a nice, cozy spot to attach to. If not, the fertilized egg will just be emptied out of your body, probably during a period. So conception does not automatically equal implantation. A trophoblast (type of tissue) actually develops from the fertilized egg and then surrounds it. This trophoblast joins the egg to the inside of the uterus and begins to push its way into the uterine lining. Then, the trophoblast, in fact, pulls the egg inside of the endometrium (uterine wall). This trophoblast will then occupy your blood vessels and divert your blood to the fertilized egg. At this point, you can officially say that implantation has occurred and a pregnancy has begun!

Implantation

M.

You're not understanding my point. There are religions - Roman Catholics are one of them - who believe that life (that's body and spirit) begins at CONCEPTION. Not at PREGNANCY. That is - life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. So that, an embryo that is sitting frozen in a petri dish waiting to be implanted is spiritual human life. And yes, that's also why they don't do IVF where somebody chooses which life to implant and which life to destroy.... and that includes stem cell research using embryos as well.

Edited January 2, 2013 by anatess

[applepansy]

What do you think about the situation with Hobby Lobby not following the Obama care on abortion.How far do we go with following the law of the land as members of the church. Am i wrong or is it a commandment to obey the law of the land?

We need to change the law.

[Guest]

Spend a few years as a pro-choice Mormon and you'll have the 'abortion is cold-blooded murder' argument thrown at you enough times that you'll be quick to jump the gun anytime an argument resembling it is laid out.

My apologies if I lunged at this one a little too aggressively.

No worries, mate. Better to be clear on the matter, anyway.

[Maureen]

You're not understanding my point. There are religions - Roman Catholics are one of them - who believe that life (that's body and spirit) begins at CONCEPTION. Not at PREGNANCY. That is - life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. So that, an embryo that is sitting frozen in a petri dish waiting to be implanted is spiritual human life. And yes, that's also why they don't do IVF where somebody chooses which life to implant and which life to destroy.... and that includes stem cell research using embryos as well.

I personally can understand biologically and medically that a fertilized egg in limbo is not life. It can neither grow or change. Others will believe differently but I think the burden of proof would be on them to show that the prevention of a pregnancy due to no implantation is abortion.

M.

[Guest]

I personally can understand biologically and medically that a fertilized egg in limbo is not life. It can neither grow or change. Others will believe differently but I think the burden of proof would be on them to show that the prevention of a pregnancy due to no implantation is abortion.

M.

A 3 month old child left to its own devices will neither grow nor change. It will die. Same as a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg goes through it's natural cellular changes within the 7-14 days it needs to implant into the uterus - if there's no one to nurture the egg, it will die.

There's no such thing as burden of proof when we're talking religious beliefs. Show me proof that we are spiritual beings and not just animals no better than gnats... Spirituality is a matter of faith.

The issue is not whether you have to believe what Roman Catholics believe. The issue is whether Americans can be forced to do something contrary to their conscience or if they should be given the freedom to practice their differing faiths in the manner that allows them to have a clear conscience pursuant to the freedoms granted by the Constitution of the United States. There's nothing stopping people from buying birth control pills. But, in my opinion, nobody should be able to force somebody to buy birth control pills if it goes against their religious beliefs.

Edited January 2, 2013 by anatess

[Maureen]

...There's nothing stopping people from buying birth control pills. But, in my opinion, nobody should be able to force somebody to buy birth control pills if it goes against their religious beliefs.

This case is slightly different. Employers are being asked to cover birth control pills and morning after pills under their benefit plans for their employees. If the employees choose to purchase these items under these plans, then that is their right since these legitimate drugs have been made available under the HHS mandate. The employers may not like that some employees use these legitimate drugs that they do not approve of due to a misunderstanding of how they work, but that should not take away the employees right to have access to these legitimate drugs under this mandate. No one is forcing the employers themselves to use a legitimate drug they do not approve of.

M.