Court Rules Hobby Lobby Can Be Considered a Religious ‘Person’


Religious conservatives are one step closer to convincing the federal judiciary to shield corporations by granting them religious rights, thanks to new reasoning in a decision handed down Thursday in the Hobby Lobby case.

Hobby Lobby is challenging the part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires all insurance plans to offer coverage of contraception without a co-pay. At the heart of the case is whether a for-profit company must comply with this provision of the ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare. Hobby Lobby is a national craft supply chain headquartered in Oklahoma and has 525 locations and more than 13,000 employees across the country. The company’s owners have objected to providing coverage for emergency contraception and IUDs.

In a long and complicated decision a divided Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that even though arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby and its smaller sister operation Mardel, a Christian-oriented bookstore and educational supply company, are secular, for-profit companies, they have a right to religious freedom under the law and therefore are likely exempt from the contraception mandate in Obamacare.

The decision, which was a combination of six separate opinions totaling 165 pages could be considered a coming attraction of how the lower court will rule when it considers the merits of the question of whether or not the contraception mandate is unconstitutional. On the issue of whether for-profit corporations are religious persons, the Court split five to three with the majority finding that, if they are owned by religiously devout individuals who control the company’s affairs, such corporations are protected by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law designed to shield individuals from laws that “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion.

According to the majority, it is possible for corporations to absorb, as their own, the religious beliefs of their owners. Once the court signed on to that assumption it was an easy leap for the majority to conclude that having absorbed the religious beliefs of its owners, such corporations then naturally conduct their businesses in such a way that realizes, or expresses those convictions.

And it didn’t stop there. When considering how other statutes like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act deal with the issue of religious exemptions in the workplace that depend on a distinction between whether or not those businesses are profit or non-profit, the court said it considered it an “open question” as to whether such exemptions violate the Establishment Clause. Great. Just what Justice Alito was hoping to hear, I’m sure.

The decision came four days before Hobby Lobby and Mardel said they would be required to start providing the full range of mandated coverage, or face federal fines they claim could run to a total of at least $1.3 million a day, or almost $475 million a year. Those financial concerns were a key part of the reasoning used by the majority to conclude that, as religious persons under RFRA, the corporations would suffer “irreparable harm.” As the dissent pointed out, there was not the same consideration paid to the cost and harm of each individual employee denied benefits as a result of the decision.

Thankfully the court didn’t go so far as to say that corporations are religious persons under the Constitution, just under the RFRA, but only because Congress never decided to exclude them in the definition of who was a person under the Act. So yes, if there’s a silver lining in that conclusion it is that the court didn’t go so far as to affirmatively give status or suggest a broader First Amendment right here. But it might have done something worse. Instead, it cherry-picked reasoning from First Amendment religious theory to justify its reading of the RFRA, in a sense presuming from the start that the analysis should begin with a religious, rather than secular inquiry.

The immediate effect of the decision is to return the case back to the district court in Oklahoma to consider several additional factors that Hobby Lobby must prove in order to get a temporary reprieve from the mandate, including whether granting the injunction to permanently block it would serve the public interest. The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) filed an amicus brief in the case, focusing on the compelling public interests promoted by the contraceptive coverage benefit and NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger reacted to the decision in a statement:

We are deeply disappointed with this decision by the 10th Circuit Court. As noted in the dissent, a woman’s decision about birth control is a personal decision, not her boss’s. Nothing in the health care law constrains an individual’s exercise of religion. The law protects an employee’s ability to get the contraceptives that she needs without co-pays or unnecessary obstacles.

It’s critically important to note that the decision was only at the preliminary injunction stage, and is therefore not a ruling on the merits. But in many ways it can be considered a sneak peek at the analysis the lower court will perform when it re-considers whether or not a secular, for-profit arts and crafts chain is entitled to religious freedom and the right to exercise that freedom by discriminating against its employees. If the lower court rules as the Tenth Circuit believes it should and uses the reasoning suggested by the Tenth Circuit, what for-profit business wouldn’t want to consider itself a “religious person” to avoid the costs of coverage and the penalties for non-compliance? Of course, that’s exactly the point.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jessica Mason Pieklo on twitter: @hegemommy

  • https://twitter.com/misterjayem MrJM

    Jesus Christ™!

  • Bridgette Dunlap

    Ugh. Haven’t brought myself to read it yet. Here we go.

  • Wendy

    We either love God or hate Him and all our reasoning follows one of those paths.

    • fiona64

      Which god?

      I really do grow tired of the black-and-white thinking that spews forth from the average “religious conservative.”

      Maybe you are okay with corporations making medical decisions for you based on the owner’s religious belief, but I’m not.

      • cjvg

        So what happens when the corporations owners is a Chinese (one child only) corporation ? (plenty argue that Maoism, socialism, communism etc is form off religious conviction)

        Does this “religious” corporation gets to force an abortion on a American employee who is having a second pregnancy?!

        • fiona64

          That’s kind of my point. It’s all nonsense. The company owner’s religious beliefs should not be enforced upon employees who may not share them.

          • cjvg

            Sorry I guess I was not clear enough, I absolutely agreed with your first statement.
            I only added my 2 cents to show that this rule can cut both ways.
            Next time it might be the anti-choice groups who will get their personal choices restricted, compliments of their new corporate masters!

          • fiona64

            Thanks for clarifying; if it’s one thing I’ve said over the years on the internet, it’s that this is not the ideal communications medium. Nuance is lost on both sides.

          • Mr_Cris

            They don’t force their religion on their employees. They are free to purchase their own contraception without losing their jobs.

          • fiona64

            Yes, because $400 out of pocket each month won’t be a burden on woman making minimum wage at Hobby Lobby.

            What planet do you *live* on, dude?

          • Mr_Cris

            Contraception isn’t necessary for most women. It isn’t 400 dollars. It can be as low as 15 dollars. You are of by only a factor of 27.
            I live on the same planet. But apparently you live in a fantasy world.

          • fiona64

            You are making a lot of assumptions. The cost of contraception depends upon the brand, formulation, etc., and can be as high as $400/month. And it isn’t up to you to say whether or not “most women” need contraception.

            Oh, wait. I’m sorry; you think women should only have sex if they want children. I keep forgetting that.

          • Mr_Cris

            “And it isn’t up to you to say whether or not “most women” need contraception.”

            But it is true. Only if a woman has a particular illness it is necessary.

            If it is for recreational purposes she can pay for it herself. Next we would be required to pay for your sex toys.

          • fiona64

            Why are you so concerned about what women do for ‘recreation,’ as you put it? You’re beginning to sound like some sort of creeping voyeur.

            And who is ‘we’? I think you just outed yourself as the owner of Hobby Lobby.

          • Mr_Cris

            Why are you so concerned about what women do for ‘recreation,’.
            I’m not. Why are you?
            I simply don’t believe in paying for other peoples choices.
            With we I mean tax-payers.

          • fiona64

            So, you’re concerned that your tax dollars are going to pay for an underprivileged woman’s contraception?

            Well, I’m concerned that my tax dollars went to pay for two illegal wars under Dubya … wars that killed actual born, sapient, sentient people. But those were doubtless A-okay in your book; if it’s one thing that I’ve noticed about the anti-choice, it’s that you are almost all pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-social net types. You don’t care about what happens after birth, so long as the woman remains pregnant.

            Other women’s reproductive decisions are none of my business, Mr. Cris. Furthermore, I don’t care if she’s having sex for the sole purpose of getting pregnant, or for the sole purpose of getting her rocks off (what you call ‘recreation’). You, OTOH, maintain that sex should be for procreation only. Not your call.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You, OTOH, maintain that sex should be for procreation only”
            No I have not. Stop putting words in my mouth.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, actually, you did. “Women who don’t want babies shouldn’t have sex.” That’s pretty fucking clear, Mr. Cris.

          • Mr_Cris

            Act A has the effect B and C.
            People who don’t want C shouldn’t do A.
            That isn’t the same as saying people shouldn’t do A because they want B.

          • fiona64

            I’m sorry; my “bullshit to English” decoder ring is still broken. I can’t figure out what you mean.

            Unless it’s to demonstrate that your homeschooling also failed to cover Aristotelian syllogism.

          • Noël West

            A particular illness? Primary dysmenorrhea is suffered by over 50% of women during their reproductive years. Most of the type it’s idiopathic, and renders some women (such as myself) incapable of functioning up to 12 weeks a year if left untreated. PCOS and endometriosis are also frequently treated by hormonal contraceptives – that’s about 20% of women. Then it’s also used to treat eating disorder patients and women with such low body fat that they do not menstruate – which, the range on those numbers is vast. So, a few articular women with a particular disease doesn’t cut it.

            These medications should be available and accessible and affordable for all women, regardless of the purpose or the side effects.

          • Mr_Cris

            I completely agree with you.
            “regardless of the purpose”
            But that doesn’t make sense.

          • colleen2

            Contraception isn’t necessary for most women.

            The availability of effective contraception is an absolute necessity for fertile women trying to make a living in this culture. It is a necessity for survival. I understand that if women were not allowed to work, even substandard men such as yourself, would have more opportunities. But we need to support the children we already have and ourselves and we are fully aware that counting on a piece of crap like you would result in poverty and an early death. Now, why not go out there and find some lawns to mow.
            We are far more aware than you of the realities of effective contraception. The costs are determined by individual needs.

            Here’s your problem,. The ‘pro-life’ movement, like the tea party, has attracted some really shallow and stupid women. I mean you guys gave us Sarah Palin and believed we were shallow and vain enough to vote for her. Your problem, and the problem of the religious right, is that you apparently believe that all women are as shallow and credulous as the women who raise boys like you. As long as you believe that as long as you continue to insist that women, all women, be less than you (and y’all aren’t much, individually or in a group) then you won’t be living on the same planet.

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t buy your “not funding contraception causes poverty”-argument.
            It is simply not true.

            “I mean you guys gave us Sarah Palin”
            I’m not an American.

          • fiona64

            Yep, you’re American. You’re a typical Teabircher right-wing radical good ol’ boy, complete with bad spellings, pejorative statements about Pres Obama … the whole shebang.

            Trying to pretend you’re not American in order to distance yourself from what you’ve said, including that “in my country, the difference between cecotropes and feces is irrelevant,” is just laughable. Why? Because other languages are even *more* particular than American English in their definition of terms, and no where on the planet is cecotrope synonymous with shit.

            Plus, you’ve said (in response to a question), “By we I mean taxpayers.” If you are not a taxpayer in this country, why would you say that?

            Oh, wait. it’s because you’re American.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m Dutch. I live in the Netherlands. Not in the USA. Sorry for my bad spelling. English isn’t my primary language.
            I read those facts about rabbits in a book. I may have mistranslated the words. But the argument still holds.

          • fiona64

            So, now you’re admitting that you didn’t have a rabbit, but just read something.

            And, again, if you don’t live in the USA, what the fuck are you doing pretending that your tax dollars have anything to do with laws in this country?

            Ga schroef zelf.

          • Mr_Cris

            “now you’re admitting that you didn’t have a rabbit”

            No I really did have a rabbit. But those ‘things’ that the rabbit produced didn’t came with a label. I just gave it food, water and love.

            I love the united states and I hate it when people are trying to fundamentally transform it.

          • fiona64

            Actually, it’s fairly easy to tell the difference between a cecotrope and feces (yes, I’ve had rabbits), but that is not the point of this discussion.

            The people fundamentally trying to transform the United States are the anti-choice, Teabircher, science denying idiots who want to “take our country back” to a mythical time in the 1950s, not the progressives.

            Als u Nederlandse, ben ik de koningin van Sheba.

          • Mr_Cris

            The people fundamentally trying to transform the United States are the leftist like Obama (his words not mine), extremist feminist terrorist, homosexual terrorist, science denying God-hating ignorant perverts who want to take our country to a utopia. They want the country to regress to a pre-civilization era.

          • fiona64

            The people fundamentally trying to transform the United States are the
            leftist like Obama (his words not mine), extremist feminist terrorist,
            homosexual terrorist, science denying God-hating ignorant perverts who
            want to take our country to a utopia.

            So you’ve given up pretending to be Dutch, I see …

            So, what punishment should all of these horrible people receive?

          • Mr_Cris

            I wish I was an American. The USA is the most beautiful country in the world.

            “So, what punishment should all of these horrible people receive?”
            None. It is not a crime to be foolish.

          • Theodoor Westerhof

            Oh sure, however in the Netherlands anticonception will not cost the user more than about 10 Euro per cycle. BTW, why not just stop with all that nastiness and make the religious shop pay for menstruation problem medication, instead of anti-conception?

          • Mr_Cris

            I agree with you.

          • colleen2

            I made no such argument.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m sorry. I misread your argument. Or to be more precise. I though you made an argument, but in stead you made an ad hominem attack.

            “As long as you believe that as long as you continue to insist that women, all women, be less than you (and y’all aren’t much, individually or in a group) then you won’t be living on the same planet.”

            I never said that women are less than me(n).

          • fiona64

            He’s just pissed that he no longer has a paper route.

          • Ella Warnock

            A woman is the sole arbiter of whether contraception is “necessary” or not.

          • Mr_Cris

            No the doctor decides whether it is medically necessary. The woman is the sole arbiter of whether she purchases it or not when it isn’t covered by her health insurance. It’s the doctors decision. Not yours. You want to make that decision for others. That makes you anti-choice.

          • Ella Warnock

            No, the doctor talks with the patient about about “which” birth control method is appropriate. The doctor doesn’t “decide” whether one should or should not employ BC. So yes, it IS solely her decision. The doctor writes the scrip or installs the IUD or inserts the implants – or performs a tubal ligation. What she doesn’t do is decide for the patient whether or not that patient will use BC, and she most certainly doesn’t decide whether or not that method will be permanent.

            And for some reason, you’ve gone completely off the reservation. When have I ever implied that what other women chose for BC was “my” decision or any of my business? Please do point that out. Please also point out where I’ve said that I do not support any choice a woman makes, be it BC, abortion, adopting out a child, or keeping it.

            “A woman is the sole arbiter of whether contraception is “necessary” or not.”

            How you got all of that from that one sentence . . .

          • Mr_Cris

            If birth control is not anybody’s business, then why do business have to pay for it?

          • Ella Warnock

            I didn’t say they should. The few years I took it before the tubal, I paid for it. Whether or not it’s covered by insurance will have no bearing on whether a doctor think it’s appropriate for to take it. The options are discussed; I decide.

          • Mr_Cris

            So you agree with that hobby lobby shouldn’t pay for abortion and contraception?

          • Ella Warnock

            Abortion is just controversial enough that if one wants to opt out of providing coverage of that, fine. Of course, this doesn’t preclude the fact that employees may be purchasing with the money that HL pays them all manner of things “sinful”: Abortions, porn, weed, alcohol, strippers, etc. There’s really only so much control you can have over another person.

          • Mr_Cris

            “of things “sinful”: Abortions, porn, weed, alcohol, strippers, donating to liberal causes, etc. There’s really only so much control you can have over another person.”

            Why did you put the word sinful between quotations? The things you mentioned can indeed be sinful. Whether they should be banned or not is a seperate issue. I’m not the one who wants to control people. Liberals do. I do not want all sins to be banned. But when a sin violates other people’s rights then something needs to change.

          • Valde

            ” I’m not the one who wants to control people.”

            Forcing little kids to remain pregnant even if it will kill and maim them sure sounds like control to me.

            You are a rape apologist.

          • Mr_Cris

            Like I said many times I do support abortion in the case of the life of the mother.

          • Valde

            Yeah, just not in the case of the health of the mother.

            If the girl ends up infertile, blind, with diabetes, or unable to walk as a result, you DON”T CARE.

            You only care about the fetus.

            You are a rape apologist.

          • Mr_Cris

            I do care. But I care more about life then health.

          • Valde

            Yes, of course you do.

            Little girls who are victims of rape should be so very happy that they have you on their side to decide what level of disaiblity is ‘acceptable’.

          • colleen2

            you really are disgusting.

          • Ella Warnock

            The punctuation is pretty self-explanatory. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t have mentioned it.

          • Mr_Cris

            So you claim to be God?

          • Ella Warnock

            Do I? You tell me.

          • Mr_Cris

            If you believe you can decide what constitutes as a sin and what not. You claim to be God. Since God decides what is sin or not.

          • Ella Warnock

            Prove that I think I’m god.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Which God? Theres about 5,000 different Gods around the world as we speak.

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t know how many gods there are that use the term sin.
            But their is only one God.

          • colleen2

            We do not agree that Hobby Lobby or any other business IS paying for abortion and contraception. They certainly aren’t doing so directly. And you certainly aren’t complaining about forcing us to be in the same filthy insurance pool as an aging Bishop seeking ed drugs so he can continue to rape children.

            If you don’t want businesses being forced to offer health coverage as part of the compensation package they offer employees you need to be clear about that. Right now it looks like you and Hobby Lobby and the Catholic church are eager to use the law to discriminate against women because, while women are a great source of cheap or free labor for conservatives, their veterinary needs and breeding stuff gets really expensive. Why should employers be forced to ‘pay’ for the results of some other guy’s sex life? Or schools. or pay any taxes at all. After all, he worked hard for his money and the rest of us have our feet on his poor exposed Howard Roark neck. Have I got it right?

          • Sarah Eilerson

            No, my doctor did not decide that I needed contraception; I did. My doctor prescribed the method that was right for me. Where are you getting “making decisions for others” out of any of this? I literally can’t make any decisions for others about whether or not they use birth control or what kind they use – or whether they have children or not. That is, obviously, an individual choice for each individual.

          • Mr_Cris

            No you didn’t. You decided to want it. Wanting is not needing.

            Birth control is only necessary in certain medical cases. If it is for recreational purposes or personal choices it should not be paid for by others.

          • Ella Warnock

            Needing it is what I say it is. Not wanting to have children means needing it. Necessary is not what anyone else thinks it is. The point is moot, really, because that’s how it works – women are the most deciding factor on the issue of birth control because we’re the ones with the most to lose.

          • Mr_Cris

            You have a different definition of the word need.
            You can abstain, have a sterilization or use natural family planning methods. So there are plenty of alternatives.
            If it is your choice not to have children then you should pay for that choice.

          • Ella Warnock

            I am sterilized, 20 years now. Insurance covered it. Abstinence is most certainly out of the question, as I’m married.

            “Pay” for not having children – whatever does that mean?

            You have a definition of need that imposes unreasonable restrictions on those who disagree with you. At any rate, what and how I managed my reproductive life (or lack thereof) isn’t for anyone else to decide or worry themselves about overly much. I’m the captain of this ship, as it were.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You have a definition of need that imposes unreasonable restrictions on those who disagree with you.”
            I do not have to pay for other people’s lifestyle choices. How is that unreasonable?

            “I’m the captain of this ship, as it were.”
            Then why should I pay for the fuel of your ship, as it were?

          • Ella Warnock

            You’re not.

          • colleen2

            You aren’t. That health care is part of their compensation package. Employees aren’t feudal vassals, much as conservatives would prefer otherwise.

            Go check it out.Get your first job, work at it for awhile. Lose that 8 ton sense of entitlement you carry around. Do something useful for a change progo. You’ve never worked hard a day in your life. (and no, going to school and living in your parent’s basement is not work.

          • Valde

            Unless it’s an 11 year old rape victim, who is, in your mind, better off now that she is pregnant with her rapist’s offspring.

            Indeed, you don’t believe women and girls should have a say at all in whether or not they get pregnant.

          • Mr_Cris

            Women should have all the saying in whether they get pregnant!
            But after conception there is no way of preventing conception anymore. You can only pretend it never happend. That is what abortion is. Hiding the truth.

          • Valde

            No.

            You quite clearly believe that a little 11 year old child should have no say in whether or not she is impregnated or remains pregnant.

            To you, she is nothing more than a container for the all important rapist sperm.

          • Mr_Cris

            “in whether or not she is impregnated”

            Well you can’t change the past. If someone is pregnant. Then you can no longer choose not to have been impregnated.
            If it is about the future then you are right about me. I don’t want little girls to have a say in whether they get impregnated. They are unable to legitimately consent. They should under no circumstance be impregnated. Whether she ‘consents’ or not.
            Pregnancy after rape can always be prevented. Unfortunately it is underreported or reported too late to stop fertilisation. And making abortion inducing drugs available for minors without parental consent or notification will not prevent rape. It will only cover it up.

          • Valde

            ” I don’t want little girls to have a say in whether they get impregnated”

            Thanks for admitting it.

            Thanks for admitting that you would rather see a little girl suffer from a pregnancy that could maim her, all because you believe that the rapist fetus is more important than she.

          • Mr_Cris

            You do want those girls to have a say? Then you are in support of pedophilia. Because if an 11 year old girl wants to be impregnated she deserves to have a say according to you.

          • Valde

            OH do shut up with your attempts to twist everything.

            You know as well as I do what I meant.

            You are a rape apologist and you may as well admit it.

            It’s obvious to everyone here.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You know as well as I do what I meant.”
            Yes. You meant it to distort my words. So you could make it sound like I wrote the exact opposite of what I did.
            I never once defended rape.

          • Valde

            No, you did defend rape.

            You very strongly implied it.

            The girl should be happy that she is having a baby – irrespective of how she got pregnant.

            Therefore, if the rape pregnancy is a good thing, then so is the rape, because the pregnant little girl would not be blessed with the gift of a rape baby.

            No, it is quite clear that you are a rape apologist who will defend the right of rapists to impregnate little girls.

          • Mr_Cris

            No I didn’t.
            I very strongly said the exact opposite.
            You are incapable of using basic logic.
            You can be happy about a result, but unhappy about the cause.
            The ends don’t always justify the means. Tragedy can lead to good things. But you seem to think that if you are happy about C, you are always automatically happy about B and A. That simply isn’t true.

          • Valde

            Doesn’t matter if you don’t think the rape is a nice thing to do or not – YOU LIKE THE RESULTS.

            You view rape as just another method of conception, and an 11 year old girl as nothing more than an easy bake oven in your opinion. In your world, she has no more say about what is put in her than your oven has in whether or not you cook pizza.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            I’m not abstaining from sex in my marriage, nothing you can do about that.

          • Noël West

            And you don’t need to know the medical reasons why thousands of women need hormonal contraceptives. I highly doubt you want to get a letter in the mail every year, assuring you, from all these women, that they are not having sex and send their medical records to you and samples of their blood every month to ensure no pregnancy hormones and all the other people who have decided that someone else’s use of hormonal contraception is so wrong and can only be used for medical purposes (since when is the handling of human life not a medical thing, by the way?). Seriously? All the women would probably die of blood loss just to assure their employers and the tax payers who disagree with contraception that they aren’t being “immoral” in the eyes of a stranger who obviously abides by a different set of morals.

          • Ella Warnock

            Not to mention a larger infrastructure (read; more taxes) to support such a venture. I thought conservatives wanted a smaller government.

          • Noël West

            One would think smaller government and fewer laws would go hand-in-hand, but apparently it does not. So long as it is against the opposition, it seems the conservatives don’t really care what they support and will say literally anything to attempt to back up their words.

            Ever see the looks on some of the politicians faces when asked point-blank that by enforcing such codes on abortion facilities would potentially cause the deaths of thousands of people? They just stop for a minute and go “I am pro-life, and I will always be pro-life” because they can’t admit that they either don’t care if those people die (because in their eyes, those people are worthless and not deserving of life, and that’s not very pro-life to say) or because they can’t admit to being wrong in public forum.

          • Mr_Cris

            “And you don’t need to know the medical reasons why thousands of women need hormonal contraceptives”
            No I don’t.

            “All the women would probably die of blood loss just to assure their employers and the tax payers who disagree with contraception that they aren’t being “immoral”"

            If a woman’s life is at risk it is medically necessary.

          • Valde

            By that logic, every single health care item that doesn’t actively prevent a person from dying in short order should be off the table.

          • Mr_Cris

            To some degree that indeed is my point.
            Health insurance is there for two reasons:

            -to share risks. Life is unfair. Some people get hit by a commet or get bitten by a snake. And we think it is fair to share those risks.

            -as a charity. Some people are financially more of a burden to society then what they bring in. But people are invaluable and therefore we choose to share the costs of helping out the unfortunate.

            So health insurance is there to help people who are sick or get sick later on. It is not intended to help people with their lifestyle choices.

          • Ella Warnock

            Life is indeed unfair. Born people don’t get any guarantees. Fetuses don’t either.

          • Valde

            Yes, life is unfair, which is why we should give fetuses all of the advantages and screw women over in the process.

            Even if the woman in question is an 11 year old rape victim who will end up disabled as a result of the pregnancy.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Does that mean I don’t have to help pay your medical bills for cancer because you aren’t a vegetarian? Because if I felt consuming red meat was detrimental to your health, then technically I don’t have to pay for your problems that I feel will result from that either. Or any other lifestyle choice you make.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Does that mean I don’t have to help pay your medical bills for cancer because you aren’t a vegetarian?”
            I didn’t know eating steak killed unborn children.

          • Mr_Cris

            The difference between those is that one of them potentially harms yourself and the other potentially harms the unborn child.
            Another difference is that treatment for cancer is vital. But birth control because a woman wants to have sex without getting pregnant is not vital.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            You dont get to decide what is vital for other peoples bodies. That must really frustrate you.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You dont get to decide what is vital for other peoples bodies”
            I don’t have to decide. Science already does. Birth control for recreational purposes is not the same as cancer treatment.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            You are not allowed to know what reasons someone has for using birth control or any other medication. Its called privacy. Trying to interfere with peoples medical history is creepy. That is the point that I was trying to make.

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t want to know the reason. I just don’t want to pay for it if it is not necessary. No privacy has to be violated.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Here let me break this down for you one more time:
            You. Do. Not. Get. To. Decide. What. Medication. Is. Necessary.

            Unless you went through someone’s medical records you would never know what the reasons are to decide if certain medications are necessary. My doctors dont care about how you feel about my prescriptions.

          • Mr_Cris

            Whether or not something is necessary is a matter of fact not opinion.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Fact: My doctor has decided that contraception is necessary for me.
            So what now? Would you like to argue with doctors and tell them their medical assessment isn’t valid?

          • Mr_Cris

            “Would you like to argue with doctors and tell them their medical assessment isn’t valid?”
            Yes.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Go ahead, here is her info:

            Dr. Anya Rose, Magan Medical Clinic:
            1330 W Covina Blvd San Dimas, CA 91773
            (909) 592-9712

            I’m pretty sure if you log onto the website there is a way to contact via email so you dont have make a long distance phone call. Please share with us her response to your objections. Many of us will be curious of the outcome.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m not calling your doctor. And I don’t think she will discuss confidential data with me anyway.

            If a doctor sees no difference between taking contraceptives for a personal lifestyle choice and for medical reasons then she is wrong.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            You don’t have to ask about me specifically, just call and ask to see if she agrees with you about whats right or wrong. I’m sure she will answer your questions.

            If not, then I guess things aren’t the way you want them to be, thats too bad. You have no control over the issue, tough.

          • Gemini68

            Have you gone to medical school and then done an OB/GYN residency? If not your opinion means jack shit.

            The medical use of contraceptives is to prevent contraception. These medications must be taken continuously because the hormonal regulation of ovulation takes place on a monthly cycle. This isn’t like erectile dysfunction where you pop your Viagra and an hour later you’re ready to go.

            And a pregnancy in the case of rape or incest is not a lifestyle choice.

          • fiona64

            So, now you’ve moved on to practicing medicine without a license.

          • Mr_Cris

            How is disagreeing with a doctor’s worldview “practicing medicine without a license”?

          • fiona64

            You are not a doctor, dumbass. Therefore, saying that a doctor’s medical assessment is invalid (as you stated it is) means that you think you know better than someone’s doctor what is appropriate for that patient.

            And, since you lack the education to make that assessment but think you should be allowed to do so (not unlike the politicians you worship), you are practicing medicine without a license. And so are they.

          • Valde

            Yes, please share with us the doctors response to your objections.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And because you’re an idiot teenager and not a doctor, your opinion means absolutely zip.

          • Ella Warnock

            Whether you in particular think something is necessary is your opinion. In much the same way you haven’t brought an A-game, you also haven’t presented any facts to back up your unfortunate and erroneous claims. Is this really the best you can do? Hmm, frankly I’d expect more from an engineering student. I’m rather embarrassed for you.

          • fiona64

            Well, isn’t it lucky that little boys living in their mother’s basements and pretending to be Dutch don’t have to pay for anything?

          • fiona64

            Nothing he hates more than women not obeying him. It must suck to be a teenager …

          • Amanda Kazarian

            I beg to differ, living child free is vital to my marriage. Im not going to stop using birth control when I have sex with my husband just because it bothers you. My lifestyle choices are important to my doctor and you have no control over that. I pay for my birth control and other health services with the money that is taken out of my paychecks, not by tax funds.

          • Mr_Cris

            “living child free is vital to my marriage”
            Why? Is your husband going to leave you if you got pregnant?

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Because we dont want children. My husband doesnt want to me to go through an unwanted pregnancy, our marriage is funny like that.

          • Mr_Cris

            Look. If you don’t want children that is your choice. I have no problem with that. I just don’t see how that’s vital.

            “our marriage is funny like that”

            I don’t understand what you mean by that. Can you clarify?

          • Amanda Kazarian

            You dont get to decide what is vital to our marriage. Your opinion doesnt matter. You are not allowed to decide what is important to us.

          • Mr_Cris

            I completely agree with you. But you didn’t answer my question.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            About how marriage is funny? heres your answer:

            My husband respects me enough to let me make decisions about what medication I could use. He doesn’t try to shaft responsibility or deny me anything because it doesn’t fit in his microcosm of morals. He would not want to see me go through an unwanted pregnancy.

          • Mr_Cris

            That still doesn’t answer my question.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            What question?

          • Mr_Cris

            Why your marriage will end if you get pregnant.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            I never said it would. Why would you want to force a couple to go through a difficult experience if its totally preventable is beyond me.

            And no, I don’t care if you don’t think pregnancy is a bad thing, you opinion on my marriage isn’t valued.

          • Valde

            Because he doesn’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to have children.

            Because he doesn’t understand why an 11 year old victim of rape might not consider the pregnancy and resulting health problems to be a ‘gift’ from the rapist.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            And when push comes to shove, he won’t even call a doctor to express his views on her decisions even though he thinks he has the right to argue with them. Called his bluff. What a lazy troll.

          • Mr_Cris

            You did. You said it is vital to your marriage.
            It is like saying water and food is vital, but you won’t die if you don’t eat and drink. Or saying not catching a bullet in the heart is vital. But you won’t die if you get shot in the chest.
            So if it won’t end your marriage then it isn’t vital. It maybe beneficial, but that is not the same as vital.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            How we live our marriage is decided by husband and I. We decide what is vital to our marriage, not you. You can say we are wrong all you like but that wont change anything. My relationship and what is vital to its quality is between me+husband, not me+husband+random internet stranger

          • Mr_Cris

            So you have a different definition of the word vital then?

          • fiona64

            No, she’s using the same one everyone else uses.

            Unless they’re ignorant little boys pretending to be Dutch, that is …

          • Valde

            Yes, as long as people aren’t literally dying in front of your eyes, they don’t deserve shit.

            That’s the attitude!

          • fiona64

            If this were a drinking game, requiring participants to take a shot every time Little Cris comes up with yet another asinine straw man, we’d all be dead from alcohol poisoning.

          • colleen2

            are you insane and hallucinating? She said nothing even close to that. You’re one sick puppy, mr chris.

          • Mr_Cris

            It was exactly what she said. She said it was vital. Look up the word vital.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The thought of people choosing to be childless really seems to upset you, Cris. Why is that? Do you not have enough things to do in your own life without worrying about how other people choose to live theirs?

          • Mr_Cris

            Actually I have no problem with it as I’ve written before. I simply wanted to know what motivates her since she brought it up.

          • Mr_Cris

            Actually I have no problem with it as I’ve written before. I simply wanted to know what motivates her since she brought it up.She is perfectly capable of responding to my questions. You are not her spokesperson.

          • fiona64

            “Because I said so” is all of the response that your impertinent inquiry deserves.

          • Mr_Cris

            Then I’m going to assume her choice is completely unfounded.
            She says her husband will respect her for her choice no matter what, yet she believes her marriage will end when she gets pregnant.

          • fiona64

            That is not what she said, and you know it. Neither she nor her husband want children. This is called being “childfree.” It is not at all unusual. She and her husband have arrived at this decision together; it is a vital part of their marriage that they not have children. It’s not a “maybe someday” or “we’ll think about it tomorrow”; it’s an important piece of the contract for them. I am very well able to tell that if she gets pregnant, her marriage will not end … because the pregnancy will be terminated. It’s a decision that many couples arrive at together, and it’s still none of your business.

            You are an impertinent, impudent little boy. Go away.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She doesn’t need to justify her choice to you or anyone else, and you have no right to a say in the choices she and her husband make. You are only a child and your opinion means nothing.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Crissy, contrary to what Mommy and Daddy taught you in your little homeschool class, marriage is not just for children. People can get married and choose to have just one child, or many, or none at all–and all those choices are equally valid and equally good. You have a right to say or an opinion about your own choices, once you grow up and start making them. You have no right to a say or even an opinion about other people’s childbearing choices.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Don’t lie, Cris. It does bother you quite a bit. I’ve read your past comments–any time someone says they don’t want to have a child or multiple children you feel compelled to ask why. You wouldn’t do that if you weren’t bothered. The concept that a couple chooses to get married but does not want a child seems to be an alien concept to you–it really seems to puzzle you. And it’s actually more proof that you’re a teenager and probably quite a young one–teens often have trouble understanding people who choose to live differently than the way they were raised, particularly if they’ve been very sheltered like you seem to have been.

          • Mr_Cris

            I admit I don’t understand why some people don’t want children. That’s why I asked.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Someone choosing to remain childfree is their business. Not yours, not mine, and certainly not the business of society.

          • Mr_Cris

            Not mine. Not yours. But it certainly is the business of society. It is vital for society to know why people suddenly have irrational fears of having children.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it’s not society’s business at all. It’s a personal and not a government matter. And there’s nothing irrational about someone who doesn’t want to have kids, or someone who wants to have only one, or someone who wants to have bunches. It’s a personal matter.

          • colleen2

            she did not say that her marriage would end if she got pregnant. That is something you made up entirely. And no, I’m not going to engage in some stupid conversation about your own special meaning for the word “vital”. You appear to be unable to carry on a conversation. Conversations require that you respond to what people actually say, not what you hallucinate they say. Now fuck off.

          • Valde

            You nailed, it Colleen

            Bravo!

          • Mr_Cris

            You are right. She did not write it in those words. So I wrote what I thought she meant and asked her to clarify. She did not.
            So I’m going to assume that if she said it was vital to her marriage that without it her marriage would end or be destroyed. Otherwise it would not be vital but preferable or beneficial. I know this seems like I attack her on a simple choice of words. But the choice of words here is very important. She brought it up first. If she claims it is vital than she should be able to explain why it is so. If she doesn’t want to share her motives with me she is perfectly capable of writing that. But all she does is avoid the question.

          • colleen2

            what part of “fuck off” is unclear to you?

          • Mr_Cris

            The part where the internet is not a place. The part where you are not a disqus moderator. The part where you think you think I don’t have a right to respond to you. The part where you don’t want me to respond to you because you know I’m right.

          • fiona64

            … said the guy who told me to “watch my words” and that I should not reply to him anymore.

            Dude, you are a joke.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The fact that she brought it up does not mean that she owes you an explanation. The fact that you can’t understand why some couples prefer to remain childless is your problem, not hers.

          • fiona64

            The answer is: it’s none of your fucking business.

          • Mr_Cris

            It is none of your business to interfere with this conversation. She is sharing her personal motives. I want her to clarify them. Stay out of this.

          • fiona64

            Just one more choice you don’t get to make for me! You’re asking nosy-assed questions in a public forum, and I have just as much right to point this out as anyone else.

            If you don’t want to be called a nosy fucker, stop being one!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Maybe when you get to be a grownup, little Crissy, you might grow to understand these things. Somehow I doubt it, but you might. Until then, you really need to learn to stay out of matters that are not your concern.

          • fiona64

            Why do you care so much whether a given couple wants to have children? Some people just do not, and that is their decision to make. And, in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy, contraception is a medical necessity.

            Now, I realize that to some nosy little fucker in Podunk, Nebraska, who thinks he knows more than a physician, that this is anathema (have Mommy help you look up the big word). Women who don’t want to be pregnant should just abstain, right? Because sex isn’t, as some nosy little fucker in Podunk, Nebraska, puts it, for “recreation.

            Except, guess what? It is! I know that this is hard for you to comprehend, but consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. And, should contraception fail, those of us who have chosen to remain childfree have ::gasp:: the option to terminate the pregnancy. If my tubal ligation (have Mommy help you look up the big words), the pregnancy would be terminated so fast that your foolish, lying head would spin right off of your neck. My husband is in full concurrence with this.

            So, since you want to ask nosy questions, here’s one for you: why is it any of your fucking business why *anyone* chooses not to have children? Do you ask people with children why they chose to have them? If not, why not?

          • Jennifer Starr

            It really bothers you that other people don’t hold to the same beliefs that you do, doesn’t it? You don’t have enough to do in your life without trying to control how others live theirs, is that it?

          • Valde

            But if she was raped you would consider it a gift, wouldn’t you?

          • Mr_Cris

            Abortion doesn’t prevent you from having children. It kills the ones you already have.

          • Valde

            But if she was raped you would consider that to be a gift, right?

          • fiona64

            You really are a nosy little fucker. Didn’t your mommy teach you that it was rude to ask such personal questions?

          • Mr_Cris

            She started sharing her personal motives for not having children. I wanted her to clarify her motives. If she didn’t want people to ask questions about it she shouldn’t have mentioned it. If she doesn’t want to answer my question that is fine.

            Didn’t your mommy teach you it is rude to call someone a “nosy little fucker”?

          • fiona64

            Didn’t your mommy teach you not to be *be* a nosy little fucker?

            You are the one who said it isn’t name-calling if it’s the truth (when referring to “men-hating femenists[sic]“). So, since you are a nosy little fucker, I’m just telling the truth.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Ok some where down this post you asked about me about the definition of the word “Vital”: a : fundamentally concerned with or affecting life or living beings: as (1) : tending to renew or refresh the living :invigorating (2) : destructive to life : mortal

            There. Having children will fundamentally affect my life and the life of my husband. You can disagree with that. You can disagree with my choices all you like. You can try to impose your opinions of my lifestyle on me as well. But one thing I love to do with people who feel the way you do is remind you over and over again that you have no control over the situation. You never will.

            So go ahead and get your jimmies rustled over things random strangers are doing over the internet. I’ll continue to enjoy my child free lifestyle through contraceptives that are paid for by my insurance (which I also pay for by the money taken out of my paychecks, so its technically not free anyway).

            You don’t even have the nerve to call my doctor and argue your views with her despite how strongly you claim to feel about them. Kind of cowardly I think.

          • colleen2

            Other people do no need to tell you why they make the choices that make about the most personal aspects of their lives. When you do so and do so aggressively ‘nosy little fucker’ is a precise description of your behavior.

            I would also add ‘rude and lying’ to the list of traits.

          • Mr_Cris

            Asking questions about topics that where raised is not nosy. I cannot find out more about you than what you choose to share with me.

          • Sarah Eilerson

            Want and need often intersect. I don’t want a kid, thus birth control is necessary to not end up with an unwanted pregnancy, which would make it a need.

            Yeah, there are other methods, ones that you and your fellow travelers approve of, but then again, so what? You’re free to employ as many of them as you like. I’m not interested in any of them, and I’m not talking about WHY it’s taken or WHO is paying for it. anyway. I’m saying that it’s no one else’s business or decision what method I use. That’s the way our system works; take it or leave it.

          • Mr_Cris

            “I don’t want a kid, thus birth control is necessary to not end up with an unwanted pregnancy, which would make it a need.”

            I agree with you 100%.
            But.
            I wasn’t talking about personal need, but a medical need.

            “I want to shoot a person, thus a gun is necessary to end up with a dead body, which would make it a need.”

            So your tax money should be used to purchase my gun.

            “We’re all paying for things we’d rather not”
            Yes. But I disagree with that as well. I want smaller government. I want govermnent to only protect the country from threats and protect basic freedoms. We can handle the rest.

          • fiona64

            I want govermnent to only protect the country from threats and protect basic freedoms. We can handle the rest.

            Says the guy who is pretending to live in a country with universal health care …

          • Mr_Cris

            So people automatically agree with everything their country stands for?

          • fiona64

            ::yawn:: You’re a very boring little boy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you were to come down with a long-term illness, I’m willing to bet that your parents would really appreciate the fact that they don’t have to choose between getting you medical care and putting food on the table.

          • Mr_Cris

            My family and my church are perfectly capable of taking care of me when I’m no longer capable of taking care of myself. I do not need the government. I do support a safety net, but not universal health care.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So are you saying that you don’t believe in going to doctors?

          • Mr_Cris

            No that is not what I’m saying. I’m talking about financial support from family. Not medical support. My parents are not doctors.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So if you’re sick, you go to the doctor. Do your parents cover you through a private insurance plan?

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m no longer covered by my parents. I pay my own health insurance.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And what about if you were to need long-term medical care? Permanent hospitalization, long-term disability, etc. What is that covered by?

          • Mr_Cris

            That is none of your business.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Dear oh dear–you have gotten yourself into a pickle, haven’t you? Because if you actually lived in the Netherlands, you would be able to answer immediately, Let me let you in on a secret–long term-care is covered for every Dutch Citizen by the exact same thing.

          • colleen2

            ‘mr cris’ sure doesn’t think his crap through, does he?

          • colleen2

            you are so sad

          • Gemini68

            Numerous people on this blog have been beating you over the head about the owners of a company inflicting their religious ideology on their employees. Mandating coverage of contraceptives does not mean that a female employee must use a contraceptive – it means giving a woman the choice to use one. The owners of Hobby Lobby want to use their religious ideology as a justification to strip employees of their right to choose a medical treatment whose coverage is mandated under federal legislation.

      • Mr_Cris

        But you don’t seem to have a problem with the government making medical decisions.

        • fiona64

          What medical decisions is the government making, Mr. Cris? I’m keen to know.

          • Mr_Cris

            Forcing people to pay for contraceptives, abortions and sterilisations,
            Legalising infanticide, banning soda,…

          • fiona64

            Once again, the government is not making any of those medical decisions. Please show me where a) the government is forcing people to purchase or use contraception, abortion or steriizations. Then, show me the law that has legalized infanticide. Then, show me a law that bans soda.

            I’ll wait. Really.

          • Mr_Cris

            -Read the article
            -Obama has supported strangling live born babies to death three times!
            -google new York soda ban

          • fiona64

            You’re the one who made the assertion, you provide the links. It’s not up to me to do your homework for you.

            There is no “New York Soda Ban.” They’ve stopped selling certain sizes of soda, but you can still get a Coke with your dirty water dog.

            Since you lied about that, I have no doubt that your slanderous statement about President Obama is equally inaccurate.

            Your Bible has some pretty clear things to say about bearing false witness … and you seem to do an awful lot of that for a dude who thinks that the Bible should be the basis for law.

          • Mr_Cris

            Ok they don’t ban soda entirely but after a certain quantity they do. A partial ban if you will.
            Obama does publically support infanticide.

          • fiona64

            So, you admit that you lied about a “soda ban.” It’s not a “partial ban.” You can still get sodas. If you want more soda, buy a second one when you’re in NYC. It’s not a ban of any sort when it’s readily available.

            And still you double down on the lie about Pres Obama. Put up your source, Mr. Cris.

          • Mr_Cris

            I didn’t lie about the soda ban. That is what it’s called.

            The soda ban is just a soda ban as china’s one-child policy is a ban on children.

            I looked it up and you are wrong.

          • fiona64

            You didn’t look up jack shit.

            Once again, if you want another soda, you can guy one. It is not even remotely to China’s one-child law (which is not stringently enforced anyway). No one will deny you a second soda if you want one in NYC.

            Not that I would expect you to admit that you’re a liar; that seems to go hand-in-hand with being an anti-choicer.

          • Mr_Cris

            “which is not stringently enforced anyway”
            If you are okay with forced abortions, hefty fines and imprisonment then I guess you are right.

          • fiona64

            Hey, it’s just the flip-side of what you endorse: capital punishment for women who have abortions. It’s still anti-choice, so you should be perfectly happy with it.

          • Gemini68

            Re: government forcing women to undergo sterilization

            A day ago I read an article on the Center for Investigative Reporting site about 150 women in a California prison who were coerced into undergoing tubal ligation. The general theme in the comments “how dare these irresponsible women get pregnant – they deserve to get sterilized!”. No one asked if these women had access to birth control. Nor did anyone mention the irresponsible men who got these women pregnant.

          • Valde

            heh I have spent the last day ‘debating’ an idiot on youtube who thinks that any woman who needs a second abortion should be forced by law to be sterilized

            why, because they are all sluts?

            he claims to be pro-choice, yet told me I was a cum dumpster when I pointed out the obvious misogyny

          • Valde

            You don’t seem to have a problem with rapists making reproductive decisions for women and little girls.

          • Mr_Cris

            I do have a problem with their decision. I want them to be punished for it!

    • Ella Warnock

      You either love your fellow man or you don’t. If you don’t then your reasoning is wildly flawed.

    • Ian Osmond

      And people who wish to restrict the reproductive freedoms of other people created in God’s image hate God.

    • seamus mcdermott

      “You’re either with us or with the terrorists…”
      What a crock of bullshit.

    • Dez

      Prove there is god(s).

      • Mr_Cris

        The universe is finely tuned that it is absurd to deny there is a designer. Unless you want to believe in a multiverse.
        Biology is filled with complex design. We still have lots to discover.
        Science is lagging behind biblical knowledge thousands of years. Studies keep confirming biblical truths about diet, morality, lifesyle etc.

        Prove that everything came from nothing.

        • fiona64

          Science is lagging behind biblical knowledge thousands of years.

          Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. The Bible says that there is one light for the daytime (the sun) and one light for night (the moon). We now know that there is only one light (the sun), and that the moon reflects it.

          That’s just for starters.

          • Mr_Cris

            For starters it is impossible to “laugh your ass off”. We know that laughing doesn’t cause your ass to fall off.
            The moon does give light. But it isn’t a light source. The bible doesn’t say the moon is a source for light. Only that it is “a light”. You can read a book at night using moonlight.

          • fiona64

            Could someone please parse this nonsense into rational speech for me? Thanks in advance.

          • Mr_Cris

            Moon=light
            Moon==light source

            Sun=light
            Sun=light source

          • fiona64

            But your Bible says otherwise. Genesis 1:16 (Douay-Rheims Translation) is very clear: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

            It says there are two great lights, Mr. Cris … and we know that is not the case. Don’t back-pedal. You said that the Bible is thousands of years ahead of science in knowledge, and you’re wrong.

            However, let’s just pretend that the Bible is our legal authority, shall we? After all, in Numbers 5, a woman is forced to consume an abortifacient. How do we know it’s an abortifacient? Because the liquid contains dust from the temple floor, which would contain remnants of sacrifices. Grain was frequently sacrificed, and science tells us that when grain rots, it develops ergotamine. Science also tells us that ergotamine is an abortifacient. So, your Bible orders abortion.

            Ta-ta!

          • Mr_Cris

            The bible doesn’t say the moon is a glowing ball of gas.

            When God kills someone it isn’t murder.
            I’ve read the passage. Pregnancy is nowhere mentioned. It is about whether a woman has been faithful or not. You can be faithful and pregnant and unfaithful and not pregnant.
            And even if that were true, than abortion would only be legal in the case of adultery.

          • fiona64

            Backpedaling? From Mr. Cris? Goal-post moving? From Mr. Cris? Who would have thought it? /sarcasm

            Um, Mr. Cris? What do you think the evidence of her alleged adultery would *be*? Why, yes! A big belly. The passage is very clear.

            I also suggest you take a look through the Books of Kings, in which God orders that pregnant women’s bellies be slashed open and their infants dashed on the rocks. Seems that God is okay with abortion, so what’s your beef?

            Pro-tip: abortion is not murder. I’ve explained why this is the case already

            Abortion was well-known in Biblical times and even before. It was legal in this country for far longer than it was illegal, to boot. And even if you succeed in creating the kind of “Handmaid’s Tale” dystopia you envision, where women who have abortions are executed and their bodies hung on the walls of the Republic of Gilead, women will still find ways to terminate their pregnancies. Don’t delude yourself.

          • Valde

            and when ‘god’ orders the hebrews to commit genocide and murder babies and fetuses in the milliions then heck, it’s totes ok!

          • Valde

            I was listening to Bob Price’s podcast ‘the bible geek’ and he had something to say about what takes place in Numbers 5. Bob Price is one of my favourite biblical scholars, but I do believe he was wrong about the ‘bitter water’ and the ‘curse’. His interpretation of the story is that an adulterous women would merely be *poisoned*, and that’s it. And that if she’s innocent, she’ll survive – kind of like dumping witches in water to see if they float.

            He is such a smart man but I find it interesting that he would have missed the part where, if she was adulterous – a liquid comes out upon her thigh? I mean, that can ONLY mean one thing – abortion. You don’t leak out onto your thigh if poisoned, do you? That usually involves vomiting and diarrhea, which doesn’t involve the thigh so much.

          • colleen2

            Mr Cris does not have a sense of humor.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Do rabbits chew their cud?

          • Mr_Cris

            Yes they do in fact. They eat their droppings to get the most nutrition out of their food.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, not so much. Clearly you’ve never had a rabbit. Rabbits are not ruminants (nor are they ungulates, as the Bible proposes); they are lagomorphs. They don’t have the anatomy of a ruminant. And cecotropes are not “droppings” or “feces;” they are two different things.

            Nice try.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are incorrect. I did own a rabbit. And the verse talks about a hare, not a rabbit.

            “which means that the Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth”
            No it doesn’t. That’s what you want the bible to say.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, actually, it does. Joshua didn’t tell the earth to stop spinning in its orbit, now did he?

            Hares are no more ruminants than rabbits. But, nice try on moving the goal post. (If you were a responsible rabbit owner, you’d know the difference between cecotropes and feces … but hey, why be knowledgeable about stuff?)

          • Mr_Cris

            No it actually doesn’t. We say each morning the sun comes up. And that is what we see. Relative to the horizon the sun comes up.
            The reality is that both the sun and the earth are in complex motions. The sun moves less of course. But that part of the bible didn’t describe the physics of heavenly bodies, but the observation.

            So rabbits don’t eat their cecotropes according to you?

          • fiona64

            No, sweetie. You said rabbits eat their “droppings,” which is feces. A cecotrope is not “droppings” or “feces.” It’s a cecotrope.

            So, now you’re backpedaling on your assertion that the Bible is “thousands of years ahead of science in knowledge”? No surprise; backpedaling seems to be your major modus operandi.

          • Mr_Cris

            In my country we use the same word for it. The difference between cecotrope and droppings is completely irrelevant.

          • fiona64

            Since your country is the same as mine (the US), you’re a liar. Again. The difference between cecotropes and feces is not at all irrelevant; they are two different things.

            You’re just backpedaling. Again.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m Dutch. I do not live in the USA.

          • fiona64

            Then why are you going on and on and on about Obamacare and how your taxes should not have to pay for other people’s choices?

            If you are Dutch and do not live in the USA, this makes you a liar yet again. Your taxes are not paying for anything in this country.

          • Mr_Cris

            Because I want to move to the USA. But if Obama destroys it there is no more hope in this world.

            “Your taxes are not paying for anything in this country”
            I’ve never said that it did. I just said I didn’t want it to. It is called placing yourself in other peoples shoes. You should try it sometime.

          • fiona64

            No, it’s called being a big fat liar who was caught out by his own words. :-)

          • Mr_Cris

            You have no leg to stand on. You rarely attack my arguments just my age, nationality, gender, faith, grammar, etc.

          • fiona64

            Your “arguments” have been summarily dismissed, with facts, figures and references.

            Every other dumbassed thing you do is just more grist for the mill.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The hare is not a ruminant either.

        • Noël West

          If science is lagging that far behind then how have we managed to advanced so quickly after embracing skepticism and taking god out of the picture?

          • Mr_Cris

            That is simply not true. Modern science is created because of christianity. Christianity brought civilization and science to the western world.
            Now that the society is rejecting God we are in moral decay. People who don’t believe in God believe in anything. Multiverses, extraterrestrial life, global warming, heterosexual aids, the list goes on.

          • fiona64

            Modern science is created because of christianity. Christianity brought civilization and science to the western world.

            Yeah, not so much. You can thank the Hellenistic Greeks (specifically, the Spartans and Athenians) for democracy. You can thank the Muslim Arabs for civilization and science, medicine in particular. For a long time in our world’s history, it was *illegal* for Christians to actually study anatomy and disease, which is why so many went to Persia (iran/Iraq) for medical school.

            Hell, the Roman Catholic Church wanted to execute Galileo for proving that we had a heliocentric universe and not a geocentric one.

            Your mommy’s homeschooling ability leaves a lot to be desired.

          • Mr_Cris

            Homeschooling is illegal in the Netherlands. One of the many reasons I want to leave.

          • fiona64

            You can only leave someplace where you actually *are,* sweetie.

            I wish homeschooling were illegal everywhere, to be honest. It’s been my experience that the first people who rush to homeschool their children are the least qualified to do so.

          • fiona64

            PS: Hey, dumbass: heterosexual AIDS is not a myth. The largest growing population of HIV/AIDS patients is heterosexual women of color.

            Or did your mommy teach you that only gay men got AIDS and that it was “god’s punishment” or some similar bullshit?

            (Climate change isn’t a myth, either.)

          • Mr_Cris

            The heterosexual aids scare is a myth. It doesn’t mean that heterosexuals can’t get aids.

            There’s only one person that I know that has aids. And he is a homosexual. There are really good scientific reasons for that.

            Catastrophic anthropologic global warming is a myth. Just like global cooling was a myth.

          • fiona64

            You keep telling yourself all of those things, sweetie. Science proves you wrong all the way around. Much like neuropeptides, viruses lack the ability to care about things like sexual activity or sexual orientation. They just do what they do, because of what they are.

            Use Google Earth to look at maps of the polar ice caps, BTW. They’re melting. Why? Climate change. And yes, the major factor in climate change is human activity.

            You’re definitely a homeschooled American teen, from a fundamentalist Evangelical background. Insisting that AIDS is a “gay disease” and that climate change is a myth are just two more giveaways. The rest of the world, even in your own country (the US) is more advanced in its understanding than the fundamentalists.

          • Mr_Cris

            “viruses lack the ability to care about things like sexual activity”

            Well viruses are not sentient beings so they can’t care about anything. But the type of sexual activity does matter. Sodomy is a very efficient way to spread HIV.

            Google earth shows a static image of the current state of the ice caps. It doesn’t show a long term trend. It doesn’t show the future. It doesn’t show the cause. Humans are only a small factor. If global warming is true, then it is a good thing actually.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh you are so homeschooled. I bet mommy and daddy even sent you to one of those Jesus Camps to brainwash you during the summer.

          • Mr_Cris

            Homeschooling is illegal in the Netherlands. So it is impossible for me to be homeschooled.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, it’s not illegal. It’s restricted, but not illegal. All of which is irrelevant because you’re an American teen pretending to be something you’re not.

          • Mr_Cris

            From a legal point of view you are probably right. I never met a homeschooled person in my life. So in the practical sense you are wrong.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, that’s about as logical as anti-vaccination people who claim that no child ever died from measles because they never knew any children who died. Which is not logical at all. Anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything. So no, I’m not wrong, and you’re still not Dutch.

          • fiona64

            Well, remember, he only knows one person with AIDS, and that person is homosexual. So, there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic. Those people at the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control must just be big fat liars.

            Like certain little not-at-all-Dutch boys I could name.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And I suppose if he never knew anyone who drowned or died of hypothermia, those would be mythical as well. Ahh, conservative kid logic….

          • Mr_Cris

            “Anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything.”
            You are completely right. Look up the statistics and you see I’m right.

          • fiona64

            If you were actually Dutch, you would have known that.

          • Mr_Cris

            How would I know the laws regarding homeschooling when nobody homeschools here? I looked it up. Homeschooling *is* illegal in the Netherlands except under very specific conditions.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, just like me driving an eighteen-wheeler is illegal unless I have a CDL and pass a test–you know, it’s illegal unless I meet those specific conditions and then it’s legal. See how that works? Restricted and illegal are two entirely different things.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Restricted and illegal are two entirely different things.”
            No they aren’t. If something is restricted for a group of people then it is illegal for that group of people.
            If a road restricts the type of cars that are allowed to drive there, then it is illegal for other cars to drive there as well.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh boy, you really were homeschooled. And your complete lack of logic pretty much tells me that you’re never going to have anything resembling an engineering degree. You might get a ‘degree’ from a fake university, like maybe Pat Robertson’s Regent University or Jerry Falwell’s Boxtop U, though–that’s more your level.

          • Mr_Cris

            From a practical standpoint I’m right. If something is restricted ridiculously then it is practically the same as it being illegal.

          • fiona64

            I’ll show my age here: I figure his best hope is University of Close Cover While Striking.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And yes,Fiona is right. If you were Dutch you would actually know that.

          • Mr_Cris

            No that just makes me ignorant of that fact. Now that I’ve looked it up I know she was just lying.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, sweetie, no–there is someone who is lying here, but it’s not me or Fiona.

          • Valde

            We could end this once and for all if a mod was to simply check Mr_Cris’ IP :P

          • fiona64

            If you actually lived there, you wouldn’t have had to “look it up.”

            Homeschooling *is* illegal in the Netherlands except under very specific conditions.

            Which is what Jennifer said: it’s not illegal, it’s restricted. Do try to keep up.

          • fiona64

            Well viruses are not sentient beings so they can’t care about anything.
            But the type of sexual activity does matter. Sodomy is a very efficient
            way to spread HIV.

            ROFLMAO. Once again, the largest growing population of HIV/AIDS patients is heterosexual women of color.

            HIV is a bloodborne pathogen. “Sodomy,” by which I presume you mean anal intercourse, is not a primary factor.

          • fiona64

            If global warming is true, then it is a good thing actually.

            Oh, sweetie. You just handed me the ultimate proof that you don’t live in the Netherlands.

            Allow me to elucidate. When the polar ice caps melt, it affects the salinity of the ocean. This, in turn, affects the ocean *currents.* The ocean currents are one of the most important determining factors for atmospheric conditions … in other words, the weather.

            Climate change, colloquially referred to as global warming, is the reason why there was a foot and a half of hail on the ground last week in Santa Rosa, New Mexico — although it had been 90 degrees F. just hours before that. It’s why it was in the upper 80s in New England in January … and blizzards happened in the same region in April. It’s also what caused Superstorm Sandy, with its catastrophic flooding.

            Which brings me back to my original point about how this proves you are not living in the Netherlands. Twenty percent of the land (and 21 percent of the population) is below sea level. Fifty percent of the land is less than one meter above sea level. Climate change is not “a good thing actually” for people living in the Netherlands, as it drastically increases the chance of flooding the dikes.

            Which, if you actually lived in the Netherlands, you would know.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Climate change is not “a good thing actually” for people living in the Netherlands, as it drastically increases the chance of flooding the dikes.”
            I don’t believe the sea level will rise as much as some of the alarmist claim. And it will happen so gradually that we can adapt to those changes.

          • fiona64

            I don’t believe the sea level will rise as much as some of the alarmist
            claim. And it will happen so gradually that we can adapt to those
            changes.

            I’m sure that those who lost life, limb and property during Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina will find your “beliefs” very comforting.

            Reality proves your “beliefs” inaccurate.

          • Valde

            and ‘the alarmist’ would be the Dutch government, which is spending billions every year to strengthen the dykes in order to prevent future flooding.

          • Valde

            Speaking of homeschooling I once came across a liar similar to Mr_Cris on yahoo.

            After she clearly wasn’t getting anywhere with her substandard debating skills, she told me that she was the only true expert on embryology and fetal development because…she designed with communication systems for Mars Spirit and Rover. Yep, she’s a NASA scientist, apparently.

            On top of this, she then bragged about homeschooling her children – and how her homeschooled son has been offered scholarships FROM MIT HARVARD OXFORD CAMBRIDGE and every other top uni in the world.

            She was also a climate change denier and a creatonist.

            Don’t you just love it when they lie so transparently? What are the odds that a top NASA scientist is a raging evangelical homeschooler? lulz

            My second favourite lie comes from the people who always seem to know someone who was born at 20 weeks and has a 180 IQ.

          • fiona64

            His backpedaling is getting more pathetic by the second … I almost feel sorry for him. He tried to tell me that he just graduated a few minutes ago with his “engineering degree.” So yes, of course the first thing any new graduate would do is hurry home to get on the internet and spew anti-choice nonsense.

            Oh, and pretend that “I used the word ‘they’ because I don’t use that expression very often.” The best one? When he told *me* to stop pretending to be Dutch, which is especially laughable given that I’ve never made any such claim.

            It just gets funnier and funnier.

        • Dez

          LOL. Really that’s your argument? Okay then who designed the designer? So the bible knew about computers, cell phones, open heart surgery, space travel, DNA, and the millions of other discoveries that scientists have made? I don’t know how the universe came to be and neither do you. I don’t know is the most honest and accurate answer we have.

          • Mr_Cris

            “who designed the designer”

            The designer doesn’t need a designer if it is outside space and time and is eternal. One designer makes sense. But if you want two designers is a possibly too. An infinite long chain of cause and effect can’t logically exist, so there can’t be an infinite number of designers.

            “So the bible knew about computers, cell phones, open heart surgery, space travel, DNA, and the millions of other discoveries that scientists have made”

            Not in all areas. But at least the ones I mentioned (diet, morality, lifestyle etc.)

            “I don’t know is the most honest and accurate answer we have.”
            True. But either it is designed or not. There isn’t a third option.

          • fiona64

            I’m guessing failing grades are in your future, presuming that (for once) you aren’t lying about pursuing an engineering degree …

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m graduating in a few hours. So your prediction didn’t came true.

          • fiona64

            Of course you are, sweetie. ::pat head::

          • Mr_Cris

            I just graduated.

          • fiona64

            Of course you did. ::pats head::

        • Gemini68

          The excuse for “intelligent design”:
          1. Everything is so complex..
          2. The physical constants are just right for life.
          3. We can’t explain why (1) and (2) work.
          4. Therefore everything is created by god.

          Your logic is fatally flawed . The evolution of the universe and of life has taken place over 13 billion years – not 10,000 years. Evolution is an incremental process ; biological structures develop in complexity slowly over time in the fossil record. Not finding an earlier, simpler structure does not automatically mean some deity created the modern form whole cloth.

          Show me the scientific experiment that conclusively proves the existence of god. A 2000 year old collection of stories is not scientific proof.

          • Mr_Cris

            The argument for intelligent design is not the God-of-the-gaps argument. It is a scientific inference. We see patterns that show signs of having been designed. We see thresholds that can not be crossed by evolution. That of course doesn’t tell us about the type of designer.

            “biological structures develop in complexity slowly over time in the fossil record”

            The fossil record shows organisms appearing abruptly and organisms that have barely changed for all those supposedly millions of years. There are no intermediate forms. Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life.

          • fiona64

            We see patterns that show signs of having been designed. We see thresholds that can not be crossed by evolution.

            Citations needed. Thanks in advance.

            The fossil record shows organisms appearing abruptly and organisms that have barely changed for all those supposedly millions of years. There are no intermediate forms. Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life.

            Citations needed. Thanks in advance.

          • Mr_Cris

            The origin of species.
            Stephen Meyer writes about it in Darwin’s Doubt

          • fiona64

            The origin of species.

            A book you’ve clearly never read, or you wouldn’t say such asinine things about its contents (e.g., your assertion that it was the inspiration for the Holocaust).

            Stephen Meyer writes about it in Darwin’s Doubt

            So, you’re taking the opinion of a guy commenting on Darwin’s book, but you haven’t read the original? Really?

            Well, let’s see what we can learn about Mr. Meyer, shall we? According to his own website, he’s a proponent of “intelligent design.” His argument is that the Cambrian “explosion,” if you will, proves intelligent design because so many new organisms started to show up in the fossil record where they were not present before.

            And here is the problem with this “argument”: it’s pretty damned hard to fossilize something that consists solely of soft tissue. There have to be bones or hard shells to fossilize. And then, of course, there’s the fact that conditions were significantly different during the Cambrian period, with less oxygen in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

            It’s always amusing to me to see proponents of “intelligent design” pretending that this is evidence *against* evolution and *for* their absurd premise. The fossil record is not a tidy, chronological line. It never has been. It never will be. We make new discoveries all of the time.

            BTW, if you were a university grad, you would know that just giving the names of books is an inadequate citation. You use quotations and such. For example, much of what I have written above is explained in far greater detail at this article: http://www dot skepdic dot com/cambrian.html

            That’s how you provide a source. Unless you want to pretend that “Dutch” “university graduates” just randomly cite the titles of books they’ve clearly never read and that this is considered academically acceptable …

            This is a debate, sweetie. When you make an assertion of fact, you need to be able to back it up … not expect other people to do your homework for you.

          • Valde

            Totes home-schooled.

          • fiona64

            Yep … and in need of a field trip to the La Brea tar pits, just for starters.

          • Jennifer Starr

            He’s probably one of those who thinks that god planted fossils to test his faith or something.

          • fiona64

            One of my husband’s former co-workers actually said something similar to him. She collected pressed pennies, and we brought her one from the La Brea Tar Pits/Page Museum. She said that it was a sin-filled place, because Satan put all of those bones into the ground to make people think evolution was real.

            My eyes rolled so hard at that point that I could see my brain.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, that one’s right up there with the crockoduck and Ray Comfort and his bananas. Sometimes I have to think that someone replaced these guys’ brains with straw.

          • Valde

            It would appear that mr_cris has been banned for trolling

            I am trying to find out if he is truly from NL or not.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Cool–I’d be interested to know what you uncover about this guy.

          • fiona64

            Well, that would explain why he hasn’t been here in a while … and I say good riddance!

          • Jennifer Starr

            The fact that evolution doesn’t yet have all the answers or explanations is irrelevant, because answers are still being searched for and the theory is changed and added to as new evidence is discovered. That is science. To simply point to things that can’t be explained as proof that some god had a hand in it is simply stating that you’re too lazy to use your brain and look for the actual answers.

          • Mr_Cris

            The fact that intelligent design doesn’t yet have all the answers or explanations is irrelevant, because answers are still being searched for and the theory is changed and added to as new evidence is discovered. That is science. To simply point to things that can’t be explained as proof that random chance had a hand in it is simply stating that you’re too lazy to use your brain and look for the actual answers.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sorry, but thinking that your imaginary sky daddy created everything is seven days is not science, Crissy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The actual answers not being your fictional bible.

          • Valde

            Instead it makes more sense to point to things that can’t be explained and say ‘hey, god made it’

            Yes, that IS science. The very definition of science.
            lulz

          • Valde

            IN other words, there is no ‘crocoduck’ therefore, evolution is invalid.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh God, the ‘crocoduck’. I am so ashamed that Kirk Cameron once occupied pin-up space on my wall in the ’80s–I didn’t realize at the time what a moron he really was.

  • fiona64

    I’ll believe Hobby Lobby is a person with religious rights when I see its building sitting in a pew somewhere.

    What an absurd decision.

    • colleen2

      Indeed. If Hobby Lobby can be a person with religious rights then why can’t Planned Parenthood?

      • Robin Loveless

        Oo, ah you go girl.

      • Em Singh

        Because it doesn’t claim to have any religious affiliation. Also it PROMOTES the contraceptives in question, so they have no leg to stand on.

        • colleen2

          Because it doesn’t claim to have any religious affiliation.

          Neither does Hobby Lobby.

          Also it PROMOTES the contraceptives in question, so they have no leg to stand on.

          No leg to stand on? You’re confused. 98% of adult women use or have used effective contraception. The opinion that it’s use is somehow immoral is just babbling, incoherent nonsense from a church that has lost all moral authority. Using effective contraception when a woman does not want to have a child is the responsible thing to do. That’s why 98% of women use or have used them.
          This is no more than the imposition of the insulting and idiotic dogma of a minority religion. A dogma so pathetic that they cannot manage to convince more than 2% of it’s own laity to comply.

        • fiona64

          Hobby Lobby is a corporation, not a religious organization. The owners separated themselves (and thus their religion) from the business when they incorporated. I’m guessing you don’t understand much about how laws work.

  • LonesomeDove

    It should be very simple – if you are a for profit business with eligible employees – you are not exempt, and you do not qualify as a ‘religious exemption’, and that includes hospitals.

    • Mr_Cris

      So religious people are not allowed to make profit according to you.

      • Valde

        According to you, women and 11 year old girls shouldn’t have a say in whether or not they become pregnant, and they most certainly shouldn’t have a say in their right to prevent injury from that pregnancy.

  • Lynnsey

    I have three issues with this case.

    First, it illustrates the need to disentangle access to affordable health care from if and what kind of employment one has. The ridiculousness of that setup is apparent if given any real thought.

    Second, Hobby Lobby is a corporation. So, at some level at least, the family has separated themselves legally and financially from the company…to their benefit. I think it’s highly problematic to claim that you ARE the company when you want to inflict your Bronze Age superstitions about sex on your employees, but that you aren’t when it comes time to pay your taxes or protect yourself from lawsuits.

    Third, I can’t help but wonder if they ensure that all of their male employees getting prescriptions for ED medications are using them to have procreative sex with their wives. I’m doubtful and, thus, call bullshit. I also can’t help but wonder how far they’re willing to take this? Can an employee be barred from purchasing contraception with their HL pay? Can they fire anyone who fornicates? Women pregnant out of wedlock? People who eat shellfish? There really has to be a line, and as for me I’m pretty comfortable drawing it on this side of my basic health care. I think their confusing a violation of their religious freedom with not being able to make everybody else follow their absurd rules.

  • Austin Swafford

    So, if an employer claims that his religion teaches that the races aren’t allowed to mingle, they would be justified in denying employment to African Americans? This is a completely idiotic ruling. The 10th circuit should be ashamed of themselves. Again. That circuit is a travesty of justice. This ruling sets a horrific precedent. Shocking that judges could rule with this asinine case.

    • Mr_Cris

      That would be racism. Since when is not financing abortion and contraceptives racism?

      • Austin Swafford

        First of all, this isn’t financing abortion. This only had to do with contraception, which isn’t abortion. Secondly, I wasn’t saying that it’s racism. I was saying that this ruling opens up the possibility of employers being able to do basically anything they want to their employees because it’s their “religion.” If they claim that their religion teaches that women should stay home instead of working, then they can justify not hiring women. Get it?

        • fiona64

          He’s probably fine with that. He’s already informed us that women should only have sex if they plan to have children (not for ‘recreation’) and that women who have abortions should be executed. Make it legal to fire women for being, well, women seems to be right up his alley.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            No one in your beloved United States is paying for my contraceptives. I’M PAYING FOR IT with the money that is taken out of every pay check. Why is that so hard to understand?

          • fiona64

            Um, Amanda? I think you may be responding to the wrong person. I’m in favor of contraception being covered, and think that Hobby Lobby’s position that, as a for-profit corporation, they should also have a religious exemption, is best described as bullshit.

          • HeilMary1

            I think she meant Mr_Chris.

          • fiona64

            I’m pretty sure she did, too … but I did want to make sure. :-) It’s just not a perfect medium for communication.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Replied to the wrong person, my bad.

          • fiona64

            No worries, it happens. I just wanted to clarify. :-)

      • fiona64

        Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it? Biblical justifications were used to support both slavery and anti-miscegenation laws, just as you try to use the to prevent women from having full access to health care. But that’s different, right?

        Oh, wait. It’s not different at all.

  • Austin Swafford

    By the way, I have to say as a religious person — their ability to exercise their religion freely and openly is personal and NOT between themselves and their employees. Obamacare doesn’t force these people to do ANYTHING that is against their religion. It doesn’t force them personally to have to take contraception and it doesn’t even require them to put it directly in their employees’ hands. They just have to offer a plan that has contraception available. That in NO way infringes upon their rights to their religious beliefs. Ridiculous.

    • colleen2

      The clear implication (for me anyway) is that the right to this sort of dominion over women IS a religious belief. I could certainly make a persuasive argument for that with many, many historical and contemporary references.

      • Robin Loveless

        I like the way you think, Colleen2.

    • Em Singh

      Well considering their money is going into something they believe to be against God’s word. I can see why they would at least attempt to avoid doing it. You can’t fault them for that. Now if the courts say “toughluck butter cup. You have to offer it”, then we go into the area of “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and they can go through with it with a clear conciseness. I would be more surprised if they had not said anything. Plus the employee could just pay for this out of pocket while paying less for insurance.

      • fiona64

        As no one is forcing either the owners of Hobby Lobby or their employees to use contraception, the answer is indeed “touch luck, butter cup.”

        In which of your medical decisions do you think your corporation’s owner should be allowed to interfere?

        • Em Singh

          You don’t understand how this stuff works if you think employers didn’t have a say on the types of insurance & extras they could afford to provide employees. I get that the new system changes the rules but once upon a time getting anything more than an hourly paycheck was a huge perk, not something employees came to expect unless they where being courted to do some pretty big things in a company. Companies are not just gonna pony up more money without looking to see where they can trim fat. They are not charities. And frankly birth control is not hard to come by so not necessary in any plan no matter how anyone romanticizes it.

          • fiona64

            Sweetie, I guarantee that I understand this in far greater detail than you do. But you keep telling yourself that “birth control is not hard to come by.” That’s easy for you to say if you’re not the minimum wage employee at Hobby Lobby. Oral contraception can cost as much as $400 a month, depending upon the formulation of the pill … so, yeah. Go ahead and tell that woman that she has to choose between rent and contraception.

            I’m not a wagering woman, but I’ll bet you bitch about people using their SNAP benefits at the grocery … and your position just guarantees that more of them will be doing so.

            If Hobby Lobby wants to claim a religious exemption, its owner can disincorporate and try to make it a religious organization.

          • Em Singh

            I worked for minimum wage WITHOUT insurance for years. There is such a thing as condoms and other more economical alternatives. But go ahead and talk as if you know my hardships or what I “really” think. P.S. I have never bitched about anyone’s snap benefits, I have no idea what that even is. I’m too busy waiting to go home in the grocery line to care about what others are buying or how they pay. Sounds like you have a chimp on your shoulder you need to stop feeding. And as far as Hobby Lobby, that’s up to the courts to decide, not you whether you agree with their judgment or not.

          • fiona64

            Sounds like you have a chimp on your shoulder you need to stop feeding.”

            I believe the phrase you’re looking for is a “chip on your shoulder.” And yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder: an employer’s religion should not dictate anyone’s medical decisions except their own. Period.

          • Em Singh

            I meant chimp, its a pun.

            And I agree with you, that is why national healthcare should have never been put on the companies to provide. It should have been a completely separate thing. At this point its nothing more than national health insurance and its gonna be many difference court-cases and growing pains before they get it right, if at all.

          • fiona64

            Actually, I do concur that we should have single payer/universal health care. The current policy, IMO, does not go nearly far enough in covering things.

      • colleen2

        why is it “their money”. When you work is your compensation package your employer’s possession?

        • Em Singh

          A compensation package is something en employer offers to entice you to work for him/her. The basic one is plain old hourly wage or room and food and anything above that is just more bait to attract you and keep you. In other words its completely voluntary. They would have you work for nothing if they could but no one works for nothing unless they are slaves and even they need to at least be fed. So its IS their money, until they hand it over to you. So stuff like funding health insurance and other legally required extras are extras that drain their purse. So its no surprise that when new regulations ask them to spend more money on employees, they make sure they only pay as much as they HAVE to. They are not running a charity after all. This is why I don’t get angry about a company not wanting to pony up more money, I only get angry when they are abusing employees and creating a hostile work environment. Its also why I don’t get all ridiculously angry when they don’t want to fund someone’s sex life via birth control. I mean its a nice perk if they do and all, but birth control is not hard to come by. Obviously the new socialized insurance system changes the rules of the game, so obviously companies will see where they can toe the line so they are not spending more than they have to. Also don’t forget that you are NOT the only one funding your job-provided insurance, your employer is covering part of that. Its why people used to wish they worked for a company who provided good insurance. it was god because the employer put more money into it.

          • Valde

            ” Its also why I don’t get all ridiculously angry when they don’t want to fund someone’s sex life via birth control”

            WHY DO PEOPLE’S BELIEF IN FICTIONAL STORIES HAVE ANY MERIT?

            WHY SHOULD SOMEONE BE ABLE TO CLAIM TO BELIEVE SOME WORK OF FICTION, AND THEN TAKE NEGATIVE ACTION TOWARDS OTHERS BASED ON THAT?

            Well guess what?

            As a person who doesn’t believe in an all-powerful invisible man in the sky who conveniently lets you suffer to “teach you lessons”, *i* don’t want to FUND your stupid play-acting.

            How about you give up all tax exemptions?

            Churches don’t pay property tax.

            They don’t actually HAVE to contribute.
            Which means taxpayers subsidize them.

          • Valde

            Employees create that wealth.

            Labour is a commodity.

            The money to pay the employees doesn’t just appear magically out of the ether.

          • Em Singh

            Actually the employer creates the wealth by coming up with the idea for a product of service & finding buyers. They do it on their own until they make enough to hire someone else to lend a helping hand or do the physical labor while they focus on keeping he infrastructure running smoothly and finding more people to sell to. The labor force needs an employer (someone who will hire them to work) to even exist.

          • Valde

            Employees earn that money.

            Employees are not pets.

            The benefit package is part of the employees pay package.

            BTW, birth control is far far more economical in the long run than unintended pregnancy – this is why insurance companies are quite happy to foot the bill.

            The average cost of birth at a hospital is $20,000. Add on more tests, and greater care, and a longer stay, not to mention potential health problems with mother and baby, and the price can go up to 45K and beyond.

          • colleen2

            In the US we have a different legal relationship with our employers. Your ideas sound rather like what we had here before the Great Depression when employers WERE allowed to exploit the people who worked for them. I’m pretty sure that even the most stupid Republican woman would fall for THAT line of crap. I know I don’t.

      • Valde

        And Jehovah Witnesse’s believe that blood transfusions are against god’s word.

        So, by that logic, it should be completely reasonable for JW owned businesses to deny blood transfusions for employees.

        • Em Singh

          But unlike birth-control, not having a NEEDED blood transfusion can kill a person. Its something a health insurance plan MUST have to be effective otherwise you can do surgery etc. Birth-control? you can buy that stuff over the counter, i.e. it is easily obtainable. The world will not end if folks pay cash vs through their health plan. They are still paying money, but if you think about it they save some because they won’t be paying for it if they don’t need or want it. You can’t custom tailor health-plans for everyone, you generalize it to a point more people can benefit from it.

          • Noël West

            Birth control? Condoms are over-the-counter, sure. Hormonal contraceptives over-the-counter? No. IUDs? Nope. The patch, the shot, the implant, the ring? No, no, no, and no. Why have I paid hundreds of dollars for all the various poking and prodding by someone who went to medical school with a focus on women’s reproductive parts for a medication that is medically necessary for me to function if it’s so “over-the-counter” and “affordable”, something I have to take every single day regardless of my desire to have sex (which a lot of hormonal contraception decreases sexual appetite), so that I may have some reasonable standard of living? If I were to work at Hobby Lobby or any other “religious person”-type company, I’d have to pay out of pocket to be able to go to work every day, without compensation. That would be about $110 per month for me to go to work, not including gas/food/bike tubes/bus fare, et cetera.

            Health insurance should not be contingent on an employer’s religious beliefs.

          • Valde

            So by that logic, a company can basically decline to cover *any* health care issue that isn’t life threatening!

            Oh, and seeing as how it’s been lost on you, everyone benefits from birth control.

          • fiona64

            So, you don’t think contraception is necessary? Please feel free not to use it.

            And pro-tip? You can’t get oral contraception “over the counter.” You’re a goddamned liar.

          • Em Singh

            I’m talking condoms, those do exist ya know & you can always visit planned parenthood which depending on how much you make can help you there without insurance… the more you know…

          • fiona64

            Well, not all cities have a Planned Parenthood, and this article is about access to oral/hormonal contraception, not condoms.

            The more you know …

          • Em Singh

            My point is that there are more economical & reliable options (sans side-effects) to the pill. People want it on their plan out of entitlement.. its a huge want. It would be a different ball game if all that existed was the pill.

          • fiona64

            Condoms are significantly less effective than oral contraception. But, hey! I’m sure that you are the most capable judge of what women other than yourself should choose for contraceptive methods …

          • Em Singh

            The condom is just as effective if not more (when you consider that at times you are advise to use condoms in addition to the pill).
            Keep your straw man argument, I’m not choosing anyone’s form of contraception. Read my prior post again. Maybe instead of demanding insurance covered it people should ask the price to go down, its not new technology and the only reason it costs so much is because people are putting up with it.

          • fiona64

            No, the condom is not “just as effective if not more” than oral contraception. Condoms, in conjunction with spermicide, have a known failure rate of 15 percent with typical use and two percent with perfect use (without spermicide, the known failure rate is 25 percent with typical use and 20 percent with perfect use). Oral contraception has a known failure rate of 8 percent with typical use and .3 percent (yes, 3/10ths of a percent) with perfect use. So, in reality, the pill is more than twice as effective as condoms.

            The reason that people are advised to use condoms in addition to the pill has nothing to do with the pill’s effectiveness and everything to do with disease prevention.

            You argue that since condoms are available, a given woman doesn’t “need” oral/hormonal contraception … and that simply is not your call.

            I concur that it’s asinine that it costs so much, just so you know.

          • Tricia Long

            yeah well condoms are not going to help with the things I take the pill for. I take the pill to regulate my period. If I dont take it I’m doubled over in pain each month and pretty much unable to go to work. How the hell are condoms going to help with that?! If my health insurance didnt cover the pill I’d be pretty screwed. So stop acting all high and mighty thinking I could find an alternive because there isnt one for what I need the pill for you idiot.

          • colleen2

            You know nothing about women or effective contraception. I suggest you learn something about both before making a fool of yourselves here.

          • Tricia Long

            Actually some woman actually do need birth-control pills for medical reasons and not just for birth-control. Some of these woman may not DIE from not getting them but they will have some pretty bad health concerns, like permanent sterility for example. And some woman, myself included, take birth-control pills to regulate their period and to make it less painful. If i didnt take birth-control pills I can tell you, a couple days out of each month I would not be able to go to work with as much pain I’d be in.

    • Mr_Cris

      “Obamacare doesn’t force these people to do ANYTHING that is against their religion.”
      Yes it does. That is the whole point!

      • Austin Swafford

        No, it doesn’t. Here’s why:

        1) Show me where in the Bible it says that contraception is a sin.
        2) If they claim that it’s against their religion to use contraception, that’s THEIR deal. Not their employees’. As fiona64 said above, this doesn’t force them to use contraception. THAT would be against their religion, according to them. Requiring them to offer a health insurance that offers contraception coverage, in which they pay part and the employee pays part, is not the same thing as using contraception. To me, this would be like an employer firing someone because they spend their earnings on something the owner considers sinful while not on company. But “I gave them money and they bought cigarettes” is not a justification for firing someone.

        3) Women have lots of uses for birth control that have nothing to do with preventing a potential human life from developing. I’ve had friends who needed it because it helped with emotional balance, cysts, etc. Just because someone MIGHT use it for a purpose they don’t like is not a justification to deny it to all.
        4) All of this is kind of moot anyway because it’s NOT a religious institution. That’s completely ridiculous. Just because the owners are religious doesn’t mean it’s a religious institution. If it doesn’t file as a church, mosque or synagogue, it shouldn’t fall under the parameters of a religious institution. This is really pretty simple.

        • Mr_Cris

          Yes it does and here’s why:

          First of all the bible doesn’t have to name every specific sin in order for it to be a sin.
          Second. Even if it isn’t a sin it is against catholic teachings. Religious freedom does not depend on how the government interprets a particular faith. That is what separation of church and state is about. Get the state out of church business.
          Third. Financing a sin makes you complicit.
          Fourth. Some birth control is abortifacient.

          “Women have lots of uses for birth control that have nothing to do with preventing a potential human life from developing”

          Then it isn’t used as birth control. It is like using viagra as heart medication.

          “If it doesn’t file as a church, mosque or synagogue, it shouldn’t fall under the parameters of a religious institution. ”
          This goes completely against separation of church and state. The state has no business determining what consist as a religion and what not. The left wants to force religion into the closet.

          • fiona64

            I hate to break it to you, but the bible is irrelevant to any discussion of law in this country … and businesses are not religions, no matter what you and your fellow travelers think.

            PS — Viagra was intended as a heart medication. But it gives old dudes wood, and we have to make sure that Grandpa can get it up, right? Wouldn’t want to interfere with your his medical autonomy …

          • Mr_Cris

            First of all I didn’t start about the bible. It is relevant in discussions about religion. I don’t see how you think the bible is irrelevant in a discussion about religous rights of bible-believing christians.
            I don’t see why a business has to be secular.
            People can buy their own contraception and their own viagra if it is for recreational purposes. If it is medically necessary then that changes everything.

          • fiona64

            Once again, you lie: First of all the bible doesn’t have to name every specific sin in order for it to be a sin. is exactly what you said.

            I don’t see why a business has to be secular.

            Well, you see, there are these little things called laws. Unless Hobby Lobby is set up as a 501c(3) non-profit religious organization (which, it quite notably, is not), well, it’s a for-profit corporation. That means that it is subject to all tax and business laws.

            I’m glad I could help you with this.

            It’s not up to you to decide whether contraception is “for recreation” or not. What part of “You don’t get to make medical decisions for other people” is so difficult to comprehend?

          • Mr_Cris

            Once again, you lie “Show me where in the Bible it says that contraception is a sin”. Is exactly what Austin Swafford said.

            ” it’s a for-profit corporation”
            So religious people are not allowed to make money according to you? Because that is what you are saying. That a company can not be for-profit and be religious.

          • fiona64

            No, dumbass; I never said religious people cannot make money. Your straw man is asinine.

            Let me explain it as simply as I can: a legal corporation cannot claim religious exemptions to business law. Religious exemptions are for *religious entities,* which (according to US tax law) must be registered non-profit entities.

            You really do not have the slightest understanding of how business law works, do you? When the owner of a company incorporates that company, it is to separate the company’s assets from his personal ones. The business is a separate entity from the owner.

            A for-profit corporation *cannot* be a religious entity under the law. What is so goddamned hard to understand about this?

          • Mr_Cris

            The law is unconstitutional.

          • fiona64

            You clearly do not understand how laws work. Go back to high school and, this time, pay attention during civics class.

          • Valde

            he is being purposely obtuse

            and whenever you show him to be wrong about something, he simply falls back on ‘well, you’re wrong I’m right neener neener’

            he is trolling, and just trying to be as annoying as possible

          • fiona64

            I am beginning to suspect him of being a pimply-faced youth in his mother’s basement, who hates women because the cute cheerleader turned him down when he asked her to the homecoming dance.

          • colleen2

            I think this is the same moron who appears elsewhere in this thread. He is a good argument for year round public schooling

          • colleen2

            he keeps painting himself into a corner and then has to change the subject or invent a new handle

          • fiona64

            Or a new country of origin … because now he’s claiming to be Dutch.

          • Valde

            Yep.

            For someone who is dutch, and currently residing in the Netherlands, he suuure seems to be a tad obsessed with US law and uhm, didn’t he claim to have shown up for those USA civics classes?

            Yeah.

          • fiona64

            He also doesn’t appear to read much Dutch. ;->

          • colleen2

            …..perhaps he was an anchor baby…….

          • Mr_Cris

            “For someone who is dutch[sic], and currently residing in the Netherlands, he suuure[sic] seems to be a tad obsessed with US law and uhm[sic], didn’t he claim to have shown up for those USA civics classes?”
            Unlike you I love what America stands for. And no I didn’t claim to have shown up for those classes.

          • HeilMary1

            Let me guess! — your favorite Americans are those treasonous GOP billionaires who secretly funded anti-abortion Hitler!

          • fiona64

            He’s probably got a photograph of Pappy Bush pinned up next to his bed.

          • cjvg

            Listen buddy, i’m pretty pissed you are claiming to be one of my country men and you are actually aping the GOP line.

            If you were actually dutch and still living in the Netherlands you would have been aware that the whole country is currently trying to figure out if the US went insane during the last election!

            My mother actually called my to verify if akin really is an elected official and if he really made those rape remarks “a woman’s body has a way to shut that whole thing down”

            The dutch were thinking that this had to be some prank.
            She was asked by acquaintances to call me since they were so flabbergasted they just had to find out if this was true

          • colleen2

            Dutch? That’s really funny. Teenage boys are so transparent

          • fiona64

            What’s particularly pathetic is what gives him away: how very poor his grammar and spelling are. Speakers of ESL are far more precise in their usage than native speakers, because they have had to learn it academically.

            One of the things I loved most about being an anthropology major was the science of linguistics. I find language fascinating, and I enjoy opportunities to learn and use it. I’m not as good at the Germanic languages (of which Dutch is one) or Indo-European (like Gaelic, although I can muddle through basic pleasantries) as I am the Romance languages, but I still find it interesting.

            He’s American, all right.

          • Valde

            I have had a few Dutch friends over the years and :

            1) they have no issues with sex, none whatsoever. these people are not prudes

            2) exceptional english skills – they always make native speakers look dumb

          • Mr_Cris

            I too have no issues with sex. But I admit I have still a lot of work to do on my English skills. Most Dutch people suck at English unfortunately.

          • Valde

            “I too have no issues with sex”

            You have no issues with forcing pre-teen rape victims to give birth, even if it permanently disables them.

          • Mr_Cris

            Giving birth is not the same as having sex.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You get excited by the thought of forcing little girls to give birth.

          • Mr_Cris

            I see right though you. You want me to make a sarcastic remark so that you can use that to nail me down. Well it is not going to happen. I know your trolling tactics.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I want you to admit that the thought of forcing little girls to carry pregnancies and give birth turns you and the rest of your kind on.

          • Mr_Cris

            What is “my kind” according to you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            So called ‘Pro-lifers’.

          • Mr_Cris

            I could make an equal stupid remark about your kind. The so called ‘pro-choice people’.

            “You get excited by the thought of cutting unborn children into pieces”
            We both know neither pro-choice nor pro-life people are driven by weird fetishes. We just have a fundamental different look on human life. I belief that every human deserves an equal chance. Including the unborn. You believe that every woman and girl, including 11 year olds, should have the right to kill their unborn children for any reason and every tax-payer should pay for their sexual lifestyle choices.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Eleven year old girls should have baby dolls, Barbies, My Little Ponys , gymnastics lessons, running outside with their friends, homework, climbing trees, watching TV. Eleven year old girls should be carefree. Know what an eleven year old should never ever have? A pregnancy and a baby.The fact that you can’t seem to conceive that, frankly, turns my stomach.

          • Mr_Cris

            I agree with you. A child should be able to be a child. Rape takes away their innocence. I just don’t believe that abortion cancels out the trauma of rape or that childbirth prevents a child from playing with dolls.

          • Valde

            Actually, he believes that the 11 year old is now BETTER OFF as a result of the rape and the pregnancy, because being pregnant and having babies = a wonderful thing.

            He thinks she should be happy, happier now than before the rape, because she is having a baby.

            Actually, in his mind, rape is merely a tool of spreading joy – the joy of pregnancy and child birth to little kids.

          • Mr_Cris

            Who is ‘he’?

          • Valde

            That would be you, Mr_Cris the Rape Apologist who lies and is pretending to be from the Netherlands.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t know any eleven year old girl who would be happy at the thought of pregnancy and childbirth–terrified would be more the word for it. At 11 years old I was about four foot eight and all of 80 pounds–a pregnancy and birth would’ve definitely ripped me apart. The fact that he (Cris), seems to see this as a positive thing is very disturbing.

          • Valde

            The 9 year old who was pregnant in Brasil only learned of the pregnancy when she complained about intense stomach pains.

            In a girl that little, a fetus is too big for the girl’s body.

            And permanent disability is a given in this case.

            If you have been doing some reading, you would notice that Mr_Cris believes the little girl should just ‘suck it up’ if she becomes disabled as a result. As long as she’s not dead, he says, she should be happy to be giving birth to a healthy child.

            Yes, he is quite concerned about the fetus.

            He also believes that she shouldn’t be able to consent to an abortion – even if the pregnancy causes her pain – because she couldn’t consent to the rape, so how can she consent to ending the cause of her pain?

            He really is a sociopath.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, I’ve been reading some of his viewpoints–and close to becoming physically ill as a result. And I agree with you– I think anyone who holds to this viewpoint has got to be a sociopath.

          • Valde

            Yes, he just said “I never said those things” then returned with “well, I do believe it’s the right thing to do” (forcing the little girl to remain pregnant, even if it maims her)

          • Jennifer Starr

            And I think that maybe in the ‘pro-life’ mind, pregnancy and childbirth are all that a woman should want and all that she is good for–the age is irrelevant to him because he seems to see all females as potential breeding stock. It really does make me sick.

          • Valde

            Exactly.

          • HeilMary1

            Having completely shredded lady parts on behalf of a rapist would permanently ruin any girl and she’d rip her rape-reminding dolls apart.

          • Valde

            How young is too young you pervert?

            Is 5 years old too young? Or does it get your panties moist thinking about a 5 year old being ripped apart from a rape pregnancy?

            And yes, it has been documented that a 5 year old has been pregnant.

          • Mr_Cris

            The age is completely irrelevant. If the mother’s life is at risk abortion is justified. No matter what the age. But of course a 5 year old(yes I’ve heard about it) is too young for childbirth.
            It is you that is making irreversible medical decisions for children who are unable to make that decision.

          • Valde

            The age is completely relevant.

            Not only is she a child, but a pregnancy in such a young girl can cause lifelong disaiblities and often does result in death.

            Teen pregnancies are terribly unhealthy – for the girl and the fetus.

            Maternal mortality is the #1 killer of teens and pre-teens worldwide.

            The fetus takes all of their bodily resources which often results in bone loss amongst other things.

            There is also the risk of infertility because the girl is much much too young to to be pregnant.

            But you don’t care about that.

            You think rape and forced pregnancy are good things.

          • Mr_Cris

            Abortion can also lead to intertility and increases the risks of premature births in future pregnancies.
            Again. I do support abortion if the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life.
            And we are not talking about worldwide statistics.

          • Valde

            Abortion is 14x safer than pregnancy.

            And a pregnancy in a little girl, regardless of nationality, is more dangerous than in a grown woman.

            But then again, I am not surprised by your ignorance. You don’t want to think about the fact that pregnancy might not be healthy for little kids – you just want to punish them for being born female.

            And the ‘premature births in future pregnancies’ thing is another lie.

          • Valde

            What is the cutoff date for you?

            Is 8 too young to bear a rape pregnancy? Or is it just right?

            Where do you draw the line?

          • Mr_Cris

            I draw the line where the doctor tells me her life is in danger.

          • Valde

            Ok, so if a 5 year old is pregnant, you believe she should be forced to give birth, even if it permanently injures her.

            I can see that you are going back on what you said earlier about 5 years old being too young.

          • fiona64

            Why would the doctor be telling *you* anything? Are you the child’s parent?

            What a dimwit.

          • fiona64

            An 11-year-old rape victim has not made a “sexual lifestyle choice.”

            Here’s a little something else for you to feed into your Google Translator: U bent een varken.

          • Mr_Cris

            “An 11-year-old rape victim has not made a “sexual lifestyle choice.”"
            I completely agree.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh kiddo, you have a lot of issues with sex. And stop trying to pretend to be Dutch–it’s kind of pathetic now when we all know it’s not true.

          • Mr_Cris

            Every word you wrote is the exact opposite of the truth.

          • fiona64

            Most Dutch people suck at English

            Aside from the fact that this is a factually inaccurate statement, most Dutch people do not use American idiom, such as the phrase “suck at,” when referring to a lack of skill.

            You just keep on keepin’ on, Little Cris; you give yourself away regularly.

          • Mr_Cris

            “most Dutch people do not use American idiom, such as the phrase “suck at,” when referring to a lack of skill.”
            They do use that idiom. They say “je zuigt”. Which is the literal translation of that American idiom. The Netherlands is a small country and the language is deeply effected by American culture.

          • fiona64

            They do use that idiom. They say “je zuigt”.

            Interesting that you say “they” rather than “we” … which is what an actual Dutch person would say when referring to their own language.

            Oh, and “je zuigt” does not mean “I suck.” It means “you suck” (Nice use of Babelfish, again), in the sense of someone using a straw, not as a statement of self-deprecation or a pejorative indicating lack of skill.

            You just keep hanging yourself.

          • Valde

            hahahahaha

            this just keeps getting better and better

          • Mr_Cris

            I rarely use that expression myself so I refer to them as they.
            Stop pretending you are Dutch. You don’t know how we talk here.

          • fiona64

            Stop pretending you are Dutch.

            I’m not the one pretending to be Dutch, sweetie.

            I’ve never claimed to be Dutch; I just happen to be a person who studies languages (the science of linguistics). In fact, I stated quite clearly that Germanic languages, like Dutch, are not my strong suit. Neither are Indo-European languages like Gaelic.

            You, OTOH, keep claiming to be Dutch — only to be caught out repeatedly as a liar by your own slip-ups in English. I don’t have to read or speak Dutch to catch you out as a result. You give yourself away constantly.

            I rarely use that expression myself so I refer to them as they.

            This is the worst example of backpedaling I’ve seen from you yet.

          • Mr_Cris

            Well you pretend to know how the Dutch use expressions, while you are not even Dutch.

          • fiona64

            Well you pretend to know how the Dutch use expressions, while you are not even Dutch.

            No pretending involved.

            Except on your part; sweetie, we know you aren’t Dutch. Just stop it.

          • fiona64

            Sweetie, I don’t have to “pretend to know how the Dutch use expressions.” The language itself tells me how the Dutch use expressions. Unlike English, Dutch is very precise. Different forms of “you” are used for different reasons. The one you cited is the imperative, which means that someone is being directed to do something. A friend of mine who is quite fluent in German says “In German, there are sixteen ways to say ‘the.’ There are just as many ways to say it in English, except they all sound the same.” What she means by that is that our language is not as precise as others.

            For another example, in Romance language there is the “formal” and the “familiar” form. English used to have that as well: “you” and “thou,” to be exact. The familiar form has gone by the wayside and the formal is used for all purposes now.

          • Mr_Cris

            ” The language itself tells me how the Dutch use expressions”

            You are so arrogant. I speak Dutch daily and I hear people use that particular expression quite often.

            “Different forms of “you” are used for different reasons.”

            Correct. You can say “jij zuigt” in stead of “je zuigt” to stress that that person is the one who sucks. It means the same but there is a slight difference in nuance.

          • fiona64

            Just give it up, little boy. U bent een leugenaar. (Be sure to feed that into your Google Vertalen.)

          • Mr_Cris

            Ik jok niet.

          • fiona64

            “I not jok”? Once again: nice use of Babelfish, buddy.

            At this point, little boy, you’ve not only reached rock-bottom; you’ve proceeded to *drill.*

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yep, down, down, deeper and down.

          • Mr_Cris

            ‘jokken’ means lying. “ik jok niet” means “I don’t lie”. It would be more accurate to say “ik jokte niet” (I didn’t lie), but that sounds kind of weird in Dutch. You are the one who is using bablefish.

          • fiona64

            You have done nothing but lie, sweetie. And we all know it.

            Now, go celebrate your “graduation”! After all, it’s almost 7 PM in Amsterdam. Maybe Moeder and Vader will let you have a koekje if you eat all of your veggies.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You didn’t know what the Dutch word for translate was and you don’t even know how their healthcare system works. The expressions you use and your beliefs practically scream ‘homeschooled American teenager’. You might have Dutch relatives or ancestry–a lot of Americans do, but you’re not Dutch. We all know it now, and you just keep lying and digging yourself in even deeper. It’s getting past pathetic now, Cris.

          • Mr_Cris

            If I was a homeschooled American teenager then I would be proud to be an American. So why would I lie about it?

          • fiona64

            Sweetie, you were very suddenly “Dutch” when you made a factually inaccurate statement about the dietary habits of lagomorphs. Then, it was all about “in my country, we use the same word.” You then hurriedly selected the Netherlands based on an idea from an article on LifeSiteNews. Why? Because you wanted to create plausible deniability.

            We were all there when it happened. None of us are as stupid as you appear to hope we are, dear.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Personally? I think you started this on a whim–you got the idea from the article you read and just decided to go with the pretense and now you don’t know how to get yourself out of it gracefully–you’ve pulled this crap everytime you get backed into a corner–it seems to be the way you operate. Rule of thumb–when you’ve already dug yourself into a hole, you need to just stop digging.

          • colleen2

            the only person pretending to be Dutch is the disgusting progo

          • cjvg

            You are a lying piece of trash, not a single dutch person has ever used that phrase the way Americans use “you suck!”
            If we use any American slang it would be; “oh sh*t”

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m enjoying the weather here. It is a bit cloudy, but the sun is still shining. I’m glad it isn’t as hot as a week ago. I’m not expecting the weather in the Netherlands to get better.

            “not a single dutch person has ever used that phrase”

            Have you spoken to every single Dutch person? Than you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • cjvg

            Pardon me, I was born and raised there for 27 years, the majority of my immediate family still lives there, as do many of my friends

            I still read the dutch and german newspapers and occasionally do some consultation work for pharmaceutical or neurological research firms that are partnering with American firms

            I also speak and write, read German and a sprinkling of French and Italian.

            In all my born years I have NEVER seen, read or heard any Dutch or German native ever use “jij zuigt”, apparently you have absolutely no clue how completely retarded that sounds!

            I have never read it in a book, trade journal, medical text, TV program, song, or anywhere in the whole of Dutch society for as long as I have been alive.

            I have 5 higher degrees and have worked extensively in pharmaceutical, neurological and consumer research as a CRAIII.
            in stage 1 through 4 (lab through pre-market release)
            I retired at 35 and still read 3-4 books (English and Dutch) every week, as well as 5 trade journals every month.
            I read 3 different Dutch newspapers online and 1 sometimes 2 German ones, as well as 1 south African one (yes some are in old dutch since it was a former colony)

            Obviously I have more then plenty exposure to the language and the culture

            No I have not yet spoken to every Dutch person in the country, but I can guarantee you that it has NEVER been said by a Dutch national in the Dutch language to mean you suck!

            A saying in Dutch to describe someone is “jij halve zool” translated to American that would be “you half of a shoe bottom”

            Anyone claiming that is a common or even an uncommon but most certainly an American phrase to describe someone is obviously found out as a liar.
            Just as you are, by attempting to intimate that “jij zuigt” would ever be used by anyone who is Dutch to describe anything else then a baby sucking on a bottle, or a kid sucking on a straw!

          • cjvg

            Pathetic, we learn British, not American and American slang is most certainly not directly translated into dutch and then used by us.
            We have our own slang and you are a klootzak

          • Mr_Cris

            “we learn British, not American”

            True.

            “and American slang is most certainly not directly translated into dutch and then used by us.”

            False.

            “We have our own slang”

            True.

            “you are a klootzak”

            False.

          • cjvg

            Logic is so not your strong point is it.

            First you admit that the Dutch learn British English and then you claim that despite of that fact the Dutch use American slang?!
            If we use slang in English at all it would be British slang and not American.

            Slang is never directly translated in any language, exactly because it is slang and the words used mean something other then the literal translation of the words used.

            You have not one iota of knowledge how language works.
            You display such a devastating level of ignorance about the how and what of learning a foreign language, that I can pretty much guarantee that you have never spoken or even attempt to learn any language other then the one you were born in.

          • Mr_Cris

            You don’t even know what logic means. So don’t accuse me of not being logical. Dutch people do use a lot of American slang. A lot of it is literally translated or isn’t translated at all. It sounds horrible.

          • cjvg

            Why would they translate it ?, do you really think the Dutch do not have plenty of appropriate slang in their language if they want a slang phrase in Dutch?!
            You are just so absurdly dumb, I have trouble believing you are an actual person.

            However you have been very helpful in proving to any reader that you are most certainly not Dutch, that you have successfully established beyond a shadow of a doubt.

            zo waar is de midden van Nederland?, en wat hebben de nederlanders daar neergezet

          • Valde

            He displays a devastating ignorance of just about everything that he wasn’t homeschooled in.

          • cjvg

            Ah, I had not thought of that yet, explains a lot though!

          • fiona64


            “you are a klootzak”
            False.

            No, I’d say the evidence before us puts that statement squarely in the “True” category.

          • cjvg

            You are so full of BS, dutch mandatory learn English, German and French for at least 2 years, after that you can drop 1 foreign language but must complete 2 more years in the other two!

            Most kids already speak English and German before they learn it in school because we have so many British and German channels on
            TV and not as many Dutch ones so it increases our choices.
            Also pc language is primarily in English as is at least 2/3 of the songs played on our radio

          • Mr_Cris

            Keep on denying my nationality and attacking my grammar in stead of my viewpoints. If that’s what makes you sleep better at night.

          • Valde

            Only dumbass American teenagers get ‘except’ and ‘accept’ confused.

          • Mr_Cris

            I know the difference perfectly well. I just make typing errors and my spellcheck corrects it. But sometimes it changes the word.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are the one who is trolling.

          • fiona64

            He’s now trying to pretend he’s from another country and so words don’t mean what they mean (ref: cecotrope and feces, below). He’s a liar.

          • Mr_Cris

            I never lied on this forum. You just don’t except the truth.
            I had that rabbit when I was little. And unlike you I wasn’t obsessed with rabbit droppings back then.

          • fiona64

            ROFLMAO.

            U hebt nog om een enkele ware ding te zeggen. En u niet lezen of Nederlands spreken.

          • Mr_Cris

            Ik kan wel degelijk Nederlands lezen en schrijven. Ik ben hier geboren en getogen. Jouw zin is duidelijk vertaald met google translate of een ander soortgelijk programma. Maar ach. Geloof jij maar wat je wilt geloven. Jij gaat toch zelden inhoudelijk in op mijn argumenten.

          • fiona64

            Nice use of Babelfish, buddy!

          • Mr_Cris

            I can prove that isn’t true. Just put the english sentence in Babelfish and see if that same sentence comes out. It doesn’t.

          • fiona64

            Right … which is why the words “google translate” appear in the middle of your sentence in English. Babelfish couldn’t convert them to Dutch.

            Hoist with your own petard. Again.

          • Valde

            Hahahaha.

            Caught red handed.

          • fiona64

            Yep. because “Google Translate” in Dutch is Google Vertalen, not “google translate.” He just keeps painting himself into a corner … even with the link he provides himself.

          • Valde

            ZING!

          • Mr_Cris

            Haha. Do you know what Google translate is called in Dutch?
            Google translate.

          • fiona64

            You keep telling yourself that, sweetie.

          • cjvg

            He fixed that after you caught him on it, also he then used words out of my statement since I called him out on grammar mistakes an actual nederlander would never make!

          • cjvg

            Our sentences do not translate accurately in those programs, and it shows buddy!

          • Mr_Cris

            Yes! And that is exactly my point! It proves I’m not translating Dutch to English or vice versa.

          • cjvg

            Oh it most definitely shows that you are NOT dutch, since you are making grammatical errors that an actual dutch person would never make!
            Nice try by “fixing them afterwards, finally got someone to help you with it !

          • cjvg

            Maar ik ben weldegelijk nederlands en jouw zin klopt helemaal niks van!
            Again with the grammar fail, you are most certainly not dutch!
            Zo tell me, what is the AH in Holland?!

          • Mr_Cris

            You fail in Dutch grammar.

          • cjvg

            Is that why you can not tell me what the AH is, something that anyone born and raised in the Netherlands would know in an instant!

            AH is ALBERT HEIN our biggest and most recognizable supermarket that can be found everywhere in the country!

            And no my grammar was NOT sprinkled with words that are out of order just like a Chinese made ikea insert!

            Go ahead, quick, go fix it now and insert what AH means.
            Except I have already seen that you do not have a single clue and are trying to ignore it was ever asked

          • Valde

            You’ve been ‘pwned’ sweetie.

          • Mr_Cris

            Nog steeds aan het trollen zie ik. Heb je echt geen leven of lijkt het maar zo?

          • fiona64

            You’re the one who said rabbits chew their cuds, because they eat their droppings (which is the lie).

            Één van de vele leugens die u hebben verteld. U zijn oneerlijk.

          • Mr_Cris

            “U zijn[sic] oneerlijk.”
            You is unfair as well.

          • fiona64

            Nice use of Babelfish!

          • Mr_Cris

            I didn’t use Babelfish. You did.

          • cjvg

            En als je echt nederlands was, dan wist je dat zij de verkerede grammatica gebreukte!

            Big fail, you are not Dutch, you are using a translator since your spelling and the placement of the words is wrong!

            You also would have called her out on making the same mistake!

          • Mr_Cris

            You don’t get the joke apparently.

          • cjvg

            Maybe that is because there is no joke.
            Pretty hard to “get” a non existent joke, that and us real dutch are more stoic don’t you know that?!

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you’re not obsessed with droppings, how come that’s all we get from you?

          • Valde

            That really is rather clever!

          • Mr_Cris

            And a lie.

          • Valde

            There was an article on LifesiteNews about euthanasia in the Netherlands – that’s where he got the idea to pretend that he is Dutch.

          • fiona64

            Well, that would explain a lot.

          • colleen2

            Mr Cris, you aren’t even an American citizen. And you presume to tell us what is and is not constitutional?

          • Mr_Cris

            At least I’m not the one trying to destroy it. You people from the left try to destroy it from within. You people replace in God we trust with secularism, E pluribus Unum with multiculturalism and liberty with equality.
            Obamacare is not supported by Americans, it doesn’t work, and it violates many freedoms, like privacy and religious freedom.
            The reason I care about the USA is because they are the only hope for this world and I like to live there in the future. I wouldn’t want to get there when it is in ruins.

          • fiona64

            Hey, dumbass? E pluribus unum, the original motto of this country, was chosen to *acknowledge* its pluralistic, multi-cultural society. It was replaced with “In God We Trust” during the so-called Red Scare of the 1950s to “separate us from the Godless commies.” You really should have paid more attention in civics classes.

            You are really shitty at pretending to be from somewhere else …

          • Mr_Cris

            “E pluribus unum, the original motto of this country, was chosen to *acknowledge* its pluralistic, multi-cultural society”

            No it wasn’t. Multiculturalism celebrates diversity of culture. E pluribus Unum unifies different cultures.

          • fiona64

            Hence my remark that the motto was chosen to acknowledge the pluralistic, multi-cultural society.

            You’re not Dutch. You are, however, a typical dumbassed American who doesn’t understand our country’s history. Stop reading David Barton.

          • Mr_Cris

            I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago. You are obviously a troll. I never heard of David Barton.
            Are you American? Then you are mocking yourself.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You also need to stop reading Dennis Prager’s garbage and hanging out at World Nutjob Daily.

          • Gemini68

            On the “In God We Trust” issue:
            I live in Georgia. The state now allows this phrase to be printed on the license plate in lieu of the county of residence. Complaints about a violation of separation of church and state are dismissed as rants from the godless left who are trying to destroy America.

          • fiona64

            I am regularly grateful that I live outside the Bible belt …

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you still keep telling one lie after another–it’s getting kind of pathetic, frankly. Time to run along now, little Cris, and let the grownups talk. Okay?

          • Mr_Cris

            Simply accusing someone of lying doesn’t make it so. I apologized twice for making an error, but I never lied here.

          • colleen2

            You sure are funny when you get caught lying

          • fiona64

            You know what’s really funny? He says stuff like “Obamacare doesn’t work” while pretending to live in a country with universal health care. http://en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands

            He just keeps painting himself further into a corner.

          • fiona64

            He’s an American, all right … he keeps referring to “our country” being destroyed. It was just more bullshit backpedaling.

          • Mr_Cris

            I love arguing with trolls like you. It is so funny you even try to deny my nationality when you can’t even see where I am. It is the internet. I can be a 15 year old Asian girl or a 80 year old Frenchman.

          • fiona64

            Yep, it’s the internet … where some dumbass American is now trying to pretend he’s Dutch in order to backpedal even further when called out on his nonsense by saying “English isn’t my first language.”

            Dude, please. It’s painfully obvious that you’re American, by your idiom, your use of contractions, and your constant slip-ups of “we taxpayers” and the like. Oh, and your use of Babelfish to translate the Dutch that you allegedly read and write.

            Just stop lying. We know where you got the idea to pretend that you’re Dutch, given your sudden discussion of euthanasia. You’re a regular on Lifesitenews, and there was an “article” about it over there. Just stop. No one is fooled.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You’re a regular on Lifesitenews, and there was an “article” about it over there”

            Yes. And I responded there as well. You can look it up. That is evidence I wasn’t lying. Thank you for providing me with that evidence. Now the whole world can see you where lying.

          • Valde

            You made your chat history private – no doubt to hide your past lies.

          • Mr_Cris

            You can still look up the threat. My posts are still there.
            I’m curious. Why do *you* hide your history?
            The reason I ask is that I chose to hide it when I saw you had hidden it.

          • fiona64

            Of course that’s the reason you did it, sweetie. It couldn’t possibly be to (what was that phrase you used again while saying that an 11-year-old Chilean rape victim should be forced to gestate the pregnancy that was endangering her life? Oh, yes. Now I recall.) cover up the evidence.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you hid your history because he hid his? What is the logic here, Cris?

          • Mr_Cris

            Because I didn’t know I could do that before I saw it.
            I did it mainly so I don’t get stalked in other threats.
            In this threat I’m constantly accused of being a ‘forced-birther’ or a ‘rape apologist’ because I believe unborn children have the right to live and be loved. But that is apparently to extreme for people who support infanticide.

          • Valde

            You are accused of being a forced birther and a rape apologist because you believe that little girls as young as 5 should be forced to give birth to rapist’s offspring even if it permanently disables them.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I’m sorry–you’re not Dutch. It’s more than painfully obvious that you’re an American, and I’m guessing from your maturity level that you’re probably a teenager.

          • Mr_Cris

            If I’m in America that would mean I post in the middle of the night. I do need sleep.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’re a teen. It’s been quite a while, but I vividly remember being able to stay up all night and still go the rest of the day at your age.

          • Mr_Cris

            I always went to bed early as a teen. I was an exception. I need a lot of sleep.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You still are a teen. It’s pretty obvious.

          • fiona64

            Pro-tip: if you were in the Netherlands, you would have been posting in the middle of the night yesterday afternoon. And yet, here you were. Why? Because you’re in America, on the same schedule as most of us (give or take an hour or two for time zones).

            Pathetic.

          • Valde

            I noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out.

          • Mr_Cris

            Either you don’t know how time zones work or Disqus handles time zones in a weird way.

          • fiona64

            Wrong answer. Both times. You see, it’s 8 PM in Amsterdam right now. And all of those posts that you made yesterday afternoon would have been at 2 or 3 AM if you’d been in Amsterdam.

            I’m glad to have had the opportunity to explain this to you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I spent a couple of months in Europe when I was in college. Trust me, I know how time zones work

          • Mr_Cris

            Then you know I didn’t post in the middle of the night.
            Maybe once at 23:00 or so.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I know you’re not Dutch.

          • colleen2

            or….you’re a liar. I think I’ll go with that….

          • Mr_Cris

            If that is what it takes for you to sleep at night.

          • fiona64

            ROFLMAO.

          • Valde

            That’s why it took him a whole entire day to respond to the questions you had posed in Dutch.

            He had to find a translator.

          • colleen2

            instead you are a 17 year old american living in his parent’s basement and trolling a website because that’s the only way you can get women to talk to you. Get a job. Do something useful.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m in my twenties and about to get an engineering degree.

          • colleen2

            bullshit.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re anti-American and should move to Afghanistan.

          • fiona64

            First he has to move out of his mommy’s basement. Baby steps.

          • HeilMary1

            Viagra promotes adultery, pedophilia, rape and ABORTIONS, but you support GOPer playboys and pedophile priests sinning as they please.

      • HeilMary1

        Obamacare frees women from being DEAD incubating slaves for you spoiled pedophile priests.

  • seamus mcdermott

    The issue of reproductive rights is welded to capitalism. Capitalism requires market growth, therefore anything that limits population limits the customer base. That’s a no-no. Apparently the court feels the same way. Shrink the population and you shrink the profits. But what about wars? Don’t they shrink the population? They do, but you don’t need a $35 Billion weapons delivery system to open a planned parenthood clinic.

    • HeilMary1

      Part of the purpose of our latest Iraqi invasion, according to Karl Rove, was to force taxpayers to fund W.’s re-election through campaign donations from tax-paid Iraqi Defense contractors like wife-killer/sex trafficker Erik Prince of Blackwater.

  • Unicorn Farm

    I’m thinking of filing the papers to incorporate myself as Unicorn Farm, Inc. so I can get some of my rights back and republicans will stop wanting to regulate me :/

  • earthman48

    Even if corporations can “absorb” the owners’ freedom of religion they are not entitled to impose their beliefs on others. The law applies to the entire employment marketplace, that is, it protects all employees. While the owners are entitled to operate the company according to their beliefs (closing on Sunday, for example), they are not entitled to infringe on employees’ legal coverage.

    • Austin Swafford

      Couldn’t have said it better, myself. It’s one thing if a Baptist decides not to have their store open on Sunday or a Mormon decides his establishment won’t serve alcohol. This is something completely different.

  • biocane

    One more piss-ant company that will never receive a nickle from me.
    Hey… there’s no OTHER way to make these clowns aware that they’re acting in their own worst interest…

  • Mark Moore

    So God’s laws are senior to US law. So we are to kill those that trim their beards and wear clothes of mixed threads?

    Those judges need to be removed.

    • Em Singh

      US law was founded on Judeo-Christian values, which is why people have a freedom of religion. Which is why company owners have a right to run a Christian company (regardless of the goods being sold). The courts can only step in if the company is doing something harmful or unlawful (i.e. already a no-no in US law). I don’t see how not covering two items that can easily be paid for out of pocket is harmful. Also I am surprised IUD’s are still even used, they cause more harm than good and I know enough IUD conceived children that make me question how people think they are worth the money.

      • HeilMary1

        Mother-saving contraception isn’t cheap, has multiple purposes, and these “Christian” companies have no problem covering Viagra for male adulterers and pedophiles.

      • fiona64

        No, US law was not “founded on Judeo-Christian values.” It is founded upon English Common Law and the second of Locke’s Two Treatises on government. In fact, the Constitution (the basis for law in this country) only mentions religion twice — both instances being exclusionary.

        Hobby Lobby is a corporation, not a church. If I work for a church, I can expect them to enforce their religious values on me as an employee. A corporation does not have the right to do that.

        Clearly you do not understand how much oral contraception costs out of pocket; it ranges from $150 to $400/month, depending on the formulation required (not all women take the same pills). And, if you are a minimum wage Hobby Lobby employee (because that’s who we’re talking about), that’s a fairly large chunk of change.

        It’s awfully easy for you to wave your hand and announce that it’s “no big deal” for some other woman to have to spend $400/month on contraception …. money that might have been budgeted for luxuries like groceries or rent.

      • Austin Swafford

        No, it wasn’t founded on Judeo-Christian values. That’s why the Constitution doesn’t protect the Sabbath or prohibit adultery. And freedom of religion actually runs contrary to your argument. We have freedom of religion in this country because the people who came here saw what happened when religion was imposed on people in their European homes. US law was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. Time for the right to give on that bogus revisionist history.

        • Mr_Cris

          Just because the united states isn’t a theocracy doesn’t mean it isn’t founded on Judeo-Christian values. In fact that would go against Christianity. It isn’t founded on secular values, pagan values, Islamic values or any other value system. All the founding fathers where ethical monotheists.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, actually, it does. The only time that religion is mentioned in the US Constitution, it is in *exclusionary* terms. And no, the founding fathers were not “ethical monotheists.” They were secular deists.

            Please, stop reading David Barton’s revisionist bullshit.

            If you don’t believe me, go back and re-read the Treaty of Tripoli. Treaties have the force of law in this country, and the Treaty of Tripoli has never been rescinded. Article 11 very clearly states that “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …” and goes on from there. I’ve emphasized the key point for your convenience.

          • Noël West

            Actually, if you’re so Dutch, you should know where we got the idea of separation of church and state as Mr Baruch Spinoza was Dutch.

          • fiona64

            He’s no more Dutch than I am.

          • Mr_Cris

            Actually it was Jesus Christ who invented seperation of church and state.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You don’t have the faintest idea of who Spinoza is, do you? I’m betting you’ve never heard the name until today.

          • Mr_Cris

            Ok. I admit I never heard that name. I looked it up. But do you truly know Jesus Christ?

          • fiona64

            Sorry; as they say on Monty Python, I can only give you half for that. The idea of separating church from government (and vice versa) came from Spinoza.

            Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) was one of the Pharisees: the law-giving Jews. The whole “render unto Caesar” thing came from him not wanting money-changers in the temple … and that was because they cheated people, not because he wanted a secular government or secular law.

            You don’t even know your own professed faith very well. How embarrassing for you.

            And that’s to say nothing of your lousy grounding in civics.

          • Mr_Cris

            He wanted the government out of church. That is what separation of church and state is about.

          • fiona64

            No, sweetie. It’s a two-way street. Churches are granted tax-exempt status and can only keep that status if they stay out of politics. In exchange, the government does not interfere with their *liturgical* processes (i.e., what they teach and believe within their own walls, as long as they do not preach politics).

          • Valde

            Mr_Cris and others also seem to be incredibly ignorant of the fact that the founding fathers wanted a secular nation because they had just witnessed 100 years of protestants and catholics killing one another in England.

            In addition to this, colonial America had dozens of denominations in every town – and if someone wasn’t the right denomination, he couldn’t get a job, couldn’t get elected – and far, far worse.

            The founding fathers were well aware of this and decided that secular government was in the best interests of the people.

          • Gemini68

            The Founding Fathers were deists not theists. Deist belief systems believe that a Supreme Being created the universe and then did not continue to interfere with its functioning. The Judeo-Christian ideology is theistic – after the Supreme Being creates the universe it continues to actively interfere in it.

            Deists generally do not try to impose their ideology on others – without a deity constantly passing judgement on a person’s behavior one is free to act as one wishes – and others can act as they wish. It’s the theistic ideologies (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that have this obsessive need to force the nonbeliever to act according to the theist’s beliefs on the threat of eternal damnation.

      • Margaret Whitestone

        There is no mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, Judaism or Christianity in the Constitution. Our nation was not founded on Christianity, Judaism or any religion.

        ” I don’t see how not covering two items that can easily be paid for out of pocket is harmful”
        Why don’t you pay for all of your medications and treatments out of pocket, then? You seem to think every woman can pay for her necessary medications and treatments out of pocket (ignoring the fact that many oral contraceptives, treatments and other things that fall under this law can’t easily be paid for out of pocket as they can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars).

        The reality is this law is both sexist and cruel. It targets women specifically for denial of coverage for necessary medications and treatments–as if women don’t already face enough challenges.

        • Em Singh

          You should probably take some time and read the transcripts of what was said when this nations laws and ideals where being written down. You would learn that your assumption was wrong.

          And I’m strictly talking about birth control and nothing else (medications and treatments? really? you’re gonna throw a straw man /fallacy in there to undermine the simple things i said? Stick to what you think and not what you assume I think).

          Birth-control includes condoms, diaphragms, fertility awareness (not to be confused with rhythm method) cervical cap, etc & more… not just pills. Few people have sex every.single.day. the average person saves money with less expensive forms of birth control. Planned parenthood can also help if you have no insurance and met certain criteria. Its the pill is not necessary medication, its a tool. I’ll jump on the “sexist” bandwagon if it becomes illegal and impossible to get.. which sorry its not.

          • fiona64

            You should probably take some time and read the transcripts of what was
            said when this nations laws and ideals where being written down. You
            would learn that your assumption was wrong.

            I might suggest that you do the same. The only times that religion is mentioned in the US Constitution, it is in exclusionary terms (specifically, the First Amendment and Article VI). The founding fathers did not want a religious government; they knew all too well what problems that created.

            If you’re further unclear on this, please do look up the Treaty of Tripoli. Treaties have the force of law in this country, unless and until they are rescinded — and it’s worth noting that this treaty has never been rescinded. Article 11 specifically states that the government is not founded “in any way” upon Christianity.

          • Margaret Whitestone

            You should do a little reading. Hormonal contraceptives and related medications/devices have myriad uses beyond “sex” and “birth control”. As such employers have no business refusing them to employees on the basis of their personal opinions about sex, birth control, abortion or anything related (and even if they were solely about birth control/sex employers would have no business meddling in their employees lives). It is sexist when only women are singled out for denial of health care by people who use their arbitrary “religious beliefs” to pick and choose what they will and will not allow employees to use the insurance( that the employees pay premiums for) to get.

          • Tricia Long

            I know I’ve already said this but I’ll say it again. Sometimes the pill is a necessary medication. If its taken for medical reasons then its a very NECESSARY medication. Just like viagra is a necessary medication if its taken for medical reasons like blood pressure or something. But we arent saying anything bad about men taking that medication recreationly, and having it covered by insurance, are we?

  • http://www.singalongwithsue.wordpress.com/ Sue Jeffers

    no special rights based on personal opinions. i imagine the people from the hobby lobby case, like talebangelists before them, didn’t even consider that this will allow other religions to ignore the law when they don’t feel like following it – mainly because they believe that “religion” means “christianity”, and that no other religion is real.

  • EugeneAnthroMan

    Teapublicans are giving corporations more rights than people.

    • HeilMary1

      Tea-ban-genitals are also practicing fetal idolatry at the expense of the already born.

  • EugeneAnthroMan

    Teabillies are forcing Christian Sharia laws down our throats and trying to turn America into a Theocracy where you either worship the Christian God, or you have no rights.

  • EugeneAnthroMan

    I can see corporations becoming Christian scientists so the only healthcare you get is prayer.
    Thanks to the Teabillies.

  • Marty

    This is just another case of the GOP stripping citizens of their rights of choice. The Country has gone crazy and by continuing to elect these people, the voters are allowing this to continue and it will only get worse. The elected officials put these idiots on the Courts, thus you get this type decisions.

  • http://alittleitchy.blogspot.com/ brista

    WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE? Hobby Lobby is a BUSINESS. It is not a PERSON. I don’t understand how we can even pretend that we’re a free country by the people for the people when we are SO CLEARLY OBVIOUSLY UNAPOLOGETICALLY run by corporations, lobbyists, and rich old white dudes. What am I supposed to do about this? And Ohio’s awful new budget? And Texas’ awful new bill? How am I supposed to live here and listen to people say that America is the best, freest country in the world when we are so obviously not?

  • AL_Nemesis

    Pure and utter bullshit. Corporations are NOT people… unless and until they are held accountable under the same laws as individuals. Until then, no. The courts may decide otherwise, but this will have such a backlash that, eventually, capitalism and corporations will find themselves on the loosing end of some serious history.

  • Margaret Whitestone

    This is utterly insane. Women aren’t people but corporations are? Now corporations can use “religious beliefs” to discriminate against employees and deny them healthcare? This just opens the door for them to use their “religious beliefs” to violate any law they choose. Apparently the law doesn’t apply to religious people any longer. Hello total anarchy.

    • fiona64

      I guarantee you that these same Hobby Lobby folks are against “sharia law,” although what they’re doing is the exact same thing.

      I believe it was Reynolds v. US, from the 19th Century, in which the SCOTUS said that we cannot have one law for religious people and another for non-religious people … for exactly the reasons you cite.

  • fiona64

    Well, that just goes to show how stupid Vince Parker et al *are,* because Plan B and Ella do not “cause abortions.” They prevent implantation, which is not even remotely the same thing.

    If “Hobby Lobby and the Green family” want to have a religious exemption for their *for profit corporation,* they need to disincorporate and prove to the US Government’s satisfaction that they are a 501(c)3 non-profit religious entity.

    And “being denied the right to practice their religion”? What bullshit. Is someone restraining them from attending church, praying, etc.? No.

    Gah. This problem started with Citizens United (“corporations are people for purposes of campaign finance”) and will not end until that nonsensical decision is overturned.

    • Valde

      A forced birther religious freak told me that ‘preventing implantation’ essentially ‘starved’ the widdle cute baby zygote to DEATH.

      Yes, she went to explain that the zygote couldn’t ‘eat’ by being denied the right to implant in the uterus, therefore, the pill/plan b = MURDER

      • fiona64

        Homeschooling should be illegal. Why? Because piss-poor homeschool education is the only explanation I have for why *anyone* would believe this kind of complete and utter bullshit.

        I’m just sayin’ …